Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Must Try Harder

81 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • Steve Barnes,

    To anyone trying to cross it, and I guess how much they would pay is a fair estimation.

    Never mind "Market Forces" will level out that "Playing Feild" :-) But seriously. The FSA has provisions on that. The denial of use has been used as a form of protest and is, in my opinion, less likley to be a problem under this act and its settlements that it was previously. So when all is settled there will be no protests (I feel a Tui moment comming on)

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Or how much <stereotype> a rich American </stereotype> would pay for it.

    The Act has provisions on "Alienation" Here

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Alluding to Godwin is Godwinning.

    God won? ;-)

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    HE always wins, even when HE loses.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    On the Iran thingy.
    24 "hops" then times out at the Iran "Gateway" routed through Turkey (therefore Overland or satellite) It's a serious bottleneck anyhoo.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    HE always wins, even when HE loses.

    Yes, serious lack of girlz here today. Let's get sexyist. ;-)

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • noizyboy,

    It's a serious bottleneck anyhoo.

    Yeah, no arguing that. But 'cut off'? I don't think so. Just did a tracert on tehrantimes.com: 15 hops to get to 62.193.18.228.dpi.ir

    wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 171 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Just one more "snip"

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    God won? ;-)

    Nearly, Jesus saved.

    Since Nov 2006 • 2075 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Yes, serious lack of girlz here today. Let's get sexyist. ;-)

    I'm pretty sure Godwin was a man.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • Richard Llewellyn,

    Nearly, Jesus saved

    But Torres knocks in the rebound (boom boom)

    Mt Albert • Since Nov 2006 • 399 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    I'm pretty sure Godwin was a man.

    Heresy!!

    Since Nov 2006 • 2075 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Nearly, Jesus saved.

    Nailed it to the post.
    (ooooooooooh that's bad)

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    I'm pretty sure Godwin was a man.

    Heresy!!

    Don't worry, Godwin's Law is definitely female. In fact, it's a bitch.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10650 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    What about the Son of Godwin? A lot rests on your answer...

    Since Nov 2006 • 2075 posts Report Reply

  • kowhai,

    Yes, serious lack of girlz here today. Let's get sexyist. ;-)

    We are here, just lurkin....

    Actually it seems that most of the PAS Women's XV are over "discussing" American politics with James Bremner on the other thread.

    Since Jan 2008 • 3 posts Report Reply

  • Worik Stanton,

    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...

    Otepoti • Since Nov 2007 • 38 posts Report Reply

  • Worik Stanton,

    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.

    Wrong.

    Very very valuable *industrial* land. Mining, fish farming....

    Otepoti • Since Nov 2007 • 38 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    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?

    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.

    Dosen't that make you feel even a little uncomfortable?

    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.

    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?

    Worik, I'm not sure if you understand the issue. 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. And, as I/S indicated, wind up with something like the Ngati Porou settlement announced this week, but without the grief of an extra-judicial process.

    As I said, that's what the whole thing was about. Whatever people chanted in the streets, it was not about "Maori have always owned the foreshore and seabed". Maori as a group had no rights in this at all. It was about specific hapu with a consistent connection to the land.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22807 posts Report Reply

  • Geoff Lealand,

    Shoulf the New Zealand Herald just be open and honest and re-name itself "New Zealand National', with 2 two pics of Keys at Waitangi on the front page today, and Helen safely tucked inside?

    Shadbolt has always been a self-serving dick. I recall an overseas visitor watching, open-mouthed,at one of his performances--and the idea that this guy could be a serving politician, even of a minor city in the deep, dark south. It may well be that SIT have been using unfair practices in their recruitment drives and if it comes to shuddering halt, then good!

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2557 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Stevens,

    The Treaty meant one thing when it was signed, something else 50 years ago, something else now, and will mean something else again in a few more decades. It's all a movable feast really, and so are the celebrations/protests etc that go on around it.

    Me, I can't get too worked up about. Our founding day though? Doesn't feel like it to me.

    But it's nice to have a day off in Summer ;-)

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 230 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Very very valuable *industrial* land. Mining, fish farming....

    Mining rights already belong to the Crown and as for fish farming, well go and work it out, resource management act, fisheries act, customary use? I could go on but I think you get my drift.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Actually it seems that most of the PAS Women's XV are over "discussing" American politics with James Bremner on the other thread.

    There's more than one thread? You'll be telling me the Universe is made of fabric next. Get back to yer sewing ;-)

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Jackie Clark,

    Can I confess to being a Waitangi Day slacker? I'm glad the ceremonies up north went off without major incident, but I felt nothing much about the day.

    Same, same, same. I feel so removed from it, really. Haven't always, but do now. Very weary of the hooha. John Key and Tame Iti? The credibility of both gentlemen was not enhanced by that particular little scenario, IMHO. Otherwise I just don't care. A propos of nothing much, when I got to work this morning, none of my colleagues - all Maori - had done owt except take themselves to the foreshore, the sandy bits with sun and pohutukawa. Just another day off, all of us in Mangere agreed.

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3136 posts Report Reply

  • Worik Stanton,

    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.

    Otepoti • Since Nov 2007 • 38 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.