Urerewa verdict

March 20th, 2012 at 5:43 pm by David Farrar

The verdicts are in. The four have been found not guilty on some firearms charges and guilty on some, and no verdict on the organised criminal group charges.

Tags: ,

117 Responses to “Urerewa verdict”

  1. jaba (2,142 comments) says:

    all they were doing is training abduction techniques and the use of firearms and molotov cocktails just in case

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    hahaha ha.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Richard Hurst (859 comments) says:

    Some of the Bain jury must still be active.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. mara (787 comments) says:

    They would have if they could have. I wish Islamists in NZ were as stupid as the maoris.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    No doubt they’ll all appeal to the Supreme Court and then complain about the injustice of the case dragging on for so long and how it should be dropped :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. rolla_fxgt (311 comments) says:

    Or take a waitangi tribunal case over hurt feelings for the police coming into their area with big guns, while they were just going about their lives.

    Hopefully the sentences reflect the seriousness of their offending. i.e serious jail time & Singer is deported after his sentence is served.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Fletch (6,395 comments) says:

    I bet they’ll let them off. If most of them weren’t Maori they would have been thrown in jail ages ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    Lawyers: don’t you have a retrial when the jury can’t agree?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Heard Labour Radio’s Mary Wilson interviewing police and prosecution tonight.

    She seemed to be trying (repeatedly and forcefully) to transform the jury’s inability to agree on a verdict on some charges, into an acquittal by the jury on those charges. There’s a big difference.

    Mary, Mary, bloody contrary, how does your Radio Show grow?
    ‘Don’t feel detached, go for the throat, that’s how to grow.’

    When the survivor of the Easy Rider fishing boat called his floating petrol can “Wilson” was he thinking of Mary? Was he telling it: “Please be like Mary, defy laws of logic and physics. Just stay afloat”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. cows4me (248 comments) says:

    I agree with rolla_fxgt, Singer is a deluded POS and should put on the first plane out of here. Meanwhile, what a waste of time and money this circus has become, the bus tickets will be on the soak as we speak.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    Tame Iti gave a feeble answer on Close Up to Mark Sainsbury’s question of what exactly they were doing. Hosking or Henry would have nailed him, but Mark just let him waffle his way off the hook.

    We need an explanation of what these guys were up to, as they clearly weren’t having a teddy bears’ picnic, and they sure as hell weren’t training to be security guards in Iraq.

    I just wonder what evidence the police were prevented from presenting because of the video surveillance ban nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Chuck Bird (4,890 comments) says:

    “Lawyers: don’t you have a retrial when the jury can’t agree?”

    That depends John – even if the defendants are Maori.

    Did you see what Bill Hodge had to say on Close Up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    John Ansell,

    depends on what the Crown Solicitor (probably in conjunction with the Solicitor General) decides. There is a balance to exercise, and they have to consider whether the charges are serious enough to warrant another 6 week trial, and also whether the sentences imposed would be extended in a significant way, for example.

    There are other considerations, but the short answer is maybe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    Tame Iti is a joke; most NZers don’t take his Sovereignty nonsense seriously. The fact remains, radical Maori dreamers live and enjoy life under the benevolence of a tolerant modern state that allows them dreamy aspirations of independence and separatism…until they need food, SKY, ciggies, ammunition, Health care and petrol.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Chuck Bird (4,890 comments) says:

    I heard someone on talkback suggest the legislation be changed to belonging to a disorganised criminal group. That might succeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. publicwatchdog (2,596 comments) says:

    Compare this massive (including unlawful?) surveillance and persecution of political activists by Police – with their refusal to charge, in my considered opinon , the yet-to-be charged or convicted ‘white collar’ criminal / latest Leader of the ACT Party / Minister of Regulatory Reform / advocate of ‘one law for all’ , MP for Epsom – John Banks?

    Gosh – imagine if all this (wasted) public money had instead been invested in the establishment of a GENUINELY Independent Commission Against Corruption – focussing on the ‘pin stripe mafia’ who are arguably the real ‘organised criminal group’ in whose interests NZ operates?

    (Petition coming soon…….. )

    How about a REAL transparency and accountability NZ legislative framework, in order to help ‘clip the wings’ of the corporate 1%, especially those dependent on ‘corporate welfare’ – transforming public money for ‘goods, services and people’ into private profit – at a greater cost to the public majority of ratepayers and taxpayers?

    Looking forward to some informed debate on this one!

    Ever the optimist!

    ;)

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. V (720 comments) says:

    Tama Iti could at least have thanked the taxpayer for doing up his driveway all those years ago.

    Incidentally, how does he manage to travel overseas with his firearms convictions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    @John Ansell,

    “We need an explanation of what these guys were up to …”

    Why? There’s two stories here … that they were revolutionary fantasists who envisioned a time they might use violence to achieve their ends, or that they were trying to learn how to be security guards in the Middle East. Which do you believe, and why is that contingent on a guilty verdict here? And if we had a new month long trial that resulted in (say) an acquittal on the remaining membership of a criminal group charge, would this then provide “an explanation” you’d be happy to accept?

    “I just wonder what evidence the police were prevented from presenting because of the video surveillance ban nonsense.”

    None. The Supreme Court allowed all the video evidence against these 4 defendants to be used (even though it was illegally obtained). It was the other 13 who had the evidence against them thrown out … probably luckily for them, as it turns out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    “Incidentally, how does [Iti] manage to travel overseas with his firearms convictions?”

    He didn’t have any, until today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    “He didn’t have any, until today.”

    I think Tama Iti was convicted of discharging a shotgun into the NZ Flag at the annual Waitangi protest, some years back. From Wiki:

    “New Zealand Police subsequently charged Iti with discharging a firearm in a public place. His trial occurred in June 2006. Tāme Iti elected to give evidence in Māori (his second language), stating that he was following the Tūhoe custom of making noise with totara poles. Tūhoe Rangatira stated Iti had been disciplined by the tribe and protocol clarified to say discharge of a weapon in anger was always inappropriate, but stated that it was appropriate when honouring dead warriors (in a manner culturally equivalent to the firing of a volley over a grave within Western cultures). Judge Chris McGuire said “It was designed to intimidate unnecessarily and shock. It was a stunt, it was unlawful”.

    Judge McGuire convicted Iti on both charges and fined him.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Iti

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    Elaycee,

    An example of the danger of relying on Wikipedia as the font of all knowledge! His conviction was overturned in the Court of Appeal.

