Green Party of >the people of> the geographical area of> Aoeotearo NZ> who are a) tangata whenua and b) tangata tiritti*

*the best of British Legal minds say it’s unworkable
Dick Heads

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Frog:
“There can be no doubt that the Treaty is the founding document of our nation…”

Sam Buchanan Says:
Come off it, Frog! How can a treaty that gurantees tino rangatiratanga and Maori possession of their lands be the founding document of a nation built on British systems and British law, and which operates in the English language? The New Zealand state ignored, wrote off and re-wrote the Treaty and never gave it any legal standing.

Mark Says:
Have no issue with the Treaty – the best of British Legal minds say it’s unworkable – I tend to agree.

Key Principles

* Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a fundamental constitutional document.
[and]
Affirming and supporting Kaitiakitanga

* Recognise ancestral land ownership and kaitiakitanga in rural areas.
* Support an increased role for mana whenua as kaitiaki of their rohe. [tribal area as prior 1840]
* Support the return to iwi sites within the Conservation Estate that are of high value to tangata whenua, such as waahi tapu.
* Reject the use of the Conservation Estate as a cheap source of land for Treaty settlements. [private land?]
* Fund a process to enable tangata whenua to exercise their kaitiakitanga over the marine environment, including their customary and commercial fishing resources.
* Require regional councils to recognise the kaitiaki role of hapu when developing regional coastal plans and aquaculture management areas.

Nuts!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Very nice article! Very imperssing!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Ah! Thank you – have to return to my life shortly, and will give this further thought – plus some ideas one would hope…I wis referring to land legally and illegally, including mendacious legality, seized and not returned.
Have no issue with the Treaty – the best of British Legal minds say it’s unworkable – I tend to agree.
I wiz talkin about your description of ‘Freedom’ with Frog – find the thread and we’re there, though to be fair, I had more to say; and referred to you as ‘He’, and then thought, ‘My God Lord Dummy, Sapient may be a very insulted female.
OK yeah – I gots me a ‘Race Card’ to play then; if we are finished with the brutish stick of Colonialism, why then, are our jails full of Maori?
Will need more time to discuss the Aborigine – but their attempted wipeout was facilitated by geography.
Victorias Aborigine are extinct too.
New Zealand is (was) bushy and mountainous – Australia – flat as Taupo at dawn.
Couldn’t get Te Rauparaha off Kapiti (except by mendacity – a lure if you will) cos the cannon of the day couldn’t do much about it’s height. And charging that far uphill? Forget it.
In Australia – the terrain lent itself to horseback and the Army could stay out for months at a time, riding down and killing every black they found – no joke.
Visited Battle Mountain here recently and it is comparitively ‘impossible’ terrain.
No I’m not a separatist/elitist/ethnicist either (but our Govt. is – i tried to explain i was was ethnically a NZ’er again yesterday; Nope – not allowed; pick something else. “Other” perhaps-?);
but what brought us to this conversation originally, was me calling for NZ Unity – and being scoffed at by trolls who insisted Maori would not be in it.
And then went on to call me a racist -well ha – I don’t respond to non-Green Supporters; unless I feel like tellin ‘em to water their horse elsewhere.
Think you’ll make a great Doc – regards mark

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Mark,
The ‘race card’ is an appeal to the fallacy of ‘race’; the concepts that different populations of humans divided by physical traits, usually skin colour, have fundimental qualitative differences. Often with an associated or implied superiority or entitlement.
As applied to the pakeha of New Zealand this generally refers to the history of colonialism and oppresion often implimented at the hands of pakeha, both within NZ and internationally, against indiginous populations. It is often used by the likes of pakeha appologists or maori to state the maori deserving of recompence for the actions of the past. The likes of Tariana Turia are known to use this ‘card’ for their own personal endevours or to obtain political power.
With application to NZ maori this card generally refers to the higher crime rates, higher unemployment rates, lower academic accheivement, and higher abuse rates among portions of the population identifying as maori.

