Posts by Worik Stanton
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
No. The "white people" thing was in response to a comment above, which I quoted. As you say, there were nutters fanning the flames on both sides.
Actually I said more. I said the state was one of the nutters.
No, not at all. Not even a little bit. The Ngati Apa decision did not say that the foreshore had always belonged to Maori. It said that hapu had the right to explore their customary rights through the court. It indicated that the test for something approaching freehold would be high.
But other people, who were in a good position to know, said that the test could be met for a lot of the shore line.
You have to understand that aboriginal rights to the fore shore and the sea bed are not extinguished by the land abutting it being alienated.
This is ancient law that, I think, dates back at least to the Norman conquest.
Worik, I'm not sure if you understand the issue.
I understand very well. I spent a lot of time huiing and listening to both sides during the passage of the Act.
One side was a bunch of rouges. The other was a mixed bag of some very on to it, some not. I know which side moved me. It was not the rouges.
If it was my family's land and had been in consistent use by my family since 1840, I'd be bloody delighted to have the opportunity to test my rights regarding that in court.
That is what was taken! You would have no rights and you could not "test" them, you would have to apply for them. Hardly a right! If your land was customary land that had never been placed in torrens title and got wet when the tide came in - poof! you lost it. No court. Just the chance to apply to the state for some rights that fall far far short of what common law would supply.
The right to engage in customary rights, prescribed by the state. No right to any activity, you have to ask, cap in hand, like Ngāti Porou did. And because Ngāti Porou are very good at negotiating with the state, they got a lot. But it is the largess of the government, not an entitlement recognised in court.
Can you not see the difference? Can you not see how demeaning it is?
On one hand some people can go to court to assert their rights (like you can if I want to build a road in your back yard), on the other hand some people have to apply for their what is no longer a right because it was taken away.
-
The FSA is restricted to the area between mean high spring tide and the Territorial limit. It also covers riverbeds and some lake-beds. Hardly valuable parcels of land. Unless they are of cultural significance.
Wrong.
Very very valuable *industrial* land. Mining, fish farming....
-
It's the "all your foreshore are belong to us" rhetoric that helped get
That was the rhetoric that got maori backs up Russel.
There were nutters on both sides, but it was the state saying "all your foreshore are belong to us". When the state takes on the role of a nutter we should all be worried.
Seriously. Can you not see anything wrong with arbitrarilly declaring the ownership of a huge amount of land, ignoring 900 years of common law?
And look at what you said about "get white folks' backs up, including mine". Do you not see that you are buying into a racist argument?
Dosen't that make you feel even a little uncomfortable?
You say you would prefer it to go through the courts. Think for a moment: What if it were your families land? How strong would your preference be then?
Note also the immediate lease of prospecting rights to the sea bed off the west coast of the North Island. That should give you a clue to the real reason the rights were extinguished...
-
That is, the people who worried most about environmental toxins were the people most likely to get sick from the spray:
It is worth asking why people get worried about environmental toxins?
Worik ST
-
And Jackson didn't ask the question that might have made this angry man squirm: the daughter he mentioned more than once is about the age now that Louise Nicholas was when these men, in their position of responsibility, began to use her: would he be so blithe and forgiving if she had been so used?
Clint Rickards should have leave his family out of it. But so should you, RB. Clint's children have no choice about who their father is so back off of them please.
Worik
-
If insider outsider is still reading...
There's always going to be inconvenience to innocents when the AOS get called out - most don't whine about it and ask for counselling.
One thing that is coming out (John Cambell who has the same data that the DomPost published made this point) is that we are talking about a very small group of people.
I am not condemning the police, but they do have a prima facie case to answer regarding taking a whole community hostage for a day, detaining and photographing people at gun point, assault and unlawful detention.
I stress that I am not condemning them, just pointing out that on the face of it they have been going gung-ho over the top with guns and power. And I hope that in a country like ours they will be held to account if they have abused their power and status.
most don't whine about it and ask for counselling
Is there any need to be quite so patronising about these people? Have you ever experienced an armed police dawn raid on your home? Have you had to watch your children terrorised by armed masked men? I have experienced elements of that, never the whole shebang, and that was quite enough.
Perhaps the behaviour of the police was justified. But I expect them to be held to a high standard - they have a high status and a lot of power.
And on the information released we have more reason to condemn the police than the activist community.
And lastly. Anybody who has spent any time around the activist community has heard this sort "kill a politician" B.S. talk. It would be good to put it in context. But who ever leaked this, and whoever decided what to publish in the DomPost have denied us any context. I wonder why?
I will be interested to see if the arms charges turn up any bombs or napalm. I hope not.
peace
Worik -
A reasonable reaction to people arming, training and talking seriously about killing innocent people?
Do you really think that a reasonable reaction to a small group of people mouthing off is to blockade a whole town?
W
-
I must hasten to add that I do not contend that possible brutish and illegal behaviour by some police, if proved, should be used to besmirch the reputations of all police.
W
-
Finn said...
"So let's suspend our condemnation..."
vs.
"But we do have one fact. The police were willing to blockade a whole town, and terrorise the inhabitants indiscriminately, based on the words and actions of a few."
Do you plan on actually doing what you're suggesting?
That was not a condemnation I made but a description of a fact. And Finn did not pay close enough attention to a following paragraph where I suggested waiting to see the results of Peter Williams' investigations/efforts.
I thought long and hard before I used the verb "terrorise". But what else would you call a pre-dawn raid by fully armed, armoured and masked people? I regret using that term now, as it is pejorative. No matter how accurate.
Still. It will be interesting to see if all of Peter Williams comments and accusations make it into court and we see some police heads on the block (if half of his accusations hold up) or not (if none do).
W
-
" When I was a boy I said things that I would be very very ashamed to have quoted back to me now. Angry young people say stupid stupid things."
Without picking on this particularly, this seems to be a common refrain.
Let's just re-iterate here that this is not just somebody saying angry things. This is a few people regularly saying angry things with others of a like-mind, and then training in military maneouvres with live rounds and Molotov cocktails.
So it is a bunch of angry young things, and they have a club....
I am not saying there is nothing to worry about in the actions of armed people in the Uraweras. But we have very few facts. And what we do have could easily have been selected to make us come to the (in)correct conclusion. So let's suspend our condemnation, take a chill pill and be watchful.
But we do have one fact. The police were willing to blockade a whole town, and terrorise the inhabitants indiscriminately, based on the words and actions of a few.
Way to go to keep the peace.
Taking my own advice (a chill pill) I am calmly keen to see what comes of Peter Williams' work on this issue!
W