Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 112286	2010-08-30 20:44:00	This site for you Hone Key followers.	Trev (427)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1133248	2010-08-31 02:08:00	my main point. Why sign a petition when you don't know what the issues will be when the bill comes out? It seems a fundamentally undemocratic process to object to something, just because you are being manipulated by people who are trying to influence your opinion based on their own racial prejudice and fear of losing their current hegemonic control of the country's resources. Normally John I’d agree completely with your logic. However, this is quite different. In this case the Government is quite receptive to giving the Maoris ownership of the Seabed and Foreshore. Clearly, there would be an uproar if they just went ahead and did it, so the end must be achieved by stealth. In this case the politician’s idea is to pass responsibility on to a sympathetic Judge and thus try to distance themselves from the consequences. Now some of you are thinking how do you know? Well consider this. If the pending legislation wasn’t designed to give Maoris ownership, then why is there any necessity to change the existing law at all? ;)	B.M. (505)
1133249	2010-08-31 02:26:00	Normally John I’d agree completely with your logic. However, this is quite different. In this case the Government is quite receptive to giving the Maoris ownership of the Seabed and Foreshore. Clearly, there would be an uproar if they just went ahead and did it, so the end must be achieved by stealth. In this case the politician’s idea is to pass responsibility on to a sympathetic Judge and thus try to distance themselves from the consequences. Now some of you are thinking how do you know? Well consider this. If the pending legislation wasn’t designed to give Maoris ownership, then why is there any necessity to change the existing law at all? ;) You racist thing you!	Cicero (40)
1133250	2010-08-31 06:35:00	Normally John I’d agree completely with your logic. However, this is quite different. In this case the Government is quite receptive to giving the Maoris ownership of the Seabed and Foreshore. Clearly, there would be an uproar if they just went ahead and did it, so the end must be achieved by stealth. In this case the politician’s idea is to pass responsibility on to a sympathetic Judge and thus try to distance themselves from the consequences. Now some of you are thinking how do you know? Well consider this. If the pending legislation wasn’t designed to give Maoris ownership, then why is there any necessity to change the existing law at all? ;) First, the legal ownership of the foreshore and seabed that Māori indisputably owned at the beginning of colonisation was never taken away by any legal means. Second, the settler government simply imposed English notions of ownership without legally ending Māori customary ownership. Third, Māori in Marlborough several years ago decided to test this in Court. The Māori Land Court held that customary title had never been legally removed from Māori; Māori could go to the High Court to claim customary rights; and there was an extremely low chance of them succeeding because it would be an extremely rare situation where it could be shown that Māori had maintained and operated customary rights since colonisation. That racist Pommy prick Mayor in Marlborough stirred up a shitstorm of paranoia. Labour, and Helen Clark in particular, panicked and passed a law unilaterally removing the right of Māori to go to court to test their rights. If that had been done to any Pākehā landowners, the sky would have fallen in. The current government is NOT "quite receptive to giving the Maoris ownership of the Seabed and Foreshore". It is considering returning the right to Māori to find out through the courts what customary title they may have. It will be extremely rare for them to get an affirmative answer. For goodness sake, even the dorks in Act, including Rodney Hide, understood this when Labour passed their legislation. Act was the only political party that supported the right of Māori to test their customary rights in Court. They could see the justice in that because they could see the parallels if their property owner supporters lost their rights through government legislation. If the government took away your legal rights, you would be screaming. Just because the people affected are Māori, you somehow think it is alright.	John H (8)
1133251	2010-08-31 07:59:00	The guv gave legal rights?	rob_on_guitar (4196)
