Hone v Rodney

October 20th, 2010 at 8:39 am by David Farrar

Claire Trevett at the Herald reports:

Asked about the issue on his way into Parliament yesterday, Mr Harawira refused to answer any questions asked in English and spoke only in te reo before walking away.

He earlier told Radio Waatea that if the Government agreed to Act’s request then the should walk away from the coalition.

“I don’t see why we should sit back and let a little fat redneck like put in an amendment at the last minute.”

Two ironies here.

The first is that Rodney is fitter than Hone I would say, and would probably kick his arse in a swimming race.

The second is that I am pretty sure that Rodney doesn’t care what the skin colour is of any girls who want to date his son. So Hone calling someone else a redneck is ironic.

But as Michael Laws had to apologise for calling the GG fat, will Hone be made to apologise for his comments?

If the Maori Party does pull support, it could mean the current 2004 act would stay in place. Mr Key has previously said he would not make any changes if there was not a reasonable level of consensus and the Labour Party has not yet decided whether to support it further.

Would be rather embarrassing for the Maori Party if the status quo ends up remaining.

Mr Harawira has urged Maori to make submissions opposing the bill, saying it stops short of ownership for Maori and the threshold for customary title is too high, meaning most hapu would get nothing.

Most hapu will not get customary title indeed – because that is what the Court of Appeal found. The test was for uninterrupted exclusive use. The Court of Appeal never said the foreshore belongs to all Maori.

Tags: , , ,

69 Responses to “Hone v Rodney”

  1. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,066 comments) says:

    But as Michael Laws had to apologise for calling the GG fat, will Hone be made to apologise for his comments?

    Made to apologise by whom? Harawira doesn’t work for a commercial company.

    [DPF: I was being rhetorical. My point was more than as unacceptable and ugly as it was to call the GG fat, likewise Hone's attack on Rodney should be condemned as equally ugly]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Grendel (972 comments) says:

    yeah i bet Joris de Bres is just rushing out to make sure Hone apologises. oh wait Hone is not white, so nothing needs to be done, he was probably just stating his opinion which has to be respected. JDB can go back to waiting for a white person to state thier opinion and then demand action.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. jackp (668 comments) says:

    IF the “no charge” clause goes in, then Maori Party will walk away. Doesn’t that say it all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Inventory2 (10,177 comments) says:

    @ Danyl; that Hone doesn’t work for a commercial company makes his comments even worse. Hone is paid out of your taxes and mine, which makes him accountable to all of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. 3-coil (1,204 comments) says:

    Danyl (8:46am) – how about Hone is made to apologise by the so-called “leaders” of his race based Maori Party?

    Remember the citizens of New Zealand pay his salary in our House of Representatives – why is this race-baiting outburst from Harawira acceptable? It wouldn’t be acceptable in a kindergarten – do they have higher standards of behaviour there than our MPs?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. James Butler (76 comments) says:

    Hone is paid out of your taxes and mine, which makes him accountable to all of us.

    Surely he’s accountable to his constituents?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. the bird is the word (69 comments) says:

    @ Inventory2. The problem is that he isn’t “accountable” to all of us – if he was he’d be gone. But he is only accountable to his Maori electorate. He has said himself he only caters for the interests of Maori. He doesn’t care about the interests of wider NZ. Definitely the kind of MP I want in Parliament…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    Meanwhile, from Joris De Bres…..

    ” ”

    So There!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Murray (8,842 comments) says:

    Sack the fat brown-neck racist POS.

    Kiwis are sick of his shit and the double standard that protects this brown version of a KKK grand dragon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pete George (23,327 comments) says:

    ut he is only accountable to his Maori electorate. He has said himself he only caters for the interests of Maori. He doesn’t care about the interests of wider NZ. Definitely the kind of MP I want in Parliament…

    I tend to disagree with Harawira a bit but I agree with this – he is there to represent his constituency, as all MPs should be doing.

    Laws and Henry had to answer to their audience, and to those who pay them, their employers and advertisers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Murray (8,842 comments) says:

    And he represents it by being a racist asshole. How about Key starts representing his constituency by refusing to deal with anyone who isn’t white? That good for you Pete?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. 3-coil (1,204 comments) says:

    Pete (9:20am) – “I tend to disagree with Harawira a bit but I agree with this – he is there to represent his constituency, as all MPs should be doing”

    So Rodney is only accountable to his constituency too? If so, why is Harawira sticking his fat brown nose in?

