Tame Iti to stand for Maori Party!

August 25th, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

, the larger-than-life face of Maori radicalism is now aiming to become part of the establishment, and will stand for the this election.

The man best known to some for his activism, his imprisonment on firearms charges and his participation in military-style training camps and to others for his fight for Maori sovereignty, his art and his work with youth, has revealed his intentions to Fairfax Media.

Speaking in the home he built himself in Ruatoki, Iti said he had always supported the Maori Party and had decided to stand to boost the party’s support and because he endorsed the work it had done in government.

“Not very long ago I wouldn’t have thought about it but I see there’s more achievement… with National in terms of the treaty settlements so we have come a long way,” he said.

Having a Maori voice in power had led to gains in areas such as health and social services for Maori and it was important for Maori “to be sitting on the table rather than across the road throwing rocks at each other”.

My first reaction was that I am not sure that having Tame Iti praise the National Government is a good thing.

But actually it is. I’d much rather those with radical views become moderate and work within the system, than run around the bush playing war games.

And his words about how it is better to be around the table rather than throwing rocks, are sentiments I agree with.

Tags: ,

117 Responses to “Tame Iti to stand for Maori Party!”

  1. burt (7,423 comments) says:

    This is actually very positive IMHO. It shows that unlike many of our activists Tama Iti is aware that more needs to change than just the current leader. IE: He’s not just screaming F**K John Key because he’s dim enough to think that once Key is gone everything will be better for him.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. jaba (2,146 comments) says:

    OMG .. he will be paid 150k to represent me. Mind you, there are others in parlnament out of their depth so let him in .. sigh

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Dead Earnest (160 comments) says:

    George Washington was a radical at one point!
    This is an immensly positive outcome from National’s policy of settling historic grievances and healing the wounds of the past (not in platitudes but in reality).

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Fletch (6,517 comments) says:

    LOL, it’s all happening this election isn’t it? :lol:
    They’re all coming out of the woodwork (and beneath slimy rocks).

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    I cautiously agree with you DPF…but what do they say? If you sup with the devil you should have a long spoon…

    When I was in parliament I obtained some information about what Iti and the boys were doing in the Urewera bush beyond what has been made public…suffice it to say the “explanation” that they were training to be security guards in Iraq was utter and total bullshit. I am as certain as I can be that if Iti, Hemara and that Swiss (whose name escapes for a moment) had not been caught, there would have been, at the very least, an attempt on the life of one or more politicians, most probably Key himself.

    The Tuhoe “ambassador” can say what he likes now, but nothing will change that reality. Whatever his agenda might be, I very much doubt it is working peacefully with the Maori Party in a C and S agreement with National. That said, I would certainly rather see him in parliament for the Maori Party than with Hone the Racist.

    Burt: You make a good point.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Dead Earnest (160 comments) says:

    John Key can turn enemies into friends
    Dotcom seems better at turning his friends into enemies!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. burt (7,423 comments) says:

    The other implication here is that Tama Iti is concerned that “his people” will (or have already) become pawns in one mans war to avoid facing Justice in the US.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    ” IE: He’s not just screaming F**K John Key”

    It seems he actually supports a National led government with the Maori Party at the table. Think he’s still pissed about the raids when Hulun was in charge of the police?

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. polemic (460 comments) says:

    This is a very positive move for the Maori Party.

    Very good to see the clear maturity that is developing rather than the extremism that Hone continues and Kelvin Davis understands that already from the ground movement up there. Its just that his handlers wont give him free rein….

    Exiting stuff really – the importance of being around the table is stark compared to the way even the Labour Party pillaged the Greens and still do compared to National and the Maori Party.

    A vote for the Maori Party is a vote to help the Maoris get ahead with National !!

    The way the National Party is caring for the Maori and the grievances is outstanding.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. burt (7,423 comments) says:

    RightNow

    That’s the point isn’t it. The hollow heads focus on the leader de-jour because it’s easy to motivate people against “the current leader”. But the reality is that successive governments of various colours have behaved much the same as each other. Something the current supporters of KDC will realise if KDC ever ascends to a position of power and becomes as self serving as the people he currently denigrates.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Polemic: I see you are relatively new here..Do you believe these latest “full and final” settlements will be any more full and final than others that preceded them? If so, what makes you think that?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Rich Prick (1,750 comments) says:

    If he gets there, I think Parliament’s metal detectors will need an upgrade.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,703 comments) says:

    They’d better not make him Foreign Minister, he won’t be able to visit any country overseas.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. gump (1,676 comments) says:

    He’s been named as a list MP for the Maori Party.

