by David Clendon
Green MPs and other members will be at Waitangi in force this weekend. Russel, Metiria, Catherine and I, as well as our Party Co-convenor Moea Armstrong and a number of our Northland branch stalwarts, are looking forward to being part of this 170th anniversary celebration of the signing of Te Tiriti. We will have our own ‘base’ with a gazebo stall, and will be offering copies of our Treaty and Māori policies and commitments, along with other material.
The re-emergence of flags as a hot topic this year reminded me of an article I wrote last year for Te Awa, which can be seen here (PDF 964kB). This Ngā Puhi will be proudly flying the 1834 United Tribes flag as well as our Green pennants.
Anyone who is planning to be there is welcome to come by for a catch up, and maybe tell us what you think about some of the constitutional and other issues that will continue to affect and be affected by the Treaty relationship.
Published in Justice & Democracy | Society & Culture by David Clendon on Fri, February 5th, 2010
Tags: constitution, flag, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, treaty of waitangi, Waitangi
More posts by David Clendon | more about David Clendon
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
17 (-14)
Like or Dislike:
7 
2 (+5)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
17 (-15)
What are you suggesting is then bro?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Shame.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
Toad
If you are asking what I think the day stands for then I can answer the question.
The day remembers (celebrating is not the right word) the signing of a document that has set back race relations at least twenty years, it has also been used as an excuse for decades of Maori underachievement.
The modern interpretation of the document has been hijacked by the left and the racists. The day should be renamed New Zealand day and then all Kiwis could celebrate the day in their own way.
Like or Dislike:
3 
9 (-6)
Why do you think John Key is going to Waitangi, bb?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
14 (-13)
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
Are they charging you $1K to take a photo?
Like or Dislike:
2 
9 (-7)
Forget Waitangi Day. It’s a tedious day for political activists and their groupies, something most of the population cares nothing about.
Have a separate New Zealand day on which we can all celebrate what is great about this country.
Like or Dislike:
3 
11 (-8)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
16 (-14)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
16 (-14)
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
No, they are not. Tino rangatiratanga is not separate development – it is what Ti Tiriti guaranteed than upon the formation of our nation. It was a Treaty between Maori peoples, not one separating them.
That said, I’m not sure what the Maori Party are pushing at the moment – apart from a turd uphill with a pointed stick in terms of getting any policy gains from National. Which is sad really, because the Greens and the Maori Party have a lot of policy in common.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2 (+5)
eclipse
If you get the chance go to Raglan and try visiting the bay south of Whale Bay.
Signage?
“This is our beach, our refrigerator and not for public access”.
Not a bad gangland fortification.
Great big corrugated iron fence across the road and barbed wire to the low tide mark.
Google Earth
37°49’28.69″S
174°47’55.89″E
Notice some “unusual” green spots in the bush?
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
sorry I meant no political party is planning to ban access to the beach… should have been clearer
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Toad
As you well know (but choose to overlook) how one defines Tino rangatiratanga depends on which version of the treaty one reads.
Wiki says, that Tino rangatiratanga closest English translation is self-determination, although many also refer to it as ‘absolute sovereignty’ or Māori independence.
So there you go Toad, despite your words it seems that separate development (Apartheid) it exactly what some Maori racists (and guilty liberal whites) are seeking.
Like or Dislike:
4 
6 (-2)
Gerrit -
I respectfully suggest that you have found an area where the Maaori Party have absolutely no control over the behaviour of the local landowner! Possibly in conjunction with the local constabulary….
I have also lived in coastal farming communities, and there are parts of the Southern Hawkes’ Bay coast where access to the beach is over private farmland, and frequently not available to those who are neither friends nor family (ie: invited guests) of the homestead family.
You might want to re-read the summary of the Foreshore and Seabed Act, to see what actually made it in and what didn’t. The media were unusually incompetant at recording the facts, in the final count.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Katie,
Access is banned even across the low tide mark, no private land there!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
katie
It is damn annoying when the Truth gets in the way of your argument aye.
There are plenty of places where the local Maori deny non Maori access to the beach, Gerrit highlights just one of them.
You may be happy to be told by one race of Kiwis when are where you can access the public beaches but I sure as hell are not.
Like or Dislike:
3 
10 (-7)
I too could do with some clarity around wtf exactly tino rangatiratanga means. In practice.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Rimu
If it is clarity you want then for gods sake do not ask this lot.
Their definition would involve you bowing and scraping for the rest of your life if you happen to have committed the most mortal sin imaginable and been born non Maori.
In the Green world it is only Maori who are allowed to be proud of their heritage or have an interest in their ancestors, the rest of us are nothing more than visitors despite being born and bred here.
Like or Dislike:
2 
8 (-6)
Second thoughts …
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Rimu;
There are many books published about maaori sovereignty rights, some of which have been published by the Ministry of Heritage and Culture.
