So much for that hui

September 17th, 2012 at 6:39 am by David Farrar

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

unity over may already be splintering.

Forty-five of Maoridom’s most powerful leaders yesterday gathered at Ngaruawahia in the wake of a hui convened by King Tuheitia – and later made it clear they were not going to be rolled by a new pan-Maori body in any discussions with the Crown over Maori rights and interests in water.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister John Key flatly rejected the claim by King Tuheitia that Maori had always owned the water.

“In law he’s just plain wrong; all the advice we’ve had is that the common law position is the correct position, which is that no-one owns water.”

Mr Key also rejected meeting a pan-Maori body ahead of individual iwi with water claims – and reiterated that there would be no national settlement on water.

Good. The view of King Tuheitia that all water is owned by Maori and should be controlled solely by Maori must not be accepted.

There also appeared to be overwhelming support for the establishment of a pan-Maori body representing broad Maori interests, including the Maori Women’s Welfare League, the kohanga reo movement, the Maori Council and others appointed by an eminent group, including Tuwharetoa head Sir Tumu te Heuheu.

But the Iwi Leaders Group yesterday issued a statement confirming a resolution had been passed unanimously endorsing the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group and its continued engagement with the Crown.

Meanwhile, Sir Tumu said he was not even in the room when the vote was taken – and had nothing to do with his name being put forward. He confirmed that he would not be nominating anyone for such a body.

So the proposed chair wasn’t even in favour of the resolution. It looks like people were just being polite.

What annoyed me over King Tuheitia’s views is the damage it does to the generally tolerant New Zealand we have. There are genuinely divergent views on issues around the Treaty and Maori in New Zealand. That is inevitable, and will always be the case.

However many, even most, people place greater value of having relative harmony in race relations than insisting that the law must reflect their personal views. Take the as one issue.

I personally believe it is incredibly wrong to have seats in Parliament where voters of only one race can enrol in that seat.  They were set up at a time when only property owners had votes, and was a way to allow Maori who tended to communally own property to vote. They were a well intentioned device, that should have never lasted more than a few years.

Ironically they then became a method of disenfranchisement for Maori, as they were forced to remain on the Maori roll until the 1970s.

But regardless of their history, I quite strongly feel that a country should not have electoral seats reserved for people based on who their parents were.

However I do not advocate scrapping the Maori seats unilaterally. Why? Because I respect that for many Maori, even the majority of Maori, they have become something highly valued and prized. That if Pakeha New Zealanders voted in a referendum to abolish the Maori seats, despite the desire of most Maori New Zealanders to retain them, then it would damage race relations. So I, and many others, do not advocate an abolition in the interests of a harmonious New Zealand. I would like to see the day where the majority of Maori agree to their abolition – something very different to being out-voted on abolishing them.

Now this tolerance and desire for harmony should go both ways in my view. As someone born in New Zealand, who has no other country they call home, I get upset when the Maori King advocates that I have no rights to water in New Zealand – that Maori should control, manage and allocate water. And a hui is held to seemingly advance this view.

And I am not alone in getting upset, when such claims are asserted. The vast majority of New Zealanders find such a claim repugnant, and the impact of such posturing is to diminish the pool of goodwill that exists. It will create a climate where support for settling historical grievances will evaporate, where tolerance of the Maori seats will diminish.

Tolerance is a two-way street.

Tags: , ,

216 Responses to “So much for that hui”

  1. BlairM (2,364 comments) says:

    I dispute that most Maori wish to retain the Maori seats. Half of all Maori have rejected them by enrolling in general seats. If the Maori Party throw their toys out of the cot, National and ACT should just get rid of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Nostalgia-NZ (5,279 comments) says:

    DPF reiterating the diminishing pool of ‘good will.’
    Apparently if you don’t like what someone is saying you imply some kind of threat about a pool of ‘good will.’ I thought ‘good will’ allowed frank discussion and wasn’t something that was withdrawn by the dominant player when they didn’t like hearing the others point of view. DPF then proceeds along to Maori seats, so that one issue leads to another – exactly what he appears to be complaining about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. fish_boy (152 comments) says:

    Wow, a pre-emptive strikes on the PoAL workers union by peddling Rodney Hide’s unsubstantiated assertions, zombie facts and outright smears and now a sneering attack on Maori attempts at unity. The voice of National seems to be reflecting the zeitgeist abroad in this government – when arrogant dismissal doesn’t work, go straight for the bullying and smears.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Positan (393 comments) says:

    “I would like to see the day where the majority of Maori agree to their abolition – something very different to being out-voted on abolishing them.”

    Realistically, it’s now a pipe dream. The record underlines how Maori have used each and every legislated advantage as a fulcrum to lever further advantages. Long ago, when I was at school, our local MP, Jack Marshall, (later Sir John) accompanied us at a tour of parliament and explained its structure in some depth. He explained that the Maori seats were temporary and that they’d disappear eventually as Maori became at one with the ways and processes of the Westminster system.

    Some hope! None of the subsequent Maori seat holders has even showed the remotest inclination to lose their perks and status – despite many Maori having been since elected to both general seats and party lists. Today, under the criteria in which they were established, the Maori seats are completely unjustifiable – yet, with the twisted rationale employed by the likes of Labour and the Greens when political advantage is attainable, the most spurious circumstances are easily upheld and endorsed.

    Sadly today, there are no Maori leaders of the substance of Sir Apirana Ngata and Sir Eruera Tirakatene – there are only advantage seekers of monumental proportions who’re totally unconcerned with the “one people” ideal of their ancestors. There’s no way Maori will ever relinquish “their” seats – and with that objective entrenched, race relations are going to become progressively worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Racial. Reminds me of the Brash Hate Speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. wreck1080 (3,961 comments) says:

    Maori are becoming simply little pigs at the trough.

    Give them an inch and they demand the water the wind and next they’ll be wanting to starve the honkies out of nz entirely.

    This situation is intolerable.

    Johnkey has no balls either. His words and actions differ completely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    It would be like royalty stepping down in the UK. It just isn’t going to happen, and for the same reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    The problem with Maori claims is that a good case is made re the meaning of the treaty and aboriginal title (they don’t believe in the wastelands theory) and they are left with a broad , sweeping and generalised position of “we own everything less private property (not “taken unjustly”). They then have to sell it as some intelligent win:win situation and basis for a modern state. Kind of like a snake trying to swallow an elephant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Mobile Michael (463 comments) says:

    Mustn’t. …. Feed….. Troll…..

    On water property rights it is clear there has been an extinguishing of these in places by the Crown. But it will be limited to a handful of tribes, and a kimited number of locations. That some Maori have claimed everything represents a gross overstatement of their actual position and is more divisive than anything the Crown has said in this debate.

    Regardless of this, the sale of state owned electricity generators is not related directly to the issue of water rights so I’m surprised that National haven’t gone ahead knowing they would win the case if challenged on the Courts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    “Maori are becoming simply little pigs at the trough. Give them an inch and they demand the water the wind and next they’ll be wanting to starve the honkies out of nz entirely.”

    Their is a minority that are making these demands. DPF is correct that these radicals are making life more difficult for the majority of Maori who just want to get on with their lives. Unfortunately, there will will be many landlords and employers who think like you and discriminate solely on the basis of race or skin colour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Megatron (190 comments) says:

    So Tuku Morgan calls John Key culturally ignorant, at least he is not just ignorant like Tuku ( Where’s my satin undies?) Morgan

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    BlairM raises an interesting point:

    I dispute that most Maori wish to retain the Maori seats. Half of all Maori have rejected them by enrolling in general seats.

    We don’t have a system that allows Maori to vote on retaining the Maori seats.

    If only those who choose to be on the Maori roll voted on seat retention then they are likely to vote to keep them.

    But shouldn’t all Maori be able to make that decision?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    Author Bruce Moon points out Delahunty’s majestically blinkered analysis:

    She condemns at a stroke all white men’s accounts of historical events they witnessed.

    Marvellous – none of it counts for anything in her view (and, one suspects that of many/most of her co-conspirators.)

    Then she can ‘prove’ anything else that takes her fancy — intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree.

    It is a blatant piece of racism.

    Yet the Waitangi tribunal accepts anything the grievers want to say about the past.

    Notice the difference.

    I ask: why should anybody else’s (Maori?) accounts be taken as any more reliable?
    http://johnansell.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/delahunty-derides-again

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. IHStewart (388 comments) says:

    ” And I am not alone in getting upset, when such claims are asserted. The vast majority of New Zealanders find such a claim repugnant, and the impact of such posturing is to diminish the pool of goodwill that exists. It will create a climate where support for settling historical grievances will evaporate, where tolerance of the Maori seats will diminish.”

    Probably the most rational statement I have read on this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    “I get upset when the Maori King advocates that I have no rights to water in New Zealand – that Maori should control, manage and allocate water”.

    But you didnt mind loosing your rights to the beaches?

    In fact replace “water” with beaches, foreshore, seabed, Auckland volcanic cones, devenport naval base, Mt tarawera, volcanic plateau, all our state forests, purchase crown land on the auckland Isthmus for the next 150 years, urewera national park, fisheries, waikato river, ……..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Manolo (14,057 comments) says:

    Maori are becoming simply little pigs at the trough.

    Correction. Big, very big pigs since they are after millions and millions of taxpayer’s dollars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Nostalgia-NZ (5,279 comments) says:

    What a ridiculous presumption anyway – that Maori should all agree to anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    ” Hamnida (713) Says:
    September 17th, 2012 at 7:34 am

    Racial. Reminds me of the Brash Hate Speech.”

    standard tactics – if the addressed subject isn’t white then it must be racist.

    The wider issue is that the majority of new zealanders (of all colours) prefer an egalitarian approach in line with the concepts of democracy. Anything with a racial basis offends a sense of fairness. This is countered by an underlying element of guilt as western europeans behaved badly in generations past. In a way such obvious non-egalitarian approach by specific elements of maori may be a good thing as it might trigger a response to move nz to be for all new zealanders and no racially based bias.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. kowtow (8,762 comments) says:

    Unilaterally abolish the seats?

    No,just have a referendum. Add a few other questions like retain the treaty ,do we want an upper house?

    Couldn’t be simpler.

    It’s called democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    Hamnida – exactly what part of Don Brash’s speech in 2004 (I assume this is the one you are talking about) do you find “hateful”? Or inciting hatred?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. loonybonkersmad (27 comments) says:

    This water rights issue has been bubbling away for some time; it just took the asset sales to being it to the surface. [all puns intended]

    The Maori Council appear to have undermined the Iwi Leaders so there is now a split in Maoridom. The patience of the average punter is wearing is thin particularly after claims for wind and now we hear that Wellington train station was to be sold to be a Casino.

    It’s becoming clearer that there are have’s and have-not’s within Maori society and those at the top of Iwi seem to be doing very nicely, while the lot is not improved for the vast majority of their community.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. dime (10,106 comments) says:

    “That if Pakeha New Zealanders voted in a referendum to abolish the Maori seats, despite the desire of most Maori New Zealanders to retain them, then it would damage race relations”

    oh no, we couldnt have that. imagine is maori felt slighted. they would never do that to us.. oh wait.

    fuck em.

    the racist seats should go.

    the next “hui” should be about finding a plan to fix whats wrong in maori society at the moment. im scared to think what the next generation of maori will look like at this rate. probably more in jail, less working, more domestic abuse, more sexual abuse. more costs for dime. scary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. tvb (4,508 comments) says:

    I do not think the Maori king is all that bright. He is pushed around by others. It might be vest if he confines himself to a ceremonial role only.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Redbaiter (9,599 comments) says:

    This post just dances around the real issue.

    That issue is that so called Maori think they are running a separate country under a separate government.

    In fact there is only one government and it should not discriminate based on race.

    Maori are due no special privileges.

    That they labour under the misapprehension that they are due special treatment is the natural outcome of allowing sickly white liberals like John Key et al to govern.

    There should be no special treatment, special laws, special seats, special flags or special government depts for Maori.

    Its all just racist separatist bullshit and it has to stop.

    End of story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. greenjacket (484 comments) says:

    Under Maori custom/tikanga, ownership was derived by (a) conquest and (b) continuous use (“keeping the fires burning”). This was a reason why part of the Crown case in the foreshore & seabed case was that Maori would not be able to prove any customary right in the 21st century anyway – the Court found that while the Crown was correct that it would be almost impossible for a Maori to make a claim under customary rights to the foreshore and seabed, Maori still had the right to take the case to Court. So either the people at this hui were ignorant of their own customary rights/tikanga (which is a pretty sad indictment on those so-called leaders) or they were grifters out to shakedown the government for money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Manolo (14,057 comments) says:

    Will the National Party deliver on its promise to abolish the Maori seats? Only Neville Key and time will tell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Will the National Party deliver on its promise to abolish the Maori seats?