    At the risk of stating the obvious, this means it’s effectively impossible for him to get elected. The Maori Party always has a massive overhang because of their directly elected electorate MPs in the Maori seats.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    Good on him for being prepared to have a go in our democracy. And good on the Maori Party for backing him.

    gump – it could easily be different this election. If the party lose one or two electorates and increases it’s party vote it could quite easily get list MPs in.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. rouppe (983 comments) says:

    …it was important for Maori “to be sitting on the table rather than across the road throwing rocks at each other”

    I thought it was culturally insulting to sit on the table. Is this a back-handed insult…?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. rouppe (983 comments) says:

    gump…

    Sure but this could swing a large number of (Tuhoe at least) Maori votes to the Maori Party, which means they’re not going somewhere else…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. hj (7,142 comments) says:

    Seabed makes odd bedmates
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/opinion/258693/I-Seabed-makes-odd-bedmates-I

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    The chances of Tame Iti getting into Parliament are less than the chances I have of getting a date with Halle Berry.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Tarquin North (399 comments) says:

    I see this as a kick in the cods for Hone. Iti looks positively legitimate compared to Minto Sykes and co.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,703 comments) says:

    All that remains now is for the Ratana Church to give the arse to Labour and Mana.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. wf (480 comments) says:

    Can’t wait to see his formal dress at parliamentary functions :)
    I’m anticipating new trends.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. hj (7,142 comments) says:

    New Zealanders have every right to be alarmed by these straws in the political wind. The Court of Appeal’s 2003 decision had the very real potential to see huge swaths of the nation’s public beaches transferred into what, in effect, would have been private ownership.

    Under our legal system, Maori tribal entities enjoy the same rights as any other form of collective body – be it an incorporated society, a trade union or a private or public company. As “legal persons”, they can acquire and dispose of property as they see fit.

    As a gesture of goodwill, such legal persons may afford the general public ready access to their property. But if, for whatever reason, they decide to restrict the public’s access, there is nothing the latter can do about it.
    Ad Feedback

    The Labour-led Government’s decision to pass the Foreshore and Seabed Act represented their determination to ensure that our beaches remained the common property of all New Zealanders. It had long been held that the Crown’s ownership of the foreshore and seabed was “settled law”, which is why the Court of Appeal’s upholding of the Maori appellants’ claim to exercise “customary title” came as such a bombshell.

    Michael Cullen’s legislation was, in effect, a renationalisation of the foreshore and seabed on behalf of the whole nation – Maori and Pakeha.

    The Maori Party, the ACT Party, and (to their shame) the Greens, in calling for the act’s repeal, are, in reality, calling for the privatisation of large parts of the New Zealand coastline.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. georgebolwing (1,011 comments) says:

    As I said on General Debate, I see this as incredibly positive.

    Maybe, just maybe, Mr Iti has decided that the modern crown are not evil incarnate and that the National party can be trusted to deal honourably with iwi. Not to long ago, it was an article of faith that only the Labour could represent Maori interests. This gave Labour a lock on the Maori seats and a significant head-start in a number of general roll seats, especially in Auckland.

    Now we are seeing that lock slowly being broken, as is the lock that Labour has had on the Pacific vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (10,361 comments) says:

    FFS, I can’t believe what I’m reading here.

    A subversive racist and you guys want him in parliament sucking on your taxes???

    Hey Tama, you might have most of these sickly white liberals bluffed mate but not me.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. RF (1,487 comments) says:

    I have no doubt that Tama’s activities in the Urewera county were of a serious criminal nature and I thank god the Police were onto it. They were eventually let down by the Labour Govt.

    In spite of this I believe it will be a good thing for democracy to bring Tama into the tent.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Nigel Kearney (1,094 comments) says:

    It doesn’t really say anything about National, Labour or Hone. It’s a fact of MMP that small, wierd parties in the centre can extract all kinds of concessions that most NZers are strongly opposed to. If your political goal is to fund your lifestyle through the hard work of other people, you want to be with a party in the centre not one at either end.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. burt (7,423 comments) says:

    Redbaiter

    There is a difference between wanting him in parliament and respecting his desire to represent his people using the system of governance we have. I guess it’s all a little complicated for you because … well because your redbaiter.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    rouppe: I hadn’t noticed that! I think it might just be an example of Maori idiom (in English)..Maori always talk about going “on the car” somewhere rather than in it…and instead of “living” somewhere they “stay”…even if asked the direct question, “where do you live?” the answer will usually be “I stay in Taneatua”..

    Tarquin: You make a good point…whatever else Iti is, he is not stupid..He will be well aware that he is effectively giving the finger to Hone and Sykes..

    Red: Why are you surprised? We are all “Progs” aren’t we? How are those party numbers of yours coming along?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,703 comments) says:

    To Red and the other idiot:-

    The fellow’s name is Tame, not Tama.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. wiseowl (974 comments) says:

    I shake my head in disbelief.
    New Zealanders have had enough of sitting round the table with a race.

    Can’t believe how many are fooled by the MP.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    But actually it is. I’d much rather those with radical views become moderate and work within the system, than run around the bush playing war games.

    And his words about how it is better to be around the table rather than throwing rocks, are sentiments I agree with.

