SPC: it sounds as if you believe that every human life has the same value. Of course this is not true.

If you are a believer in evolution you must accept that some human lives are more valuable than others because they are more evolutionarily advanced.

If you are a believer in creation you must accept that some human lives are more valuable than others because they are capable of behaving in a more appropriate way (however God defines ‘more appropriate’).

There are no other options.

The job of the police is in fact to be predjudiced against those who behave in a certain way. That is the whole purpose of having a peaceful society based on law. The law defines what is appropriate, and the police attack or restrain those who behave outside of the law.

The concept of living subject to law sounds oppressive to some, but in reality if we did away with law tomorrow our society would degenerate into countrywide conflict within a day.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

SPC: it sounds as if you believe that every human life has the same value. Of course this is not true.

If you are a believer in evolution you must accept that some human lives are more valuable than others because they are more evolutionarily advanced.

If you are a believer in creation you must accept that some human lives are more valuable than others because they are capable of behaving in a more appropriate way (however God defines ‘more appropriate).

There are no other options.

The job of the police is to be predjudiced against those who behave in a certain way. That is the whole purpose of having a law.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

,i>But Collins also said that the police had “little option� but to proceed with the charges, and that some of the evidence had come very close to meeting the standard. He said the police had brought an end to what were some “very disturbing activities� in the Ureweras, and praised the professionalism and integrity of the police.

“Some may try to interpret my decision as criticism of the police,� Collins went on. “Nothing could be further from the truth.�
http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/politics/2007/11/09/terror-accused-should-thank-the-crown-not-condemn-it/

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I imagine there be many in Green party think like that…. but is it constructive?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Institutional racism and other bigotry” is premised on the dispossessed protesting about it and because this makes work for the police (the security arm of the establishment and the propertied middle class), they become prejudiced in their dealings with those involved.

And of course the supporters of the police tend to comment that some people not brought up the “right way” should not have the same civil liberties – anyone read the third article of the Treaty.

So while banning fireworks sales to Maori, because they are not British has appeal …,

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

That sounds like Marxism (?), (the idea that minorities can’t be racist). No one sees others as they really are, we approximate, and sometimes get it wrong, and that applies to everybody.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Alistair… don’t go as far as shooting yourself, but how can you agree with an editorial that states “Racism has nothing to do with skin colour, and everything to do with power.”

Racism has everything to do with skin colour, and pretty much nothing else. That is why it is so pathetic that people cry racism at the drop of the hat.

Surely these people can look beneath their own skin colour (as Winston Peters did) and see that the community came under scrutiny because of the web of deceit woven within it by a likeminded group of malcontents who used the isolation of that community to hide their intentions.

The innocent within that community were subject to scrutiny as a result of their geographic proximity to shady characters whom the police did not want to allow to escape their grasp.

Not because of racism.

Brown is brown, pink is pink, napalm is napalm, and a corgi is not a labrador. Spot the difference?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I really must be getting old… I just read a Herald editorial I agreed with. Maybe I should just shoot myself.

It’s about Winsome Peters’ attempt to play the “race card”, accusing Maori activists of supporting apartheid :

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10473857

“Apartheid was an oppressive policy of separate development inflicted on a dispossessed majority by a ruling minority. Those protesting against the police actions and their courtroom sequels are not seeking apartheid but evenhanded justice, openly dispensed. Nor may Maori activists or their supporters sensibly be called racists. Racism has nothing to do with skin colour, and everything to do with power. Anyone who argues that those arrested in Tuhoe and elsewhere last month are more powerful than the state authority unleashed on them is deluded. Or trying to win votes by any means necessary.”

… or maybe the Herald has changed more than I have?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I should add that that would rile civil libertarians.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I imagine quite a bit few DNA samples landed in police mouths.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

jh: I agree. Judging by the behaviour of so many of these protestors, they would prefer that the rule of law did not exist.