    Mind you, it did call his protest “a foolhardy enterprise” … so there is that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    The Wiki article notes the appeal and its outcome

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    AG: thanks for the heads up. I don’t usually source Wiki but I’m offshore at the moment and it was the easiest option. In fact, it took forever for Wiki to come up at all…. such are the vagaries of the internet in this part of the world.

    I remember the action but clearly not the outcome. :)

    [Edit: The full page has (finally) come up - and Yup, it's clear that the conviction was overturned].

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    They got wind the cops were doing covert surveillance and hammed it up big time…..

    AG is right with one of his 2 scenarios, that they are fantasists dreaming revolution. Why fantasists & not full-bore “terrorists”? You have to have a significant number of the people to back you up to take yourself seriously as a revolutionary…..even Maoridom in general believe them to be even further out beyond the fringe than even Hone. There is no support, none. There never will be.

    Let them go back to the bush after token punishment…and forget about them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Mobile Michael (452 comments) says:

    The leaked police affadavit was pretty damning, pity that most of it was deemed inadmissable by the Supreme Court. The other 13 should count themselves very lucky.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    The apologists and appeasers are out in force tonight.

    I would simply like to hear the four people themselves tell us what they were doing running around with guns, with balaclavas on, etc.

    Sainsbury asked Iti the question, Iti wriggled (especially on the Iraq security guard fantasy), and Sainsbury, instead of pressing him on it, allowed him to run out the clock with babble.

    That suggests to me that Iti, who had already happily admitted to being a revolutionary, was up to something sinister. What does it suggest to you?

    It is a Maori tradition dating back to the story of Maui deceiving his mother to use treachery as a legitimate tactic. Iti has been using two faces forever in his dealings with Pakeha.

    If their intentions were innocent, let them tell us in their own words what they were up to. If they’re not prepared to do that, try them again in front of another jury.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    Dazzaman

    I have no definite opinion on what they were up to, but I don’t think one must be a viable revolutionary to be a terrorist. Anders Breivik is a convicted terrorist yet he doesn’t have an army of ‘Templar Knights’ behind him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    I’m a little bemused at how they couldn’t reach a verdict on the organised criminal group charge…

    They were clearly organised. Running a training camp, or magic show, or teching bush skills requires organisation…

    There were more than two involved, so they were a group…

    They were happy to convict them on firearms charges, so they must accept that they were criminal..

    So how can it be that they weren’t participating in an organised criminal group?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. David Garrett (7,291 comments) says:

    Anyone who truly believes they were not up to serious mischief got washed down in this afternoon’s rain. How do I define “serious mischief” ? More than enough to prove the charge.

    How were they not convicted? Who knows? Two Green Party members on the jury who had had a haircut and a wash on the day the jury was selected; There were two dickheads on the jury who think every charge involving maori must be a police fit up; Some of the boys visited two jury members and had a wee chat…with or without some koha being exchanged. Bottom line, we will never know. And it would probably happen if they are tried again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Iti’s appeal against unlawful possession of a firearm is actually quite interesting and in some ways rather comical:

    Iti lodged an appeal, in which his lawyer, Annette Sykes, argued that Crown Law did not stretch to the ceremonial area in front of a Marae’s Wharenui. On April 4, 2007, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand overturned his convictions for unlawfully possessing a firearm. While recognising that events occurred in “a unique setting”, the court did not agree with Sykes’ submission about Crown law. However Justices Hammond, O’Regan and Wilson found that his prosecutors failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Iti’s actions caused “requisite harm”, under Section 51 of the Arms Act. The Court of Appeal described Iti’s protest as “a foolhardy enterprise” and warned him not to attempt anything similar again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    @rouppe … you are confused because the elements you point to are not actually what needs to be proven in relation to the particlar charge. See here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328596.html?search=ts_act_crimes+act_resel&p=1

    @ David Garrett … alternatively, it may be that the 11 were split on whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, at least 3 of the 4 accused had the requisite objective of “the commission of serious violent offences”. After all, they weren’t charged with being “up to serious mischief”, were they?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    “And it would probably happen if they are tried again.”

    That is no reason not to try, David.

    Parliament is a Chamber of Chamberlains and the media won’t do their job, so let’s take a chance that twelve people can be found with the guts to stand up and state the obvious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. lilman (960 comments) says:

    I remember when it first broke and Tama ITI was like a piss weak used condom,”I just want to live a normal life and cause no-one any trouble”,those pathetic little words from the great man ,no not Nelson Mandela,but our home grown, brown arse chipmonk TAMA.
    Now he will be the big Maori warrior,a leader,a man of commitment.
    Still a chipmonk though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Yoza (1,875 comments) says:

    This entire episode has exposed the upper echelons of this country’s domestic security apparatus as incompetent fantasists. As a means of demonstrating the extreme right bigoted idealogical bias of the various ‘intelligence’ services this case is as damning as that which was prosecuted against Ahmed Zaoui.

    The Green Party is right when they say, “There should be a full and independent inquiry into all aspects of the so called Urewera case once sentencing is completed, …” . Why should right wing extremists be allowed millions of dollars of tax-payer’s money to pursue the weird obsessions of this country’s quasi-fascist Washington quislings?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. David Garrett (7,291 comments) says:

    Yoza: Who are these “…quasi fascist Washington quislings” you refer to? The Police? The National caucus? Crown Law? Who exactly, on the instructions of “Washington”, put these dangerous clowns on trial?

    John: I didnt say that…I was merely cynically predicting the almost inevitable…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    John A… The jury selection process will never this to happen. And dare I say it, our police force screwed up royally by boarding a school bus, heavily armed as part of the raids. This act alone will ensure the Urerewa 4 will never convicted of anything substantial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Fletch (6,395 comments) says:

    I think we all know/knew even before the trial that these guys will never be convicted of the terrorism or criminal charges.

    When it comes to Maori, the country is too PC – too fearful of the possible charge of racism, and too fearful of offending when it is we, the rest of the country, that should be offended that these guys were training to prepare to forcibly commit some act or acts of violence to advance whatever political agenda they have.

    I say, members of the jury – do your duty: put these guys behind bars where they belong, and let it serve as a lesson to any others who want to exert their separatist agendas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Yoza (1,875 comments) says:

    “Yoza: Who are these “…quasi fascist Washington quislings” you refer to?”