    Agreed. A Parliament that has a place for Iti (and Harawira!) is a good thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Ashley Schaeffer (535 comments) says:

    Tame Iti and John Key both hate the New Zealand flag, so they should get along fine.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Ashley Schaeffer (535 comments) says:

    My first reaction was that I am not sure that having Tame Iti praise the National Government is a good thing.

    You should go with your gut because this is an indictment on the National Party in my book. Well, just one more to add to the list.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. hmmokrightitis (1,596 comments) says:

    Dear Ashley,

    Dont be a cock.

    Regards, me.

    I also agree, its a good thing. Hes grown up, hopefully realised his mistakes, and that he can bring about change from inside better than outside.

    Oh and red, he has the balls to stand up for what he believes in, and no just spout shit and rail against progs. You could learn something from him.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. ShawnLH (6,572 comments) says:

    “FFS, I can’t believe what I’m reading here.”

    Yes, it’s commonsense. I have no doubt that you not familiar with it.

    “A subversive racist”

    He’s not a racist. And while he may have been a subversive, it’s clear that he has seen the value of getting around the table and working constructively.

    “Hey Tama, you might have most of these sickly white liberals bluffed mate but not me.”

    So your a sickly white Liberal? Interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Ashley Schaeffer (535 comments) says:

    Dear Hmmo,

    Go smoke one.

    Regards, me.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. G152 (415 comments) says:

    Be very careful. Tame has agendas that make Hone look like a Sunday school teacher

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    If Tame Iti makes it to Parliament the Maori party will join forces with Mana/Internet in no time flat, before lunchtime even.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. ShawnLH (6,572 comments) says:

    Yes, this is very good news. He might not have much of a chance of getting in, but the fact the he has joined the Maori Party and not Mana, and that he is positive towards National, is very good news.

    It’s also quite a slap in the face to Mana, who would probably expect some like Tame to join them.

    Personally, while I may not always agree with him, I do admire him, and would like to see him in Parliament at some point. If nothing else he would be entertaining.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Ashley Schaeffer (535 comments) says:

    Apologies everyone, the new talking points have only just arrived in my inbox.

    Tame Iti has turned over a new leaf and is a swell guy now. Got it.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “It’s also quite a slap in the face to Mana, who would probably expect some like Tame to join them.

    Personally, while I may not always agree with him, I do admire him, and would like to see him in Parliament at some point. If nothing else he would be entertaining.”

    Talk about slimy blowhard.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Hmmo and Ashley: Play nicely boys!

    Shawn: I would be interested upon what you base your opinion that Iti is not a racist…is it because he hasn’t been reported as saying – as Hone has – that he wouldn’t want his daughter to date a honkey?

    The accepted defintion of “racism” is a system of belief which holds that one person or group of people is superior or inferior to another soley because of their race. While Iti might be somewhat more circumspect about his views than Hone is (Hone is not too bright) I think you will find that Iti – like Hone – believes that Maori are “special”, and entitled to rights and privileges that the rest of us are not.

    Geddis: When are you going to send the $200 you owe me? You remember…the debt came about when you said you would “bet money” that law schools in this country don’t have Maori quotas…I accepted your offer and quantified the wager at a very generous $200..generous because I knew I would win…

    Red: It’s not often I agree with you – me being a “Prog” and all…but I agree wholeheartedly with your 3.18…How are the numbers for your party coming along? Will you get registered in time for the election?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Redbaiter (10,361 comments) says:

    “He’s not a racist.”

    The Maori Party (even if only by its name) is racist, separatist, divisive and antagonistic to our civil society traditionally based on one law for all.

    So is anyone who joins it.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. hmmokrightitis (1,596 comments) says:

    Im happy to take it back, IF you can show me where “John Key hates the NZ flag” I will retire gracefully :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Redbaiter (10,361 comments) says:

    “The accepted defintion of “racism” is s system of belief which holds that one race is superior or inferior to another soley because of their race. ”

    In what far away distant in time galaxy was that an accepted definition?

    FFS…!!

    As a paid up card holding member of the Prog Club Dave you ought to know much better than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Redbaiter (10,361 comments) says:

    “show me where “John Key hates the NZ flag” I will retire gracefully :)”

    He stated on the Nation (or some other such crap prog propaganda outlet) that one of his main ambitions if re-elected PM was to lead the push to change NZ’s current flag. Been pretty quiet on it ever since, but he did say it, so you and all the other soft headed knuckle draggers won’t be able to complain of not knowing when he does go about changing it. If he wins re-election that is.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Inthisdress (322 comments) says:

    i see this as a slight to Mana – surely he would have been approached by KDC and crew and offered cash to join up with them. . . .Tama Iti has signalled to radical Maori thinkers that the unholy coupling of Mana/KDC is a sell-out. This will have a wider impact on how some Maori will vote I think.