    You see, that is the problem with double standards – they eventually end up undermining your own stance, and biting you on the bum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. the bird is the word (69 comments) says:

    @Pete.

    True. He represents his constituency as he should be doing. However the problem – what is his constituency? Just Maori. General electorate MPs have to cater for the interests of all those within their electorate – white, brown, yellow … Whereas Hone doesn’t!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Murray (8,842 comments) says:

    Try checking the oath he took to be an MP, theres no mention of selective representation. By excluding people based on their race he is most certainly violating that oath and the bill of rights act. No white MP would last 10 seconds if they tried that and everyone knows it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Jimbob (641 comments) says:

    What you may be missing here is that Hone is a clone of most Maori in NZ. Most of them think like Hone does and have a chip on their shoulder. I have employed them and worked with them, you can not miss it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Hopefully Hone will continue only speaking in te reo, as that may mean we hear less of him in future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Murray (8,842 comments) says:

    I believe you are entirely wrong Jimbo, I think most Maori are just ordinary people, like me for example since I’m a legal Maori as well.

    Hawariwa represents a radical victim fringe who have been rasied on hate and ignorance with a sense of entitelment and victimhood that will never be changed. He seeks the domination of one race over all others, nothing less.

    Call me a wild omtimist but I don’t see that as being the beliefs of most people in this country regardless of their skin colour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pete George (23,327 comments) says:

    I see what you mean birdword, but that could be said of many MPs and electorates, for example the Otago constituency is very different to all the varied constituencies in Auckland.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Brian Smaller (4,028 comments) says:

    Laws and Henry had to answer to their audience, and to those who pay them, their employers and advertisers.

    Wrong. If they only had to answer to their audiences Henry would still be getting up at 0400 and Laws would be happily calling the GG a fatty. They had to answer to the holier-than-thou NZ media and who took offence on behalf of ‘their’ audience and turned nothing into a big story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Murray (8,842 comments) says:

    How many other MP’s represent their constituencies by refusing to deal with people of another race Pete? how many of them refuse to answer questions asked in English? How many of them say they would not let their children bring home a person of another race Pete?

    Stop making excuses for blatant racism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. starboard (2,492 comments) says:

    ..john harawira…whats it like having a brain the size of a pea?..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Murray (8,842 comments) says:

    Good shot Brian.

    The claim was being made that Henry was a representative because he was in government pay, now they flip flop and claim he only had to answer to his audience. There’s no lengths they will not go to to excuse real racists if they have brown skin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. k.jones (210 comments) says:

    Ructions like this will make PM John Key very nervous.

    It is good news for Phil Goff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pete George (23,327 comments) says:

    I’m not trying to make excuses for what he says, I disagree with Harawira’s racism as much as I disagree with some of the racist views posted here. But like it or not, his constituency is a single race. Not all those on his electorate roll will agree with how he does some things and some things he says but he does seem to have popular support. That’s a part of our imperfect democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. the bird is the word (69 comments) says:

    @ Pete “that could be said of many MPs and electorates, for example the Otago constituency is very different to all the varied constituencies in Auckland”

    But Pete, the Otago MPs and Auckland MPs still have to cater for all the people in their electorate. There are say less Maoris and Asians in Otago as opposed to Auckland but the MP still has to cater for all of them (irrespective of the % of ethnicity in each).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    On the subject of obnoxious comments by MPs, did Tau Henare ever apologise for the epithets he used to describe Rodney Hide?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pete George (23,327 comments) says:

    Harawira still has to cater for a range in his electorate, it may cover one (mixed) race but it covers a wide area including rural, towns, cities, multiple tribes etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. the bird is the word (69 comments) says:

    @ Pete “like it or not, his constituency is a single race.”

    You’ve found the root of the problem. At the end of the day, in order for all MPs to be accountable to all NZers, the separate electorates need to be abolished

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Murray (8,842 comments) says:

    Bullshit Pete, there is no “single race” in this country. Many, if not everyoen who voted for him has a foot in more than one race camp. In mixed families does he represent the Maori mother and not represent the white father?

