Hikoi #2

March 23rd, 2011 at 11:27 am by David Farrar

Martin Kay at Stuff reports:

As far as numbers go, the hikoi that arrived at Parliament in the icy wind and rain to protest against the Marine and Coastal Area Bill was a faint shadow of the huge outpouring of emotion against the law it will replace.

In 2004, more than 20,000 people marched to oppose the Foreshore and Seabed Act amid angry scenes that culminated with activist Tame Iti spitting at the feet of deputy prime minister at the time Michael Cullen. By the time the crowd reached Parliament, the momentum had fuelled an unstoppable grassroots movement that gave birth to the Maori Party and, a year later, its dominance of four of the seven Maori seats.

Yesterday’s protest, by comparison, was a sedate affair, with a little over 300 people marching in silence before staging a mock tangi on Parliament’s lawn.

The hikoi was around 1.5% the size of the original hikoi.

But regardless of size, those marching have every right to protest that this law doesn’t give them what they want. They think Iwi and Hapu should have customary title to the entire foreshore and seabed, rather than only the areas where there has been exclusive and unbroken use since 1840.

Must have been nice for a hokoi to turn up to Parliament and not be called haters and wreckers and have the PM declare she’d rather meet with a sheep.

The worst “abuse” they got was who was asked what he got out fo the hikoi, and he answered “I got wet” :-)

Tags: ,

23 Responses to “Hikoi #2”

  1. slightlyrighty (2,506 comments) says:

    I do not believe Hone Harawira has the support that he thinks he has. He only listens to those who agree with him and as a result only hears what he wants to.

    He is not the only politician so afflicted but he has stuck his neck out further than most.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. MT_Tinman (3,092 comments) says:

    At some stage yesterday I asked what a “hikoi” was.

    I received no enlightening answer but, having done some reading, I have concluded that is some sort of stoneage protest in favour of racism.

    In this instance (and only this instance) I think the former PM was correct.

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

    slightlyrighty problem is the Nats are putting a law forward that plays right into Hone’s hands, they want a second class land title for those who are well tanned not a straight fee simple title like pakeha have when they own foreshore.

    Want equality well and good, put ALL the foreshore in crown hands with compensation the same per person as hories have got, about $7000 per owner.
    Or would that be unfair on pakeha foreshore owners ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. EverlastingFire (291 comments) says:

    Don’t worry hori, it’s all sweet ow. Your honorary Maori cuz Chris Finlayson is willing to do back door deals with your bros.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Sam Buchanan (502 comments) says:

    “I have concluded that is some sort of stoneage protest in favour of racism.”

    So it’s racist to think that everyone, regardless of ethnicity, should be allowed to inherit their forbears property rights?

    My ancestors are, so far as I know, entirely of European descent. Does that mean I can’t inherit from them because that would be unfair on all the non-Europeans in the world?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Murray (8,844 comments) says:

    Not without any evidence that they are your ancestors and no one else has a preceeding cliam Sam. Which is what Hone wants.

    I own this because I say so and thats the end of it. Excellent legal proceedure. yuo feel that bad for him walk away from your home and hand over the title to Hone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Sam Buchanan (502 comments) says:

    “Not without any evidence that they are your ancestors and no one else has a preceeding cliam Sam. Which is what Hone wants.”

    Really? I’d assumed he’d want title vested in iwi and hapu institutions, which require evidence of ancestry.

    If Hone is happy for everyone to sign up for ownership without evidence of ancestry, why all the fuss? All of us can just stick our hands up regardless of actual inheritance rights.

    I don’t think Maori need to concern themselves with prior claims, unless you believe in wacky conspiracy theories about Egyptian settlement in 32BC and so on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. GPT1 (2,116 comments) says:

    Finlayson is awesome. But I think the size of this Hikoi shows that Hone, whilst loud, is not speaking for majority of Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. hj (6,825 comments) says:

    The Green Party supports the latest hikoi:

    Greens tautoko foreshore hikoi – Maori Seabed Foreshore
    http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/greens-tautoko-foreshore-hikoi

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

    The first Hikoi in 2004 was a protest, this one yesterday, was a backlash…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. hj (6,825 comments) says:

    Sam Buchanan Says:

    So it’s racist to think that everyone, regardless of ethnicity, should be allowed to inherit their forbears property rights?
    …..
    but we are really talking about territorial rights, territory we both occupy. Use use “property rights” because it comes with a learned association to something relatively small in extent. Hopefully your racial masochist buddies in the Green Party will get slapped about the head with this next election campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. hj (6,825 comments) says:

    I am not in wgtn but my spirit is there – tautoko the hikoi! 4:03 PM Mar 21st via txt

    We are arguing over the ability of Maori to prove uninterrupted relationship with foreshore in a colonised country go figure? 11:10 PM Mar 15th via txt
    http://twitter.com/greencatherine

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. hj (6,825 comments) says:

    Elizabeth Rata:
    In the last five years there has been a shift in the strategies used by iwi in their quest for property rights and constitutional recognition. The shift is from a Treaty of Waitangi justification to a more comprehensive indigenous group rights argument. The group rights argument is used to claim customary rights, and in an extension, to claim that those customary rights are property rights guaranteed under English Common Law.
    Professor Matthew Palmer has expressed this approach succinctly: ‘Most would say individual rights come first, but under our law, even if the treaty was extinguished, Maori rights do hold sway. Aboriginal title of customary rights exist in law separate from the Treaty – arising from a common law doctrine inherited from England and applied in Canada, United States and Australia. “It is a recognition by the English legal system that the people who were here first gained an interest in property by virtue of that fact’. (Palmer cited in Barton, 2004).