    As far as ‘One Law for All’ is concerned, it is worthwhile pointing out there are three differing versions of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which kind of scotches the claim that s least as far as Maori are concerned, NZ operates on a ‘one law for all’ approach, as I’m sure many Maori like Tama Iti already know.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. ShawnLH (6,572 comments) says:

    David,

    “Shawn: I would be interested upon what you base your opinion that Iti is not a racist…is it because he hasn’t been reported as saying – as Hone has – that he wouldn’t want his daughter to date a honkey?

    The accepted defintion of “racism” is a system of belief which holds that one race is superior or inferior to another soley because of their race.”

    I agree with your definition.

    “While Iti might be somewhat more circumspect about his views than Hone is (Hone is not too bright) I think you will find that Iti – like Hone – believes that Maori are “special”, and entitled to rights and privileges that the rest of us are not.”

    That Maori may be entitled to certain rights that only apply to Maori does not mean or infer that they are superior.

    I have never head Tame make a comment that I consider racist. Separatist perhaps, but clearly his desire to work with and in Parliament is not a sign of radical separatism.

    As far as I can tell Tame has only fought for the rights of Tuhoe to their own land. I support that fight. I don’t think it’s about racism.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Redbaiter (10,361 comments) says:

    “Tame Iti has turned over a new leaf and is a swell guy now. Got it.”

    Amazing how they lap that shit up isn’t it?

    In a few decades when they’re all second or third class citizens in their own country they’ll all be sitting around like stooges wondering how it happened.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. ShawnLH (6,572 comments) says:

    Actualy Red, Key has said he would hold a referendum on the issue, and allow Kiwis to decide. Nothing more. So either you’re lying or misinformed.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. hmmokrightitis (1,596 comments) says:

    Right, so that equals hate.

    Long bow youre drawing there red. But then I know you’re pushed for time, getting your list ready for the election…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Red: do give us your definition of “racism”…this will be fun…

    Pocket Oxford: Racism – theory that human abilities etc. are determined by race.

    Concise Oxford: see above + = hence ~ ist

    Both Oxfords published in this galaxy Red…I await your definition with interest…

    Now about your party’s membership…

    Look Red, I realise I am being a bit unfair to an senior citizen…Just write:

    “I have no party; I have not been able to find 500 likeminded souls to join me in my crusade” and we’ll leave it there…

    Otherwise we’ll have to keep asking you how the registrations of the Extremely Right Right Wing Party is coming on…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Fletch (6,517 comments) says:

    Tame Iti has turned over a new leaf and is a swell guy now.

    So swell, he’s swollen.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Fletch (6,517 comments) says:

    OMG .. he will be paid 150k to represent me.

    That’s $1000 a Kilogram.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Redbaiter (10,361 comments) says:

    “So either you’re lying or misinformed.”

    The fact that you so often level the serious allegation of “lying” shows that at heart you’re just another amoral Prog like so many of the other cowards who write here. Disgusting loser with no code.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. ShawnLH (6,572 comments) says:

    Separate laws for different groups are not in and of themselves racist. Quebec has some different laws to the rest of Canada. US States often have different laws to each other. Native Americans have their own laws, courts and police.

    No big deal, and none of that is racist.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. ShawnLH (6,572 comments) says:

    “The fact that you so often level the serious allegation of “lying” shows”

    That I often catch you out lying. Key has never said he will change the flag by fiat, he has said he will hold a referendum.

    “that at heart you’re just another amoral Prog”

    Nope.

    “like so many of the other cowards who write here. Disgusting loser with no code.”

    And again, if you want to call me a coward, have the balls to do it to my face, otherwise the only coward here is you.

    The bottom line is that if you are too stupid to engage in debate with people then go away. But resorting to extreme abuse only proves that your not intellectually up to it. You try to hide this with crap about not bothering with certain people, but that’s just you lying and hiding the fact that your not up to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Shawn: Lucky I read your 3.31 before I praised you for your 3.33..

    If you have a close look at these supposed Native American laws and courts you will invariably find three things: 1) the offences for which they have jurisdiction are minor – where there is a distinction, they will be misdemeanours and not felonies; and 2) where there are two parties to an action, both must be members of the trible/group; and 3) the courts in the mainstream legal system are the appellate courts … You will look in vain for an “indigenous” court system which deals with murder or rape…

    If you can find an example where that is not right, I would be most interested to see it…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. ShawnLH (6,572 comments) says:

    David, no I think you are right about that. It’s not full separatism. Native Americans are still US citizens. But my point was that some degree of local or tribal semi-sovereignty is workable, not racist, and no big deal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. UrbanNeocolonialist (310 comments) says:

    Aside from the Urewera stuff am I confused in recalling that there was an incident where he attacked someone with a weapon during the 90’s? If so does he have an assault conviction?

