So it’s a Treaty issue then?

It is clearly covered as a Treaty right in Article Two which acknowledges that Iwi and Hapu have “exclusive and undisturbed possession” of lands etc.

However the Treaty merely reaffirmed a right and authority which Maori had exercised for centuries before 1840.

* Why has the debate become so prominent only recently?

The Court of Appeal decided on June 26 that the eight Iwi in Marlborough could have their claim to their stretch of foreshore and seabed heard in the Maori Land Court.

* Was the case decided as a Treaty issue?

No. The Court considered the matter as a common law issue because English and colonial law had long ago decided that “aboriginal” or “customary rights and title” continued after the Crown had established a colony.

The Court decided that it was the job of the Maori Land Court to define what they were.

* Are these common law “customary rights and title” the same as those claimed by Iwi before 1840?

No. There are similarities but the major difference is that the extent and nature of the common law version is actually defined by the Crown which has also assumed a right to extinguish or remove them.

What may be called the tipuna or Maori law version was defined by Maori – thus for example only Nga Puhi could define their rights and title and certainly no other Iwi had any right to extinguish them.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0307/S00029.htm

“[DPF: I have said multiple times that the correct position was articulated by Ngai Tahu, the BRT and ACT – that this is an issue of property rights and should have been appealed or negotiated, hence both Labour and National were wrong.”

So National was doubly wrong in confiscating and not even being willing to negotiate?

“He even tries to argue that being able to go to court to get an advisory opinion about what you would have got, is the same as being able to actually go to court and get what the law entitled you to.”

No I don’t. I just refer to your comment that people were denied the ability to go to Court and note that it is wrong and invite you to retract it.

[DPF: Mickey does not think the right to go to court is a right. ]

You have said this a couple of times and I always respond by quoting section 33 of the FSA. It states:

” High Court may find that a group held territorial customary rights

The High Court may, on the application of a group, or on the application of a person authorised by the Court to represent the group, make a finding that the group (or any members of that group) would, but for the vesting of the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown by section 13(1), have held territorial customary rights to a particular area of the public foreshore and seabed at common law.”

So the legislation preserved the roght to go to a court.

Care to retract?

What really perplexes me is the line you are running. It is like dog whistle for liberals to persuade them to support National.

You are implying that the FSA is bad because it took away Maori rights. Fair enough. They you suggest that National are now going to deal with the issue properly. But National’s clear position is that the rights should have been taken away, trampled on, set fire to, buried and then there should have been a communal dance on the grave.

How about you come clean on this DPF. Come out and say that the FSA was wrong AND the National position on the issue was worse.

I will not hold my breath waiting, I am sure that I would be asphyxiated.

[DPF: I have said multiple times that the correct position was articulated by Ngai Tahu, the BRT and ACT - that this is an issue of property rights and should have been appealed or negotiated, hence both Labour and National were wrong.

I am amused that Mickey continues to defend the FSA, even after Labour has abandoned it. He even tries to argue that being able to go to court to get an advisory opinion about what you would have got, is the same as being able to actually go to court and get what the law entitled you to.

The idiocy of Mickey's argument is shown by this analogy. It is like saying you can still go to a bank and find otu what your hypothetical bank balance would be, if the Government had not passed a law confiscating your bank account]

1. National are racist.
2. National were getting traction with an anti-iwi position.
3. Labour had to shut the issue down and therefore had to adopt a racist piece of legislation.

This means that they are admitting they didn’t believe that the legislation was the right thing to do, but preserving power by passing racist legislation was a better alternative to allowing genuine “racists” gain power.

It is a frank admission by Labour that for them power is way more important than principle or integrity. They should never be allowed near power again! The nakedness of their current position is astounding when you think about it. It is disgraceful.

I’d love to know what it meant.

xxx

S

Sonic you wouldn’t have a snowball’s show in hell of passing Logic 1. You burble about logic all the time, but then extend arguments and attack your own extensions.

Sort of logic self-mutilation on your part.

“Jack London was a socialist 100 years ago, and he was a racist. Therefore all socialists are racists.”

(set paper for kindergarden logic exam, best suited to the under 3′s.)

Anyone who owns a beach in fee simple can deny access, whether Māori or non-Māori.

