The Crown appears to be neglecting the land; Tuhoe would surely treasure it

A little whine about this.

One of the justifications often offered in the past for the alienation of M?ori land is that the owners weren't cultivating it, or were letting it go to ruin, or whatever.

This?

We shouldn't give our conservation lands to Maori.

I'm uncomfortable describing this particular park as "our" land, given the way it was obtained, and Tuhoe's strong moral claim to it.

And the terror raids just sound sickening – the police state creeps ever closer...

And I remain of the view?

We shouldn't give our conservation lands to Maori.

But they gave their lands as gifts to conservation.

The point seems to be that whether we define that land as conservation land now or whether we intensively use it for farming or forestry or whatever, that land was never ours (the?

It's good to have sovereignty back in the national conversation without the backdrop of violence.

That's my feeling.

I also don't think this is so different to a previous National's government's vesting of the bed of Lake Ellesmere /with Ngai Tahu and [[http://tvnz.co.nz/content/242677|the 1992 transfer of the bed of Lake?

The Prime Minister has even won an award from the San Francisco Examiner: Dim Bulb of the week.

That's quite an accolade for Aotearoa, given the competition in the States.

Just as Maori should never be made to feel like outsiders in our own country.

Too late.

Also, not too long ago, and maybe still, there has been fairly heavy intimidation going on around some entrances to Te Urewera. This move may only serve to increase the likelihood if this?

I'm uncomfortable describing this particular park as "our" land, given the way it was obtained, and Tuhoe's strong moral claim to it.

Well, Russell, just to play devil's advocate I suspect Ngati Whatua would have (several) points of view on whether Auckland is situated on the moral high ground either.?

Will be pushed forward if the court case or number of defendants shortens.

Crazy.

I?

Trial date has to wait until August next year because that's the first time that a court room of sufficient size for 18 defendants is available for 12 weeks.

The Lion's Hut sleeps 40. They could rent it during the off season.

Well, Russell, just to play devil's advocate I suspect Ngati Whatua would have (several) points of view on whether Auckland is situated on the moral high ground either.

Oh sure. But both the past and present are much more complicated in Auckland. What makes the Urewera transfer seem do-able is?

Trial date has to wait until August next year because that's the first time that a court room of sufficient size for 18 defendants is available for 12 weeks.

Can't they just build another one?

Seriously; its not just this case which is being delayed, and when cases are delayed?

summed up;

Te Urewera will always feel like Tuhoe land to locals and to most visitors to the area. the Government can't change that.

John Key is crazy for being so Brash about this. Surely the announcement could have?

What was on the table was the return of the Ureweras. They would be managed by Tuhoe with full public?

So where does that fit in with everything?

Craig, taking your point about Auckland, are you saying that it would be wrong or unjust to give land back to Tuhoe because it's harder to do the same elsewhere?

No — because if there's every been an "easy" Treaty settlement, I've never heard of it. Just that there's something?

Tom: you seem to be conflating property ownership and sovereignty, dominium and imperium.

I/S, my comments are primarily at Stephen Judd and Russell Brown, who in their little exchange above:

It's good to have sovereignty back in the national conversation without the backdrop of violence.

That's my feeling.

Appear to?

While most of us live near the shoreline, and treasure that fact, very few New Zealanders will ever venture to Te Urewera.

The Lake Waikarimoana(sp?) track sees a lot of action. I walked it again in the summer – almost as many Kiwis as Germans.

The Lake Waikarimoana(sp?) track sees a lot of action. I walked it again in the summer – almost as many Kiwis as Germans.

I'm pretty sure this is an illusion. New Zealanders will walk the track in three or four days, so you'll probably see them more than once, but?

... seem to be conflating property ownership and sovereignty, dominium and imperium.

Most of the more hysterical comments bandied about regarding this are all about sovereignty not ownership.So the ?Maori separatists hates uz? horse is first out the gate followed closely by ?What about the access?. This is in spite?

The fact that John Key put the kibosh on the whole thing via press conference gives me the shits. Basic courtesy would suggest he tells the other parties first.

He did tell the others first. T?hoe was informed before the public announcement (as was the Maori Party).

Lake Waikarimoana(sp?)

Ask?

No — because if there's every been an "easy" Treaty settlement, I've never heard of it.

Tuhoe have been remarkably good at managing a single narrative on their ownership of this land for over a hundred years. Even allowing for the inevitable Ngati Newfullahs (and legitimate iwi, hapu, etc) that?

He did tell the others first. T?hoe was informed before the public announcement (as was the Maori Party).

Thanks Graeme, that's one thing that I missed when I read the articles. I feel a little better in the way it was done.

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?

Can't they just build another one?

Seriously; its not just this case which is being delayed, and when cases are delayed this much, justice is denied.

I think this large one was made by knocking out the wall between two ordinary size court rooms.

So I presume that yes they?

Tom: get a grip on yourself, will you?

I felt the need to shout 'off with their heads' to anyone who suggested the idea.

Every one ... commits treason who...
(b) Levies war against New Zealand;
...
(f) Conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in this section.

Wasn't there such talk on some of the Operate 8 intercepts?