    Are there no laws preventing those with serious criminal convictions from becoming MP’s?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. hj (7,142 comments) says:

    National seems to represent a block in the economy and they will go to bed with anyone as long as their economic interests aren’t threatened.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Dave Mann (1,240 comments) says:

    Or, to put it another way…. “Racial separatist party recruits would-be terrorist with conviction for arms offences.” Gee… so its really quite a good thing then, right….?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Shawn: I would have no problem if Maori had a “kooti” which dealt with civil matters where the parties were both Maori (or I guess where both parties agreed to have their case heard there) or even for quite serious criminal matters where both parties agreed…but you would have to be very very careful that one of the parties wasn’t co-erced into accepting “Maori Justice”…

    One example that springs to mind is the rape of a Maori women by a Maori man…the alleged victim may well agree under pressure that the case should be heard on a marae, under a system where the maximum penalty might be carving a meeting house entrance or growing five successive crops of kumara rather than 20 years in the pokey (If it was a strike three offence) I’m not sure how you would ensure that the alleged victim had made her own choice…

    Urban: I seem to recall you cannot remain an MP if you are convicted of an offence which carries imprisonment as a penalty…not sure about past offences..in Graeme E’s absence I will have a look..

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Unity (633 comments) says:

    Of course he’s praising National. Look at what they have been given under this current National Government. They are doing very nicely thank you very much. Loads of money, assets and apologies. What more could they want!!?? I bet they will think of something!!?? At least Tama Iti can see the benefits, unlike others in the Maori Party who want to distance themselves from National. Money does amazing things to some people and a Parliamentary salary would be very welcome. I would say he would be unemployable in most jobs with that facial decoration.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. ShawnLH (6,572 comments) says:

    Yes David, I agree. I support some degree of tribal sovereignty on various matters, but not full blown secession. I think crimes like murder and rape, crimes involving violence, should be dealt with by the normal courts. Below such crimes though there is room for some decentralization and tribal courts.

    What I would like is to see the issues debated in a civil manner, without the hysterical cries of racism and apartheid from some quarters.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    Ha. This could of course go wrong down the road with that volatile personality. But for now, this completely neuters the stupid accusations that National are racist dawn raiders and the Maori Party craven sell-outs. Amazing. JK and Bill have done it again, with thanks also owing Chris Finlayson. Hone’s just had the wind taken from his sails. Next up, the Ratana Church. This also undercuts criticisms of the GCSB and government security generally. If the so-called actual ‘victims’ praise the so-called perpetrators and agree to work with them, what does that make those criticising? Noise making idiots.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    I have had a look at the Electoral Act, but cannot find a provision debarring a person from candidacy if they have a record…there must be some law somewhere..

    But PROFESSOR Andrew Geddis (AG) is lurking about…perhaps he would be kind enough to point us in the right direction…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Unity (633 comments) says:

    I heard Key say it too. He said ‘if re-elected, one of the first things I want to do is change our flag’. He flipped it in quickly right at the end of the interview. It was very plain that he actually wants to change our flag. Of course a referendum will take place but as Key has so far ignored referenda when they have been overwhelmingly against something he’s wanted to do, will he also ignore one that is overwhelmingly against what ‘he’ wants to happen? That will be interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    UrbanNeocolonialist asks:

    Are there no laws preventing those with serious criminal convictions from becoming MP’s?

    As I understand it, if you’re qualified to vote, you’re allowed to stand and thus be an MP.

    Which means that if I hadn’t happened to have been back to visit my parents earlier this year I’d be disqualified but Iti, fresh from two years in jail for what some might see as sedition against the very state he claims to want to represent, is fine.

    Presumably Taito Philip Field can give it another shot, too.

    It’s ironic that National were all for removing voting rights from prisoners, but “relaxed” about letting those same prisoners join them on the green leather once they’re out.

    Mind you, so is Labour and every other party (even ACT have never, to the best of my knowledge, suggested it ought to change).

    I’m actually in favour of released prisoners being given a decent chance at a new life; including the life of an MP if that’s what voters want. But I find it hypocritical that NZ citizens who’ve no convictions are barred under the same law that allows ex-cons to stand.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. ShawnLH (6,572 comments) says:

    Unity,

    Key has said that he wants a new flag, but that it will go to a referendum. He might ignore a referendum on other issues, but I seriously doubt that he would ignore one on this.

    The bottom line is that he is pragmatic. If it’s too unpopular and does not win a referendum, then I would happily bet serious money that JK will stick with the status quo.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. ShawnLH (6,572 comments) says:

    ” But I find it hypocritical that NZ citizens who’ve no convictions are barred”

    I was not aware that was the case. How do you get barred without being in prison?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Unity (633 comments) says:

    With respect, David, I think it would be a fatal mistake to have a separate justice system in this country for some misdeeds conducted by someone of Maori descent. Only one law and one Court system will work in this country otherwise we will be going down the road of separatism very quickly. A big part of the problem in this country is the tribal system and many part-Maori will agree with me on this. Many have gone over to Australia to get away from the tribal system. Goodness me, there aren’t any full blooded Maori left and they are becoming more and more diluted over time with inter-marriage and given another century there won’t be any left at all to speak of. People are quick to say the percentage of ‘Maori’ is increasing. It is not – it is decreasing as their bloodline dilutes. At the moment many can only classify themselves as ‘of Maori descent’ as well as of descent from a mixed heritage.