    This was a pitiful attempt of various factions of the Labour and National Parties and elements in the ‘public’ service to ingratiate themselves to the US Czars perpetrating the Orwellian named ‘Global War on Terror’. There is an idealogically warped cadre within New Zealand society that sees this country as an extension of US foreign policy. These US quislings are the real threat to New Zealand’s security, it is they who should be being held to account, not those who question their illegitimate abuses of authority.

    Using the jackboot in an attempt stamp out dissent only creates greater and more virulent resistance. This inept and humiliating performance has been yet another gratefully received gift to those of us who are the real left in this land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Fletch,

    No terrorism charges were ever laid against these defendants, they were in fact convicted of about half (or slightly more) of the charges they did face, and the jury plays no role in sentencing.

    Yoza,

    That is, quite frankly, conspiracy-theorist fantasist BS. None of what you said is true.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    adze

    Breivik is a loon, a murderous one at that. One could also conceivably class him AS a viable revolutionary…even in his own mind. He was acting to the tune of his own warped mind & everyone lost, even himself. Not smart or long term planning…..however spaced his goals were.

    We could all likely vouch that the U4 are a bit loony too, revolutionary even! But it’s not certain at all that they were planning to do any “revolutionary/terrorist” (illegal, yes) deeds as alleged by the crown. In fact it’s still reasonably certain, to my circles any way, that they put on quite a show for the cops having been tipped off very early in the piece.

    They got their show trial. Let me tell you, it was all an attempt to make the crown/police a laughing stock…..it’s done just that.

    Give them some time for what they are guilty of, flush the dunny & move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. V (720 comments) says:

    I’m surprised Robin Bain wasn’t implicated in some way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. burt (8,272 comments) says:

    Well the way I see it, proceeding with the current evidence can only end in tears. At best a tiny victory for Police and most likely a monumental embarrassment. Such evidence, all thrown out…. that’s one big giant WTF !

    This case also has an element of poking a hornets nest about it and that makes me somewhat uneasy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. burt (8,272 comments) says:

    V

    He’s in the retrial I think, digital enhancement of the surveillance footage has him clearly spotted hiding on a clearing in the bush cleaning his rifle with old newspapers. He was on the tussocky knoll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    Now V, I know he was described as cadaverous but that may be stretching it! Haha!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    This was a pitiful attempt of various factions of the Labour and National Parties and elements in the ‘public’ service to ingratiate themselves to the US Czars perpetrating the Orwellian named ‘Global War on Terror’.

    I disagree. I don’t think this incident is in any way related to the ‘war on terror’ which, like the ‘war on drugs’ I am bitterly opposed to.

    In my opinion the Urewera raid was a decisive and sensible preemptive operation designed to diffuse the possible emergence of an armed indigenous nationalist separatist movement. Thankfully we may never know if this was truly the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Having the Police maintaining proper procedure PROTECTS US ALL.

    Lets not forget that.

    If that means nasty, hate filled, wannabe terrorists get to walk free and try again with the advantage of experience, then that’s the price we pay.

    But lets not add to that price by ignoring their actions, and refusing to ask questions like “what WERE they actually doing?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. awb (304 comments) says:

    What a colossal waste of money that all was. These 4, hell, these original 17 defendants were never any threat to the country. There is absolutely no way a handful of poorly equipped and trained activists could have taken down the government/army/police. I really hope the Crown sees sense and decides to save some money by not going for a retrial. http://afinetale.blogspot.co.nz/2012/03/it-was-years-ago-let-it-go.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    these original 17 defendants were never any threat to the country.

    [citation needed]

    There is absolutely no way a handful of poorly equipped and trained activists could have taken down the government/army/police.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Rolando_bombing
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

    Who says the government/army/police would have been the target?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    V Says: “I’m surprised Robin Bain wasn’t implicated in some way.”

    Haha – very good. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. David Garrett (7,291 comments) says:

    awb: You are obviously very stupid, have no idea of history, or are simply taking the piss. They werent trying to “take down the government/army/police”…they were allegedly TERRORISTS…there is an old adage that has been true at least since JFK “if the terrorist/assassin is prepared to die there is no way of stopping him killing someone.” Perhaps you have forgotten that one of the threats allegedly made was to kill the PM.

    If you can’t see the implications in this case…read the first five words of this post again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > It is a Maori tradition dating back to the story of Maui deceiving his mother to use treachery as a legitimate tactic.

    Come on, John, tell us what you really think about Maori. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > let’s take a chance that twelve people can be found with the guts to stand up and state the obvious.

    John, I think your racist views are clouding your judgment…if the 4 accused were members of of the ACT party, they’d be fine upstanding citizens. There’d be no case to answer, but because they’re a little different from you and I they must be up to no good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I think a re-trial is a certainty. The Crown has shown that cost is not an issue, unless of course it involves a possible miscarriage of justice. In 2000, the government opted for a Ministerial inquiry into the Peter Ellis case, rather than a Commission of Inquiry, because the former was “cheaper”. It’s been revealed that the trial of the Urewera 4 is the most expensive in NZ history. It’s great to know that where the legal system is concerned – as opposed to the justice system – cost is not a factor.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10793481

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. RandySavage (222 comments) says:

    a lot of vapid racism going on in here
    David Garrett your opinion holds very little water anywhere but this little closet of back scratching and ball tickling

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    And now we have to endure Valerie Morse on Breakfast TV; thank goodness for the off switch…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    Iti is nearing 60 years old and says he has been in and out of court for 40 of those years on charges as varied as discharging a firearm – he shot the New Zealand flag on a Tuhoe marae during a Waitangi Tribunal hearing – and occupying a railway station.

    He has won a few and lost a few but says in all those years he has never been sentenced to jail.

    On the day of the raids the police trained the red dots of their weapons on him. “I got thrown down on the ground and they put the gun at the back of my head and they put the dog on to me at the same time.” But if they had called and asked him to go to the police station, he says he would have.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10793483

    Iti is, was and will always be a showman, a theatrical, that’s as obvious as the nose on your face. The others may well have had sinister intentions and I have no knowledge about that.
    The major issue in my book has always been the way in which the raids were carried out, the reason for them and the political efforts behind them. Remember Cullen was in charge of the Secutiry apparatus at the time and one should look up the history of the name Cullen when linked with Tuhoe and Cullen with their tribal neighbours on the coast.

