Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: What we have really lost

155 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Yes, I'm squeamish about guns, but it did worry me.

    Who isn't? Seriously. I've said in other contexts that we take for granted that we don't settle political arguments (or change governments) with guns or bombs in railway stations. We also have a sane gun culture where owning semi-automatic assault weapons for quote unquote "hunting" is not considered an inalienable human right.

    I rather like that.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11621 posts Report Reply

  • Mrs Skin,

    Tactically I'm not sure why Tuhoe conflated this simple fair and reasonable idea with their desire for sovereignty. The two goals are separate and I think it is the latter idea that creates more disquiet.

    Not saying that Tuhoe did any such thing, but I can quite understand how, having acted in good faith over very long periods and under exceptionally trying circumstances, one might have the eventual response of "Well stuff you then, if you won't play fair we'll do it our own way."

    Quite frankly, were I in a similar situation to Tuhoe (and others), my response would be to up palisades at a Warner Bros speed, closely followed by sentry patrols at the borders. The other party clearly can't be trusted to behave themselves.

    The fact that this has not yet happened is testament to a level of grace and dignity among Maori leaders that puts my own likely reactions to shame. Other nations have followed similar facts down the path to civil war. We have much to be grateful for in these leaders.

    the warmest room in the h… • Since Feb 2009 • 168 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Labour could be getting brownie points here

    I suspect John Key could go around accidentally putting up 'vote labour' signs and Labour would struggle to capitalise about now.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6145 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Labour could be getting brownie points here

    I suspect John Key could go around accidentally putting up 'vote labour' signs and Labour would struggle to capitalise about now.

    And more to the point, I suspect Goff is reserving the Trotter option. Sadly.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 17977 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    And more to the point, I suspect Goff is reserving the Trotter option. Sadly.

    Not only that, but I don't think Shane Jones is naive enough not to know that "iwi elitists" is a dog-whistle on a frequency that resonates differently at a Grey Power meeting in Palmerston North than it does down at the "flaxroots". (And that's before you note the pretty massive irony of Jones' own c.v.)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11621 posts Report Reply

  • HORansome,

    I don't want to be seen to be beating a dead horse, but when you said:

    "But it will also hear evidence that suggests that the key actors were, at best, alarming clowns who were collecting and training with weapons and other military equipment"

    and then clarified it by saying:

    "Given what they doing and saying, I think the possibility existed that they could have hurt someone"

    puts the burden of proof on the wrong party.

    We have a fairly clear definition of the Burden of Proof when it comes to matters such as these; if it is in front of the courts we require that the Crown prove their case (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is why we have a reasonable doubt system in play). We have, at the moment, circumstantial evidence ; the case that will tie that evidence together in a thesis that links the evidence to an intention to cause harm, however possible, has not yet been made and we should make no assumptions about it until it has gone through the proper channels.

    Right, with that being said, I have to go teach a class on Critical Thinking. :)

    Tāmaki Makaurau • Since Sep 2008 • 396 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen,

    "Well stuff you then, if you won't play fair we'll do it our own way."

    That's what puzzles me. The stuff you response is useless and counterproductive.

    Tuhoe have avoided that path and continued the long slow process of considered negotiation (with the exception of the clowns). They have been very patient and measured in the way they have progressed towards their goals. In that light is seems odd they would package, what appear to me to be, two different concepts in one deal.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3115 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    We have a fairly clear definition of the Burden of Proof when it comes to matters such as these; if it is in front of the courts we require that the Crown prove their case

    This would be particularly compelling if Russell were a court of law, as compared to a dude running a blog site.

    Like many others, I'll watch the court case with interest. However I'm perfectly capable of making up my own mind what I think about the 'alarming clowns' without having to rely on what the courts say on the matter.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6145 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    "Given what they doing and saying, I think the possibility existed that they could have hurt someone"

    puts the burden of proof on the wrong party.

    But I'm not arguing in court, or even venturing on the charges. My opinion is that there was legitimate concern about some people's actions.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 17977 posts Report Reply

  • Sue,

    it's my understanding tuhoe accepted money from crown for lake waikaremoana 3 times, 1919, 1940 and then in the 60s or 70s.

    Easy. If I owe you a million bucks, but I tell you all I'm going to give you is $100, take it or leave it, maybe you'd take it but keep coming back too. It's not a negotiation between equally powerful parties, so one solution for the weaker party is to keep chipping away.

    You are basing that on the assumption the money paid was unfair
    what if it wasn't?

    what I'm trying to say is that nobody knows the full detailed history. What if in the 60s tuhoe was paid a fair amount for the time for the lake? how does that colour the conversation?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 463 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    what I'm trying to say is that nobody knows the full detailed history.

    I'm guessing that several people know the full detailed history. Much of the past decade has been spent writing reports and hearing submissions on the Tuhoe claim.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6145 posts Report Reply

  • Mikaere Curtis,

    What if in the 60s tuhoe was paid a fair amount for the time for the lake? how does that colour the conversation?

    Given that the average Treaty-bases settlement amounts to around 0.5 - 1% of the actual value of the alienated resources, I find it hard to believe that Tuhoe were offered a fair compensation package in the 60s.

    If they were, and they agreed, well that's that then. But if the experiences of my iwi are anything to go by, it is more likely that the Crown assumed ownership of the lakes, and made minor token payments.

    Of course, the payments could also have been rental installments.