    Not likely this early in the term because it would lose them one of their coalition partners.

    But they would have sufficient parliamentary votes for a referendum on it, it’s United Future policy and presumably Act/Banks would back it ooo.

    Maybe some pressure should be applied.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. alex Masterley (1,523 comments) says:

    greenjacket,

    that is my understanding of tikanga as well.
    If an Iwi/hapu can demonstrate an uninterupted association with foreshore etc then i have no problem with customary title.
    It’s a pretty standard legal concept.

    Water on the other hand is a different matter. I do not accept that anyone has an absolute right to water in the property sense. For want of a better description it is a community asset to be managed for the best interests of all and not just one group of people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. KH (695 comments) says:

    Don Brash was right. But those who have sought destroy his point of view, never actually cite what he actually said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. annie (539 comments) says:

    I personally believe it is incredibly wrong to have seats in Parliament where voters of only one race can enrol in that seat.

    The Maori seats are a neat solution to the problem where an FPP democractic system would otherwise completely over-ride the interests of a population subgroup. Under MMP though, I agree they are superfluous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Redbaiter (9,599 comments) says:

    “If an Iwi/hapu can demonstrate an uninterupted association with foreshore etc then i have no problem with customary title.”

    Well you should have a fucking problem mate, its bullshit that it costing this country millions in investment.

    There should only be one title to land and that is held by the registered owner.

    Any other concept just clouds the legal situation and thereby stuffs the whole concept of private property ownership.

    There cannot be two titles to any one block of land.

    “It’s a pretty standard legal concept.”

    I don’t give a fuck about what is standard or not. It is wrong to have two title holders to the same block of land. It is just so much bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. KH (695 comments) says:

    The apirations of Maori people are not the problem.
    The so called Maori ‘Elite’ certainly are a problem.
    Read this article. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/7687761/Plan-to-sell-railway-station-for-casino
    We have allowed these people the belief that they have a right to take what they want.
    And their belief is based in reality. Because the government have let them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. kowtow (8,762 comments) says:

    Will those who support a republic also call for dethroning the Maori “king”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. emmess (1,432 comments) says:

    The Maori King seems be fighting the battles that were fought by and against the English crown up until the 17th century.
    It appears he believes in some sort of divine right of kings and would like to insert himself as something other than a fully constitutional monarch, the tribal chiefs as the aristocracy and Maori as a whole as a privileged class.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. greenjacket (484 comments) says:

    Alex wrote: “that is my understanding of tikanga as well. If an Iwi/hapu can demonstrate an uninterupted association with foreshore etc then i have no problem with customary title. It’s a pretty standard legal concept. Water on the other hand is a different matter. I do not accept that anyone has an absolute right to water in the property sense.”

    I think we can agree that the chance of any Maori in the 21st century being able to make a serious claim to a customary right/tikanga to water is just totally ridiculous. And John Key and others should be making that clear, and holding up the “Maori leaders” for ricicule and exposing them as the grifters they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    DPF says:-

    “However many, even most, people place greater value of having relative harmony in race relations than insisting that the law must reflect their personal views. Take the Maori seats as one issue.”

    I think this view has long gone. What we are left with now are people too scared of being labeled racists if they express any feeling not considered the “right view” that you believe still exists. I am convinced part of the big move to National 4 1/2 years ago was motivated by people thinking National wpould put an end to years of crap. They wasted a clear mandate in their first 3 years to eradicate race based seats, restore confidience that the system could represent all New Zealanders and promptly jumped in bed with the enemy for zero gain. As someone who, based on principle alone, would rather slash his wrist rather than vote Native, Labour or Greens, I am still gutted by Nationals pathetic approach to this. Key has done enormous demage to National and whilst I will be labelled a heretic I say thank god for ACT who have held firm to their beliefs despite having morons at the helm.

    DFP :-
    “However I do not advocate scrapping the Maori seats unilaterally. Why? Because I respect that for many Maori, even the majority of Maori, they have become something highly valued and prized.”

    You will never get the chance now even if you wanted to. 99.9% of Maori and 100% of Gweens see their value. They have gained traction with myths, legends, lies and smoke screens sticking it to the honkies every which way. They collect massive payout for ancient rubbish whilst giving none of that back to “their whanua”. They destroy the very concept of the welfare system bludging of the DPB and WINZ whilst funding the drug gangs, the TAB, KFC, and the Pokies. We haven’t got enough beds to house them in our jails so we don’t send them or let them out early. Had a Native/Labour/Gweens coalition Govt had control over the past 41/2 years this country would be looking like another Greece. The immigration flood gates certainly would have been wide open so we too could “enjoy” those Islam movies!!!!

    Time will tell though DFP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    This page is awash with racist bigotry and ignorance. You can heap as much abuse, spite, malice, scorn and hatred as you like on the heads of the indigenous peoples of this land but this will not alter some very basic facts pertinent to this debate.

    Fact number 1: The Treaty of Waitangi is enshrined in law in this country. It is a “living document”, it is active and therefore impacts on the lives of all who call themselves New Zealanders and it is incumbent on all of us to make the best of it.

    Fact number 2: Although there are two language versions of the Treaty, for all legal purposes the two documents are treated as one. Where there are differences, in international law the principle of contra proferentum prevails, that is, “the native text must take precedence.” There is broad agreement on the meaning of the Articles of the Treaty. In Article 1 mana whenua grant permission to the Crown to establish and exercise government (or governance). [Note that in the te reo version Maori do not cede sovereignty.] Article 2 guarantees Maori ownership of all their properties and in 1840 this meant nearly everything. These two articles being agreed to, in Article 3 Maori are granted all the rights and priviledges of British subjects – no more, no less. Property ownership is one of those rights. In the te reo version of the Treaty, tangata whenua are guaranteed by the Crown ownership of their taonga. Water is a taonga. There is therefore substance in Te Arikinui Tuheitia’s assertion that Maori own the water. He probably does not mean the rain. He means the water that flows in each iwi’s catchment area. In 1840 iwi owned all of the catchment areas, the rivers and lakes. Very few iwi have relinquished that property right. Instead iwi properties whose ownership was garanteed by the Crown were systematically seized and redistributed among, and to the advantage of, European settlers – Pakeha. A raft of oppressive legislation was then put in place to deter Maori from seeking redress. Most of this has been repealed in recent years and the Crown has recognised that over the years it had acted illegally and immorally in alientating Maori from their properties and denying them their rights. The current debate is not about greed: it is, rather, about fairness and justice. This is not a matter to be settled in the kangaroo court of public opinion and not by the government but in a court of law with the best legal minds trained on it. John Key thinks it is a matter of common law. I would be interested to see that supposition tested. I acknowledge David Farrar for opening up the debate on this site but it is disappointing that instead of measured, rational responses the best that most contributors can do is to resort to racist platitudes and prejudice, and in the case of Redbaiter, filthy language.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. wat dabney (3,809 comments) says:

    What if the Maori King gets angry and stops the rain from falling? How long could we hold out in the face of an imposed drought?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    @BlairM – 7.08 posting.
    I’m not sure you actually get it my son! Those lovely, innocent little natives get two bites of the cherry. Even 20% of them on the Maori role gets them those seats (a racist allocation) but the others get to vote for the other race-based seats – the Maori party and their god – Hone. I’m sorry to tell but you’ve just been royally rodgered again. You’ve probably been wondering why you’ve been walking funny for all this time! And the pain continues. Thank god for MMP huh. Don’t you see why Liebour, the Gweens and Maoris will fight to the death for it. And the more people they encourage on to a benefit, into interest free -never pay the debt student life and govt jobs the more votes they have – beautifully self creating.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Redbaiter (9,599 comments) says:

    Maoriman, who probably has more European blood in his veins than Maori, needs to look up the definition of “fact”.

    Its not a fact that the treaty is a “living document”, or that any so called contract has any “life” of its own. The phrase is just propaganda designed to underpin the designs of those who want other meanings attributed to the agreement than was originally intended. In other words, its neo-liberal bullshit, not a fact.

    As for the rest of his paragraph free drivel, it too is all opinion or fiction.

    Not a meaningful fact to be found.

    If Maoriman is so unhappy here in the New Zealand that so many different races have helped to build, than perhaps he should get in a damn canoe and paddle it all the way back to where he first came from.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. RF (1,451 comments) says:

    What a team… A Maori truck driver and his mate that has a silk boxer short fetish. The “new” New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Redbaiter: you have a very, very small mind. While I am very proud of my English ancestry, the fact is, I was brought up to identify as Maori and know my whakapapa back forty generations in these islands.

    The phrase “living document” is not mine but comes from the legal fraternity. As long as the Treaty has currency, and it has currency every hour of every day in New Zealand life, it lives. But I see you are so consumed by your own ignorance and prejudice that you are impervious to reason and ratoinal debate.

    Who on earth said I was unhappy in New Zealand? You wish! In fact, I am extremely contented with my personal, professional and public life. I am in a very highly paid mainstream job and probably paying more in taxes than you earn in wages (or are you on a benefit?) and I am in a position where I can make sizable philanthropic donations to Pakeha cultural institutions.

    The only cloud on my horizon is racist ignorance and prejudice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    Maoriman – welcome aboard.
    Please reference for me any (even on a wall) record or evidence of Maori writing prior to Europeans landing and conquering Maori. I understand there is none. No pencils, no paper, no cave drawings. I may be wrong (try googling it – you’ll find none) but you will correct me I am sure. Europeans were very clear on ownership having worked with the concept for hundreds of years. Maoris concept was – I’ve killed and eaten you and your family and I’ll “occupy” this until the next tribe comes along. Maori had tiny settlements and travelled long distances only to run away or attack – maybe chase the last Moa.

    Maori’s interpretation of the Treaty is a fabrication of recent imaginations to suit a purpose. Unfortunately they have been endorsed by liberal morons who thought a few thousand dollars paid out would stop the whinging and bleating like stuck pigs. Little did they realise. The english who wrote the Treaty new exactly what it meant and that is what should have been adhered to – Maori lost.
    Here’s a link for you :
    http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/ReadtheTreaty.html
    In the Maori translation to Euro I don’t see taonga mentioned. Its another figment of Maori’s imagination made up since defeat and maori never mentioned it before being conquered or chanted it in battle.

    Many people now think maori have become a parasite on this country in every respect. Most of New Zealand is sick of it and see zero leadership which will change their minds or help to drag Maori out of the 17th century and into the 21st. What is sickening people more and more is the realisation that it will never stop and the more the actual workers and tax payers in this country shell out the more that will be demanded with no apparent change to the status quo.

    This country is broke – it can no longer pamper to the panderings of a race having a lend.

    My suggestion though is to keep poking your tongues out and baring your arses at the honkies as its working a treat at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Redbaiter (9,599 comments) says:

    “The only cloud on my horizon is racist ignorance and prejudice.”

    Mine too, but its all coming from mis-educated people such as yourself who really believe the crap that’s been pushed down their throats under the guise of various cultural studies.

    You’re an indoctrinated TOW industry separatist and you are killing this country.

    And no matter what wage you earn from the government you do not pay tax. Your taxes and your take home pay are both sourced from the productive sector. IOW, I pay it for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    “The current debate is not about greed: it is, rather, about fairness and justice.”

    I’d be more sympathetic to that notion if all Maori were sharing the treaty settlements, rather than a greedy few enriching themselves and doing SFA to help poorer Maori. The greatest inequality in NZ society exists in the microcosm of Maoridom.
    Rich Maori were always rich Maori, poor Maori were always poor Maori. There is no justification for retaining this caste system in present times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. kowtow (8,762 comments) says:

    The treaty is a simple nullity.

    Simple nullity is not my term it comes from the legal fraternity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Paulus (2,662 comments) says:

    The Maori king of the Tainui tribe is a useless illiterate plonker, with Tuku panties Morgan as his thoughts and mouth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    I don’t give a fuck about what is standard or not…It is just so much bullshit.