    Knowing the only one of the 18 never charged but given a written apology after twice bing incarcerated by the over zealous head Office plicing I can confirm that there were more conspiracy theorists in that dept. than there is in the Urewera’s. There is considerable resentment about the way people were treated as a community and this is a repeat of earlier times.

    We have seen a repeat of these actions with dotcom.
    Apparently this time the seizures etc ahave now been deemed illegal.

    Should we have confidence in this type of behavoir. I don’t think so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    Exactly as I thought. Guys playing with guns in the wood a danger to NZ society?

    Only in the hyper-active imagination of a police fed on American style crime busters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. eszett (2,410 comments) says:

    Ha, you just have to laugh at these rightwinger law and order brigade, how they whinge and whine when law and order is applied and it doesn ‘t go their way. Laughable is the whole pc argument, given the incarceration numbers of Maori. If anything, the cards are heavily stacked against Maori.

    I have no particular sympathies for the U4 but to see the john ansells and co whinging is great

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    jaba: all they were doing is training abduction techniques and the use of firearms and molotov cocktails just in case

    Can we agree that this is not a crime?

    You really want the police arrest you because you are thinking about committing a crime?

    We might not find these people entirely sane, but they did not commit any criminal act. Good on the jury.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    John Ansell: We need an explanation of what these guys were up to, as they clearly weren’t having a teddy bears’ picnic, and they sure as hell weren’t training to be security guards in Iraq.

    True. But did they commit a crime?

    If we start to lock up people to prevent crime, we have a bigger problem then some kids running in the wood playing out their fantasies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    John Ansell: I would simply like to hear the four people themselves tell us what they were doing running around with guns, with balaclavas on, etc.

    Four people a threat to society?

    Please John, don’t make these over the top comments. We can all agree that these people had issues.

    I have no problem with people running around in the wood, using guns or balaclavas whatsoever. Free country and all that. Because that’s not a crime. And should not be a crime.

    The real crime is that the honest citizen is prevented from arming himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Pete George (23,568 comments) says:

    It’s obvious there’s divided opinion on this, if you add up the comments here and on The Standard – and if you note the jury verdicts.

    It’s obvious the police didn’t handle the case particularly well, and were served up a legal reality check.

    But it should also be obvious that what was happening in the Ureweras was a cause for concern.

    If some violent action had eventuated and the police hadn’t oprevented they would have been criticised much more than what they are being criticised for the handling of the investigation and arrests.

    Regardless of possible appeals and sentences we have better clarification of surveillance laws, and hopefully the police have learnt some lessons on how to deal with this sort of thing.

    And any groups who thought they might like to start a violent political campaign should also have got the message that it’s not the done thing in New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    Agreed Pete; and let’s not forget that this all took place over 2006 and 2007, under Helen Clark and Howard Broad’s watch; ’nuff said…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. big bruv (13,904 comments) says:

    Berend

    “The real crime is that the honest citizen is prevented from arming himself.”

    Yeah….like we really need lots of people walking around with Guns in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    Dazzaman
    Your own personal criteria for ‘revolutionary’ mentioned earlier includes the requirement of support in numbers. Neither Breivik not Iti (as far as we know) had that, but now you consider the former was a viable revolutionary? So why are the U4 merely fantasists on that basis – have you changed your mind?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Lance (2,655 comments) says:

    Yea
    Molotov Cocktails are a legitimate form of self defense, even a cutting edge hunting technique didnya know!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    @Berend:

    “jaba: all they were doing is training abduction techniques and the use of firearms and molotov cocktails just in case
    Can we agree that this is not a crime?”

    Ummm … yes it is. If the firearms are unlicensed, that is. And molotov cocktails are prohibited weapons under the Arms Act. That’s why the 4 were convicted on a range of charges … it’s just the Crown couldn’t prove beyond reasonable doubt (in the eyes of at least 2 of the jury) that at least 3 of the 4 accused shared the same future objectives when undergoing this “training” with illegal weapons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. nasska (11,525 comments) says:

    big bruv

    We certainly don’t need streets full of people walking around with six guns at their hips but equally certainly we need the laws relating to self defence revisited, & urgently.

    The need to protect your life may be a defence in court but you’ll be reduced to penury by the time you’ve paid for lawyers to argue your case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Joseph Carpenter (214 comments) says:

    Berend
    Isn’t “Participation in organised criminal group” a criminal offence which requires intention only not the actual physical crime action to occur (i.e. it’s exactly pre-emptive).
    For peoples information they were charged with:

    98A Participation in organised criminal group:
    (1) Every person commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who participates in an organised criminal group—
    (a) knowing that 3 or more people share any 1 or more of the objectives (the particular objective or particular objectives) described in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) (whether or not the person himself or herself shares the particular objective or particular objectives); and
    (b) either knowing that his or her conduct contributes, or being reckless as to whether his or her conduct may contribute, to the occurrence of any criminal activity; and
    (c) either knowing that the criminal activity contributes, or being reckless as to whether the criminal activity may contribute, to achieving the particular objective or particular objectives of the organised criminal group.

    (2) For the purposes of this Act, a group is an organised criminal group if it is a group of 3 or more people who have as their objective or one of their objectives—
    (a) obtaining material benefits from the commission of offences that are punishable by imprisonment for a term of 4 years or more; or
    (b) obtaining material benefits from conduct outside New Zealand that, if it occurred in New Zealand, would constitute the commission of offences that are punishable by imprisonment for a term of 4 years or more; or
    (c) the commission of serious violent offences (within the meaning of section 312A(1)); or
    (d) conduct outside New Zealand that, if it occurred in New Zealand, would constitute the commission of serious violent offences (within the meaning of section 312A(1)).

    (3) A group of people is capable of being an organised criminal group for the purposes of this Act whether or not—

    (a) some of them are subordinates or employees of others; or
    (b) only some of the people involved in it at a particular time are involved in the planning, arrangement, or execution at that time of any particular action, activity, or transaction; or
    (c) its membership changes from time to time.

    As far as I can tell on the limited evidence I’ve seen they fell under all of part-1 by virtue of objective-2c and also 3b & 3c apply. Makes me wonder if it was a Bain jury: surely the only doubt relates to whether they intended objective-2c, saying they were running around with sawn off automatic weapons in balacavas in secret weapons training while “joking/bullshitting” about kidnapping, murder and bombings because they were training to go to Iraq as private mercenary security contractors for the US military is taking the piss? Doesn’t “reasonable doubt” mean the doubt actually has to be a doubt that could be validly entertained by a reasonable person not “any possible doubt at all”?