Tom: get a grip on yourself, will you?

Thank you. Treason? Inciteful* much?

*Yes, I know.

Wasn't there such talk on some of the Operate 8 intercepts?

Possibly. I couldn't possibly speculate about that.

But first, no one was charged with treason, implying that there wasn't a sound case to be made, and second, that's not what Tom was talking about. Tom appeared to me to?

Craig Y.

Is the reason that he gets sinecures as "left commentator' by business periodicals because he makes the 'left' look neanderthal and solely focused on his idiosyncratic take on Class Politics?

Bingo.

I don't think it hurts to understand that it is an aspiration for some people and to think about why.

If such a precendent is created, where will it end? If the ongoing "passports" farce is anything to go by, the Maori sovereignty movement is even stronger in Northland. Will?

emboldened Maori bully the New Zealand state

I have met some of the claimants in Northland, through my work. I don't think it would be possible to use the phrase 'emboldened bullies' to describe them. At least, not with a straight face.

Goodbye thread...

I think its fate was more or less sealed at the first appearance of the word 'treason'.

Oh well, could always use the time to read some Binney, I guess.

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.

By saying 'at best' you are salting the pot; it suggests that this?

Oh well, could always use the time to read some Binney, I guess.

Good call. We all live in encircled lands. Some of us are just slower than others to realise it.

Further, the whiff of a revanchist Maori sovereignty movement actually achieving its goals would utterly debase our economy,?

You might ask for ownership to be returned because a) it's your land and b) you are part of that land. Tuhoe, the People of the Mist, regard Te Urewera as their whenua; they are it and it is them.

Lakes Waikaremoana and Waikareiti are?

alarming clowns

scared yet?

| 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?

The Fortean Times had a great issue on Coulrophobia a while back.

Worth $800 per week, according to Sideswipe.

Why ask for ownership to be returned unless they want more power over the management of the area?

The bit I'm missing here is why that would be a problem. What on earth are you so scared of? That Maori willl behave like the Crown has? Well when have they?

While most of us live near the shoreline, and treasure that fact, very few New Zealanders will ever venture to Te Urewera.

I have to disagree with this Russell. I've walked the track round Lake Waikaremoana twice and understand it to be a very popular three day tramp. While I?

By saying 'at best' you are salting the pot; it suggests that this is the most minimal description that can be applied to the accused

I understand what you're saying. But my "at best" implied the assumption that there was no possibility they could or would have hurt anyone. Given?

I want them to have justice. OTOH, I feel very uneasy about messing with the status of a national park.

This is the common "I want you to have justice, just as long as it doesn't interfere with what I want" justice.

I feel very uneasy about messing with the status of a national park.

I feel uneasy about all the confiscated land and, frankly, I'd rather ease that discomfort by giving it back to the legitimate owners (who have expressed desire to keep it a publicly accessible National Park) than preserve?

Sigh... Well this discussion didn't take long to turn into a pile of poo, not surprising considering the attitude of Mr. (snea)Key.

Oh, it's not a pile of poo, really. Some people are saying some things and some other people are rebutting them. Nothing I'd think about moderating.

I feel very uneasy about messing with the status of a national park.

By making it a national park under Tuhoe stewardship? Which, as I understand the proposal, was what it would've been.
If there's no change to access, why is this such a scary concept?

As for the delay?

I want them to have justice. OTOH, I feel very uneasy about messing with the status of a national park.

This is the common "I want you to have justice, just as long as it doesn't interfere with what I want" justice.

Pretty much also __Not In My Back Yard.__?

This is the common "I want you to have justice, just as long as it doesn't interfere with what I want" justice.

I know what you mean. I'm an old tramper and I am just trying to articulate my fierce love of the bush and mountains and a probably irrational?

I say let's slice the baby in half.

I recall a mine owner having that opinion some time ago. :-)

Oh, it's not a pile of poo, really.

Not a big pile, not yet but you know me Russ. ;-)

Seriously though, the mountain peaks in?

That Cabinet reneged on the deal adds to the truly shameful history of Crown dealings with Tuhoe.

But – it isnt finished yet: utu (which means proper balance?

not voters but something a bit more glittery

What, gold in them thar hills? No ...

Although I'm not a national voter, there might be a rich vein of other voters who would hate to see a change of ownership ...

You reckon Tuhoe thought that about the change of ownership in the 1800's? Or dont they matter? It was theft, thought that was against the?

Oh, it's not a pile of poo, really.

Not a big pile, not yet but you know me Russ. ;-)

[Screams faintly as Giant Big Pile of Poo blots out sun.]

You reckon Tuhoe thought that about the change of ownership in the 1800's?

I feel guilty for arguing about this when I haven't done my homework and read the history. My original point point was that I disagreed with Russell's post. He maintained that most NZers would not venture into?

I'm trying to to tap into John Key's rationale for pulling back.

He seems to think, or believe even, he is pandering to his electorate. And while my chromatic leanings are historical bluer than red (well, maybe my blue shirt has mauve strips), I find it hard to associate with?

That Cabinet reneged on the deal adds to the truly shameful history of Crown dealings with Tuhoe.

Yes, that's what I tried to say in the post.