    Common law not good enough for you, Red?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. MH (813 comments) says:

    the Maori King has found to be topless.
    Taonga comes from the word spear,often meaning goods bartered, ie able to be possesed or owned by the use and force of a weapon and thereby traded-the waitangi Tribunal gave it special meaning,so even if the maori version has to be taken the English translation and implied meaning should have been applied,if only Jkey had said it and a US interpreter been present none of this would be happening now,the Crown lawyers are a gutless lot as as for that pompous Lord Cooke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. RF (1,451 comments) says:

    wtfunz

    And that my friend sums up what is wrong with this country. You are 100% correct and I thank you for clearly expressing what I suspect it to be a belief held by many people living here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. KH (695 comments) says:

    So it goes on.
    “Christchurch’s Maori schools are lodging complaints with the Waitangi Tribunal over their planned merger.”
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/7690199/Schools-lodge-Waitangi-Tribunal-complaints
    Dunedin had a Kura School. New Built at enormous expense (admittedly on the outskirts)
    A total failure – not supposed to say that.
    Maori parents (all parents) avoided it in droves.
    Of course the perpetrators of that little fiasco, blamed that on everybody but themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    wtfunz: you haven’t done your homework. Article 2 in the official version of the Treaty in te reo reads:
    Ko te tuarua
    Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua – ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.

    “me o ratou taonga katao” means “all their treasured possessions.”

    Redbaiter: This is pure rant and wild, emotive and abusive guesswork. Your characterisation of me is fantastic and hilarious. I read it out to the Pakeha colleagues with whom I worked and we all laughed. (Laughter is probably the best medicine to combat racist ignorance and prejudice, so thank you for giving us a good laugh.) It did strike us that this might be the maunderings of a mentally unstable person so perhaps we should not have laughed. I did not say I worked for the government but it is a fact that I pay a lot of tax. I do not complain about this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. b1gdaddynz (279 comments) says:

    I don’t have an issue with Treaty Settlements except that they don’t actually settle anything and they only benifit a tiny minority of Maori! Maori may well have rights to customary use of water and waterways but electrical generation is not a customary use of water!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Manolo (14,057 comments) says:

    The Treaty is a very convenient tool used by descendents of noble and primitive tribal people, which use to fight and eat each other centuries ago.

    As such, this extremely profitable tool, the Treaty, can be used to claim the airwaves, the water and any faraway resources, as long as is considered “taonga”, euphemism for mine, by the tribes.

    Welcome to today’s NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Whoops! Typo. Should be “katoa”.

    Right Now: Who are the “greedy few enriching themselves and doing SFA to help poorer Maori”? I am certainly not one of them nor are the Maori I know who are in leadership positions across the nation. I can’t think of anyone in Ngai Tahu, for example, who has personally enriched himself from their claim settlement. Ngai Tahu have grown their funds spectacularly, they are engaging dynamically with the South Island economy and creating jobs, and they are investing in the education of their young people. They have been entirely transparent in their financial dealings. Occasionally, there is a whiff of corruption around settlements in other tribes but these can easily be dealt with by the law.

    KowTow: you may wish the Treaty was a nullity but it is a fact that it is now enshrined in New Zealand law. True, it was declared a nullity during the later colonial period but no one in the “legal fraternity” would declare it so now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    b1gdaddynz: Ngai Tahu have been assiduous in reaching all of their people and their communication strategy is brilliant. (I have no vested interest in their Treaty settlement as I am from other iwi.) My tribes communicate with me regularly. Although I am listed as a beneficiary, in fact, our settlements have not come through so I do not know what benefits, if any, I will receive. I do not have my hand out. Tribes are finding that the people who are the hardest to reach are the people who have lost contact with their iwi, their hapu and their marae. Many of these have become the urban Maori poor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    maoriman: I’m genuinely glad to hear that Ngai Tahu are reaching out to all of their people; this is what should be done with settlements – use them to benefit the needy in the tribe.

    Too often we hear people such as Hone Harawira bemoaning Maori unemployment, poverty, poor housing conditions, and so on. Very rarely, if ever, do we hear some genuine constructive suggestions from Hone and his ilk as to how to fix these problems. And if we do hear anything, it usually starts with those three magic words, “The Government should …”

    What I would like to hear from Maori is genuine, practical, sensible suggestions on how to start addressing the issues. Rather than being angry all the time, I’d like to see Hone actually roll up his sleeves and tackle just one of the issues he moans about. I’d like to see him organise some hui and come up with some ideas on how to sort out these issues for Maori. We hear so much about how Pakeha ways aren’t Maori ways, and how our ideas and customs simply “don’t work” for Maori. So how about telling us what does work?

    Let’s say housing, for example. Instead of expecting the Government to just magically fix Maori housing issues, tell us what would actually work for Maori. Maybe what would work for Maori would be building several marae around Auckland. Build large houses, so the whanau aren’t over-crowded in small houses; serve communal meals in the dining hall (there’s your malnutrition sorted also); and as a bonus it’ll be a damn sight easier to keep Maori culture alive, by having concerts and shows on the Marae. Build say five marae in strategic locations, where it’s not too expensive, and where your people can easily get to their jobs, and return home to the marae in the evening.

    So if you decide that’s the way to sort out housing issues for Maori, you then go to the Government. You work out a deal. You say, “Hey, instead of spending X dollars on Housing New Zealand, how about diverting some of that into this scheme? Maori will kick in some of their Treaty settlement money, and together we’ll build some top-notch good quality Marae around Auckland for Maori.” Maybe some of the funds needed for building the marae, and the land to build them on, can form part of a ToW settlement. Housing problem – sorted. Inadequete food – sorted, as you’re all eating comunally. Te Reo and Maori culture dying out – sorted.

    Now maybe that idea won’t work. Fine, it’s just a non-Maori’s suggestion. But let’s see some of the Maori in power taking the initiative in something useful to their people for once.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. b1gdaddynz (279 comments) says:

    maoriman- If it doesn’t help improve the lot of the urban Maori poor then what is the point? I’m just wondering because it seems to me that urban Maori poor are in the most need of help from their own people now as the ways and means Pakeha use don’t seem to be hitting the mark! I think (and I don’t intend this to be arrogant and yes I realise that Maori don’t need to care what Pakeha think) that if Pakeha could actually see the treaty settlement money being used to give Maori a hand up it wouldn’t be resented so much! Just my opinion anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Doc (92 comments) says:

    maoriman: “me o ratou taonga katao” means “all their treasured possessions.”

    This may be what Maori “want” it to mean now – but it is NOT what it meant in 1840.

    In 1840 “taonga” meant; “Property procured by the spear”
    ie. It was the spoils of war. The “stuff” that they had either hunted for themselves, or taken by conquest.

    In 1844 “taonga” meant; “Property”
    4 years after the Treaty was signed… Maori were still referring to this as “their stuff”

    Fast forward to 1975 and you will find the first instance where “taonga” was associated with the word ‘treasure’. This was done in a supplementary context (ie. Taonga = Property, Treasures) Still – referencing “stuff that was ‘owned’.

    It was not until 1987 that the phrase “Treasured possessions” was coined. And since then it has ‘gone viral’ to mean everything from the earth and the water, to the sun and the stars. Of course, this makes it about as useful in an agreement as a chocolate teapot. (obligatory ‘English’ colloquialism thrown in there to ensure that this comment has ‘balance’ ;-)

    So – i guess this is what you mean by a “living document”… It is a document that Maori can change to mean whatever suits them on any given day of the week?

    Seriously?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    moari boy asserts the lie that the treaty is to be interoperated only by moari text
    This is not so the treaty comes under the international conventions on treaty and as the English had no way of knowing that the missioner perverted the translation it is null
    He also does not give the full story consider the below findings From the racist Wiatangi Tribunal
    a Particular words and phrases are to be given their normal natural and unrestrained meaning in the context in which they occur. However, if the language used is obscure or ambiguous recourse may be had to extraneous means of interpretation such as consideration of surrounding circumstances.
    c Treaties are to be interpreted as a whole.
    d Treaties are to be interpreted with reference to their declared or apparent objects and purposes, and particular provisions are to be interpreted in such a way that a reason and a meaning can be attributed to every part of the text.
    e Recourse to the subsequent conduct and practice of the parties in relation to the treaty is admissible.
    To assert even government ship the principles of English common law are invoked the none owns water is implicate in English common law

    This is Hobsons statement when the treaty was signed
    “He iwi kotahi tatou” which has been translated as “We are now one people”. This is the overriding principle of the treaty

    One Nation One people One law for all

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Mark (1,491 comments) says:

    Claiming ownership of the water is like claiming ownership of the sun and air and sea. the government goes down a very dangerous road agreeing to any form of concession on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    Clearly you are referring to Rev Henry’s translation into Maori which a clear misinterpretation of Busby’s FINAL draft dated 4th Feb 1840. Te Youngs translation some 29 years later is different again. Herein lies the main reason I refer to anything that happens today as pure fiction and bullshit. To claim three different interprtations is bad enough but to then accept the version the conquered people choose is purely a Billy T James original comic script. You have to be joking. Lets reiterate – Maori had no concept of the written language and the intent of the crown would never have been to ceed the “treasures” (let me stop gagging) to the Maori only and in doing so not include the crown and conquering european settlers, is simply unimaginable. Again – read Bushby’s FINAL draft in English. Maori were signing to stop from being slaughtered and to get the protection of the British navy and Army fron the French and Spanish, who were ready to pounce.

    Lets go to China and buy some land and then write our own interpretation of what that contract says and see how we fare shall we. You wouldn’t need an airfare home as a box will be all you’d need.

    What you say, which has sadly come to pass, is why I will forever call you all FDLM (falling down laughing Maoris). As you no doubt can hear and feel the contempt in my comments I can hear you laughing as you review the incredible con that has been pulled on working New Zealanders. Maori cannot believe they have used the Westminster System, created by the conquering honkies, to manifest (taniwha like) a Con that makes the recent, outrageously successful, Ponzi schemes look second rate. Especially when you FDLM are walking about poking your tongues out while the Ponzi Scheme boys are behind bars.

    I will finish with this refreshment of the facts. You superbly refer to the “original version” being specifically article 2 but your original is in Maori – the heart of your con. History shows , as per the site reference I gave you, final drafts 1 and 2 where in English. This is where the intent was – an English version of ownership. Had Maori written (which they couldn’t as they were illiterate) the document and presented it as part of their surrender you may have a point to argue. THEY DID NOT!!!!

    What was subsequently interpreted is a complete nonsense. As I say – go try it in China.

    PS. – I think there are plenty in the “law fraternity” who agree with this stance but have been ridden over by Findlayson and his army of idiots and university lecturers. Fact – The first term of Law at Auckland Uni is spent indoctrinating the students about the treaty. The kids spend 10 weeks trying not to vommit. I know.

    Please don’t talk about how much you earn and pay/donate as it only makes me speculate that you get it on the Waitangi Tribunal gravy train and you dine with the idiot King or Findlayson or Salmon. Worse still you could be one of the Lawyers destroying this country. Maybe you are Owen Glenn, but I doubt you contribute that much at all. Geez – Luc and Penny probably have paid 2 mill in Tax last year :) :) lol – very impressive eh!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    wfunz said

    prior to Europeans landing and conquering Maori

    But that isn’t what happened. Add historical ignorance to the accusation of cultural ignorance and take a bow.

    I see maoriman’s identification of the racist bile unleashed on this blog (on a regular basis) has had zero effect on the culprits.

    Mark, “concessions” – in reality, settlements of historical grievances for treaty breaches – already exist. As the legal treatment of the treaty deepens and becomes more sophisticated, so do the claims. A knee-jerk reaction is pointless and counterproductive, although satisfying to the jerks, no doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Doc: property procured by the spear? What is your source for this unusual etymology? Or are you making this up? According to the H. W. Williams Dictionary of Maori taonga means “property, anything highly prized”. This dictionary was based on that published by Maori language scholar Archdeacon William Williams in 1844. It was the Reverend Henry Williams who provided the version of the Treaty in te reo and he it was who chose the word taonga. William Williams translated the New Testament into Maori in 1837. If you go to the gospel according to St Matthew, chapter 6, verses 19-21 you will find the word “treasure” rendered in te reo as “taonga” so your date of 1975 for this usage may be a little late.

    By “living document” I do not mean something “that Maori may change to mean whatever it suits them.” I mean the document that is referred to by municipal and government agencies and officers, and lawyers – every work day. Most of these worthy people are Pakeha and other recent immigrants. Seriously.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    The ravings of Griff and Wtfunz are seriously looney. Thank you, Luc Hansen, for understanding where I am coming from. David Farrar who initiated this important conversation deserves a serious debate on the subject, not the vile, malicious, spiteful, uninformed, unintelligent ranting of the Griffs and the wtfunzes of this world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    Sign this http://www.nzcpr.com/petition_EqualRights.php
    Number of people who have signed: 14245

    We, New Zealanders, having founded our society in the equality of comradeship, and living here at home in the land we have made, utterly oppose any laws which establish or promote racial distinction or division.

    There shall be one law for all:
    We refuse to accept any reference to the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles in any constitutional document.
    We require that such references be removed from all existing legislation.
    We require that race-based Parliamentary seats be abolished.
    We require that race-based representation on local bodies be abolished.
    We require that the Waitangi Tribunal, which has outlived any usefulness it may have had, be abolished.

