I thought neither did?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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)

Like or Dislike: 3  0 (+3)

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)

Is that The Tuwharetoa that refused to sign the treaty, but now claims under said treaty?

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)

Dick heads!

Like or Dislike: 1  2 (-1)

“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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

Don’t be so bloody stupid BluePeter.

Sorry. What else can you expect from this colonizing white motherf**ker?

Cheeky whiteys…..

Like or Dislike: 2  8 (-6)

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)

@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)