    No, separate Courts would be fatal. We already have apartheid (special privilege based on race) in this country and we need to work hard to get rid of it and start treating us all equally under the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    ShawnLH:

    To stand as a candidate you must be eligible to vote. To be eligible to vote you must be:

    a) A New Zealand citizen
    b) Not actually in prison on polling day; and
    c) Have been in NZ for a period in the preceding three years

    So although I retain my NZ citizenship, have a keen interest in NZ politics (as evidenced by the amount of time I waste here every day!), a knowledge of NZ policy and politics probably well above that of the average voter (in common with almost every other commenter here), if I hadn’t been home to visit my parents since the last election, I couldn’t put my name on the ballot. Nor could I vote.

    I find it slightly hypocritical that not having the time or money or leave owing to come home is seen as a greater “crime” than running round practising for the armed overthrow of the state.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. gump (1,676 comments) says:

    @David Garret

    The electoral act has all the rules for candidates. Rex Widerstrom is largely correct when he says that the rules for electors are also used to define candidate eligibility.

    The main things that disqualify a person from standing for parliament are not being an NZ citizen, being in prison at the time of the election, living overseas in the year before the election, or having been convicted of serious electoral fraud.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. georgebolwing (1,011 comments) says:

    New Zealand is very liberal in who it allows to be Members of Parliament.

    Section 47 of the Electoral Act provides, inter alia, “…every person who is registered as an elector of an electoral district, but no other person, is qualified to be a candidate and to be elected a member of Parliament…’, but adds in subsection (3) the qualification that you have to be a citizen (so KDC can vote as a permanent resident, but not be a candidate”

    So basically, you have to be a citizen and lived in New Zealand for a year. Public servants have to be placed on leave.

    Section 55 contains a long list of disqualifications that apply after you are elected.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. dime (10,207 comments) says:

    Dime might stand for the white nz party. I’ll back national so you all need to praise me.

    It’s not racist. I just want more money for whites. Better health care for whites etc the other races can pay for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Rex: As I read the Electoral Act you can be “an elector” i.e a voter if you are a New Zealand resident ( Electoral Act s.74 (1) but you must be a citizen to actually stand as a candidate (s.47 (3))

    …remember that kerfuffle a few years ago when the Socialists discovered Harry Duynhoven – then an Associate Minster – was not a citizen and therefore not qualified to be an MP? IIRC they changed the law (no surprise there) to retrospectively make him a citizen, and therefore qualified to be an MP and a Minister…

    George B: You beat me to it…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    David Garrett:

    I’m not sure how you would ensure that the alleged victim had made her own choice…

    I’m with Unity on this.

    Let’s assume for the sake of argument that we have a Maori woman and a Pakeha woman, both victims of rape. Let’s also assume that we can be absolutely certain that neither is being coerced in any way.

    So you’d be comfortable with the Maori woman being able to choose to forgive her attacker and see him perhaps repay his debt to wider society by undertaking community work? But the Pakeha attacker of a Pakeha woman would, if it was his third strike, get sent away for many decades regardless of whether she wished to forgive him?

    What we need are courts with the flexibility to reach judgments that satisfy a number of goals: repaying society, rehabilitating the criminal and restoring the victim (as much as it is possible to do so). But that should apply to Maori and others equally. That’s not to say we couldn’t learn from indigenous justice… the Aboriginal method of involving the families, sometimes in a physical way (usually supervised by police to see it doesn’t get out of hand) seems to settle things better than any prison sentence. Of course that’s not for everyone, and that’s why it’s important to have enough flexibility to create a solution that’s best for all concerned.

    Minimum sentences of any sort interfere with that flexibility. If I king hit you, it may be that in the cold light of day I believe I deserve a thumping in return. You may wish to give me one. Our families may all agree that’s the best outcome. And we’d be able to shake hands and move on. But I’d be damned if I’m going to do prison time and get belted.

    David / George: Yep, that’s it. The bar is very low. In fact the only setting that disqualifies anyone (other than non-citizens) is whether you happen to have been in the country before the election. It’s ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. ShawnLH (6,572 comments) says:

    Hi Rex,

    Point A) is incorrect. Permanent residents who are non citizens can also vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. ShawnLH (6,572 comments) says:

    “than running round practising for the armed overthrow of the state.”

    Heh. Where I was born (Deep South USA) that’s called Saturday! ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. georgebolwing (1,011 comments) says:

    The “one law for all” bit so cherished by many commentators, is of course, also a myth.