    One nation One people One law for all

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Doc (92 comments) says:

    The source is the 1820 Grammar and Vocabulary of the Language of New Zealand by Cambridge University professor Samuel Lee. Lee’s linguistic consultant was the Ngapuhi chief Hongi Hika.

    If, for argument’s sake, we base our interpretation on William William’s translation of the New Testament – then my argument is reinforced, rather than diminished. (though I will have to concede that ‘treasure’ was associated with ‘taonga’ prior to the twentieth century) You see, Matthew 6:19-21 specifically referrs to “worldly posessions” There is no ambiguity whatsoever. It refers to ‘treasures’ that can be ‘devoured’ by moths & vermin. Treasures that thieves can break in and steal. (and in context – urges the reader to forego those material possessions and instead focus on building spititual capital)

    It is perfectly in keeping with the definition of ‘taonga’ as being the possessions that you have hunted for yourself or raided the neighbouring tribe for.

    With respect to etymology… Is not ‘tao’ the Maori word for a spear?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    The widely disseminated translation of Hobson’s statement in te reo, “He iwi kotahi tatau”, as “Now we are one people” is not correct. The literal meaning is “We are some peoples together” (some tribes together/united/unity us/we).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    maoriman
    loony to fight apartheid if that is you view yes I am
    I would much rather idiots like you called me a loon
    Then be a racist apologist for apartheid who insist that the treaty is a document for racial separation not one of inclusive nationhood !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. b1gdaddynz (279 comments) says:

    maoriman – You didn’t answer my question above? or am I not worth your time…you did say you wanted debate afterall :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    And some tribes had a translation of rangatira as citizen one who is not a slave it was not universally translated as chief

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Thank you, Doc. That is more like the level of intelligent debate I was hoping for on this site. Thank you for sharing your source, which I had forgotten. Samuel Lee provides an important step on the way to developing a dictionary of Maori language. You’re also quite correct: spear is one of the several meanings of the word “tao”. By the way, Matthew 6:20 refers to heavenly or spiritual treasures but whether they are worldly or heavenly treasures the point is that the word taonga signifies “treasure” in the biblical text. In the missionary Maori version of the Treaty the word “taonga” clearly stands for “and other properties” in the English version.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    I see maoriman’s identification of the racist bile unleashed on this blog (on a regular basis) has had zero effect on the culprits.

    An interesting response to those who are simply asking for one law for all people.

    I think Luc may need to look up the meaning of the term “racist”.

    I wonder if he is big supporter of the indigenous people of Europe have special rights and privileges, that are not extended to non Europeans. I wonder if he agrees there should be two standards of citizenship in those places, just as he openly advocates for this country?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Redbaiter (9,599 comments) says:

    “That is more like the level of intelligent debate I was hoping for on this site.”

    That’s rich.

    All you have contributed is to label anyone challenging your state sponsored propaganda as racist and ignorant or mentally unstable etc etc.

    Just typical Marxist/ Progressive propaganda strategy in that anyone who speaks the truth must be targeted and marginalised.

    Once you use those tactics its clear you don’t want any real debate. You really just want to talk about the detail that arises by means of any number of falsely predicated basic positions.

    Chew on this loser.

    There are a steadily growing number of NZers who reject those basic assumptions. Your bullshit has a limited shelf life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. rakuraku (162 comments) says:

    Maoriman thanks for trying to educate the Tory Rednecks that inhabit this site, John Key’s choirboys.

    When the TOW was signed Maori outnumbered the Pakeha Settlors 250:1 so the British did not beatup the Maori’s and then sign the TOW like the rednecks were taught at school. Maori were concerned they were going to be ripped off by the Land Grabbers ie the Wakefield Brothers and the Criminals breaking out of Australia and coming to NZ.

    Maori thought the British were the best option rather than the French ot the Americans, unfortunately little history is taught in NZ schools hence the lack of understanding by the General Public in NZ. Our PM is the product of new immigrants and probably knows very little NZ history, it appears he only understands the $, however he doesn’t appear to be doing a very good job managing the economy and our exchange rate which is his specialist activity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Big Daddy. You are definitely worth my time and your question is a good one. What is the point of Treaty settlements if the money is not trickling down to the urban poor? you ask.

    I know that some iwi, perhaps most, are making strenuous efforts to reach their own urbanised, alienated, detribalised people and register them as “beneficiaries”. They are also planning jobs creation and strongly promoting education. But sixty-odd years of Maori urban poverty is not going to shift overnight and I would be the first to acknowledge the high cost of dysfunctionailty in, and the tsunami of crime emanating from those communities. I fret about the human wreckage of homeless, drug-addled Maori on the streets of central Auckland, and the beggars, disowned by their own people and probably beyond helping. It is a waste and a tragedy. These are the lost generations.

    The Treaty settlements must be used, in the first instance, to build iwi infrastructure and capacity. (Some iwi are doing this brilliantly.) Then jobs creation and education are critical to lifting the next generation out of the morass of inertia. I am doing my bit to support this, believe me. But this is going to take time. If the current government completes its ambitious timeframe for settlements, at that point I think all iwi can be challenged to do something positive, constructive bad dramatic to address the urban poverty issue. Thank you for raising the question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. rakuraku (162 comments) says:

    Maori man is correct the Maori Version of the TOW is the only correct version the interpreted version is incorrect and was signed by very few Chiefs. the level of intellect on this site is extremely limited as you will realise by the childlike responses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    When the TOW was signed Maori outnumbered the Pakeha Settlors 250:1

    So the settlers were a minority group then. What did Maori do to protect the rights of this vulnerable minority?

    I am just asking, as us rednecks may learn something about how to treat minorities from the enlightened Maori of yesteryear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. rakuraku (162 comments) says:

    Maori encouraged European settlement in NZ and provided food and land for early settlement as they realised they had to embrace the modern world. Hongi Ika the Ngapuhi Chief from the BOI actually went to Cambridge University in the UK in 1820 accompanied by Thomas Kendall he also met the King of England at the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    We are some peoples together” (some tribes together/united/unity us/we).
    unity = The state of being united or joined as a whole, esp. in a political context.
    So by you post Hobson said we are peoples joined as a whole
    As I said “together as one” not in a partnership or any other racist construct you try to create out of the ether

    keep an eye on the loon quotient in the “The Declaration of Equality” Its gaining loons rapidly and they have not even started pushing it yet
    Number of people who have signed: 14440 Won’t you just love democracy moariman when we vote apartheid out of this country.
    http://www.nzcpr.com/petition_EqualRights.php

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Spoken like a true bogan, Redbaiter. I see I have got under your skin. Good. You are unable to debate in a civilised manner. All you do is lash out wildly with preposterous allegations. What you write is therefore not really worth reading – except aloud and for a laugh. Try it yourself and listen to yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. rakuraku (162 comments) says:

    Redbaiter lives in his own fantasy world and is basically isolated from reality.

    However I find his comments highly entertaining and he does make me laugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Kea: the rights of the Pakeha were the responsibility of the British goverment whose representatives were resident, first, in the Bay of Islands, then in Auckland. That being said, there were many instances of Maori treating the new settlers with kindness and civility. Why, Maori even married Pakeha!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. KH (695 comments) says:

    Is “Maoriman” also known as ‘Scarfie”. Same self presentation as knowledgeable, but ends up coming over as sneering, arrogant and belittleing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    The TOW is indeed a living document. You’ve got to consider the historical aspect as well as the modern context. This was an aspect that Helen Clark for all her supposed sophistication in foreign affairs couldn’t manage.
    1. Where the relationship between Maori and the land was broken, there must be redress. This is a faithful adherence that the National party has maintained which makes Redbaiter grumpy and everyone think he’s just a prick. however Redbaiter has a finely tuned nose for the whiff of socialist bullshit so don’t write him off completely.
    2. This aspect of tribal ownership does not necessarily engender a relationship between Maori and global commodities. Water and other environmental commodities are too fickle to harness by singular entitles. In these instances a democratically elected government should be the only custodian.
    I’m just a simple housewife but have the following thoughts on Maori ownership:
    http://nowoccupy.blogspot.com/2012/09/ureweras-go-to-ngai-tuhoe-great.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    @KH @6.15pm. Nah he says he’s got dough.
    And hey. What’s wrong with boguns? @Maoriman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Doc (92 comments) says:

    Maoriman: I do find it somewhat ironic that we’re using two translations of a 2000 year old Hebrew text to establish the corellation between two versions of a completely unrelated document :-)

    Next up, we will have to debate the metaphorical/literal intent of the Apostles… But that may be more suited to another topical issue relating to marriage! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Maori encouraged European settlement in NZ and provided food and land for early settlement as they realised they had to embrace the modern world. Hongi Ika the Ngapuhi Chief from the BOI actually went to Cambridge University in the UK in 1820 accompanied by Thomas Kendall he also met the King of England at the time.

    Yes your right.

    So how about drawing upon the example of your early ancestors and work together?

    That is all most people are asking. They are not Maori bashing, they are just frustrated by the double standard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    Fuck yeah moariboY so civilized to go to England and visit the king
    Hongi Hika returned to the Bay of Islands in July 1821, after 457 days away, via Sydney Australia where he picked up an estimated 500 muskets that were waiting for him. The muskets had been ordered by Baron Charles de Thierry whom Hongi met at Cambridge, England. De Theirry traded the muskets for land in the Hokianga,[4] although De Theirry’s claim to the land was later disputed. Hongi was able to uplift the guns without them being paid for. He also had a large quantity of gunpowder, ball ammunition, swords and daggers. Using these within months of his return he led a force of about 2,000 men to attack a pa (Māori fort) at (Panmure) on the Tamaki River, killing 2,000 warriors and their women and children in retribution for a previous defeat. Deaths in this one action during the inter tribal Musket Wars outnumber all deaths in 25 years of the sporadic New Zealand Wars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. RF (1,451 comments) says:

    KH

    Don’t forget Maoriman pays more tax than us. I feel so inferior. Not… The tosser. That’s the problem when you push house $@?@$?s into the modern world and give them a modern standard of living.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. tom hunter (5,085 comments) says:

    If the current government completes its ambitious timeframe for settlements, at that point I think all iwi can be challenged to do something positive, constructive bad dramatic to address the urban poverty issue.

    I don’t have any problem with settlements for the historic breaches of the treaty. My issue is that when all the historic claims are settled I don’t think that will stop the claims process. Given the endless development of “new” resources in our technological society, there is plenty of scope for current and future claims to be made – what DPF once called “ongoing contemporary issues

    This “process” will never end. There are too many people invested in making it continue and it will be firewalled by the cry of “racism”.

    Best of luck with the resulting racial tensions!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Doc: yes, it is ironic but also very interesting and useful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    maoriman: If you’re still around, I’d be interested in your comments on my suggestion at 3:22 pm. Just one idea, very very slightly out of left field, about maybe one way to address one of the issues facing Maori (housing) and bring back a little of the Maori lifestyle. Maybe.

    What do you think? Could it work?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Kea: the very good news is that many Maori are working amicably, positively and constructively alongside Pakeha and tauiwi for the betterment of New Zealand. I am one of the lucky ones. I have attained high status within a western environment and I am very grateful for this. However, I worry about my indigenous culture which is unique to these islands and I will not stand by and see it destroyed by the white supremacists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Graham: sorry I missed your 3.22 post. The posts have been rolling in at such a rate that I’ve missed some but I’m really pleased you drew my attention to it. Thank you for your thoughtful, positive and timely response. As a matter o f fact, I wrote an article on Maori architecture in Historic Places back in 1990. At that time a kaumatua village had been designed and built on the Chatham Islands in which the cottages took into account the ways in which elderly Maori utilised the spaces they inhabited. Certainly, meeting houses are very potent emblems of identity and centers for culture – as they are, for example, in Australia where 100,000+ Maori live for whom it remains important that they identify as Maori, albeit as members of new, urban iwi and have gathering places in which their cultural practices can be enacted. The dilemma with Maori housing is: should we pepper pot Maori in mainstream communities where they were subjected to racial abuse, as happened in the nineteen-sixties, or should we corral them into ghettoes, as is the situation in South Auckland? Should we design houses around the kind of use that Maori customarily make of them or should they be designed so that other people could live in them if the Maori occupants move on? The brilliant Maori architect designed a series of very stripped back state houses, specifically with Maori an Pacifc Island tenants in mind in the ‘eighties. I wish I had the time and space to sare more of this with you as you are certainly on to something.