    Get the fence pole out of you ass. this guy has no business being in parliament and he violates our bill of rights act and the much vaunted principles of the treaty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. the bird is the word (69 comments) says:

    @ Pete “Harawira still has to cater for a range in his electorate, it may cover one (mixed) race but it covers a wide area including rural, towns, cities, multiple tribes etc.”

    Many General electorate MPs have to cover “rural, towns and cities” – but they don’t get to ‘choose’ which constituents they will represent – they represent all those within their geographical boundaries

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. mattyroo (1,006 comments) says:

    Jimbob said:

    What you may be missing here is that Hone is a clone of most Maori in NZ. Most of them think like Hone does and have a chip on their shoulder. I have employed them and worked with them, you can not miss it.

    That is it exactly Jimbob, they seem to be stuck in this angry mindset that they somehow believe advances their cause.

    I’m in Oz on a project at the moment and as usual there are a number of maori’s here on the project, there is also one outcast brown motherfucker, the one that still has the chip on the shoulder. It has always amazed me how the maori’s that come to Oz seem to lose that chip – I guess they quickly realise, that with the tough Ozzie attitude, if they’re not sharp about their work and adjust their attitude accordingly they will be out on their ass quick smart.

    It’s a pity that attitude wasn’t more prevalent in NZ, unfortunately however, we have too many handwringers justifying the existence of these massive chips on the shoulders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. wreck1080 (3,807 comments) says:

    dunno if rodney is a good swimmer. Didn’t he need rescuing in the last couple of harbour swims?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Gwilly (156 comments) says:

    I suspect this has been jointly masterminded by Hide & Key, and if so, this is brillant and quite cunning!

    This issue plays into ACT’s primary support base perfectly, and Key knows Nats need ACT’s 5 seats as an insurance policy come 2011, particularly as they can’t rely on Maori party and neither do they want to rely on the unreliable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Chris2 (768 comments) says:

    I can’t help think that because ACT wants to include specific wording in the legislation prohibiting charging private users for access to a beach, that all along some maori groups were intending to charge. Why else would they become so vocal about the amendment?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    So…the National party were clear there was no ability to charge for beaches. And Hone was happy with the bill. Rodney puts in a clause that makes explicit what National said was the case all along, and Hone is unhappy. What does that tell you about the accuracy or otherwise of National’s original statements? Rodney has done us all a big favour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    “What you may be missing here is that Hone is a clone of most Maori in NZ. Most of them think like Hone does and have a chip on their shoulder. I have employed them and worked with them, you can not miss it.”

    Fortunately, I do not think your racist view is supported by a majority or whites anymore than the majority of Maori support Hone’s racist view.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Gwilly (156 comments) says:

    The Maori Party reaction says a lot about their real intentions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. mattyroo (1,006 comments) says:

    PaulL – It is not Rodney we should all be thanking, but one Mr. David Garrett.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Inventory2 (10,177 comments) says:

    Interesting comment from Michael Laws on RadioLive this morning

    Fat is the new nigger

    Laws may be very hard to like, but he’s certainly good for a quote!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. OTGO (525 comments) says:

    ACT set a trap. Hone fell in. Nice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. John Gibson (295 comments) says:

    RipvanWinkle – “Hone is entitled to say what he likes…as long as he resigns from Parliament …. otherwise all us fat red necks deserve an apology. Since Hone is a serial offender he should be sacked.”

    The difference between Hone and ( Laws and Henry) is that he is an elected representative and therefore is held to account in a very different way. All us pakeha red necks just need to suck it up and move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. grumpyoldhori (2,416 comments) says:

    Hone is right in the facts,it seems Rodney wants to make it that pakeha who bought foreshore off the iwi then rushed down and put it into fee simple will still have the right to charge all for entry to their foreshore.

    Funny how raving racist reich wingers state that all the foreshore was surrendered to the crown with the signing of the treaty.
    Yet, iwi were selling foreshore to pakeha after that, should those pakeha lose their foreshore to the crown ? or should special rules apply to the pakeha ?