    Many New Zealand laws apply benefits and detriments to different classes of people, for example;

    a) anyone over 65, who has lived in New Zealand for 20 years, get National Superannuation. Those under 65 don’t.

    b) anyone who is employed and suffers a personal injury through accident gets 80% of their pre-accident income until they are 65. Anyone who is voluntarily not-in-the-labour force and suffers a personal injury through accident gets their medical bills paid, but no income support.

    c) only people between five and 19 are entitled to free education at a State school.

    d) people with children pay less tax (via Working for Families) than people earning the same income without children.

    e) non-citizen taxpayers cannot stand for parliament (what ever happened to no taxation without representation?).

    However, we do have on recent example where one law for all does applies: people of any sexual orientation can married to any person.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Rex: You make a good point…in a nutshell – and to hell with PC – you are saying it is inherently unjust that rapist A, the one with some Maori blood, might get 200 hours of bone carving and a bit of ritual humiliation, whereas rapist B (let’s leave 3S out of it) might do 8-10 years in the pokey.

    That sounds to us inherently disproportionate…but you will often hear Maori say some variation of “Marae based justice is no soft option” Is ritual humiliation equivalent to a Maori of 10 years inside? I don’t know…could be….my bullshit detector says “probably not” but I am not a Maori…not even a little bit…

    All of which leads to the conclusion that if there every was a separate system of justice, it should cover only very minor offences …

    Where’s old Red gone? counting up his membership application forms perhaps…

    Red: Still waiting for YOUR definition of racism…one that differs from the learned authors of the Concise Oxford…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    @ShawnLH

    Yes, you’re right, sorry, I was jumping ahead of myself in explaining what the candidate qualifications were. You’re right, you can vote as a permanent resident. My mistake.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. ShawnLH (6,572 comments) says:

    Yes, I agree with George. No nation can actually have “one law for all” as governments need at times to discriminate. Oddly, that fact was one of the things conservatives used to support. Equality is such a Liberal idea! :)

    I believe there is room for tribal courts. This does not mean they would have to separate from the national justice system, and I would not support them dealing with major crimes like murder and rape. But on lesser issues they could be useful and effective.

    Rather than think in terms of separatism, it may be more helpful to think of decentralization and localism, ideas consistent with both conservatism and libertarianism. .

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. ShawnLH (6,572 comments) says:

    No worries Rex.

    And bugger, there goes my master plan to take over Parliament for the USA! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Well, with Winston as speaker and Tamaiti in the House, Parliamentary Television is set to become my favorite channel.
    Now, if we can just get Pam in there to add a bit of colour, we’re in for some great entertainment.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    @David Garrett

    Is ritual humiliation equivalent to a Maori of 10 years inside? I don’t know…could be…

    My answer to that is it’d depend on the person. Some criminals, of any race, seem inordinately proud of their offending. For others – and I’m sure you and I are in this category – being dragged through the mud is exceptionally unpleasant because we happen to have a high degree of self-respect, integrity and concern about our standing in the community.

    Similarly, if you’re intelligent and your friends aren’t criminals, the boredom of sitting round in prison talking of past crimes (when you have none) and future drug use (when you don’t and never will) is hell on earth. If watching hours of TV and discussing the aforementioned while catching up with old friends is your idea of a good night, then prison will be much more to your liking.

    So if I ever got a rush of blood to the head and stole something, seeing my name in the paper would be the deepest wound you could inflict. In fact I’d want to skulk away to prison and hide my face in shame. For someone else, the newspaper would go into their scrapbook and the prison time would be a class reunion. So really, neither of us would be punished by prison. If you really wanted to punish me then it’d be time for some Chinese-style posters denouncing me for my theft, whereas the other example would find it far more effective a deterrent to be made to wear a fluoro vest with “Repaying you for my crimes” stencilled on it while he did a decent day’s work digging an allotment from which pensioners and Housing NZ tenants could get free veges (though he’d be under strict supervision of course).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. UrbanNeocolonialist (310 comments) says:

    So hunting around a little it seems that Tame Iti appeared on fireams, assault and kidnapping charges in 1997:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/nz.politics/tame$20iti/nz.politics/E3S61O2JQZk/P4cPHBZdKGgJ
    Also assault and wilful damage in 2000:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/nz.politics/tame$20iti$20assault/nz.politics/xUVdobEbuKk/xNIGYu6_piMJ

    Though his wiki bio (unsurprisingly) seems to have left that stuff out:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Iti

    lovely guy.

    Is there any way to access information on convictions in NZ? If not then what is the point of Criminal records?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Don the Kiwi (1,808 comments) says:

    DG,
    your 2.08 pm.

    Totally agree with you. When the raid occurred, one of the local AOS guys who took part is one of our Wednesday afternoon beer sampling ;-) group, and a good friend. The week after the raids he told us what had been going down with the surveillance cameras etc for the previous – I think – six months, and what was going on, and also how the raids went and what they discovered.