1133252	2010-08-31 08:43:00	The guv gave legal rights? ? Do you mean government or Governor General. I don't understand your question. Customary rights exist in international law. They pre-date the existence of a NZ government. The settler govt acted as though they did not exist, until Māori asked the question of the Māori Land Court a few years ago. When the Court said these customary rights had never been extinguished, and Māori could go to court to test them, the Helen Clark Labour government took away from Māori their right of application to the courts to find out if these customary rights still exist in very limited areas where Māori have exercised them continuously since 1840. The reason they did this was because of the Pākehā backlash - based solely on paranoia, like this thread. This is why the United Nations have condemned the Labour Govt legislation. And this is why the current National government has said that they have decided to restore the rights of Māori to have their day in court.	John H (8)
1133253	2010-08-31 09:16:00	First, the legal ownership of the foreshore and seabed that Māori indisputably owned at the beginning of colonisation was never taken away by any legal means. Second, the settler government simply imposed English notions of ownership without legally ending Māori customary ownership. Let’s get a couple of things straight John. Your claim that (the legal ownership of the foreshore and seabed that Māori indisputably owned at the beginning of colonisation was never taken away by any legal means) is absolute nonsense. The reality was they arrived here not having a clue where they were or where they had been. They had no written language and certainly no idea of maps or boundaries. There was no illegal taking of the land because they signed the Treaty of Waitangi which gave both sides access and ownership. There is also ample evidence that they weren’t the first people here and the claim that they are indigenous is outrageous given they claim to have come in canoes and the evidence that there were others here before them. history-nz.org As well as this there are no full blooded Maoris alive today. What we have is a few crossbred Maori - Scots/Irish/Pom/Frogs you name it, trouble makers trying to take a cheap trick. Imagine if you were to try and pull this “Customary Rights” trick in Great Britain or Europe. :lol:	B.M. (505)
1133254	2010-08-31 09:39:00	There is also ample evidence that they weren’t the first people here Zing	rob_on_guitar (4196)
1133255	2010-08-31 09:46:00	There was no illegal taking of the land because they signed the Treaty of Waitangi which gave both sides access and ownership. That maybe true, but what the treaty said, and what the crown said / did were different. How do you or anyone KNOW there are no full blooded Maori now? Did you go around NZ to check?	Speedy Gonzales (78)
1133256	2010-08-31 10:00:00	Let’s get a couple of things straight John. Your claim that (the legal ownership of the foreshore and seabed that Māori indisputably owned at the beginning of colonisation was never taken away by any legal means) is absolute nonsense. The reality was they arrived here not having a clue where they were or where they had been. They had no written language and certainly no idea of maps or boundaries. There was no illegal taking of the land because they signed the Treaty of Waitangi which gave both sides access and ownership. There is also ample evidence that they weren’t the first people here and the claim that they are indigenous is outrageous given they claim to have come in canoes and the evidence that there were others here before them. history-nz.org As well as this there are no full blooded Maoris alive today. What we have is a few crossbred Maori - Scots/Irish/Pom/Frogs you name it, trouble makers trying to take a cheap trick. Imagine if you were to try and pull this “Customary Rights” trick in Great Britain or Europe. :lol: Oh well, there it goes. The minute people go from dealing with facts to spewing out rank prejudice and loony cartoon fables about mysterious previous inhabitants, you realise there is no point to the discussion. The simple fact is that the British Crown recognised through their acceptance and sponsorship of the 1835 Declaration of Independence that Māori were the legal owners and the legal authority here until they and the Crown signed the Treaty of Waitangi. And the Treaty of Waitangi further recognised this. Our Courts also recognised that the legal rights of Māori to the foreshore and seabed had never been extinguished by legislation in our Parliament. No matter what your blind prejudice tells you, those are the facts, and your foolish comments do not change that. And our law, as well as common sense, does not quantify the amount of "blood inheritance" that is needed to say whether you are Māori or not. That sort of notion of racial purity went out with the Victorians (except for a brief revival in the middle of the 20th Century by a certain fascist regime in a silly country in Europe).	John H (8)
1133257	2010-08-31 10:06:00	BM said "There is also ample evidence that they weren’t the first people here and the claim that they are indigenous is outrageous given they claim to have come in canoes and the evidence that there were others here before them. history-nz.org So what is the ample evidence of earlier arrivals? The link you give has no reference to any.	martynz (5445)
1 2 3 4 5