You could start with Claudia Orange’s ‘Treaty of Waitangi’, published in the 90′s. If you’re in Wellington, she’s chairing a panel at Te Papa on treaty issues over the weekend, it’s a public event.
You could probably even google Tino Rangitiratanga and get a bunch of references now.
Then there’s the multitude of website run by maaori journalists, iwi and so on, which frequently cover these issues as FAQ’s on their front page. In English, as well as te reo.
My understanding of it is a pakeha perspective, which has grown slowly over the two decades since I did papers in maaori language and culture; so I would prefer that you looked to resources produced by maaori that elucidate their position. I am, however, of the opinion that more should be taught in our school curriculum about the importance of the basic meaning of the Treaty.
http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/tiriti
for an understanding of the Green perspective on treaty issues.
Ranginui Walker, Dr Eddie Durie, Dr Pita Sharples, Moana Jackson are all authors of books on indigenous rights issues.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Second thoughts …
The “r” word is just busting to get out!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/tiriti mentions tino rangatiratanga, without saying what it means or implies.
Wikipedia says there are two meanings, and explains the historical situation. Which doesn’t help me at all.
Some googling dug up http://www.arena.org.nz/The%20Treaty%20of%20Waitangi.htm and http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/Maori_tino.htm which explains in great length how our current situation came to be, but *nothing* about the kind of *future* proponents of tr are aiming for.
I’m interested in what the concrete aims of the tr movement (is it a movement? do they have a web site? why not?) are, not so much the meaning of the word and the confusing way the word was used in the two versions of the treaty *in the past*
So for example:
A maori state, ruled by a collection of chiefs? yes or no?
Laws for maori that do not apply to everyone else?
Hospitals paid for and used by maori only?
Same for schools, universities?
Maori-only roads?
A maori passport?
Maori money?
The rubber must meet the road at some point, and it’s gotta be something firmer than a maori flag (even agreeing on that seems problematic!)
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Sounds like apartheid to me.
Has Minto been informed?
Like or Dislike:
4 
13 (-9)
Well, yeah it does. But the idea that a group of people would voluntarily choose apartheid is so preposterous that there *must* be something else to it. Surely?
I’ve posted a pithy question to the tino rangatiratanga email list, let’s see what comes back….
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Indigenous rights? What indigenous rights? Tell me, how does being here first grant someone more rights than another? The treaty sure as hell does not.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
“Ranginui Walker, Dr Eddie Durie, Dr Pita Sharples, Moana Jackson”
Lol!…do you really expect that lot to look at the issue objectively.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
@Valis 3:56 PM
Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…ednecks!
There you go. It made it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
To consider the link betwen indigenous rights and the Treaty one would have to look at the way the British Empire was reconsidering its imperial/colonial practices at the time of the Treaty.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
There you go!
Game, set and match to those of us who believe in one rule for all.
Toad has tossed in the towel, as soon as anybody from the left uses the red neck label you know you have won.
The tactic is straight from the left wing bible, rules for radicals.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
We’re not the people proposing separate systems based on skin colour….
Those who do are certainly racists, unless there is a new meaning of the term, effectively meaning “not at all racist, so long as the left approves”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
7 (-6)
Don’t be so bloody stupid BluePeter.
Maoris cannot be racist.
Even when they call us all rapists and MOFOS they are not being racist.
I thought you would have worked that out by now.
Like or Dislike:
3 
9 (-6)
Durie?
LOL!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
@big bro 4:36 PM
Great coming from you who used the respective terms “National Socialist Party” and “Apartheid Party” in reference to the National Party and the Maori Party earlier in the thread.
What comes around goes around (and I’m not just talking about chlamydia).
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
If Hone is not racist because he has some white ancestry, does that mean I can not be considered racist because I have a fair amount of Maori ancestry? This could be fun!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Sorry. What else can you expect from this colonizing white motherf**ker?
Cheeky whiteys…..
Like or Dislike:
2 
8 (-6)
Can I not be racist if I identify as Maori? Or do I need some blood parts not to be racist? If you have many blood parts, but not all, does that mean you’re only a bit racist?
Like or Dislike:
2 
9 (-7)
Oh Look…Toad is now clutching at straws.
Chin up Toad, take your beating like a man, it will soon be beer o’clock, you can then sit down and watch the hit and giggle between the Black Craps and the Deshi’s.
Let’s hope that Ashraful gets going tonight, he is worth the price of admission on his own.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
The position of the other right wing party ACT on the F and S Act being re-visited and the coming “subsidiarity” (separating out from central provision to Maori provider) policy for whanau ora should provike some comment. In relation to not being socialist and “hating” socialism and supporting both these moves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Treaty 170 years old tomorrow.
Excellent
We have 29 years to
1 settle historic claims
2 slam shut the door to the grievance industry
3 draw up a new constitution. Clause #1 All born New Zealanders shall be deemed Tangata Whenua.