I was refering specificly to the aborigonies of tasmania rather than australia as a whole, though i suppose the vital difference is that maori were far more versed in the arts of war; though the tasmanian aborigionies did hold their own for a substantial period despite the major technologial differences, so that may have made neglible difference.

I am male, though i have no idea what non-pc term you may be refering to as nothing pops out at me; but then again i pay very little attention to pc bull$h!t. Though “fractious mendacious thieves” could be offensive i guess, and technically incorrect since much of the land was accually purchased or taken in armed conflict; both of which being entirly valid ways of aquiring land. Though granted there was a significant portion seized by the crown without justification.

If one really cares about obtaining the best outcome for society then i dont think that ones ethnicity really matters much as from an objective standpoint it is fairly obvious which posistions wont result well. I am of te ati awa (wai pounamu), i stand to benefit personally from any advantages bestowed apon maori (though granted a portion of my iwi’s land [what is now nelson] was accually purchased) but i consider ethnic inequality to have a detrimental result for society as a whole and as such i oppose any such inequalities.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Hey Sapient! What is a ‘race card’??? You’ll probably know.
I owe an apology for addressing you in the masculine wheras ‘Person’ is all I know – however, did I use an unpc term or was it the sentiment the trolls didn’t like?
Yes the Prospects are thankfully unthinkable – but having just stepped off Australia after 20 years I find it hard to equate the aborigine and maori situation in the same tome.
All they have in common is the british army.
Can provide you with endless details on the difference.
When one arrives in a new environment, certain things stand out more clearly than they do to the person who lives with them everyday.
NZ sure has it’s share of uptight dudes.
Actually if you research Titokowaru’s Life – you’ll find he had the english settlers all set up to leave Wellington and return to Australia, returning NZ to polynesia.
The history is there – profoundly so. Too bad you can’t ask Mr King – but his books will tell it (from memory).
No – Te Rauparaha lived on Kapiti – but Titokowaru kept all the land he won. And that, not losing a battle, was a lot of land.
Incidentally, I’m not maori myself and have no interest in promoting one point of view over another.
Anyway, it’s a fascinating story.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Mark,
If the treaty was ratified in the present situation a civil war would take place; and the maori, at about 15% of the populaton and even less of the resources, would not be the victors.
If the maori put up an actual defence to pakeha invasion back-when, given that pakeha knew many of the valuable resources this land offers, do you really think there would be any maori today? The last time that happened the aborigional population was wiped down to the low double didgets.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Truth Hurts Don’t it.
If that clever treaty were really ratified – you’d be dialing up from the Chatams….outfought and outhought.
Sorry Frog – I just can’t resist ‘em

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>Maori have always been better Diplomats than Pakeha

Whites have always been better Diplomats than [insert very bad word beginning with "n" here]

Racist garbage, Mark.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Frog

“Maori have always been better Diplomats than Pakeha – read your history”

The above comment is clearly racist, will you censure Mark for making it or are there different rules for Green party supporters?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Mark,

Oh Dear, upset are we. Yes play your racist card. Always works? Not on me.

Your racist card?

Maori have always been better Diplomats than Pakeha – read your history.

Cowardly?

You the only one able to put forward a differing opnion?

Still if that is your exuse, good for you.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Wonder if Maori sovereignty leaders might disagree with you Mark?” (Feb 7th; Gerrit, JH)

Announce I’m going on holiday and your arguments become rhetoric (not to mention cowardly).
Do you guys even see the fractious Racism you carry like a Plague
Yeah reckon I could find workable common ground – why not – they are only responding to what they have been given by fractious mendacious thieves.
Maori have always been better Diplomats than Pakeha – read your history.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Do you means green as in environmentalist or are we smudging the meaning?”

I thought we had a convention here jh. Green = party member. green = environmentalist. Though I can assure you there are many, many environmentalists that have strong concerns for peace and human rights issues, as the lack of either makes environmental issues impossible to solve.