The unfortunate problem with the rule of law is that we must all live by it, even if it is sometimes unpalatable to do so. Personally I’m happy to put up with a bit of personal restraint in order to live in a society without napalm.

These people are obviously badly brought up and mostly don’t deserve the protection the law and police give them.

Give this country 6 months without law and you’d find that these types of selfish, loudmouthed protestors would suddenly find this quite a different country to live in.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Must say I don’t think our police should have to put up with people shouting at them a few inches from their faces. As a law abiding citizen I take that personally as I feel the police are their for us (law and order) and deserve respect.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I take it the Greens support a self governing Tuhoe area? Since the Greens are positive towards Tino Rangitiratanga?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Obviously by 1891 – with the new order based around Maori seats (then a useful way to limit Maori electoral power) bedded in the Treaty was seen by Pakeha as just the vehicle for occupation and control (how else could the Land Wars BE RATIONALISED). Thus only Maori seeking some security from any further dispossession would cite the Treaty.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“It is notable that the section 71 of the New Zealand Constitution Act of 1852 that allowed for “MÄ?ori districtsâ€?, where MÄ?ori law and custom were to be preserved, was never implemented.”

This would have been in accord with the English language version of the Treaty – allowing continuing chieftainship for iwi (that is self gvoernment in their own defined areas).

It is notable this was not implemented even before the Land Wars (confiscations) made this impossible for many iwi. After the Land Wars any remaining chieftainshiop was vested in the collective remnant – Maori Seats and or any local government which was premised around any continuing iwi (presumably Tuhoe is claiming it’s own continuing sense of iwi self government chieftainship is/was not dependent on the Treaty).

Obviously by 1891 – with the new order based around Maori seats (then a useful way to limit Maori electoral power) bedded in the Treaty was seen by Pakeha as just the vehicle for occupation and control (how else could the Land Wars . Thus only Maori seeking some security from any further dispossession would cite the Treaty.

Obviously the 1891 position has since been recanted by government, but is this only for iwi who signed the Treaty? Have iwi who did not signed the treaty been able to make claims under it? As I see it, those iwi who did not sign the Treaty and who do not make claims under it, have a case to present – and I expect the Crown government response will be that for them alone we restate the decision of 1891 – we won you lost, so suck on … . Attempt to secede at your own peril “terrorists”.

In international law, the UN refused to accept annexation after 1949. The claim of occupation extingusihing prior sovereignty in 1891 is prior and is not negated by Treaty rights for those tribes which signed the Treaty. Tuhoe did not.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Toad, I can’t address the constitutional issue because I don’t know what it is, although I suspect it is the same one raised by The Commission on Native Land Laws 1891:

The commission argued that “By the law of nations, English occupation vested the ultimate title to all lands in the Crown. The Maoris at the moment of annexation became tenants; but they did not hold the highest form of tenancy -that of a simple fee. The Maori title is that of occupation, but occupation by an indefeasible right.”

The sole Maori member of the Commission, James Carroll, dissented from the passage in the report quoted above “The Crown bases its title to land in New Zealand not on the right of discovery or conquest, but on the Treaty of Waitangi. By that treaty the exclusive right of pre-emption over such lands as the Native proprietors might be disposed to alienate was yielded to Her Majesty”