    The real worry here I believe is not that Tama or Urs et al would ever shoot someone or blow something up – they’re too clever for that – but that they would incite some young (and dumb) disaffected and alienated youth: already with a history of violence and stupid actions, with a huge chip on their shoulder against “the man”, with nothing to lose and no plan or hope for the future except maybe to become the big hero freedom fighter – striking back against the unjust evil racist rick prick authorities who ripped him off and made his life shit. Isn’t that a very real possibility? Isn’t that what they wanted? Too bad Seditious Conspiracy was taken off the criminal statues, maybe they could go them for being Party to Treason?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Yoza (1,875 comments) says:

    “The real worry here I believe is not that Tama or Urs et al would ever shoot someone or blow something up – they’re too clever for that – but that they would incite some young (and dumb) disaffected and alienated youth:”

    Tama Iti and Urs Signer don’t need to incite anyone, the blundering jackboots of the security apparatus are all the incitement those “… young (and dumb) disaffected and alienated youth…” require.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. flipper (4,068 comments) says:

    There were cowboys and indians in the BoP that morning. The problem is that it is still unclear who were the cowboys and who were the indians.

    I suppose there is some public good in a policy that permits the Crown to spend megas of OUR dollars without limit, but frankly, when matters take four years to resolve (may be more?) the whole system is a crock.

    Were those defendants:
    Guilty of stupidity? Yes.
    Guilty of make believe ? Yes.

    Was there:
    Police over-reaction? Well, look what happened to the main charges, not just those that set before the Court.

    Are we qualified to make a judgement on the outciome based on media reports (scraps) and defence/prosecution statements? NO

    All this indicates a need for the revision of prosecutorial decision-making.
    We are told that “Super whathisname” et al “consulted” with “Crown prosecutors”. Really? But the decision to charge rested witb the flatfoots, did it not?

    Time for a Director of Public Prosecutions covering all areas (including SFO) and a position that sits independently from the Solicitor General (who is probably on a Judgeship career path!), Crown Law Office and the Attorney General.

    I suspect that Collins could make a real contribution (and help W. English) by going down that road.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. excusesofpuppets (132 comments) says:

    What happened to the main charges centres on what was admissible in court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. flipper (4,068 comments) says:

    excuses….

    No, the original main charges related to terrorism, did they not?
    They were never placed before a court.
    The illegally obtained data was admitted for the conspiracy charges.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. sifty (23 comments) says:

    Yoza– I strongly recommend you start taking your risperidone again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Odakyu-sen (655 comments) says:

    This case has woken NZ up to the possibility that training camps have been organized and run by people who want to use violence to get what they want.
    The police force has gained practical experience in how to deal/not to deal with home-grown wanna-be terrorism.
    The issue of training camps in NZ has been paraded before the public for years, raising awareness of the issue and heightening sensitivity to it.
    The communities supporting the training camps know that the NZ public know who they are.
    You can’t buy this kind of negative publicity for separatism…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. kiwi in america (2,454 comments) says:

    Given NZ’s long history of making a virtue of how gun free it is, how our frontline police are unarmed, its lower gun related homicide rate and how regular gun use is relegated mostly to the farming and hunting types, it makes the antics of Iti and crew all the more suspicious. The recent revamp to NZ’s search and surveillence laws highlighted what a messy hodge podge of laws were in effect and so it came as no surprise that in a case this high profile that the Police’s use of number 8 fencing wire to cobble together what it was allowed to do came under intense legal scrutiny. This in turn highlights the 5th Labour Government’s essentially weak and vacilating approach to the needed task of bringing NZ’s terror related laws up to speed in a post 9/11 world. Had their legislative revamp been more thorough and comprensive then the Police would’ve been able to legally undertake video surveillence on the Urewera training camp leading to a more definitive outcome at the trial.

    It’s interesting how things like this divide along such neat ideological lines. The Yozzas and Berends of this world see nothing but police overreach even abuse because the defendants are a politically correct group in the eyes of the left. Lets assume for arguments sake that Kyle Chapman and the National Front (or some other iteration of white neo Nazi separatist clowns) were the ones caught and convicted for doing the exact same thing as the Urewera 12. The left would be most comfortable with the legislation and police efforts to protect us from the threat of some right wing white extremist military training camp. I cite this example not to show any sympathy with neo Nazi or right wing extremist groups at all, only to highlight the hypocricy and ideologically blinded thinking of the left. Those of us on the right would see seditious activity as something the police ought to investigate and prosecute if necessary regardless of the ethnicity or political leanings of those breaching the Firearms and other Acts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Paulus (2,627 comments) says:

    Don’t forget that the Jury were made up 10 women and 2 men (eventually 9/2) so what verdict did you expect.

    They would believe that Tama Iti is a sort of Maori Robin Hood.

    Having sat on a female dominated jury once the interaction between the women is worthy of a soap in its own right.
    We took at least half a day extra to decide because of this personal interaction of some of these women, which became very personal, having nothing to do with the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Yoza (1,875 comments) says:

    “… regular gun use is relegated mostly to the farming and hunting types, it makes the antics of Iti and crew all the more suspicious.” The vast majority of those living within Te Urewera are farming and hunting types. “…it makes the antics of Iti and crew all the more suspicious.” It would be the exception rather than the norm. for the likes of Tama Iti to not have anything to do with guns.

    I believe that what Tuhoe do on Tuhoe land is Tuhoe business, sending in the armed constabulary to, once again, collectively punish the Tuhoe people for the alleged transgressions of a small group within their midst is going to create a greater separatist consciousness among Tuhoe than anything else. The only time the New Zealand security apparatus should be allowed anywhere on Tuhoe land is as guests of Nga Tuhoe.

    “Lets assume for arguments sake that Kyle Chapman and the National Front (or some other iteration of white neo Nazi separatist clowns) were the ones caught and convicted for doing the exact same thing as the Urewera 12.”

    Provide just one example of the police going after one of these groups, it doesn’t happen KIA. Sheer fantasy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. xy (187 comments) says:

    Don’t forget that the Jury were made up 10 women and 2 men (eventually 9/2) so what verdict did you expect.