“Bin Laden was tracked when someone bought a sattelite phone for him. His calls were monitored from the same network you want to close down.”

bin Laden yet runs free, if I remember right. Surely a VERY different approach is needed, as was argued by many at the time I might add.

“Your sort of peace is about your enemy laying down arms; it just so happens your enemy is the state you are in.”

I can barely follow your stream of consciousness. My sort of peace is not monolithic and is as much about not provoking non-enemies into picking up arms. People who truly intend to do us harm should be tracked and prevented from doing so. Those who simply have political gripes but have never shown a tendency toward violence should not have thick files. You’d think the SIS would have been able to figure out which group Keith is in decades ago.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

# Valis Says:
February 10th, 2009 at 7:28 am

Issues of peace and human rights are hugely important to Greens. Unfortunately, such topics strike fear into even democratic governments who often feel all such people must be watched.
………..
Do you means green as in environmentalist or are we smudging the meaning?

Bin Laden was tracked when someone bought a sattelite phone for him. His calls were monitored from the same network you want to close down.
Your sort of peace is about your enemy laying down arms; it just so happens your enemy is the state you are in.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

If our servants confiscate out rights, then we are truly an upside down country. Helen’s memory is, above all else, convenient.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Issues of peace and human rights are hugely important to Greens. Unfortunately, such topics strike fear into even democratic governments who often feel all such people must be watched.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

who makes laws that are unworkable, so letting boy racers run around is a more important issue (ie who leaves holes in the net)

If the Greens were honest (given the ecological principle is No 1) membership and leadership would be across the board (it isn’t). Why the preponderance of the sort of people who would attract the interest of the SIS?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

No you’re both wrong. Re 05-08, there was a formal agreement. That was to abstain in return for a lengthy coop agreement. But never once did a confidence or supply vote ever depend on that abstention as both Field and Copeland gave Labour their C&S votes.

Frog is only pedantic about this as those who assume it to be the case that our vote was required for Labour to govern tend to leap to the next conclusion that we could have pulled them down at any time but refused to. This just isn’t true.

As for the comment:
“Hello, Labour do what you like, we will abtain, therefore you have confidence and supply by proxy.”

This shows extreme political naivety. Firstly, no party goes into a C&S agreement of any sort lightly, as the public has shown it greatly dislikes the political instability that results from deals falling apart. Both parties get punished, usually the smaller party more. Second, put the shoe on the other foot. What do you think it would it take for Act to break their agreement with the Nats if it would cause another election or throw power to Labour (assumes the MP were not part of the coalition of course). Before the election, Rodney said they’d support the Nats no matter what. No one ever calls them patsies for that, though it goes far beyond anything the Greens ever promised.

That doesn’t mean there is nothing that will ruin a deal, as the Alliance situation shows, not to mention NZF in the late 90′s. But you don’t throw your toys out of the cot without extreme provocation.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Yes, techincally you are tright, tyhere was no formal agreement. This from

http://www.decisionmaker.co.nz/guide2005/hpw%2005/hpw_05_index.html

Helen Clark emphasised the need for the negotiations to produce stable government for her third term in office. To achieve her goal she received committments from NZ First and United Future to support the Labour-Progressive coalition on confidence and supply, and Green Party committment to abstain on such motions that can topple a government.

Sorts that out.

Still if it makes all happy, there was no confidence and supply agreement. Just an agreement to abstain. Which in specific terms is the same as.

Hello, Labour do what you like, we will abtain, therefore you have confidence and supply by proxy.

Myth and spin.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Gerrit, not a myth at all, but “Giving confidence and supply” means voting for, as the Greens did only from 99-02. 02-05 we voted against and 05-08 we abstained, which was never actually needed to keep Labour in power.”

05-08 was eventually necessary to keep Labour in power; Labour + New Zealand First + United Future + Jim Anderton initially equalled 61. With the loss of Field and Copeland, that became 59, and so Labour needed the Greens’ abstention to remain in power.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)