    Murray, registered with an iwi are you ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    “it seems Rodney wants to make it that pakeha who bought foreshore off the iwi then rushed down and put it into fee simple will still have the right to charge all for entry to their foreshore.”

    Rodney and ACT simply want to make the law do what National and the Maori Party say it will do. If the provision that was in the 2004 ACT is not in the propsoed legislation a court would almost certainly support Maori charging.

    Something that Hone does not understand is that white racist do more harm to Maori than white people where as brown racist like Hone do more harm than good to Maori. His racist rants do little harm to white people but can making it harder for Maori regardless of their political views to find employment and accommodation.

    As you will find on this blog some whites believe the majority of Maori have a big chip on their shoulders. I do not share that view but the more Hone and his ilk make those racist comments the more white people will think the majority of Maori are racist like Hone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    The foreshore legislation, both the current and Nationals proposed are simply theft of Maori land.

    If they weren’t there’d be no need for them.

    The only thing they do, and the sole reason they were created was to remove the threat of Maori control of foreshore because a court pointed out Maori might still own stretches of it, as they did when their property rights were guaranteed on signing the treaty.

    This is simple and straight forward. Denying this is denying the obvious and the truth.

    A legitimate way to remove the fear of public access to the foreshore would be to legislate against anyone denying or charging access (with special consideration given to acquiring permission to do so, such as for ports and marinas).

    But the legislation in question singles out Maori ownership for special denial of rights. This is wrong. It is immoral, it is untenable and will not resolve the issue but merely push it back a little in a passing political environment.

    Law that does not treat everyone (in this specific case every owner of property) the same is illegitimate and does not resolve conflicts.

    Those who pretend to concepts of equality, equal treatment of people and/or libetarian ideals of respect for personal freedoms and property have no choice, if they wish to be consistent and not hypocritical but to support Maori in seeking complete control of their property OR demand the government deny everyone’s property rights in equal measure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. 3-coil (1,204 comments) says:

    Chuck (12:22pm) – I hope you are right. The real test will be the number of Maori who speak up denouncing their elected representative MP Hone – that they disagree with his racist rantings.

    I’m still waiting, but all we have so far is pretty much a deafening silence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    I hope you are right. The real test will be the number of Maori who speak up denouncing their elected representative MP Hone – that they disagree with his racist rantings.

    3-coil, why should they? I presume you mean publicly. Are you going to use your real name and denounce white racist on this blog?

    I know Maori who denounce Hone privately as a racist.

    I think the Maori Party got less that 3% of the vote. That means less than 20% of Maori voted for the Maori Party. Some of those who did may have a different view than you and I on treaty settlements and the F & S but that does not make them racist.

    There are of course far too many Maori with a chip on their shoulders over real or perceived wrongs of the past but I beleive they are very much in the minority. Some of the wrongs were quite real but more is to be achieved by trying to better ones position in society than complaining about what went on over a hundren years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    In my personal opinion Harawira is simply a reflection of the views held by most/all of the racist Maori Party, along with the majority of Maoridom (as Jimbob said at 9:38 am). And I say that as someone who is part Maori.

    And while I am part Maori I have never voted under the Maori Electoral Option, but always the General Electoral Option, for the simple reason that I believe New Zealanders are one people, and to favour a parliament which has Maori seats is nothing less than racist preferential treatment of Maori over ALL other New Zealanders.

    Hone’s open racism, and the fact that he receives little or no censure for his sins, is yet another example of why we need to get rid of ALL racist brown mofos out of our parliament.

    And where’s that other useless racist prat, De Bres – another one eyed bigot who needs to go and get a real job; one not on the public tit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. grumpyoldhori (2,416 comments) says:

    Fentex you are not as blunt as I am, you will find too many ranting about property rights but when it is pointed out that the foreshore has always been owned by Maori except that sold to pakeha all their beliefs about property rights for ALL go out the window.

    The most amusing part is trying to get those who state the Foreshore is crown land to point out when and where it was sold to the crown.

    Logic and reasoning are not strong points of too many in this little green land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Scumsucker (59 comments) says:

    ‘And where’s that other useless racist prat, De Bres – another one eyed bigot who needs to go and get a real job; one not on the public tit.’