    We men are rational and dispassionate – those women with their ovaries and hysteria, they just get in the way of proper justice being done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Which one of the usual leftard troll knitting circle is “yoza”? Punctuation is too good to be paws/jsf. Cop-hating makes me think of maggie/Peter Freedman but yoza’s a shade more loony. Mickeysavage maybe?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    I believe that what Tuhoe do on Tuhoe land is Tuhoe business

    Isn’t ownership theft according to your ideology? Or are you a selective libertarian?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Pete George (23,568 comments) says:

    Russell Brown gives what looks like a good well informed summary to me. Police overdoing things but bravado idiots playing with firearms could have hurt something if nothing had been done about it.

    Hard News: Time to move on

    These guys weren’t heroes and they weren’t terrorists. They were dickheads. They revved up each other with cries of war and blood.

    Valerie Morse’s customary raging self-regard slipped deep into disingenuousness in her Morning Report interview today. She would have been better to break with form and simply simply shut up. There really is no good explanation for some of what she and others did.

    Another element of the defence case rings truer: that these people couldn’t possibly have been part of an organised criminal group because they were plainly such fools.

    Potentially dangerous fools.

    The police, too, were fools. I think it’s almost beyond doubt that they got caught up in their own narrative. They wanted a terrorism bust in the age of the War on Terror, under the new Suppression of Terrorism Act.

    I do think that what was going on warranted police attention, not because there was any chance of these clowns overthrowing the state, but because there was a reasonable possibility of someone getting hurt.

    I agree. It’s time to sentence them for what they have been found guilty and move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Lance (2,655 comments) says:

    And today’s troll award goes Yoza
    “I believe that what Tuhoe do on Tuhoe land is Tuhoe business”

    Yes a bit of terrorist training, a sideline of murder for fun and profit, and cheap nuclear waste disposal. It’s all on their land so don’t worry about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. jonnobanks (148 comments) says:

    Valerie Morse said this morning that some of the people running around with guns were training to work in Iraq.

    Wasn’t she a leader in the anti war movement. So why did she protest against these guys wanting to go over there to Iraq and make money. “No blood for guns’ Val!

    Or is the war now OK?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Isn’t ownership theft according to your ideology? Or are you a selective libertarian?

    I think Yoza only opposes ownership by individuals. Ownership by a group is social, even if that group is controlled by a single individual, but not if that group is a made up of people that own individual shares, even if it is perfectly democratic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Pete G,

    You ignore the fact that Russell Brown has never been a fan of Valerie Morse. It seems the mere sight of Morse burning a NZ flag is enough to send him spiralling.

    http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=484

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    And some more comments from Brown complaining about Morse. I don’t know why he doesn’t say he can’t stand the woman and leave it at that. There are plenty of posters here who are unequivocal on the issue. :)

    http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=500

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Colville (2,269 comments) says:

    “I think Yoza only opposes ownership by individuals. Ownership by a group is social, even if that group is controlled by a single individual, but not if that group is a made up of people that own individual shares, even if it is perfectly democratic.”

    So I can start a private army on land owned by the family trust to oppose those Tuhoe dickwads and Yozza will support me?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. KevinH (1,227 comments) says:

    @Pete G
    Russell Brown hits the nail on the head:
    “The police, too, were fools. I think it’s almost beyond doubt that, as the Operation 8: Deep in the Forest documentary contends, they got caught up in their own narrative. They wanted a terrorism bust in the age of the War on Terror, under the new Suppression of Terrorism Act. It seems to me that they ignored other options, other charges, in pursuit of that goal.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. kiwi in america (2,454 comments) says:

    Yozza
    You entirely make my point “what Tuhoe does on Tuhoe land is their own business” – a politically correct favoured group in the eyes of the left – nothing to see here, move along the tangatawhenua must always be right. Last I saw only 12 people were arrested – how does that punish all Tuhoe people?

    The police bust white supremacist groups who’ve gone bush to train private armies here in the US all the time – Department of Homeland Security issued a series of special alerts and procedures concerning them just last year. Their numbers and tactics in NZ just haven’t risen to the level of a raid. My question for you is – would the police be abusing their powers if a white neo Nazi group were caught doing the exact same thing as Tuhoe were doing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    Lance (1,198) Says:
    March 21st, 2012 at 8:07 am

    Yea
    Molotov Cocktails are a legitimate form of self defense, even a cutting edge hunting technique did’nt ya know!

    haha, we used to use “jelly” to blow up fish instead of fishing. Worked bloody good too.

    and further there is many thousands of us who have run about the bush with balaclava’s and guns. Try hunting down in the park in the winter. freeze ya fucking nuts off.

    Still we wouldn’t expect the “modern Metro sexual and Lady coppers” to understand that. Just ain’t old enough to have left the tarseal in town.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Lance (2,655 comments) says:

    @V2
    …… and Molotov Cocktails?
    Like you’re a poofter if you don’t carry a few of those?
    And of course what self respecting hunter wouldn’t practice a bit of the old abduction techniques?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    The police were “fools” and “caught up in their own narrative.”

    Wow,there are alot of fools commenting here who’re caught up in their own narrative.

    I think the cops did the right thing and it’s bollocks to try to draw them into all sorts of big picture stuff.

    They are crown servants doing a good job of their sworn duty to protect the NZ public.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    Joseph Carpenter: “Isn’t “Participation in organised criminal group …”

    Isn’t that what wasn’t proven? I.e. it was rather unorganised, and not (yet) criminal. That’s my claim. They have not committed a terrorist act, and are therefore not terrorists.

    The intentions of committing crime are not a crime. (obviously possession illegal stuff, but that’s wasn’t what the police set out to prove).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Yoza (1,875 comments) says:

    Scott Chris (3,993) Says:
    ” Isn’t ownership theft according to your ideology? Or are you a selective libertarian?’

    I would most closely identify with the Libertarian Socialist ideas of the likes of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Peter Kropotkin, Rudolf Rocker, Noam Chomsky et al, what is loosely described as a traditionally anarchist mindset- those who exercise authority over others should be required to demonstrate on what they have founded that authority. Tuhoe, for example, can demonstrate centuries of occupation of their customary homelands in Te Urewera. The Crown’s jurisdiction, on the other hand, is based on the violent military subjugation of the indigenous population.