You’ve missed the point; if a non-Maori property owner tried to deny access, they wouldn’t trigger a “beaches for everyone” / “iwi/kiwi” campaign from National.

I think Pakeha property owners would be in deep trouble if they tried to restrict access on a race basis. Imagine the furore, if a sign went up, in say South Canterbury, saying “this beach belongs to South Canterbury Pakeha, and only they can access this beach without permission.” Or even if ownership was vested in South Canterbury Pakeha and them alone, though all races were allowed access to the beach.

If you are talking about rich Aucklanders on beach fronts, I don’t think they would dare restrict access through their property to a beach on racial grounds. It would be illegal.

Meanwhile, no-one is talking about the extended economic zone seabed. Do Maori claims extend beyond the low-water line?

And on Micky Savage’s 3.52 post on Labour and racism… It’s bullshit to hold up Labour and socialists as nice, upright anti-racists.

Wasn’t it Australian Labor Cabinet Minister Arthur Calwell, who, opposing non-white immigration, infamously said in the Federal Parliament in 1947: “Two Wongs don’t make a white.”

Novelist Jack London was an early socialist. If you want to read fiery racist views, read London. Later the Marxists spouted equality for all humans, but in racism they rivalled the Nazis. Ask the Chechens, the Crimean Tatars, and the Volga Germans (living in Russia for two or three centuries) about the mass deportations and deaths. What happened to the Germans of East Prussia and the women of Berlin at the hands of the Russian Marxist soldiers in 1945, is an appalling tale of horror, which seems little known despite the high interest in World War 2. It was racism.

http://liberation.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451d75d69e2010535d8f916970b-800wi

Just so that no-one gets the wrong idea or anything, about you know, stuff and things.

http://decentpedia.blogspot.com/2007/08/decent-tardis.html, if I may use the model to create the “David Farrar Tardis”

“What the hell do you mean, we always supported Maori rights I seem to remember some bullshit about families being thrown of beaches and decent kiwis being forced into paying grasping Maori for catching a fish?”

“Just a moment…” (David dashes off – Loud, rhythmic groaning sound of rip in space/time continuum, Returns)

“Now, what were you saying?”

David “I was saying, whatever our faults, we’ve always been open about pushing for Maori title to the foreshore as a matter of property rights”

How is it “equal” to say that Pakeha property owners can restrict public access to beaches but Maori property owners can’t?

It’s not, but then that’s not the case. Anyone who owns a beach in fee simple can deny access, whether Māori or non-Māori.

[DPF: Fuck people are so stupid. I have never said National did not campaign on Beaches For All. I have said that Helen Clark decided to legislate within 24 hours and this all happened months before Brash became Leader. Why is being confronted with the truth so hard for people]

ummm, wasn’t that “+ no separatist rights for maori” – seems mickey Rascism is steeped in your vision

This whole debate is fascinating and good intellectual exercise. I have to really stretch my brain to get my head around the gymnastics some are going through.

The announcement 4 days after the court of appeal decision was that the public’s right to access the beach would be preserved by legislation. None of the other details were announced or had been considered. There was then a consultation process. Eventually Labour came up with the legislation which was an attempt to preserve public access to the beach (successful) and to preserve an ability for Maori to have any existing right recognised although title would not be available (arguably not successful).

National’s position all the way through was that Maori had no rights. It never wavered from this.

Now we have this endless turning on a pin trying to rewrite history to suggest that Labour MPs were the rascists and the nats were the liberals.

To put it simply,

Labour position:

Preserve public access to beaches + establish process for recognition of maori rights

National position:

Preserve public access to beaches + no rights for maori

Of course the National position was rascist. Rascism is steeped in its history. This was just one example of it,

[DPF: Mickey does not think the right to go to court is a right. ]

They seem to forget that when Clark gave herself pay rises almost double the average wage this guy took a paycut in the order of hundreds of thousands, because he wanted to make a difference for ALL New Zealanders.

F@#k Roughan and all the leftist faux media.

Which trade union represents journalists? That’s right, the EPMU

Which trade union’s general secreatry is also the president of the Labour Party? That’s right, the EPMU.

Is it REALLY surprising that so many NZ journalists are so pro-Labour?