4 ensure it has only one version,(bad mistake to have different ones, wasn’t it)
5 ensure it has a 100 year sunset clause.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
The ‘Queens Chain’ has never been a reality in this country. Arguments based on the preservation of this chain are ultimately null in value.
Land which is owned by a body is not made public simply because individuals may desire to use the land as a recreational area. The foreshore is land just as any other in this country and its ownership ought be respected to the same degree as any other ownership of land. If the public desires the use of the land then the public may offer to purchase the land, but to confiscate land simply because it is desired is incongrugent with fair title.
Land, as with any other resource, is owned by those that choose to exert the force necessary to hold it. When the Europeans arrived other groups had established ownership over land. The empire chose to recognise those others as a legitimate state and they declared it as such under the Maori. They recognised the legitimacy of their claim to the land. With the signing of Ti Tiriti the signatory iwi’ entered a contractual relationship with the settlers and the land was reaffirmed as theirs. The foreshore was part of this land. Confiscation of the foreshore was not condoned under Ti Tiriti or legal under the settler law that violated the treaty.
The foreshore does belong, legitimately, to the Maori iwi’ whom did sign the treaty. To those whom did not, they have no legitimate claim to any land at all; the force of the state and the iwi’ removed that claim.
~
Almost every state in the world retains title over its land. Almost every state grants only feudal title. Perhaps the best approach is to recognise that land in NZ is feudally held and that instead of the state holding the allodial title, the iwi do. This title being trusted in the conjoint state.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Whereas, Sapient, I would say the foreshore has never belonged to anyone, it does not belong to anyone today and it never will. You can’t own the un-ownable.
We humans are visitors, we must leave twice a day, with the rising tide.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Waitangi is the exact opposite of the US Independence day holiday.
In the US they celebrate their independence from the English crown and in New Zealand we celebrate the English crown assuming sovereignty over New Zealand. We need to call Waitangi day for what it is:
“New Zealands Un-Independence Day”
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
In the US they had the good sense to obliterate the natives so their celebrations could be enjoyed without pesky reminders of the blood bath that preceeded them.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Samiam,
It goes without saying that one can not own the unownable. However, I fail to see how the foreshore is any less ownable than any other part of New Zealand.
If you can exert force to protect your claim then you can own. One can easily exert force over others. One can easily take land from others by scaring them away. If the foreshore were unownable then the nation itself would have no claim over it. All titles within New Zealand are, after all, granted because the state is able to exert sufficient force -actual and diplomatic- to prevent the land being taken by others.
Anything can be owned so long as its use by others can be excluded.
~
Valis,
Obviously not to a sufficient extent. All those settlements! All that money and land given to those without any legitimate claim; the conquered!
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
Sapient says:
“When the Europeans arrived other groups had established ownership over land. The empire chose to recognise those others as a legitimate state and they declared it as such under the Maori. They recognised the legitimacy of their claim to the land. With the signing of Ti Tiriti the signatory iwi’ entered a contractual relationship with the settlers and the land was reaffirmed as theirs. The foreshore was part of this land. Confiscation of the foreshore was not condoned under Ti Tiriti or legal under the settler law that violated the treaty.”
You make it sound as though you see no problem with iwi owning the foreshore and sea bed however for ordinary New Zealanders we will become tourists in our own (their) country.
Valis says:
“In the US they had the good sense to obliterate the natives so their celebrations could be enjoyed without pesky reminders of the blood bath that preceeded them.”
perhaps our two version treaty is not such a bad thing after all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
“The Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board says the public has nothing to fear from its 1992 agreement with the Crown over Lake Taupo and its tributaries.”
who fears who?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Dick heads!
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Is that The Tuwharetoa that refused to sign the treaty, but now claims under said treaty?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
JH,
I see many problems with it. I see problems with anyone owning the foreshore, but to deny ownership to some when others are granted ownership is bigotry. To deny ownership where there is historic precedent just because we want to use it recreationally is to thieve title and to violate some of our most fundamental laws. I would rather that it reside in the ownership of the state, but for it to do so it should be purchased from those with title; and historically the treaty signatories have title.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
That’s because he understands what “owning” means in this context.
however for ordinary New Zealanders we will become tourists in our own (their) country.
Whereas you obviously don’t.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1002/S00076.htm
John Key’s waitangi speech
http://business.scoop.co.nz/2010/02/05/smellie-sniffs-the-breeze-foreshore-seabed-agh/
Opinion from Patrick Smellie
Samiam,
you’re getting Ngati Tuwharetoa (Taupo) confused with Ngai Tuuhoe (Urewera). Slightly to the north-east, and a long way apart politically.
Tuuhoe didn’t sign the Treaty, Tuwharetoa did.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I thought neither did?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)