    Don’t be too hard on Hone. He can come across as abrasive and angry but he does work very hard for his, and my, people of Te Tai Tokerau.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    The brilliant Maori architect, Rewi Thompson….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. rakuraku (162 comments) says:

    Maoriman nice to see some educated indigeneous comment on this Blog it is quite refreshing in amongst the racist banter which I must admit I find quite amusing. The rednecks appear to school on this site.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    All we can afford to do

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. RF (1,451 comments) says:

    Maoriman

    Jesus.. Pays more taxes than the average Joe. One of the lucky ones who now attains high status. Who blows your trumpet when you rest.

    I can see why the Maori race is in trouble. I hope you toss a few coins to the poor when you step over them..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    “That if Pakeha New Zealanders voted in a referendum to abolish the Maori seats, despite the desire of most Maori New Zealanders to retain them”

    Dime, that is not necessarily the case. Obviously most Maori on the Maori roll would vote to keep them but most Maori are not on the Maori roll and if the vote was including all Maori they may not vote to keep them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. tom hunter (5,085 comments) says:

    The level of intellect on this site is extremely limited as you will realise by the childlike responses.

    The rednecks appear to school on this site.

    It always amazes me that so many insecure little lefties turn up on this site making this claim – Hamnida is probably the prime current example, with no sense of how ironic his claims are. And now we have rakuraku, author of this instant classic on Winston Peters:

    The guy is honest as the day is long, he has principals and sticks with them, he may have had some minor indiscretions but nothing worthy of the aitime he received

    Comedy gold – and as I said, no sense of irony. One can almost see the braincells oozing out from the overcrowding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Nostalgia-NZ (5,279 comments) says:

    Getting back on track for a moment. DPF commented on apparent disunity within Maori as though that contributed in a negative way to their argument. All Maori may not be of a single view and never will be, so what. It remains that the arguments have yet to be heard in detail, final positions yet to be taken, lines have been drawn and will be redrawn – that’s politics. So is taking the bait apparently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    I worry about my indigenous culture which is unique to these islands and I will not stand by and see it destroyed by the white supremacists.

    Maoriman; I see no evidence that white supremacists are destroying the indigenous culture. I do see evidence of them self destructing.

    We have some common ground here, in that we are both worried about the way things are going for Maori. Where we differ is in the solution and the way forward.

    Having special rights and benefits conferred on one cultural group, combined with concern over historical wrongs, are prominent features in most of the worlds hell-holes. It is a destructive and divisive approach that will ultimately harm Maori. You have attained high status within a Western environment without diminishing your cultural values. Others can do the same. I doubt that was “luck” as you claim. You did something right.

    The early settlers admired the resourcefulness and spirit of Maori. They respected them. This was way before any notions of political correctness and equality had any traction, rather the opposite was the case. They were not a nation of victims. I wonder how the settlers would regard the Maori of today, and I wonder what the early Maori themselves would think. I don’t think our forefathers, of either culture, would be that impressed with us lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    “The guy is honest as the day is long” – at least that part is close to the mark, especially this soon after the shortest day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    RF: I only said that to annoy the racists and ignoramuses on this site but it is true that I pay more taxes than “the average Joe” (your term) receives in wages. I give thousands of dollars to various causes and charities, none of them political, in preference to tossing “a few coins to the poor.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    “I give thousands of dollars to various causes and charities, none of them political”
    Tithing Christians do that year in, year out. The difference is they don’t brag about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    I stood outside the intercontinental hotel with the pr*ck minto trying to stop the all blacks going to south Africa, only to have apartheid brought in here. Remember the book “cry the beloved country”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. pq (728 comments) says:

    Mr Farrar is well settled into his position with NZ NAT Government and he can also write doublespeak.

    He Farrar says”

    “I personally believe it is incredibly wrong to have seats in Parliament where voters of only one race can enrol in that seat.

    “However I do not advocate scrapping the Maori seats unilaterally. Why? Because I respect that for many Maori, even the majority of Maori, they have become something highly valued and prized. That if Pakeha New Zealanders voted in a referendum to abolish the Maori seats, despite the desire of most Maori New Zealanders to retain them, then it would damage race relations. So I, and many others, do not advocate an abolition in the interests of a harmonious New Zealand. I would like to see the day where the majority of Maori agree to their abolition – something very different to being out-voted on abolishing them.”

    That is let us paraphrase Farrar,

    the Maori seats are race based and racist ipso facto by that situation, but then to correct the situation might upset Maori, and we are not going to do that because it might be seen as racist, it may create disharmony, and equality of voting is not our priority, and even though it is racist we must give Maori everything he wants or we would lose the harmony we don’t have, and you can see I stand on two hot wires and i think I can get away with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. pq (728 comments) says:

    Further re to above ” Farrar says :


    That if Pakeha New Zealanders voted in a referendum to abolish the Maori seats, despite the desire of most Maori New Zealanders to retain them, then it would damage race relations. So I, and many others, do not advocate an abolition in the interests of a harmonious New Zealand. I would like to see the day where the majority of Maori agree to their abolition – something very different to being out-voted on abolishing them.

    Paraphrase

    If New Zealanders voted in a referendum, we must subject those votes to a racist or class criteria. This criteria does not favour Asians or Australians, it is absolutely Maori. We do not have any guts at all. No wonder people vote NZ first but we are still stupid enough to think we can form the next coalilition,.
    As an aside in the interests of harmony the NZ Govt has decided to offer all old people, even if they vote NZ First , we offer them their due 20 seats in parliament. Stupid isn’t it , why do we have a separate class , ring Ngai Tahu and you find out who runs this place

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. pq (728 comments) says:

    paraphrase Farrar, again,

    “I did tell you did I not the the NZ NAT Govt does not pay me any money at all, except for research.
    But of course i joke with you, I am not a researcher at all, I am a publicist

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    maoriman: I stand by my comments regarding Hone. In the main, the general public only experiences Hone as a serial complainer, as someone expecting Government to fix things, as someone with a real chip on his shoulder against Pakeha.

    I genuinely believe that the average New Zealander sees the average Maori individual as just another average New Zealander – someone who, as an individual, works hard to provide for their family, enjoys life, and just gets on with life like the rest of us. Within the Maori community there are some people who have excelled in their chosen careers, just as in the Pakeha community. And sure, just as in the Pakeha community, there are some Maori who are deadbeats. But the average individual Maori person is generally a decent hard-working Kiwi bloke or blokette. Same with the average PI. Hell, I know one bloke from Niue who’s well into his sixties now, and still working 12-hour days at hard manual labour. He’s a damn sight fitter than me, I couldn’t do it.

    But there are a handful of people who are responsible for stirring up resentment and ill-will against Maori. These people include Hone Harawira, Titewhai Harawira, the Popata brothers, and Margaret Mutu, among others. These individuals have done far more damage to race relations in this country than any other individual or group (and when you consider we have morons like Kyle Chapman around that’s some achievement).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Redbaiter (9,599 comments) says:

    “I only said that to annoy the racists and ignoramuses on this site ”

    There are none- There are though people who strongly disagree with the putrid state-manufactured “Maori have been hard done by past generations and therefore deserve compensation from this generation” narrative.

    “but it is true that I pay more taxes than “the average Joe” (your term) receives in wages. ”

    This is merely a claim and still remains completely unsubstantiated. I say you are not earning any real wage, or paying any real tax, for it is very unlikely that one so obviously incapable of rational and critical thought would be worth any money to a profit aligned productive and private sector enterprise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    Luc, maoriman and rukaruka, I think I love you.
    You epitomise why NZ is in the crap it is in today. Maori were “conquered” in several ways – Fact -europeans were advanced with big sailing vessels and guns. They had real food and goods to live with and develop.
    Fact – maori were a tribal warring race who hated each other more than they hated the Honky. They would have killed each other off just as they killed the Mori ori.
    Fact – they were “spiritually conquered” (a lovely native term). Why else would a force, ex Luc, numbering 250/1 sign anything. They also knew the French or Spanish were coming and desperately wanted the protection offered so clearly in the treaty. I don’t think the French would have been so accomodating.

    You can call people all the names you like but the fact remains the entire treaty and subsequent tribunal debacle is based on a fallacy you constantly refer to, being – the only Treay is the Maori version. Reason – this is the dreamed up one which suits Maori. The English who wrote (see the drafts) the thing had no concept of “to hongas, hikos’, water spirits, taniwha or any other rubbish”. Their INTENT was to establish property rights, citizenship, common law and soverienty/protection. Lets remind ourselves – Maori were illiterate savages with no written language (or are you in denial about this also).
    Maoris perfect crime has been to use a weak system to convert the “Intent of the Document” to suit their own ends.

    It is time for the erroneous rulings that have been made in the past to be reviewed, quashed and get on with one country for one people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Wtfunz: have you actually read the treaty? In English? Article 2 is unequivocal in guaranteeing the chiefs and the people ownership of all the things they possessed. In Article 3 the indigenous people are guaranteed the rights and privileges of British subjects. Maori were granted the same ownership rights as Britons. The fact that Maori owned nearly everything at the time,and should still own it, does not alter the principle. The point about the version of the Treaty in te reo is that, in the event of a difference in meaning between texts in international law, it is the version in the language of the indigenous parties that is preferred. Although the word “taonga” in the version in te reo is usually translated as “treasure”, it is meant to stand for the word “possessions” in the English language version. But you will dismiss these points as fallacy because you are so consumed with hatred that you are impervious to reason. I could make the same observation of your intellectually impaired and emotionally unstable, and dyslexic, fellow traveller, Redbaiter. Perhaps you should both return to your own countries if you cannot co-exist with this country’s indigenous people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    “The fact that Maori owned nearly everything at the time,and should still own it, does not alter the principle. ”

    Ok, I’ll sign the petition.
    http://www.nzcpr.com/petition_EqualRights.php

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. RF (1,451 comments) says:

    Maoriman

    Sorry but when the White man arrived here the Maori was a primitive race that had no knowledge of metal. That’s why a single nail was highly valued. Basically they were stone age people with no written language. When they traded for firearms and used these against enemy tribes this resulted in mass slaughter. The cooking fires burnt through the night and you ate your enemy. The deals for land etc struck with the white man were reasonably fair in those days as a musket was worth a small fortune.

    It’s nice to try and go back to re invent the wheel but deals were struck and we cannot keep going back to right any wrongs that you believe may have taken place.

    As they say.. Build a bridge and get over it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    maori BOY your little story ignores some very important facts the treaty guarantees the moari the rights as British subjects
    subjects under the crown. also if you read international law of treaty as I have already refered you to the treaty is null the lie of moari version takes precedence is a good story but not actually correct. that the two sides disagree and the translator was not impartial makes it viod Must piss you greedy bastards of eh also if you read the preamble it leaves no doubt as to the intention of hobson and as some moari could read English as well as speak it again fail for the bro version. the crown only signed the English version in england so again fail
    and one last thing we are going to vote the treaty back on to the shelf If I were you i would be worried about that cushy job you have you do not have sell able skill in the real world and if te tREATY goes so does the bullshit make work that you do

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Than (491 comments) says:

    Maoriman,

    In article one of the treaty Maori leaders gave the Queen “te kawanatanga katoa” over their land. This was translated as “sovereignty” in the English version.

    By definition governance/sovereignty is the right to pass laws and govern. So I assume you will agree the government has the right (under the Treaty) to pass legislation nationalizing Maori interests in waterways? In exactly the same way they could nationalize anyone else’s property for a national park or state highway?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. tom hunter (5,085 comments) says:

    The fact that Maori owned nearly everything at the time,and should still own it,

    The phrase you are looking for is Neuadel aus Blut und Boden, though I’m sure you will insist on a Maori translation.

    I must confess that every time I’m inclined to think that my children might have as good a life as I have had in New Zealand, I read comments from smug elitists like you in your comfortable little nest of institutionalised racism, and realise that they have no future in this country.

    In that respect they’re lucky, being the holders of foreign passports. Like others before them in various parts of the world, they will be able to escape the clutches of racists. I guess we both win.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    I think you’re going just a wee bit overboard there, tom hunter, with that particular comparison. I don’t see anyone clamouring for a “new nobility” as such.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Than: kawantana does not mean sovereignty. It means governorship. The word is a neologism coined by the missionaries for the translation of the Bible into te reo to refer to governors in biblical lands.

    Tom Hunter: no te reo transaction needed, than you, as I read German.

    Griff: hatred, hatred, hatred. Envy, envy, envy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Than (491 comments) says:

    Maoriman: Yes, I am aware of that. But any definition of governorship includes the right to pass laws and govern. The govenors in biblical lands certainly had such authority.