    Using the tacit Crown argument that violent military occupation is the sole form of legitimate authority leaves a small population like New Zealand on shakey ground – we could hardly complain if another foreign entity decided to use military might to ‘colonise’ New Zealand and relegate the current population to the status of second class citizens. After all, this has been the experience of Maori at the hands of European interlopers.

    “So I can start a private army on land owned by the family trust to oppose those Tuhoe dickwads and Yozza will support me?” Knock yourself out, Colville.

    Kimble: “Ownership by a group is social, even if that group is controlled by a single individual, but not if that group is a made up of people that own individual shares, even if it is perfectly democratic.” The ‘group’ would necessarily be fully democratic, an individual controlling others is anathema to the libertarian socialist tradition.

    jonnobanks (78) Says:
    “Valerie Morse said this morning that some of the people running around with guns were training to work in Iraq.”

    This is the only thing I don’t like about the defence’s case, why would anyone involved in peace groups pretend they were training to be mercenaries?

    It’s lunch time ,so I haven’t had a decent amount of time to organise this post, apologies for its convoluted jumpiness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    “I believe that what Tuhoe do on Tuhoe land is Tuhoe business”

    Really? So if there’s kids there getting the bash, that’s Tuhoe business and nobody else should stick their oar in?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. kiwi in america (2,454 comments) says:

    Yozza
    I see you neatly skirted my question so I’ll rephrase it with more clarity for you.

    Would the police be abusing their powers if a white neo Nazi group were caught doing the exact same thing as Tuhoe were doing and they undertook surveillence and sought prosecutions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. kowtow (8,487 comments) says:

    Being so independant and sovereign I take it they don’t draw the dole or other form of state assistance, legal aid for instance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    kowtow:

    Bwa ha ha ha!

    You’re funny …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    those who exercise authority over others should be required to demonstrate on what they have founded that authority.

    Ultimately that authority is founded firstly on might and subsequently on utilitarian principle. That has always been the way with human society, Tuhoe inclusive. The only way to change that is by emigrating to another society or through revolution.

    Tuhoe, for example, can demonstrate centuries of occupation of their customary homelands in Te Urewera

    According to that premise, all the Crown need do to demonstrate its moral authority is to simply occupy New Zealand for 200 years or more. Seems rather arbitrary, but hey, why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Griff (7,728 comments) says:

    Tuhoe, for example, can demonstrate centuries of occupation of their customary homelands in Te Urewera. The Crown’s jurisdiction, on the other hand, is based on the violent military subjugation of the indigenous population.

    A load of lefty codswollop
    Tuhoe land was confiscated due to the actions of Te Kooti
    For four years Te Kooti waged the most effective guerilla campaign in New Zealand’s history. His base in the Urewera mountains provided him a central base from which he could launch his raids from and retire to after a defeat. In this time his actions constituted a major threat to European activities and settlement
    In war to the victor go the spoils
    Tuhoe attacked first then lost. That violent occupation you talk of was actually a war of defense against an aggressor that resulted in legal occupation to insure that the violence would not continue.
    If we attacked an other nation then lost would the world not be justified in assuring that we did not attack again.

    Fucking lefty revisionist history

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Yoza (1,875 comments) says:

    I haven’t got time to deal with all the critiques of what I thought were quite banal observations. I just have to say Griff has written the most bizarre thing I have read in a long time, absolutely hilarious, “That violent occupation you talk of was actually a war of defense against an aggressor that resulted in legal occupation to insure that the violence would not continue.”

    “Fucking lefty revisionist history”
    My apologies, I have re-revisionisted my lefty revisionist history to accommodate your sensibilities: The settlers always lived there. It was actually Tuhoe whom, after dropping out of a black hole in the later part of the 19th centurty, just began attacking white people. The bastards!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Bob R (1,375 comments) says:

    Yoza,

    You missed kiwi in america’s question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    adze

    Nebulous points about numbers might spin your wheels….not mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Griff (7,728 comments) says:

    Yoza
    its obvious from your comment that you have no idea of New Zealand history in 1863 the New Zealand government passed a law that stated that continued warfare would result in the confiscation of land for the tribes involved.
    The government had the right to pass this law as under the treaty it held sovereignty over this country and it was supported not only by settlers but also by many maori
    I am sure your knowledge is not even up to speed on the the treaty let alone the New Zealand wars and who actually fought them. maori were also under attack from the bases in the burnt penis mountains (Urewera)
    As you do not know the history of the times how can you comment on any confiscation of Maori land.
    As i said fucking lefty revisionist bullshit and you actually have no idea .
    If I am wrong re the confiscation of Tuhou land and the reasons for it prove it

    The comment on te kooti was a direct cut and paste from NZ history on line !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. MT_Tinman (3,188 comments) says:

    I’m hoping the police have learnt from their mistakes in this case.

    Particularly I’m hoping they’ve learnt that when faced with terrorist activity, even that as comical as this bunch of no-hopers, they should shoot first, take every one of the bastards out and talk to shysters later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    Lance (1,199) Says:
    March 21st, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    @V2
    …… and Molotov Cocktails?
    Like you’re a poofter if you don’t carry a few of those?
    And of course what self respecting hunter wouldn’t practice a bit of the old abduction techniques?

    You would probably be surprised at some of the antics that went on in the bush. You could start by reading crumpy’s tales.But a lot more stuff hapopened than ever got written about and don’t forget in the late 40’s and 50’s there were lots of guys who had been in wars and stuff and they knew lots about these things. Pity you have never listened to them about what they did when oversea’s. Make ya hair curl. Make these fellows look like pussies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    Dazzaman
    Don’t make them then. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    i see Griff’s off on his odd views on NZ history. If the colonial government held sovereignty by virtue of the Treaty, where did it place them in relation to Tuhoe, who didn’t sign said treaty?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    Groff says:
    .its obvious from your comment that you have no idea of New Zealand history in 1863 the New Zealand government passed a law that stated that continued warfare would result in the confiscation of land for the tribes involved.
    The government had the right to pass this law as under the treaty it held sovereignty over this country and it was supported not only by settlers but also by many maori

    HMM wel that as may be but of course Tuhoe along with some other iwi didn’t ever sign the Treaty and never recognised the British Soverignty. And that’s always been the nub of the argument. Other tribes did and mostly so that they survived the carnage that came with the likes of Nga Puhi buying lots of guns which meant they didn’t need to get into combat just close enough to kill the opposition. Tuhoe were quite happy to remain in and with their own country until harrassed which caused the likes of Te Kooti to return the Favour. The Crown never had rights to Tuhoe land nor rights to Tuhoe domination.
    Tuhoe property rights etc were confiscated by a govt. that was in their eyes not their master.

