Posts by Sara Noble
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I/O - There are vast tracts of land owned by the Crown (such as the conservation estate) and State Owned Enterprises (the remnants of the old government monopoly services/businesses, including forests and farms) that are subject to unresolved Waitangi Tribunal (Treaty) claims. What Mutu refers to is the possibility of Maori re-occupying these relatively unoccupied, under utilised areas. Sadly I don't share her confidence in the likelihood of this occurring.
The Tuhoe hold over the Ureweras could be considered a model for such occupations, but I'm sure that Tuhoe assert that Te Ahi Ka or occupation rights (literally keeping the home fire burning) have been continuous. Tuhoe have never conceded sovereignty either by Treaty or conquest, so the recent police action can be seen as an extension of the Crown struggle for sovereign dominance into the area. Tuhoe effectively control the area and, I think, would assert their right to defend their land, people and culture against incursion. So this is a real sovereignty struggle occurring right here, right now.
Outside of this, in Treaty-land, there is a long and continuous history of confiscation, theft, trickery etc. Even when the Court of Appeal ruled (in 1989?) against the Crown selling land that was subject to Treaty claims, the practice continued. In many instances there have been multiple Crown commissions and investigations on the same piece of land that have recommended return to Maori ownership. The recommendations have then been ignored and the struggle continues.
In one such instance, two crown commissions and other investigations over 40 years recommended returning a large and very sacred piece of land to Maori. The recommendations were repeatedly ignored and the concerned tribe registered a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal. A Pakeha farmer purchased the land intending to subdivide it at huge profit despite knowing that it was subject to a Waitangi Tribunal claim. When Maori asserted their claim by occupation the farmer took matters into his own hands by bulldozing one of the sacred burial grounds in the area to destroy any archaeological value that might have further strengthened the case to protect the land. This kind of scenario is ubiquitous. In this context comments such at those of Allan Hawera are indeed moderate and the idea that they are creepy, let alone hellishly so, are laughable. That is without even considering the issues that he must face daily as a Maori social worker.
Given our capacity to get worked up about our granddads' war medals, or the American reverence of the Declaration Independence, or indeed the Commonwealth and the Magna Carta, the argument that Maori claims are historical and they should ignore or get over them is criminal. Breaches of the Treaty are real, continuous and contemporary.
Russell, how can you pick at the incidental aspects of the Guardian article and call it terrible without addressing any of the substantive issues? Do you really think that talking to the insider Maori politicians would add anything to such an overview? They are institutionalised - you would get party line window dressing. The academic position is one small step removed. The outsider perspective of the Guardian article is welcome, just as, on occasion, the Privy Council was a venue in which Maori could get a relatively impartial hearing.
I am a fifth generation Pakeha New Zealander and I want my place in this land to be founded on fair dealings with Maori. Based on that, we could take our place as the capital of the Pacific.
-
Sorry about all this 2 posts in a row nonsense but separate from the above is another very important point, which was the basis of my question earlier about Tuhoe tactics:
I think we have to be very careful about conflating the actions of any particular individuals who have not been appointed to positions of authority within Tuhoe, or any Iwi, with the philosophy or actions of the Iwi as a whole. This is a distinction that we need to keep in mind. I don't know what evidence the police have, I don't know how it may be refuted, and I don't know how directly the actions of the Urewera 17/12 reflect any Tuhoe intentions.
What I know is that we need to cut through any hysteria and minimise the possibility of abuse of police and state power.
-
"They're fucked" doesn't mean a lot to me at this stage, except that it is very hard to win against a police force that is hell bent on demonising you.
Remember:
Bail hearings have much more flexible rules of evidence than prosecutions - i.e. hearsay and therefore supposition can be admissible.
Depositions hearings only present the prosecution/police case - at that stage, if the media are allowed in, we are going to hear sensationalised versions of the worst interpretation conjurable by the police. Don't make your mind up based on that either.
We know the police are easily capable of enormous mistakes, we know that they are occasionally capable of behaviour that at least verges on conspiracy, we know they are likely to take the dimmest view of claims and acts of Mana Tuhoe. Add it all together and we might well have a miniature version of Bush versus Iraq. I'm serious - state authority is so paranoid that hundreds of thousands are displaced and die over non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Don't take the analogy any further than that - it would be a red herring - the point is that we can be stupid and brutal in the face of things we don't understand, and the state is no exception.
My 12 year old, who spends most of his life playing WOW, looked worried and amused yesterday saying "gosh, Pete and I talk about getting weapons and killing people all the time." Like "I'm just going down to the tavern to meet the Hoard and blow up the Alliance market." (Okay, I'm a total noob, but it was something like that. And you can't trust me anyway because I read Harry Potter and like Tinky Winky handbag and all.) What might the police might make of all the more obscure game-violence references out there?
Innocent until proven guilty.
-
I realise that a lot of Pakeha, and probably some Maori, would consider my points in the previous post almost silly; beyond silly.
I clearly remember seeing "Smith's Dream" for the first time when I was 15 or so, and the terrible fear and dread at the idea of an invading force taking over the country. This is, I imagine, the on-going experience of Tuhoe in relation to the NZ State.
My uncle taught me how to shoot, using leaves on a near-by lake for target practice. If I had a gun, I would probably consider how I might use it in defense of my home and family should we be attacked. Does that make me a terrorist?
From what I have seen, and some of it has been at first hand, Tuhoe philosophy really is peaceful and constructive. Many of the leaders don't even smoke or drink. They walk a very precarious path with utmost sincerity and responsibility. It is the New Zealand state that brings violence, destruction and terror to their door, not the other way around.
-
I basically agree with all the sentiments on the page above, but the thing that truly disgusts me about this is that, as a nation, we have fallen for the smoke and mirrors of the Right's campaign of Terror.
The Pakeha left seems pretty much in agreement that the STA and amendments are problematic, that civil liberties are underattack and that the police have overstepped the mark. We pick over the evidence and details of these issues with good reason. But all that assumes a position within the New Zealand State.
Beyond that, and I think even more importantly, this is yet another chapter in the struggle for sovereignty and/or self determination between Maori and the Crown. Tuhoe never ceded sovereignty either by treaty or conquest; their vision is of peaceful co-existence as an independent nation within the country. There are many models for this already in existence.
Paul Buchanon's piece was very helpful in separating out the requirements for an act of terrorism:
1. Ideology: Tuhoe's is well established and constructive: peaceful, sovereign co-existence. NZ Government: absolute sovereign dominance.
2. Means: Tuhoe - some guns mainly used for hunting. Life skills, bush craft and firearms safety training. NZ Government: an armed police force, high tech surveillance, guns, tasers etc
3. Planning and execution: Tuhoe - 0, NZ government: reams of e-mail, text and telephone transcripts, co-ordination and mobilisation across multiple locations, intimidation, detention and destruction of infrastructure achieved.
-
It gets a lot worse than that - real intimidation and humiliation of women and children. Wait for Williams' counter-suits.
Apparently the Attorney General has undertaken to have his decision out re ST charges this week.
And again to "ThoughtSpur", what are the Tuhoe tactics you disagree with?
-
"I intensely dislike the Tuhoe tactics etc"
What Tuhoe tactics are you referring to?