    He can’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird 12:59 pm,

    I know Maori who denounce Hone privately as a racist.

    So, Chuck, if what you claim is true; that most Maori are not racist and in fact disagree with Hone, then where are ALL the Maori voices on this blog condemning him for his open racism?

    I mean to say, if Kiwiblog is the most widely read blog in NZ then, surely, there should be howls of protest from Maori against Harawira flooding this topic. So where are they?

    I have to agree with 3-coil:
    “I’m still waiting, but all we have so far is pretty much a deafening silence.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    ” but when it is pointed out that the foreshore has always been owned by Maori ”

    grumpyoldhori, you are mixing up opinion with fact. You have a right to your opinion but others do not have to accept it as fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    “So, Chuck, if what you claim is true; that most Maori are not racist and in fact disagree with Hone, then where are ALL the Maori voices on this blog condemning him for his open racism?”

    Read my previous post. I have seen some very offensive racist comments by whites on this blog. I have challenged them on a number of occasions. Very few others have. Does the majority’s silence prove most whites are racists?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. grumpyoldhori (2,416 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird first are you a native born kiwi ?

    Let us use a bit of logic here, we have pakeha who bought foreshore from iwi, therefore the iwi must have owned the foreshore for the sale to be legal and yes this was after 1840.

    So dear boy, do those who are a whiter shade of pale whose families bought foreshore from the iwi have legal fee simple over their foreshore ?

    Or, because Maori never owned the foreshore is the pakeha’s ownership of any foreshore null and void ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Chris Diack (723 comments) says:

    Fentex is wrong.

    No one actually knows the strength, quality and geographical extent of Maori interests in the seabed and foreshore. All that is certain is that it was a common law interest that pre dates the Crown.

    That said whatever those interests were they are different in quality and strength to existing Maori and non Maori holders of freehold fee simple estates in the seabed and foreshore which are gained by Crown grant. In truth most of these interests have arisen by act of erosion, others by reclamation. However in a few places Maori did include seabed and foreshore in the deeds of sale. Some of these sales have been the subject of full and final treaty settlements. In those areas of the Country the relevant Iwi are not interested in going to Court; rather they would prefer a direct negotiation with the Crown.

    There is one other aspect of this common law interest that Maori have in the seabed and foreshore; Maori assert that it is inalienable. If that is so logically it must be of lesser quality than freehold fee simple which occupies the apex of our land tenure system.

    The only “equality before the law” way of determining these common law interests in the seabed and foreshore is to legislatively restore the law (and that means those common law interests in the seabed and foreshore immediately prior to the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004) and permit Maori to argue their case in the High Court. The High Court is preferable given its status and jurisdiction. The Maori Land Court lacks the gravitas; is a creature of statute and its remedies are limited to those in the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 – which may provide Maori with a higher quality or strength of ownership than the customary title equal to the customary rights exercised by Maori.

    This would return the issue to one of the examination of property rights and not creation and allocation of property right by politicians.

    The only other issue to whether legislating for free public access to the beaches contradicts this principle. It really depends on whether one views this legislative intervention as a legislative recognition of the New Zealand development of the common law i.e. and law as practiced. It could also have been achieved after consultation with Iwi as most seem willing to concede or gift this right to the nation as a whole.

    National didn’t take this course because they wanted a quick speedy resolution and are uncertain where the judges might go in this issue. Like Labour they don’t trust the Courts to determine property issues or the protacted timeframe of a Court based resolution: that is why all National wants all Court based resolution of seabed and foreshore issues within the legal framework of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill and not the common law per se. The Maori Party don’t support recourse to the Courts because they are uncertain what the judges will do; don’t like the cost and don’t like the implication that they must prove what they consider to be theirs.

    Legislate in haste repent at leisure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. jackp (668 comments) says:

    Murray said:

    “Hawariwa represents a radical victim fringe who have been rasied on hate and ignorance with a sense of entitelment and victimhood that will never be changed. He seeks the domination of one race over all others, nothing less.”

    I agree with you but why is Hone on the Select Committee for the Foreshore and Seabed bill?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “I agree with you but why is Hone on the Select Committee for the Foreshore and Seabed bill?”