I know I've put the odd nose out of joint with my view of the "freedom fighters", but Tuhoe as an entity seems?

Don't mind me.

I won't mind you if you don't mind me and my half-baked opinions:)

At least we're not the passionless people, eh?

One only has to look at the Unionist movement under Carson and the impunity with which the Ulster Volunteers were able to arm themselves to understand what happens when a large section of a settler population loses faith in their government.

Funny, I see that period of history as more?

Obviously ACT would be infavour of market forces/failures sorting out leaky homes.

But seriously, when white guys can bring shot guns and batons upon innocent Maori youth and not get a conviction at all. Things haven't changed at all?

A long time ago, I chaired a local Komiti?

return of the land to the fully support this wrong.rightful owners.

should be,return of the land to the rightful owners.

there is an interesting South/North divide within the Maori roll apropos supporting the Maori Party.

Oh ,I don't doubt that for a minute.I do however expect those that voted for the party would want them to cover Maori issues and I imagine that they too would have divisions. We are?

I think – because there are still remanants left of the ould alliance between Labour, Ratana, and allied groups- it's about fucking time Labour got off their arse and made coherent?

But why did John Key do a sudden volte face? Is it because he personally saw no problem with handing back the land but when it was put to his colleagues in cabinet, they did?

Well yes, just as I rather doubt Helen Clark won every caucus or cabinet vote?

Labour could be getting brownie points here

.

As long as "here" isn't a Grey Power meeting in Palmerston North?

Well yes — and we all should have a pretty big problem when Government is run by Prime Ministerial fiat no matter what the tint.

Actually I'd like to hear from Chris Finlayson. Key can take a back seat peleeeze.He looked like the fly hovering over Maurice Williamson tonight.

No Ruatoki au, enari kaore au i?

I think you meant to say " Given what they were alleged to be doing and saying, I think the possibility existed that they could have hurt someone." To say that they were doing what the Crown alleges they were up to seems premature at this stage.

I tried to?

This sort of leads on to one of the many points of?

You're making a claim about the intentions of some of the people arrested and a paper trail is not sufficient evidence of the intentionality of the agents involved; it certainly isn't sufficient to justify damning the alleged offenders.

@HORansome: Russell is quite capable of speaking for himself, but I don't?

Seriously though, the mountain peaks in what became the centre piece of the Tongariro National Park were gifted to the Crown by Te Heu Heu of Ngati Tuwharetoa on the condition that they were protected.
What's the problem with doing a similar thing but the other way round?

No Problem?

[Screams faintly as Giant Big Pile of Poo blots out sun.]

It'll be good for the veges.

You're making a claim about the intentions of some of the people arrested and a paper trail is not sufficient evidence of the intentionality of the agents involved

I really thought I wasn't doing so. I don't know what they thought they were doing.

Maybe some of the arrestees are,?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

"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:?

"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?

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?

"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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

Don't have any opinion yet, other than that it seems fairly outrageous that?

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.

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?

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

'Democracy' you mean?

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?

"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.?

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.

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?

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?

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

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

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?

Leadership is not dictatorship and nor is it mob rule. However, there are other places in the world if you want?

A leader's job is to lead.

That's a very simple view. There are times when a good leader follows and more times when a good leader identifies who has the knowledge and needs to be the one to decide the direction that the leader will take.

Equally there are times?

I think we're now talking past one another, actually.

Which "we"?

Which "we"?

The royal 'we', of course.

We are discussing sovereignty, after all.

Can't have your cake and eat it too

I'd agree – it is a double-edged sword.

I agree. We've no room for sword swallowers in this circus. Too many strongmen and clowns.

a triple-edged sword

Ah, the zhan ma dao.

Useful if you have any horses that need chopping.

"The newspaper report quoted a Tuhoe spokeswoman as saying the iwi recently learnt that Mr Key was involved in a telephone conference called by Transport Minister Steven Joyce, involving senior ministers but excluding Mr Finlayson, before the decision was announced by?

a telephone conference called by Transport Minister Steven Joyce, involving senior ministers but excluding Mr Finlayson

Fark.

I've been happy to say before that Finlayson, even though I might not agree with him on everything, is one of the National ministers I respect. He's a genuine intellect. And now ...?

... Mr Key was involved in a telephone conference called by Transport Minister Steven Joyce ...

Remind me: who exactly is the Prime Minister here?

Worse, has the North Shore become the equivalent of America's mid-west and I haven't noticed......

Notwithstanding the value-leden term I am feeling as though I ought to be aplogising?

Remind me: who exactly is the Prime Minister here?

Cheney ring a bell?

As someone who grew up in Devonport, let me be the first to say that I apologise profusely for people from the North Shore.

Devonport's not the Shore, really. Fairburn lived there, and he was rough as guts.

Was it Michelle Boag?

Judy Kirk I think, but Joyce still crucial to their win and knows where the bodies are buried

Devonport's not the Shore, really.

This is what I've been saying for years. The sooner we can stick an Iron Curtain across Narrowneck and secede from the hoi polloi on the rest of the shore, the better.

Cheney ring a bell?

Joyce does have that special Quasimojo...

I know that's?