I have read and attempted to reread Rob's post. Let us call it what it is: Racist.
It may well be true that "... ethnically Chinese house buyers tended to purchase flash houses....". So what?
The offensiveness in all of this is thinking that surnames are a valid way to judge residency or that ethnicity (race) matters. IMO Phil Twyford should go. Far far away.
I am a bit tired of "Harm reduction". People do not take drugs because they are harmful. People do not use LSD because it is less harmful than alcohol (it is, according to David Nutt) they take LSD because it has benefits for them.
The same applies to all drug taking. There is some harm from drugs but it does not follow that drugs are harmful.
I can illustrate that with an analogy: Many people have broken the bones of their feet and lower legs by jumping or falling onto concrete. They suffer harm from concrete and car needs to be taken around concrete. But that does not make concrete harmful. Concrete is useful.
This is a human rights ssue. Not a legal issue and not a medical issue. It is as much a human rights issue as sexism, racism, homophobia, class predjudice....
I have a friend who has both. Installed the hot water system first and a year later installed the PV. Says now doing it again he would not have installed the hot water system.
Do the research. Price the PV system. Watts per square metre hot water will be better. Dollar per watt, it may well be PV
Why is cannabis less legal than Chardonnay? That is the question IMO
Good work RB.
I am so tiered of the OTT reaction coming from all sorts of people who should know better.
It is ironic that it is Peter Dunn that is bringing sensible drug laws to NZ. If it does work out (and it is working well so far, despite the OTT BS from many who should know better) even Peter Dunn himself acknowledges that cannabis will go through this process.
Greens and unfortunately many of their utopian policies might just sink the economy before we taste nirvana.
What policies would that be?
Given the Greens are the only one of the three major parties to put online you can go and see which ones those are, and come back and tell me!
As a GP activist I am fed up to the back teeth of people making comments about our policies with out reading them! There is a word for that: Prejudice.
No. The "white people" thing was in response to a comment above, which I quoted. As you say, there were nutters fanning the flames on both sides.
Actually I said more. I said the state was one of the nutters.
No, not at all. Not even a little bit. The Ngati Apa decision did not say that the foreshore had always belonged to Maori. It said that hapu had the right to explore their customary rights through the court. It indicated that the test for something approaching freehold would be high.
But other people, who were in a good position to know, said that the test could be met for a lot of the shore line.
You have to understand that aboriginal rights to the fore shore and the sea bed are not extinguished by the land abutting it being alienated.
This is ancient law that, I think, dates back at least to the Norman conquest.
Worik, I'm not sure if you understand the issue.
I understand very well. I spent a lot of time huiing and listening to both sides during the passage of the Act.
One side was a bunch of rouges. The other was a mixed bag of some very on to it, some not. I know which side moved me. It was not the rouges.
If it was my family's land and had been in consistent use by my family since 1840, I'd be bloody delighted to have the opportunity to test my rights regarding that in court.
That is what was taken! You would have no rights and you could not "test" them, you would have to apply for them. Hardly a right! If your land was customary land that had never been placed in torrens title and got wet when the tide came in - poof! you lost it. No court. Just the chance to apply to the state for some rights that fall far far short of what common law would supply.
The right to engage in customary rights, prescribed by the state. No right to any activity, you have to ask, cap in hand, like Ngāti Porou did. And because Ngāti Porou are very good at negotiating with the state, they got a lot. But it is the largess of the government, not an entitlement recognised in court.
Can you not see the difference? Can you not see how demeaning it is?
On one hand some people can go to court to assert their rights (like you can if I want to build a road in your back yard), on the other hand some people have to apply for their what is no longer a right because it was taken away.
The FSA is restricted to the area between mean high spring tide and the Territorial limit. It also covers riverbeds and some lake-beds. Hardly valuable parcels of land. Unless they are of cultural significance.
Very very valuable *industrial* land. Mining, fish farming....
It's the "all your foreshore are belong to us" rhetoric that helped get
That was the rhetoric that got maori backs up Russel.
There were nutters on both sides, but it was the state saying "all your foreshore are belong to us". When the state takes on the role of a nutter we should all be worried.
Seriously. Can you not see anything wrong with arbitrarilly declaring the ownership of a huge amount of land, ignoring 900 years of common law?
And look at what you said about "get white folks' backs up, including mine". Do you not see that you are buying into a racist argument?
Dosen't that make you feel even a little uncomfortable?
You say you would prefer it to go through the courts. Think for a moment: What if it were your families land? How strong would your preference be then?
Note also the immediate lease of prospecting rights to the sea bed off the west coast of the North Island. That should give you a clue to the real reason the rights were extinguished...
That is, the people who worried most about environmental toxins were the people most likely to get sick from the spray:
It is worth asking why people get worried about environmental toxins?