It is notable that the section 71 of the New Zealand Constitution Act of 1852 that allowed for “MÄ?ori districts”, where MÄ?ori law and custom were to be preserved, was never implemented. And that the ten Provincial Councils were replaced by 63 County Councils in 1877. A classic example of “divide and conquer” by central government politicians to neutralise the threat of decentralisation. If central government politicians didn’t want to share power with provincial councils then they wouldn’t have wanted to share power with Tuhoe or any other iwi either. But, it seems to me, the crux of the constitutional issue is the question “on what basis were the lands of New Zealand vested in the British Crown?” Only when that question is answered can you move on to questions about the legal or constitutional status of Tuhoe.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Tuhoe did not sign the treaty. They should not be treated the same way as other iwi who did sign the treaty.
Modern governments should not assume that they can treat Tuhoe the same way they treat other iwi.
Tuhoe have resisted the temptation to develop their lands in the same way that many other parts of NZ have been “developed”.
In part that is due to their isolation, but in part it is due to the resistance of people such as Rua Kenana and Tame Iti (and nameless others) who don’t subscibe to the capitalist notion.
We should all be grateful that they have had an alternative view, or there would not even be a “Te Uruwera National Park”
From a Tuhoe point of view, I would imagine that the current government, and the Police who “invaded” Ruatoki would meet the description of “terrorists”.
From our current government’s point of view, naturally, Tuhoe activists would meet the definition of “terrorists”. Where to from here? I would like to see the government negotiate with Tuhoe separately from the Waitangi mechanism. Why?
Because the real issue behind Tuhoe grievances is not so much about territory, as about whether or not governments should only rule for the benefit of “normal” people (ie the capitalist average we see around us every day), or whether governments should also allow the existence of alternative peoples…eg: people who (for whatever reason) cannot or will not fit the Eurocentric, capitalistic, modernistic, mechanistic world which has developed in this country.
Where will such people live? How will they have a raise a family when local council bylaws prevent them building their own homes unless they have at least $300,000 on hand, or the ability (and/or desire) to borrow and repay such a sum? The real battle for Tuhoe, and also the real definition of terrorism, both rest upon what we define as being the acceptable way to live in the modern world. There is a clash between the modern, capitalistic way, and the old way that our ancestors accepted for thousands (millions?) of years…the simplistic way of day-to-day existence living that is the lot of all those who do not, or cannot, accept a “citified” way of living.
My personal choice would be to see the Uruweras (and the people living there) to be a “sovereign” country that remains separate from the rest of New Zealand (just as they intended by not signing the Treaty). Obviously this would only apply to the lands beyond the confiscation line. It would provide a place for those who cannot or will not accept the rule of European law and capitalism to exist. What is wrong with that?? Who knows, after global warming and modern pollution have done their darndest, it may be that the backwater peoples of Tuhoe and the pighunters of the Uruwera highcountry may be the only ones to survive into the future. Most of Auckland will be underwater at any rate. Same with Lambton Quay.
Oh, bye the way, just to link back to the original reason for this thread…did anyone pick up on Meurants convictions, and begin to understand why he hates the Police so much now?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

How could anyone define it as “not conquest”, when under “occupation” they pay taxes and rates and receive services from the state or local authorities. An invasion and unresisted occupation is usually seen as an acceptance that a conquest has occured.

To make a belated claim of undiminished sovereignty is usually regarded as a form of secession/rebellion.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

All very valid points, Kevyn, but they don’t address the constitutional issue.

SPC – Tuhoe were never conquered. They were invaded, and their most fertile land confiscated, but they were not conquered.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Toad, presumably if Tuhoe are a soveraign nation then they should not have been paying taxes and rates and they should not have been receiving any services from the state or local authorities.

For instance Tuhoe is the northern boundary of the Gisborne highway district which has received $4 for every $1 paid in motor taxation. According to Te Ara, Tuhoe signed an agreement with the Crown (under duress) which included a prohibition on roads or surveys on Tuhoe lands. State Highways 2 & 38 cross Tuhoe lands, but only those parts that, according to Te Ara, came under Tuhoe dominion as the consequence of marriage or conquest in the early 19th century.

This question of who has sovereignty over which tracts of lands by right of conquest or other means is a real can of worms that the Crown seems hell-bent on avoiding. And Tuhoe would be well advised to think long and hard about ALL of the ramifications of seceeding and forming their own fully autonomous nation. They wouldn’t need a driver’s license or RUCs on Tuhoe roads but they would still need them when the cross the border into New Zealand. A saving for a few Tuhoe but not for most. Then of course New Zealand could, at some point, treat Tuhoe with the same contempt shown to New Zealand by Britian in 1967!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)