    Because Labour and National are both as weak as piss.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. lastmanstanding (1,241 comments) says:

    John H and the Maori Party should be very careful and take what they being offered and gratefully

    Reason the Asian population in NZ is growing and already exceeds the Maori population.

    From what I hear Asian people dont care 2 F…s about the TOW. In time they will tell the Maoris to FOXTROT OSCAR.

    Nothing to do with us they will say. Got a beef? Go sort it out with the lot that you signed the TOW You know The English. Tell them your problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    “Because Labour and National are both as weak as piss.”

    Piss could take offense with the above statement. :-)

    Who would consider including a blatant racist like Harawira in such committee? Not unlike asking a snake to look after chicken eggs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    “Chuck Bird first are you a native born kiwi ?”

    I will answer that when you tell me how that is relevant to the debate.

    I presume you were not born in Israel like most on this blog but that does not stop you from holding valid opinions on issues relating to the Middle East.

    Below is a quote from another forum.

    http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=990

    In 1840 Maori never ‘owned’ land. They were hunter/gatherers and when they had depleted stocks they moved on somewhere else, sometimes fighting and moving other tribes off the part they wanted. It’s all a big ‘have’ and it’s time we were all treated equally.

    Nellie to the best of my knowledge has been born in New Zealand and is of European decent. I hope if that is the case that makes her view valid to you. I am sure this view is held be other people born in New Zealand of European and mixed decent.

    That is the basis for my contention that your opinion is just that and not a fact.

    Before Europeans arrived countries only had ownership rights out to 3 miles. I do not see how Maori elite can claim ownership out to 12 miles let alone 200 miles.

    Any form of settlement has to be a compromise and it will not be perfect. As long as radical Maori like Hone and his ilk have views like we owned the land. Anyone without Maori ancestry is allowed to stay because of our generosity there is going to be resentment from both sides. You see it on this blog. As long as the Maori Party have a view that any settlement is not good enough but we will take all we can get now but will come for a second bit of the cherry in the future the government should not negotiate.

    There plenty of New Zealanders of mixed decent who will see nothing from any settlement. However, they will pay a price for these settlements to Maori elite in a couple of ways. Firstly, they will pay taxes like the rest of us. Secondly, they will suffer from discrimination in employment and accommodation because of racist like Hone and apologist like Joris de Bres.

    Hopefully, the majority of New Zealanders who do not support this present government making a temporary settlement to buy the support of the Maori Party will make their views known, hopefully by supporting ACT, the only party that does not support racism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Rex Widerstrom (5,330 comments) says:

    I don’t think there’s something in the water in NZ that retards male emotional and mental development so it’s permanently stuck at around age 11… because it’s surely then that a person’s appearance ceases to be a) a basis on which we judge them and b) a source of “humour”.

    So I can only assume that for some reason, public life in NZ holds and inexorable attraction to men like Lhaws and Harawira, opposite sides of the same coin, who seem to be sadly lacking in so many ways and driven by a constant need for reaffirmation of their importance, even if it’s through generating widespread contempt.

    But seriously DPF, “kick his arse in a swimming race”?! Chuck Norris raises one mighty eyebrow at you!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Steve (4,522 comments) says:

    All of this eratic behaviour is predictable of course, the FULL MOON is on Saturday.

    Suck it up lunatics

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Rex,

    “Chuck Norris raises one mighty eyebrow at you!”

    Does he still have the nightlight on?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Fletch (6,148 comments) says:

    I see that Maori protesters have taken over a boat club up North…ugh…
    The cops need to go in and just throw them off – no ifs or buts. They’re given too much leeway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    Yes Fletch, and old Smile and Wave is hoping that it will just go away lest he actually has to fucking do something about it.

    I wonder what would happen if a group of white mofos marched onto a marae, claimed it as theirs and threatened anybody with violence who tried to kick them out?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. adze (2,002 comments) says:

    It matters not one whit that Harawira represents a Maori electorate. He’s still a member of parliament, still has to obey NZ laws, and that useless fool in the Race Relations Office only highlights the double standard with his inaction.