    Tamaki Makaurau • Since Nov 2006 • 443 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd,

    It's my understanding tuhoe accepted money from crown for lake waikaremoana 3 times, 1919, 1940 and then in the 60s or 70s.

    Here you go.

    Lake Waikaremoana

    The Crown had been claiming ownership of Lake Waikaremoana even though the court had ruled the lake bed was not Crown property. As late as the 1950s the Crown was still seeking to claim ownership of the lake bed through the courts. The Crown still claims ownership of the water, something the Trust does not accept. In the 1950s the Crown changed tactics and tried to purchase the lake bed but Tūhoe refused.

    Faced with the reality that the Crown would use its powers of compulsory acquisition Tūhoe agreed to lease the Lake. As the only Tūhoe-wide trust the Tūhoe-Waikaremoana Māori Trust Board was recognised by the Crown to negotiate. The Board refused the fixed term lease that the Crown had used for lakes such as Tarawera and insisted on a revaluation clause. This provision has proved very forward looking and the rental from the Lake is now a major earner for the Trust."

    So yeah, your understanding doesn't seem to be correct. The Crown pays a lease that was negotiated under duress.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2906 posts Report Reply

  • steve black,

    WHAT?!? I'm shocked to hear that the Crown does a run of commemorative pens.

    sunny mt albert • Since Jan 2007 • 63 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    This has been a very interesting debate, thanks to all contributors. I feel about 10 times as informed for about one third of the effort that I've had to put in reading the papers about this debacle.

    Don't have any opinion yet, other than that it seems fairly outrageous that the Government tore down a fair and apparently done deal.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 8039 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    I feel about 10 times as informed for about one third of the effort that I've had to put in reading the papers about this debacle.

    What he said.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7315 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    We have, at the moment, circumstantial evidence ; the case that will tie that evidence together in a thesis that links the evidence to an intention to cause harm, however possible, has not yet been made and we should make no assumptions about it until it has gone through the proper channels.

    I'm not sure what intent to cause harm will have to be shown in the Arms Act and cannabis charges that remain since the solicitor-general declined to approve prosecutions under the Terrorism Suppression Act, which he found to be:

    ... unnecessarily complex, incoherent, and, as a result, almost impossible to apply to the domestic circumstances observed by the police in this case.

    There was insufficient evidence those arrested were planning a terrorist act as defined in the legislation. I'm fine with that.

    But the SG did also say that he was "very satisfied that the police had a sufficient and proper basis for investigating the activities in questions under the provision of the Terrorism Suppression Act," and stressed "that the police have brought to an end what were very disturbing activities."

    The charges remaining are relatively minor, but I suspect the intention of the police is to present as much of their evidence as possible.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 17977 posts Report Reply

  • vangam,

    Well yes, just as I rather doubt Helen Clark won every caucus or cabinet vote in her career. We all should have a pretty big problem when Government is run by Prime Ministerial fiat no matter what the tint.

    Is it better that the uninformed 'base' run the government?

    Rangiora • Since Jun 2007 • 103 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Is it better that the uninformed 'base' run the government?

    'Democracy' you mean?

    Since Nov 2006 • 6145 posts Report Reply

  • George Darroch,

    Like many others, I'll watch the court case with interest. However I'm perfectly capable of making up my own mind what I think about the 'alarming clowns' without having to rely on what the courts say on the matter.

    I generally stay out of this debate, because I know a few of those arrested. However I will say that I concur with Russell's opinions for the most part.

    The People's Republic of … • Since Nov 2006 • 2079 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    "Given what they doing and saying, I think the possibility existed that they could have hurt someone"

    puts the burden of proof on the wrong party.

    But I'm not arguing in court, or even venturing on the charges. My opinion is that there was legitimate concern about some people's actions.

    And in any case, Russell is commenting on what we know of what the Police knew. If the Police were required to know to the standards of proof necessary to obtain conviction before they could act at all, then we would never have any trials based on search/interception warrants because the whole point of those warrants is to get the evidence.

    It's quite a reasonable observation, IMO, based on what's been reported, that at least some of those arrested were acting in ways that could give rise to legitimate concerns about possible danger posed by them toward others. That's not pre-judgment of the trial, or the persons. Even if they are found not guilty it still doesn't change the validity of the observation, it merely says that their actions weren't of a criminal standard.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3733 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    A note for readers considered about losing Lake Waikaremoana from public ownership.

    It's actually already owned by Tuhoe and is Maori customary land.

    The government has leased it from Tuhoe since 1971. There don't seem to have been any grave injustices against the public since then.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 17977 posts Report Reply

  • vangam,

    Is it better that the uninformed 'base' run the government?

    'Democracy' you mean?

    Haha, very good.

    A leader's job is to lead. If John Key is going to allow the tail to wag the dog, why the hell do we call him our leader then?

    Rangiora • Since Jun 2007 • 103 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    A leader's job is to lead. If John Key is going to allow the tail to wag the dog, why the hell do we call him our leader then?

    I think my point still stands.

    I'm not opposed to leadership, indeed often I'd like political parties to go against popular opinion. As long as we then speak out against those people who say it's anti-democratic and not what the public want. Can't have your cake and eat it too after all.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6145 posts Report Reply

  • vangam,

    Can't have your cake and eat it too after all.

    Oh yeah, I'd agree - it is a double-edged sword.

    Rangiora • Since Jun 2007 • 103 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.