    Today I will make a counter-argument in order to show that there are problems with the concept of historical continuity that underpins the iwi approach. This concept may seem of remote academic interest but I want to show today how its interpretation is crucial. If the iwi approach were to be successful, the consequences for New Zealand are serious. The property rights argument will privatise large public socio-economic assets into the hands of iwi corporations. This will create a permanent gap between a small iwi elite with aristocratic pretensions on the one hand and the majority of New Zealanders of all ethnicities on the other. The larger group rights argument for the inclusion of iwi into the nation’s constitutional arrangements[1] will undermine the integrity of the New Zealand nation.
    http://www.nzcpr.com/guest232.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. hj (6,825 comments) says:

    so since when did common law evolve to disadvantage the common citizen?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. hj (6,825 comments) says:

    Brownlee ignores aboriginal title

    Wednesday, 07 Jul 2010 | Press Release
    Contact: David Clendon MP
    Tags: Mining, Conservation, Energy, Marine and Oceans, Maori issues

    “All offshore oil exploration permits should be suspended until clear title to the resource has been established beyond the 12 nautical mile limit,” David Clendon, the Green Party Maori Affairs Spokesperson said today.
    http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/brownlee-ignores-aboriginal-title

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Sam Buchanan (502 comments) says:

    “The property rights argument will privatise large public socio-economic assets into the hands of iwi corporations. This will create a permanent gap between a small iwi elite with aristocratic pretensions on the one hand and the majority of New Zealanders of all ethnicities on the other. ”

    So you’re arguing that socio-economic assets should not be privately held? I’m in agreement, providing this applies to Pakeha as well as Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. hj (6,825 comments) says:

    So you’re arguing that socio-economic assets should not be privately held? I’m in agreement, providing this applies to Pakeha as well as Maori.
    ……

    You have to allow for eroded lands and also harbour boards who need to function. I don’t care much for the super wealthy who own their private beach, although a small area such as Maori at Rapaki have in Lyttelton Harbour doesn’t bother me either (that is presumably one of the existing private titles). This is not the position of the Green Party (however) which is dominated by hardliners who see Maori culture as an uber culture; they are advocating for aboriginal title to the whole foreshore and seabed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    The whole F&S bill is a load of horseshit. The government is opening up itself for a serve arse kicking if it’s passed. Basically NZ society will be split in two, those with resources and by virtue of this bill will have the ability to take royalties for such resources and those with resources who get what the government feels is just . Most must live within the socialist rules so loved by our leaders while the new elite live by their own rules. Seems to me the government wishes to sell out it’s ideals to placate the brown vote, it will all end in tears when the Maori punters realise they get diddly squat. So much for one law for all.

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

    # GPT1 (1,541) Says:
    March 23rd, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    “Finlayson is awesome. But I think the size of this Hikoi shows that Hone, whilst loud, is not speaking for majority of Maori.”

    I’ll just ignore your comment on Finlayson, but to prove that you are wrong about Hone not speaking for the majority of Maori:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/4793914/Hikoi-marches-along-a-trail-of-broken-promises

    Over 70 percent of Maoris oppose this bill. Submissions showed an overall 97 percent opposed this bill. No one wants it, yet Key is going ahead with it even after he promised he wouldn’t if it wasn’t popular. It looks good for the Maori Party and National that the hikoi took place, then the public will assume if Maori are against it, then it must be ok… What Hone is complaining about the same as most of us, that this bill will reward the very few. The Corporate Maori because of the $$$ and National for the trade off for votes and National has a pretty ugly schedule for taxpayers. There’s more but will stop here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. annie (540 comments) says:

    The only problem I can see with the proposed legislation is that not all of the foreshore and seabed is included. Only that claimed by Maori, and not that owned by Pakeha. The whole lot should be free access, regardless of the historical ownership whether the original owners were brown or white.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Fentex (920 comments) says:

    They think Iwi and Hapu should have customary title to the entire foreshore and seabed

    Is that what they want? Might they just want land that can demonstrated to have been continuously owned (without being sold) to remain the owners property?

    A person can object to the foreshore legislation without demanding the wholesale granting of customary title to all of it, they might just want the original titles honored.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. adze (2,069 comments) says:

    I suspect Iwi/hapu and Maori Nationalists have different aspirations. There may be nationalists within Iwi who want to hold constitutional supremacy as of right – whether that be Treaty-based or some precept inherited from English common law – but they’d be a (possibly growing) minority. Whereas Iwi/hapu would be after property rights in their own territory/rohe.

    I’m not sure I understand why the government simply doesn’t repeal the 2004 legislation and let each case be decided on merit in the courts. Additionally I think it’s important to keep issues of constitutional legitimacy separate from property rights, particularly since there are historic cultural differences with the latter alone, let alone the can of worms that is sovereignty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. nasska (11,116 comments) says:

    I, like many I suspect, would be challenged to define exactly what constituted a “hikoi”. What we can be sure of is that it must be the fastest protest walk known to man. A learned blogger (http://alfgrumblemp.wordpress.com) has estimated it’s speed at a creditable 15.71km/hr average if the participants chose to walk 10hrs/day.

    Cape Reinga to Wellington at such a fast clip would suggest that these Maori would be sitters for gold at any upcoming games. The unthinkable alternative is that the idle bastards used the hated pakeha’s invention of the wheel to spare their flax sandals.

    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.