    What else do you think this article could mean, if not the right to govern the land?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Black with a Vengeance (1,865 comments) says:

    Griff: hatred, hatred, hatred. Envy, envy, envy.

    oh dont mind Griff. hes still pissed off the blacks took back Sth Africa and thinks any recent cracka ass immigrant to NZ has the same rights as first nation peoples on their own lands and waterways.

    such a sad, deluded c*nut…pity the fool!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Graham: I think Tom Hunter is espousing this phrase for himself. I see that his children have foreign passports. How disloyal is that? I hope they are not a chip off the old block as the indigenous people in the chosen countries will be in for a very hard time, as the indigenous people of Brazil are being murdered and their lands illegally seized by Hunter’s kith and kin. When I was a student in London I qualified for patrial status through my English grandparents. I chose not to do that as I am a proud Maori in my identity and a proud New Zealander by nationality. I have immense faith in the future of this country and I am excited by the rise of Auckland as a dynamic Asian city. The white supremacists of the One Nation tribe cannot change any of this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Well said, Black with a vengeance!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    “The white supremacists of the One Nation tribe cannot change any of this”.
    You are the racist moari boy I am not talking white supremacist I am talking equality for all
    Racism is generally defined as actions, practices, or beliefs that reflect the racial worldview: the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”. This ideology entails the belief that members of a race share a set of characteristic traits, abilities, or qualities, that traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral characteristics are inherited, and that this inheritance means that races can be ranked as innately superior or inferior to others

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Black with a Vengeance (1,865 comments) says:

    oh bullshit griff…youre talking maintaining eurocentric privilege. Re inforcing white cultural elitism.

    dont try and tell me youre repping equality on behalf of Asians, Africans, Middle Easterns, Americans or anyone else here in NZ.

    go back to saffa land and sort your shit out there before coming here and telling us how to run shit.

    Fucking dumass prawn!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    I see that his children have foreign passports. How disloyal is that?

    Huh? Not at all disloyal. My wife has a British passport, but she chose to move to New Zealand many years ago. It is possible to be loyal to two countries, mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    1! I am a kiwi I was born here that you attempt to label me as from saffa land is more racist language from a racist
    2 Yes equality means for all
    I don’t care what colour your skin is were you or your ancestors came from If you are a New Zealanders you deserve equal rights under New Zealand law

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Black with a Vengeance (1,865 comments) says:

    more racist language from a racist…

    i know you are but what am i ?

    you’re a kiwi…hahaha I’m a Pouakai.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    Maori legends speak of te Pouakai, meaning ‘old glutton.’
    You are certainly making a pig of your self with your overt racism and excreatable language

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Black with a Vengeance (1,865 comments) says:

    gluttons for punishment…yeah its a trait we Pasifikans need to de evolve.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    The racism of the moari is not helping pacifika and is not truly supported by pacifaka even if you believe other wise. You should go into Auckland uni and talk to the pacifika department. You are endorsing racism that benefits only moari not your own people, Go to Fiji they are trying to move away from the tribal racist paradigm to create a country were all can be equal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Than: you are correct. But the yielding of governance is contingent upon the two other articles of the Treaty being honoured:

    Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.

    If Maori are not to have the same property rights as Pakeha, if they are to suffer their properties being seized and redistributed along racial lines, if they have to continue to battle for the rights of ownershp guaranteed by the Crown, then perhaps the chiefs should withdraw the permission granted by their ancestors for the Crown to establish governance, so that we regard all who have settled in this land but who do not whakapapa into the land, as invaders and the iwi lands as being under under occupation. It is the Treaty that currently prevents us from pursuing this line of thought.

    Griff: you have a unique way of spelling the word Maori but I put this down to your dyslexia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. tom hunter (5,085 comments) says:

    How disloyal is that?

    Huh?

    Chuckle. Don’t worry about it Graham, for we can now add to the list, Samuel Johnson’s old adage about patriotism being the last refuge of a scoundrel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Samuel Johnson’s adage is amusing and clever but utterly, utterly meaningless and completely irrelevant to this debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Manolo (14,057 comments) says:

    you’re a kiwi…hahaha I’m a Pouakai.

    Stone Ager is far more accurate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    Functionally illiterate. I can not write :lol:
    Its not a crime and I manage to still get my point across
    Your post moari man is a veiled threat of violence that has been used in the past to justify appeasement History tells us that appeasement only makes the foe stronger and does not halt the eventual confrontation
    In the New Zealand wars many moari fought on the side of the crown this will happen again your divisive policy’s are continued
    The number on the moari roll is only a proportion of moari Many get on with life with out the racist culture of your tribalism

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. tom hunter (5,085 comments) says:

    Your post moari man is a veiled threat of violence

    Yes, I noticed that too. The iron fist beneath the velvet glove so to speak. It’s one of the great things about blogs and their threads, that it allows people like “maoriman” to talk and talk and talk – and thus reveal themselves further.

    So here we’ve seen maoriman descend from a smug sense of supremacy of knowledge and comfort to implications perfectly fitted to the Corleone family.

    Of course, like BWAV, it could all just be a mask. For all the bluff and bluster of claimed high incomes, high taxes paid, a high degree of philanthropy donations, and the hearty backslapping of his Pakeha comrades at work as the laugh at this thread, the fact that “maoriman” hides behind a pseudonym suggests that he’s not that confident that what he writes here is as respectable as he implies, and would not show him in a new and disturbing light to those who actually know him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Black with a Vengeance (1,865 comments) says:

    caveman with a laptop, stone ager with a smartphone…

    …be afraid ? Fear is the mindkiller!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    I had a great laugh at your expense, tom hunter. Thanks for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Redbaiter (9,599 comments) says:

    ” For all the bluff and bluster of claimed high incomes, high taxes paid, a high degree of philanthropy donations, and the hearty backslapping of his Pakeha comrades at work as the laugh at this thread, ”

    Yeah, I sensed exactly the same thing.

    All complete and utter bullshit from a dopey little commie.

    He should be given a wooden canoe and told to paddle it back to where he came from.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    tom hunter: you are absolutely correct. I have no need to hide behind a pseudonym as most people are doing on this site. Google the name Mane-Wheoki. I guess I then wait for you all to sharpen your arrows….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Nostalgia-NZ (5,279 comments) says:

    A couple of points to make.

    The share plus suggestion is a recognition of a type of reimbursement for use or purchase of use of water. That recognition seems to be a key here but instead we are seeing polar differences in some assuming what water ownership means without having the opportunity to have it explained. I don’t think we are seeing good leadership here.

    The second point is that the view is being touted around that the Government is ‘ticking the boxes’ (don’t like those cliched words) by holding meetings in order to stabilise a position before the Courts, if this does reach the Courts, of having been involved in dialogue. But what seems to be missing is the appreciate that dialogue can’t be presumed on one party’s terms and imo Key is mistaken with that – so the exercise seems to be futile. What isn’t futile is the pragmatic resolution that could sit under some agreement palatable to all which might be share plus or some variation of that settled by the parties. The objection from Maori or some Maori is that they have a single voice, something I suggest that is hard to achieve and not necessary to be achieved – that bridge should be crossed first to give a framework toward an agreement.

    Another observation is the apparent lack of foresight within both sides (although fairly, the Maori isn’t just one side as it represents many different aspirations) of seeing those such as Morgan speaking when it is known he’s seen as divisive, and on the other the what seems stupidity of holding meetings with absent parties. Leaders step up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    The government is making a fair attempt that iwi refuse to engage is not the governments concern. There is no single voice under the treaty

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    Professor of fine arts hahahahhahahahahahahahah had to be some isolated bastion of lefty social engineered idiocy
    stick to ya poi and Tiki Poupou boyo

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Griff: you are making stuff up again. “The racism of the moari is not helping pacifika and is not truly supported by pacifaka even if you believe other wise. You should go into Auckland uni and talk to the pacifika department.” I know the staff of the Department of Pacific Studies and its excellent Director, Walter Frazer. I have never heard them speak disrespectfully of Maori or of the Treaty. To do so would violate the University Charter and compromise their professional integrity and I know them to be thoroughly professional people.

    Again, “Your post moari man is a veiled threat of violence”. Stuff and nonsense: it is a hypothetical position. As I clearly stated, “It is the Treaty that currently prevents us from pursuing this line of thought.” Thank God, then, for the Treaty!

    “Functionally illiterate. I can not write. Its not a crime and I manage to still get my point across.” I agree, totally. But why, then, do you resport to filthy, adolescent, abusive, expletive-riddent invective? Is anger management a problem for you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    I’m laughing along with you, Griff. I knew this would appeal to your immature view of the world. Heap as much abuse on me as you like. I can take it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Black with a Vengeance (1,865 comments) says:

    There is no single voice under the treaty – Griff

    its a start.

    Now repeat after me. Maori are NOT a race!!!

    “The racism of the moari is not helping pacifika and is not truly supported by pacifaka even if you believe other wise. You should go into Auckland uni and talk to the pacifika department.”

    jeez…you’re dumb !!!

    BTW apologies for my filthy, adolescent, abusive, expletive-riddent invective Professor. Its how I roll in the real world sometimes, so i dont see why i should change that to accomodate some uppity cracka asses in the virtual one. Take the boy out the hood and all that…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    . I have never heard them speak disrespectfully of Maori or of the Treaty. To do so would violate the University Charter and compromise their professional integrity

    and so that again is a veld threat if you don’t toe the treaty line you will be disciplined. not allowed to talk truth must support treaty

    if you read bwav his language is not exactly pure as driven snow. I am actually told in my personal life I am to laid back any more and I would fall over
    The apartheid movement is a big backwards step for New Zealand that for some reason I find against my core values freedom and democracy
    A view shared by Number of people who have signed: 18611 http://www.nzcpr.com/petition_EqualRights.php
    and growing there will be a political party in the next election that will stand on the one point equal rights for all

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Elizabeth Rata is the only academic making any sense on this issue. Every one else just toes the iwi line. http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/elizabeth-rata
    She’s also the guest commentator of on nzcpr.

    She’s gone on about this neo-iwi capatilism for almost 20 years but as usual in NZ, the scenery only ever changes for the lead dog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    Maoriman – you are laughing as a FDLM (falling down laughing Maori) I think I’ve seen three different versions of the taonga crap in this thread alone. Like the people you represent on that Waitangi Gravey Train you live off ,you have have forgotten which lies you have told and when.
    Congrates however for admitting the only TOW version you want is the Maori one – shit, thats the only one you can make up what ever you like in.

    I take great comfort from you calling me names however as it is your best representation on this forum of you poking your tongue out and baring your arse as you love to do. On the other hand the facts I present are like a musket ball between the eyes. You IQ challenged natives are still working out that it is the musket which wins. Can I sell you a steel spade to dig a hole and some nails for your coffin perhaps. You keep throwing bones, stones and sticks – I’ll have the musket and steel thanks.

    Cheers to RF, Griff, Than, Tom and Red

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Redbaiter (9,599 comments) says:

    “Professor of fine arts hahahahhahahahahahahahah had to be some isolated bastion of lefty social engineered idiocy”

    Yeah, knew it..

    Paying taxes..??

    As much use to NZ’s productive sector as a radiator for a Volkswagon.

    FFS, who’s laughing now maoriman??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Griff: I don’t know that the Afrikaans word apartheid, which was, in effect, brutal, white minority domination of a black majority in South Africa, is an appropriate term to use in New Zealand. We have a Treaty which was meant to protect New Zealand’s indigenlous people’s property rights.
    My prediction is that the Euqal Rights political movement will go the way of previous extreme right wing political movements such as One Nation in New Zealand. However, I would defend the right of the white supremacists to organise themselves, politically, and it if did come to pass that a white majority was once again in a position to tyrannise the indigenous minority then we would have to figure out how to deal with this.
    By the way, Pacific peoples, disadvantaged people and people with disabilities are also covered by the University Charter. I think that any colleague who discriminated against people with disabilites, for example, would deserve censure. The University bends over backwards to accommodate cultural diversity and difference and to encourage tolerance. It is great that students from diverse backgrounds and cultures – Pacific, Asian, Muslim, Maori, Pakeha can feel comfortable in the University and in each other’s presence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    wtfunz: “Congrates however for admitting the only TOW version you want is the Maori one – shit, thats the only one you can make up what ever you like in.” This is a complete falsehood. I have been most punctilious in admitting the validity of the version of the Treaty in English. There is very little difference between the two versions and both are valid in the eyes of the law of the land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Redbaiter: “FFS, who’s laughing now maoriman??” I am. All the way to the bank. I pay taxes on my investments in the productive sector, not just on my salary. Envy will get you nowhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Redbaiter (9,599 comments) says:

    You’ll enjoy my latest post Maoriman-

    http://truebluenz.com/2012/09/19/colin-craig-another-moment-of-clarity-on-maori-water-rights/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Manolo (14,057 comments) says:

    I pay taxes on my investments in the productive sector, not just on my salary…

    Al Capone used to make the same claim. By the way, since when dole-bludgers are “investors”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Manolo (14,057 comments) says:

    Ragheads likeky to riot in France after this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/09/french-mag-to-publish-cartoons-of-prophet-mohammed/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Never been on the dole in my long life, Manolo. And what has Al Capone to do with anything in the year 2012? What an unintelligent comment!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    I’ll just stick with this site, Redbaiter, thank you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    “Ragheads?” Vile, contemptible racist!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Manolo (14,057 comments) says:

    Take it easy, maoriman. The truth hurts even an “investor” like you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    “right of the white supremacists to organise themselves”
    Again the racist attack Its the people of this country that are sick of the apartheid movement
    Apartheid =separate development that the word is distasteful shows you the twists of logic you do to justify your racist world view
    Have a look at the ballots in councils that have put racial elected representation to the vote
    http://www.nelsoncitycouncil.co.nz/a-maori-ward-for-nelson-city-the-way-forward-2/
    Nelson Mayor Aldo Miccio says today’s poll result against a Māoriward in Nelson is not surprising.
    The progress result as at 12.20pm today for the Māori Representation Poll is as follows:
    Votes cast AGAINST the Proposal 12,298 79.41%
    Votes cast FOR the Proposal 3,131 20.22%

    A resounding defeat on favour of the retention of representative democracy

    Same will happen if the country goes to the vote on this no to apartheid no to special rights for maori

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, you write on your website:

    From a Conservative Party press release – “The idea of allocating special ownership rights to any person or group is unwise.