    That said, I’m beginning to think that Maori having their day in court is preferable to any F&S legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Rex Widerstrom (5,330 comments) says:

    bhudson:

    Lest anyone think we are mocking him (because I’m sure you wouldn’t be so reckless with your life) I should make clear to the unbelievers that Chuck Norris sleeps with a nightlight on not because he is afraid of the drak, but because the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris.

    And in any case, Chuck Norris doesn’t sleep… he waits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    Fentex is wrong.

    No one actually knows the strength, quality and geographical extent of Maori interests in the seabed and foreshore. All that is certain is that it was a common law interest that pre dates the Crown.

    If I’m wrong, if it’s the case that Maori do not own any foreshore, why the need for legislation alienating such ownership?

    In the post following this quoted statement Chris Diack seems to agree with me, in so much that I understand Chris to argue it would be proper to undo the legislation and then let courts proceed to adjudicate on claims to property. Which if different from my argument in detail is pretty much what I meant in principle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    How about one law for all. It is an outrage that a Member of Parliament can condone or encourage unlawful protest. There should no negotiations with the Maori Party over the F & S unless they prepared to condemn unlawful protest.

    There are plenty of us who are no happy with certain law. It anyone but Maori take part and illegally occupy property they are promptly arrested. Maori protesters are no only allowed to illegally occupy private property nothing is even done when they use violent means. Remember the intimation at Matua Gardens? Remember rocks throw at a commercial boat on the Whanganui?

    Harawira’s nephews occupy sailing club

    The nephews of Hone Harawira, who attacked the Prime Minister at Waitangi last year, are back in the spotlight.

    This time, the Popata brothers have taken over a small Northland sailing club in the small seaside community of Taipa to protest new legislation.

    They are occupying the Taipa Sailing Club in protest of the current Marine and Coastal Bill.

    While residents told ONE News that they are fearful of the occupation turning violent, the brothers say their protest is peaceful.

    “We don’t feel this is a radical occupation kind of thing, we just feel we’re coming back to live on our whenua,” Wikaatana Popata said.

    And they say Ngati Kahu and their uncle are supportive of their protest.

    “I know he’s been busy down at parliament, but his wife has been here and, yes, we have full support,” Wikaatana said.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/harawira-s-nephews-occupy-sailing-club-3844672

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Peter Tashkoff (11 comments) says:

    Hi

    Addressing the OP.

    The Court of Appeal in Ngati Apa made no reference at all to any kind of test for uninterrupted exclusive use.

    You are correct when you state that the court did not find that Maori owned the Foreshore and Seabed. This is a point that was heavily played up at the time.

    The reason the Court did not make any such finding (and were careful to point this position out ) is because that is NOT what the court case was about, they heard NO evidence on it, and they made NO determinations on it.

    The court case was NOT about whether Maori owned the FS&SB.

    It was about whether the CROWN owned the FS&SB. This is what the evidence they heard was about.

    The ruling of the court was that the Crown did NOT own the FS&SB.

    It was therefore up to Maori in other court venues to prove they did.

    Before Maori had time to do so (a few cases were kicked off immediately) the Labour govt legislated to remove the right of Maori to go to court and prove their claim, which halted court proceedings in their tracks.

    Labour also implemented a political process with a higher bar to entitlement, namely this question of undisturbed exclusive use. This is NOT a common law requirement, it is a political hurdle put in place by Labour and continued in place by National.

    Auckland University Professor of Law Jim Evans gives a very good speech on the subject at the following address:
    http://publicaddress.net/default,1248.sm#post

    On the balance of probabilities, a person in his position probably knows what he is talking about.

    The following by the way is the Privy Council ruling from Oyekan V Adele which summarises what the common law believes to be the position on Native property rights.

    “In inquiring … what rights are recognised there is one guiding principle. It is this: The courts will assume that the British Crown intends that the rights of property of the inhabitants are to be fully respected. Whilst, therefore, the British Crown, as Sovereign, can make laws enabling it compulsorily to acquire land for public purposes, it will see that proper compensation is awarded to every one of the inhabitants who has by native law an interest in it …”

    If the Government simply repealed the act and let the court procedures carry on unimpeded (as Chris Diack suggests) it would remove this issue from the political realm and put it back to a simple matter of determining, at law, what the property rights of Maori are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.