    A bit like the police have just done to dotcom. A olden day version of confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime Act currently on our statute books. Except the crime was committed by the Crown.
    You should also note that that crime spree on the part of the crime extended to Rua and his followers and in particular to a raid on RUA’s Round house at Maungapohatu where two of his followers were murdered as witnessed by two Gisbourne police constabulary. The leader of that raid was one by the name of Cullen , who was senoir policeman in NZ at the time. That same fellow started the Waihi Gold Mine shootings.
    So Cullen is a name that is etched into our history, almost certainly for things done badly. The ex Deputy PM Cullen is now of course and advisor to the neighbours of Tuhoe and he was also responsible as Minister of Security for the raid 4 years ago.
    Co incidence. HMM, not really as Apirana Ngata who everone puts up as someone special was intenet on destroying Tuhoe and confiscating their forests and lands for his own tribes benefits.

    Want to know more READ MIHAIA The Prophet Rua Kenana and his Community at Maungapohatu.

    Authors Binney Chaplin and Wallace

    Follow that up by reading Encircled Lands.by Judith Binney

    Interesting reading.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    Tuhoe became the “conquered” Milky.

    Pretty simple really. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Taxpayermaoriguy (6 comments) says:

    Hi, my name is Taxpayermaoriguy. I would just like to comment about the raids on tuhoe,Tame Iti is the kindest man I have ever meet, I was a troubled teen but he helped me get back on my feet an be happy in life, The good people in tuhoe are the majority within tuhoe that includes Tame Iti, normal tax paying people not only maori living there but pakeha, chinese, turkish an indian aswell have blood ties to our land, I can tell you that there are a minority of gang members in tuhoe that i strongly disagree with, do support him on there own accord, they are I think the people that should be looked at closely within tuhoe not the rest of us, I know for a fact that tame iti does not socialize with these criminal groups like the mongrel mob an black power, they are the terrorst not Tame an the rest of us, not even tame would be able to tell them what to do cuase they are criminals an he wouldnt place himself around them, only if it be a funeral or a family land issue at the marae that would include us normal tuhoe people an the local gangs cuase they are still part of our family but i think are idiots for being in a gang, I always see him at maraes for funerals or talks with the elders, or at his office uasuly just him an the secretary at the mission house, You gotta go to rua an spend time there to know the truth, i bet tame would even welcom you to live with him for a while to see what realy happens in tuhoe, I cant believe how the crown lawyer has been out of context in the court case from the begining, What realy disgusts me is the fact that there are people in the south island that have started a army styled training camp that Mark Ellis from tv presented a few years ago was able to train in that manner at the same time tell mark that they wher training agisnt the people of the north island mainly being maori for a so called future war for resourses, i felt intimadated an disgusted when I saw that show, In all the real terrorests are the gangs of nz an especialy army styled training camps like the one in south island that was on Mark Ellis’s show. Thank you for reading this message

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Taxpayermaoriguy (6 comments) says:

    Heres what the army styled camp i was talking about had to say……….. look on this site please http://nationalfrunt.blogspot.co.nz/2010/09/survive-club-in-christchurch.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Taxpayermaoriguy (6 comments) says:

    Although I do disagree with (helen clark) for approving the raids on Tuhoe citizens,But some tried to label us terrorists so that they could beg the crown to pass the terrorist confiscation land act, not just Tuhoe but all over. I’m from there an i know for fact there is no terrorist organization there, A few months before the raids one of our bloodlines of kings… My uncle Barna (((A descendant of our original King an chief King Makariini from the 1800’s to early 1900’s))) needed guns fired to recreate a loud bangs, (((loud bangs to crack open heaven to let the king ascend well in this case the kings descendant))) Im sure all the guns wher licensed. Mostly local Maori activist had attended. Alot of our people voted for the labour party an feel betrayed, other than that labour was a good party.We out Tuhoe are all related but only congregate with own family’s. Why is it that TV Star mark Elis can air a tv show about the south island guys who practice terror raids on there own back yards with full army styled kits an guns showing on tv what they would do to us north islanders if we tried to steal there so called resources when the end of the world comes, i mean WTF!, only took 1 screen shot vid of 2 pakeha guys an 1 dumb maori (minus Tame cuase hes not in that vid) on 1 hidden vid in the ureweras an all hell breaks loose, get rid of the 2 pakehas an the 1 dumb maori, an there problem solved, don’t have to drag innocent people into it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Taxpayermaoriguy (6 comments) says:

    Tame’s guns are all licensed, you know like a normal guy, thats why he can travel, its the other idiots that had unregistered weapons vn you morron, Tame is also a social welfare worker for cyfs an takes the kids hunting, maybe you should try it 1 day instead of accusing ppl when u dont even know them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Taxpayermaoriguy (6 comments) says:

    It is clear that the tuhoe people have been set up by an opposing racial discriminating group intent on infiltrating maori groups that are against injustice of the people of the land, I Know this to be true, All maori groups that believe in justice an social awareness of injustice need to look at there own groups thoroughly for people that may be leading there groups to false accusations, Tame’s group need to look thoroughly in his own group for people trying to set him up, I bet there are a few people in his group that need to be re assessed or evaluated properly, its only easy for one guy from a opposing group to destroy a whole group in minutes disguised to destroy another s group for there own racist groups cause, Tame, I think the people that wher on that video are the guys who are trying to set you up even that maori guy hes probably from another opposing tribe that hates tuhoe, background checks need to be done before people have the right to say they are for tames group, those 2 pakeha an 1 maori guy need to be looked at seriously if they are to continue being in your group Tame, Be strong tame an know that we good tuhoe people love an care for you with all our hearts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Taxpayermaoriguy (6 comments) says:

    Te kooti is from the ngati porou tribe not tuhoe, he threatened tuhoe if they didn’t fight against the crown then we would be punished, few hapu’s in tuhoe joined the crown an wher marked by te kooti, My great great great grandfather is Tutakangahau he is well known in the elsdon best book ,,Tuhoe children of the mist,, My grandfather taught all of us to never be angry when the pakeha get mad at us but learn from our mistakes, My grandfather was raised by missionary’s as a child, Alot of us are christain.

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