    And you follow up with an example that shows “a group of people of no special distinction other than claiming to be of a certain race, and who claim to be the “customary owners” of that land, can force the exploration company to jump through all kinds of hoops before they will also give their permission for the company to enter the property.”

    So, if you object to “the idea of allocating special ownership rights to any person or group”, I guess your local council is going to be on the recieving end of some complaints. Local councils can turn up unannounced in a number of situations. Officials regularly enter premises to inspect or take custody of dogs, check swimming pool fences, or take environmental samples.

    Hope you don’t have any power lines running over your property. Transpower has a right under legislation to enter properties to undertake maintenance work and has no legal obligation to compensate landowners as long as no “injurious effect” results.

    Just saying …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. kowtow (8,762 comments) says:

    manolo

    the MSM repeating the lie that Islam forbids depictions of their prophet Mohamed. That is simply not true. Historically there have been many depictions of him in Islamic art,but that’s too much for the compliant ,submissive MSM to work out and report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    Griff — Good wine and an intelligent representation of New Zealand. No wonder the sun shines on them. :) :)
    Thanks for that gem. Any chance of forming a seperate state down there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Manolo: “Take it easy, maoriman. The truth hurts even an “investor” like you.” It isn’t the truth that hurts, it’s falsehhods. And it’s the spite, malice, hatred, bigotry and ignorance in the use of terms like “raghead.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Redbaiter (9,599 comments) says:

    “And it’s the spite, malice, hatred, bigotry and ignorance in the use of terms like “raghead.””

    Please lead me to one piece of writing by yourself criticising the language of so called Maori and their attacks on all other NZers, and white Europeans NZers in particular.

    How about your buddy on here? (Black with a vengeance) Where’s your criticisms of his vile and ignorant outpourings?

    That’s the trouble with you pontificating posturing academics, it all only swings one way, and in the cloistered comfortable confines of the Stalinist Auckland University, where freedom of expression is verboten, you get no dissent and no challenges to your state sponsored bullshit.

    Shocking when you venture into the real world of taxpayers and workers isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Than (491 comments) says:

    Maoriman; Maori do have exactly the same property rights as non-Maori. It would be perfectly legal for the government to nationalize the property of anybody (Maori or non-Maori) if it is in the national interest. Examples might be land to become a part of a national park, clearing land for construction of a road, or areas of the Christchurch CBD that are needed for major projects.

    Nationalization is not a power that should be used lightly. But it is an option open to the government, and can be applied equally to anybody, irrespective of race.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    “Euqal (sic) Rights political movement will go the way of previous extreme right wing political movements”. This unbelevably Orwellian statement says it all …. about the iwi elites contempt for anyone’s human rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    “Euqal (sic) [innocent typo] Rights political movement will go the way of previous extreme right wing political movements”. “This unbelevably (sic) Orwellian statement says it all …. about the iwi elites (sic, no apostrophe) contempt for anyone’s human rights.” This is an extravagant statement, Kevin. Attached to One Nation, “Equal Rights” in New Zealand is a euphemism for white majority control.

    Than: “Maori do have exactly the same property rights as non-Maori.” I’m pleased to hear it but the iwi who have been dispossessed of their properties by successive governments from the mid-eighteen-forties up to the mid-nineteen-seventies may not agree with you that it works out in practice. Do you accept, then, Te Arikinui Tuheita’s assertion that Maori have always owned the water? I’m not sure that I do but I can see a case for arguing that the water that gathers on the land, and in the rivers and lakes, owned, or that should be owned, by iwi (as distinct from Maori) should have a say in its use.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Equal rights means equal rights, irrespective of the race, creed, ethnicity, etc. Not a difficult concept. Anything else is racism or corruption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. frankflintstone (68 comments) says:

    maoriman, if these iwi have a say in its use, then what about the owners of the land where the rain first hit the dirt before running into these rivers and lakes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    “That’s the trouble with you pontificating posturing academics, it all only swings one way, and in the cloistered comfortable confines of the Stalinist Auckland University, where freedom of expression is verboten, you get no dissent and no challenges to your state sponsored bullshit” This is hilarious stuff. “Stalinist”? This is the twenty-first century, for God’s sake. The University has a great record in defending freedom of expression and it commits itself to being “the critic and cosncience of society.” You should get a good university education yourself. You might learn something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Frank Flinstone. ” if these iwi have a say in its use, then what about the owners of the land where the rain first hit the dirt before running into these rivers and lakes?” Depends whether they are the legitimate owners of the land, I guess. If this is land that has been alienated from the indigenous people, it certainly complicates the issue. Let’s see how this works out in the courts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. frankflintstone (68 comments) says:

    maoriman, is there any land that’s not disputed? cause if there is then they should surely have a say

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    Democracy is not a negotiable position!

    The government should be race blind.

    Maori are so trained to feel victimised by their leadership that they are sinking even quicker into the mire of self pity and learned helplessness.
    we have spent close to a trillion dollars on righting the wrongdoings of the past and has it made a deference?
    NO maori are still failing to cope with the demands a modern society puts on them. Many maori escape overseas to get away from the greedy selfish treaty industry. The sick culture of gangs drugs and crime has to stop were is the leadership? to busy trying to grasp more wealth for themselves to bother with as maoriman called it the lost generation. Its not a lost generation its a lost culture looking to a mythical time that never existed to lead it into a future that does. New Zealand must go forward not into some half life imaginary state of pre contact nirvana The treaty should be returned to were it was for a century an interesting historical document that had a purpose once but not now We are all here together and the country should be ruled for the benefit of all

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. frankflintstone (68 comments) says:

    maoriman, how can the university have a great record in defending freedom of expressions when you’ve already admitted that colleagues of yours can’t speak out against the treaty?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Manolo (14,057 comments) says:

    Auckland University has a great record in defending freedom of expression and it commits itself to being “the critic and cosncience of society.”

    You must be joking. Please tell Paul Buchanan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    “maoriman, how can the university have a great record in defending freedom of expressions when you’ve already admitted that colleagues of yours can’t speak out against the treaty” I said no such thing. My precise words were: ” I know the staff of the Department of Pacific Studies and its excellent Director, Walter Frazer. I have never heard them speak disrespectfully of Maori or of the Treaty. To do so would violate the University Charter and compromise their professional integrity and I know them to be thoroughly professional people.” If any of them did entertain strong views on the Treaty I’m sure they would make their views known and we would debate their views with them in a reasonably civilised manner.

    Manolo: Paul Buchanan was an abberation but I agree that this was probably handled badly by the University. Like most mega-institutions, it doesn’t get it right all the time but it mostly does, and I am proud of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    “I have never heard them speak disrespectfully of Maori or of the Treaty.” Man you want to hear what rank and file pacific people say.

    “Let’s see how this works out in the courts.” …he says knowing they are stacked with elitist sycophants. They opened up the forewhore and seabed can of worms for purely political, not legal, reasons in the first place. Its been dressed up as legal but its always been political. How about lets see how it works out letting the people decide?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    “Maori are so trained to feel victimised by their leadership that they are sinking even quicker into the mire of self pity and learned helplessness. we have spent close to a trillion dollars on righting the wrongdoings of the past and has it made a deference? NO maori are still failing to cope with the demands a modern society puts on them. Many maori escape overseas to get away from the greedy selfish treaty industry. The sick culture of gangs drugs and crime has to stop were is the leadership? to busy trying to grasp more wealth for themselves to bother with as maoriman called it the lost generation. Its not a lost generation its a lost culture looking to a mythical time that never existed to lead it into a future that does.” This is all mostly made-up stuff and I resent the misconstruction of my term “lost generation”. The many Maori who have gone overseas have done so to seek better employment opportunities. The 100,000 or so who live in Australia are forming themselves into urban iwi communities and building marae and churches, and even those who were born in Australia are identifying as Maori and placing their allegiance with New Zealand and learning their culture. Australian kapa haka groups come to New Zealand to participate in kapa haka competitions and brush up on their culture. Many of these overseas Maori are registered on iwi rolls in New Zealand. As with most of what Griff writes, he has no idea what he is talking about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. KH (695 comments) says:

    Maoriman. (or Jonathon). If you are going to start with an ‘air’ of talking reasonably in a post it just messes that up to end with a personalised slur. I have heard too many of the Maori elite else this week weedle an argument with slurs that have very argument of content. Join them if you will. But it doesn’t really add value.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Kevin: I was with a throng of Pacific people last night speaking at a public book launch for a brilliant Pacific artist who is a great contributor to both his Samoan culture and New Zealand culture. Maori artists were acknowledged by the artist as paving the way for Pacific artists. (What a brilliant scene that has become.) I interact with Pacific people pretty much on a daily basis and have done so for many, many years. “I have never heard them speak disrespectfully of Maori or of the Treaty.” We have our relationships pretty much worked out as Pacific and Maori on a tuakana/teina basis. We are really the same people – indigenous Polynesians although Pacific Islanders know that they do not have the status of indigneous people in these islands. Even so, Maori and Pacific Islanders understand each other and rub along reasonably well together.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    To do so would violate the University Charter and compromise their professional integrity =bad to say anything against te treaty against the rules!!

    We would debate their views with them in a reasonably civilised manner.Thats a reasonably pissed attitude coming through and U are only fine arts FFS how would Margaret Motu and the rest of the grievers react UTU?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Than (491 comments) says:

    Maoriman: I do not accept Te Arikinui Tuheita’s assertion that Maori have always owned the water. It’s a bit of a negative outlook on life, but to me control and the ability to exclude others is a key element of ownership. Part of what makes it my house is the right to keep people out, part of what makes it my toy is the right not to let others play with it. Obviously some iwi made extensive use of waterways for long before Europeans arrived, and I wouldn’t object to such customary use being recognised in law. But did any iwi attempt to exert *exclusive* control of a particular waterway, punishing members of other iwi who attempted to use it?

    If any iwi could demonstrate such exclusive control of a waterway (not merely claiming it; actually having the ability to enforce their claim), then I would accept they have a case for property rights over the area they controlled. But even this is not quite the same thing as ownership of the water flowing through that area.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    KH: you are quite right. I was just having fun and baring my teeth but I will desist from “personalised slurs” in future posts. Thanks for the come-uppance. Appreciated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. KH (695 comments) says:

    Good to hear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Deluded. Elite talking to elite. All I hear from pacific people who are not in the “inner circle are they are as sick of it as everyone else.

    Its all about money Than. You own it, you get to charge for it. Look at Tarawera now off limits except rich foreign tourists. And its guaranteed because if its politically unpalatable the government will pay the fees out of taxes and pretend its free – eg national parks and soon to be beaches.

    Look at the fish farm settlement – Maori guanteed 20% of farms and if they decide not to take the quota they get compensation for doing nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Than: thanks for the reasoned comment and it’s fine by me if you don’t accept Te Arikinui Tuheita’s assertion.

    The answer to your question is yes. Intruders were punished, sometimes killed. Even if visitors had permission occasional fits of treachery would see them killed. (I’m afraid our ancestors had a mercurial temperament.) None of us wants to go back to that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    I don’t know which Pacific people you have been talking to, Kevin, but I meet them in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch and I have to say the Treaty and indigenous rights are the least of their concerns as they have more pressing issues to address – food on the table for their children, education for their children, decent housing, the overstayer issue, Palagi racism, the English language and so on. What are indigenous water rights compared to these challenges?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    “Deluded. Elite talking to elite.” I would have said the civilised, educated and intelligent talking to the civilised, educated and intelligent. But if that makes me elite, so be it. Amusing, really, as I come from a very humble, working class background on my Maori side and middle class on my English side and have inherited a ferocious work ethic and service mentality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    Just incase anyone has any misapprehension about when all this crap really gained traction. Liebour in 1985 opened the flood gates. Please take a bow LUC, PENNY, maoriman, bwav, rakuraku and supporters – take a bow.

    maoriman owes you his very existence. He never has to do a real days work in his life, create a business or create real jobs for his whanua. “Those who can; do – whilst those who caren’t; teach” and those who live lies become liberal left leaning Lecturers and the real scourge of all societies today. Lecturers are the very top of the “those who caren’t” food chain.

    “In 1985 the Fourth Labour Government extended the Tribunal’s powers to allow it to consider Crown actions dating back to 1840, including the period covered by the New Zealand Wars. The number of claims quickly rose, and during the early 1990s, the government began to negotiate settlements of historical (pre-1992) claims.”
    See:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi_claims_and_settlements

    Don’t you love the cost of Liebour buying more votes. They tried to cap the claims at $1 BILLION but maori saw the door had been opened and told them to stick it. Site also has a list of settlements already made – I suggest you get a bucket before you look at it and its not that current.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Manolo (14,057 comments) says:

    … as I come from a very humble, working class background on my Maori side and middle class on my English side and have inherited a ferocious work ethic and service mentality.

    With the information provided, I’m inclined to believe only the ferocious part (and unrelated to work). :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Elaycee (4,408 comments) says:

    maoriman:

    (I’m afraid our ancestors had a mercurial temperament.)

    Are you referring to your ‘maori’ or your ‘pacifica’ ancestors?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    It was nationals Muldoon who established the,waiting i tribunal after the Maori land march in 1975 and national have given away more than labour ever did. Dodgy doug graham was one of the worst in the 1990s. National quickly realised,there was money to be made by partnering with the recipients at the expense of the taxpayer.

    More recently the wealthy elite have realised is,is a way of privatising land that has long been considered public and would otherwise be political suicide. Hence their dismay when labour closed down the privatisation of the beaches gravy train.

    Total settlements to 2008 amount to over $ one trillion – the GDP of the 1990s – and ongoing perpetual contracts costing the taxpayer over $10 billion dollars per annum.

    Hence, even other maori and Polynesians in nz know that they are poor because,you (iwi) are rich.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Redbaiter (9,599 comments) says:

    ““Stalinist”? This is the twenty-first century, for God’s sake.”

    Yes, and if we don’t eventually get the better of such as you it won’t be any better than the 20th century, where our universities were taken over by emissaries of the Frankfurt school and truth and critical thinking were sacrificed to far left political correctness.

    The very fact that you find this comparison so outrageous is proof of its accuracy, for in your outrage you expose your isolation from reality. Our universities are Stalinist bootcamps where thought is channeled strictly down politically acceptable lines. You shape opinions rather than giving students the education to come to their own conclusions, and you use Stalinist tactics to enforce this sick uniformity.

    These tactics were on display here, where rather than accept contrary viewpoints as honestly held, you dismissed opponents as racists or insane, or you attempted to ridicule them. These are all Stalinist methods to suppress dissent and the really sad truth is that you learned these strategies at a university.

    My hope is that in the 21st century we can banish the Stalinism (as practised by the likes of you and so many other false academics Maoriman) from our universities and make them places of free thought and learning once again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Redbaiter: Yours is an incredibly warped view of the contemporary university, the forgeries of fantasy, really, which belong to another era if they belong anywhere. “Stalinist bootcamps”? What a hoot! The reality is that contemporary university teaching and learning are student-based and students are strongly encouraged to develop enquiring minds and think for themselves – very different from the university of my youth where we sat at the feet of pontificating masters. Critical thinking is a core element now in teaching and learning. Self-directed learning is quite difficult for students from some Asian countries where they expect to be told what to think and a third of the University of Auckland enrolments is Asian, so there’ s an interesting challenge. There is an element if the production line in university education, I will admit, and I deplore the variable standards in the use of the English language, which imcan’t ell revering as a taonga, but, by and large, university education is in good shape which Redbaiter would know if he had had a decent university education.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Whoops! Typos. “… Of the production line….”, ..which I can’t help revering as a taonga”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    My son did journalism at AUT for a year. Several lectures told them they must vote labour and,made it very clear they would not pass unless their assignments were left biased.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    I find this allegation very difficult to believe. If it is true and can be substantiated, a formal complaint should have been lodged with the Vice-Chancellor of AUT at the time. I have links into that university so I will make discreet enquiries just to satisfy my curiosity. Most academics would regard this kind of behaviour as utterly reprehensible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Redbaiter (9,599 comments) says:

    “Most academics would regard this kind of behaviour as utterly reprehensible.”

    Thanks for the laff.

    It is “most academics” who are behind the decay of truth in our universities.

    How else would such as Margaret Mutu get on the payroll?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. RRM (10,018 comments) says:

    So where did you get your inside knowledge of the failings of higher education from, Wedbaiter?

    BA in English Lit / BCom, was it?

    Somehow I can quite readily imagine young student Wedbaiter turning in assignment after assignment that is all about how the progressives and the stalinists and the statists have fucked everything (no matter what the question might have been.)

    And I can imagine tutor after long-suffering tutor failing you and having to explain to you that your ideas are stupid and have nothing to do with the topic, until you left in a huff renouncing the whole place as a far-left sewer and indoctrination camp…

    Were you in the tramping club? I bet you were. A captive audience in a hut would have been manna from heaven…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    Come on maoriman we all have personal experience of the left leaning pro maorifacation bias in the education system. It starts at an early age and gets worse. In some disciplines you will not pass if you have a conflicting view on the treaty. Some people just grin and bear it because that is the only way to get a pass Like you telling me I should read the treaty I have. I have also read most of the books or journals in English published pre 1840 about new Zealand ! And yes you do need to sift the bais from the cultural perspective to understand some things No one talked of rape or abuse or similar in polite company Colensos account of the treaty sighing is particularly hilarious with his focus on stature for the English church as compared to Rome.
    If I compare my understanding of the treaty and the events leading up to it and the reports of those involved. i find that the official New Zealand sites like New Zealand history online to be pure spin and that is the official resource for teaching kids

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Redbaiter: This is a terrible slur on hardworking, highly intelligent, internationally well-respected scholars in science, medicine, the humanities and the arts. You absolutely do not know what you are talking about. What is your evidence for “the decay of truth”?

    Professor Mutu is an excellent scholar but she chooses also to engage in the political arena and she has uttered a number of highly provocative and contentious statements that have riled Pakeha. The Unversity stood by her on the principle of academic freedom even though it found some of her statements unpalatable. In such a situation the University was damned if it did, and damned if it didn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Griff: I think I’ll go with our distinguished New Zealand historians rather than amateur auto-didacts such as you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Whereas the university did not stand behind its academics through the cervical cancer inquiry. To give them credit they did stand behind Linda bryder when she exposed the flawed inquiry though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Here is a clear example of the university trying to influence the trade talks by playing the health card. One of the,key speakers is a,well known left wing lawyer, not a health,professional. While I,am not totally against because academics should have,free speech,it,is,pushing,it a bit to use university facilities. Facilities that have been denied to other groups I,know,who wanted host political discussions.

    symposium on Trade and Health presented by Dr Debbie Gleeson and Professor Jane Kelsey
     
    Date: 25th September
    Time: 9 -11.30am
    Place: School of Population Health
    Room 370 220 (main function room off atrium)
     
     
    Topics to be addressed:
     
    ·         How does / will trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific Partnership affect health and the broader determinants of health in New Zealand and our Pacific region?
    ·         Who are the key stakeholders in these negotiations and how can health advocates, academics and health professionals become involved as stakeholders and advocates for fair trading in the region?
    ·         Views from key stakeholders in the Auckland region will be invited and discussion on the what next questions, particularly as they pertain to research questions, will be explored?
     
    Staff, students and anyone else who might be interested are all most welcome.
     

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. nasska (11,804 comments) says:

    maoriman

    The “amateur” historians you so casually write off deserve to be listened to if for no other reason than that they are the only ones whose opinions have not been carefully moulded by the university elite. They read the same books, yet draw different conclusions because their brains have not been through the academic rinse & spin cycle.

    The history my grandchildren are “taught” today is unrecognisable from that I learned fifty years ago. The facts are the same but the spin put on events reflects the Maorification crap that gets rammed down our throats on a daily basis.

    Just in case you thought your life’s work was complete & everyone had swallowed the bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    heh Moon got crucified over this terrible practise and he is not the only academic to feel the wrath of the treaty industry
    http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/treaty/treaty-timeline/treaty-events-1800-1849
    This is the New Zealand curriculum starting point for study into the treaty do you spot the glaring omission spin and down right lies
    Were are the musket wars mentioned? up to 40%of the population annihilated no mention instead it focuses on the settlers being lawless
    the French got a royal hiding and scraped
    Who had brought the most land in the early 1830? not settlers missionary
    Maori were selling land they did not own or selling the same land time and again no mention just the evil settlers hurting the poor maori
    Compare this to Kings in nz history account of the time leading up to the signing and the reasons behind it and you are reading a total different history

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    The royal society has been complicit in allowing pseudoscience, quackery and cultural relativism to flourish in place of mainstream science in new zealand

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Than (491 comments) says:

    Maoriman: Fair enough, if any iwi can demonstrate exclusive use and control of a waterway then I would agree they have a case for propery rights. Although just an anecdote about driving off a single intruder is not sufficient, they would need to demonstrate that they had strong control over who used that waterway for a period prior to the signing of the treaty. And as I implied previously, ownership of the land a river runs through is not the same as owning the water in that river.

    I have been reading up on the principal of Contra Proferentem… and my layman’s reading is it clearly does not apply to the circumstances of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. From Wikipedia; “The rule applies only if, and to the extent that, the clause was included at the unilateral insistence of one party without having been subject to negotiation by the counter-party.” Hobson and Busby relied on other people (Henry William, et al) to translate the treaty, and these translators used neologisms that none of the signatories would have known the precise meaning of. If the people who signed on behalf of the Crown did not even know precisely what the Maori language text said, how can one claim they “unilaterally insisted” on certain clauses? The use of neologisms is particularly significant, because it makes it clear that neither side unambiguously knew what they were signing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Griff (8,192 comments) says:

    Ha you just realised we have been had
    more to the point we are told the moari become British subjects and the law applied to them from the treaty site “Queen’s protection and all rights (tikanga) accorded to British subjects” in clause three making moari subjects under the queen /crown not in partnership as we are continuously told
    As well read up on the Vienna convention on international treaty’s Iif the document is not accepted as the same by both parties or the there is fraud in the translation, w colenso notes that Henry Williams was censoring his translations even during the speech making. there was noway Hobson knew this and as the fraud was not by fault of the official British party the treaty has no legal standing under international law. the legal right of the crown comes from the declaration of sovereignty when the treaty returned from Britain That is our true founding document

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    One question that comes up time and again is why did we put up with this for so long. Apart from the fact that there is no democracy and governments just do whatever the bureaucracy wants, a partial answer might be that many hoped things might change.

    Now one trillion dollars later and after 30 years of absurd EEEOO/affirmative action and preferential treatment on the grounds of ethnicity, not one single social indicator has improved. In fact they have got worse.

    The only conclusion an objective academic can come to is that the methods were wrong. It hasn’t worked. Worse, it’s been a rort based on false premise that Maori are different.
    QED

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    Hi Kevin,
    Yes you are right but please see below. It was fairly toothless. If you refer to my previous link you ‘ll see what really happened.

    “In 1975 the Treaty of Waitangi Act established the Waitangi Tribunal to hear claims of Crown violations of the Treaty of Waitangi, to address those concerns. It allowed any Māori to lodge a claim against the Crown for breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. Originally its mandate was limited to claims about contemporary issues, that is, those that occurred after the establishment of the Tribunal.” (note the last sentence)

    As far as the Nats handing out all the money – I don’t think it’s their choice. The idiots and morons, like Findlayson and the trogilodites that feast at the trough of the tribunal, decide all that. You and I and most of those on this great site, then pay – ya blood ha!!

    Question for us today is – HOW ARE GOING TO STOP THIS CRAP????

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