    A lot of that never came out either in the press or in the trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Urban: No, the public is not entitled to know anyone’s criminal record..if they were, every juror would sneak a peek, while assuring the beak he hadn’t..

    What is their purpose? So Judges can know if they are repeat offenders, and sentence accordingly…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. UrbanNeocolonialist (310 comments) says:

    more (leftie biased) background on Iti’s 1997 charges :http://www.themilitant.com/1997/6139/6139_12.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Longknives (4,949 comments) says:

    I am a little surprised how many on here are commending and supporting this wannabe terrorist (who openly wipes his arse on The New Zealand flag) in his quest to fleece the ‘Honkey’ taxpayer of another 150k a year…
    What a strange wee place we have become…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. UrbanNeocolonialist (310 comments) says:

    David: I have a real problem with that. We have a very high standard of guilt required in NZ for conviction, and I think that is one of the most important functions of a conviction – that it should be stigmatising, that it should follow you around for an extended period of at least for a decade to increase its power as a deterrent, and that others should be able to find out if they are dealing with someone who has a criminal conviction.

    The fact that convictions are a matter of public record and so recorded in electronically searchable news databases makes it all a bit ridiculous to try and make it secret.

    As to the prevention of jurors finding out – that is something that I am sure that almost everyone outside of the legal fraternity disagrees with (and is extremely patronising of general public). It demonstrably creates horrendous results like Louise Nicolas’s story (and many others involving recidivists) where a likely pattern of behaviour is very obviously pertinent to the deliberations of the jury.

    If the jurors are not allowed to see all the information that the judge and lawyers are privy to then we should not be using juries of lay-people to decide guilt or innocence.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Urban: I didn’t say I agreed with the present system…I just outlined what it is, and the reasons for it.

    I do believe criminal records ought to be public – perhaps with a sunset clause removing a record of an offence after a long period of time. As for jurors accessing those records, NO…it would take someone with the wisdom of Solomon to decide a case only on the evidence before them and not because “he’s dunnit before”… I am a trained lawyer with 20 something years of experience in two jurisdictions, and I would be swayed by someone’s record…

    And of course in this digital age it would be easy to delete someone’s record from all databases while they were facing trial for a new offence…

    Regrettably it is not hard to think of cases where an accused who was found guilty was later found to be innocent – or at the very least not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, which of course is not at all the same thing..

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    ‘Knives: I am certainly not “commending and supporting” Iti in his quest to become an MP…Like you, I regard him as a would be terrorist who should have gone to jail for a lot longer than he did..

    But be that as it may, he is now out, and entitled under our law to stand if a party will have him…All I am saying is I would prefer that party to be the ‘racist-by-definition Maori Party rather than the openly proudly racist Mana Party…I suspect most people here would say something similar….and that’s a long way off “commending” him…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. dime (10,207 comments) says:

    Long knives – as long as he supports national it’s all good. Apparently.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Nostalgia-NZ (5,317 comments) says:

    I’m slightly shocked. On a blog where there is a good number that refer to ‘murris’ and so on I thought this would have caused alarm. It’s interesting, Tame Iti I seem to recall has a legacy to fulfil according to some type of prophecy. Because it’s fairly well known he was involved in crime before becoming involved in ‘politics’ I didn’t imagine he might be welcomed into the fold. I recall that he negotiated the return of some stolen art in return for some reward organised by one of the city socialites (
    Gibb?) and around the same time or before ‘clonked’ one of his ex mates from the mob on the head from behind with some kind of patu. Who knows how it may go but it does have some promise that he is better at the table than in the ‘forest.’ Much like Hone, Iti delivers the real deal without niceties.

    For some no doubt there will be fear that this is further progress toward the left, hard not to consider it a further, and perhaps larger, embrace of Maoridom. He would never be any kind of docile ‘pet’ or manageable if it didn’t suit his cause for his people. I’d be surprised if the Kruger was not supporting him in this – but he is his own man. Another twist in a election full of twists so far. How differently discussed this subject would be if he had ‘joined’ IM.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. dad4justice (6,594 comments) says:

    Will John Boy Wee let this savage take a shotgun into the debating chamber? This criminal will fit into the beehive rat nest real good.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. flipper (4,327 comments) says:

    Heh folks…

    There has been some very shallow thought gone in to many of the comments posted.

    Iti will not be elected because the MP will not get enough votes. So all of the ad hom comments on Iti are irrelevant. I think he is an arsehole. But he is now a very useful (helpful) a’hole .

    He will send a message to would be Dotslob-Mana and Labour party voters that can only be for the benefit of the good folks now running the country. More power to him. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Unity (633 comments) says:

    Of course you can have racial equality under the law. What on earth are several of you talking about above? It means that no matter what ethnicity you are, you are all treated the same. At the moment there is special privilege and funding for those of Maori descent that is not available to the rest of us. I wasn’t talking about age groups etc and what have you. What I was saying is that however someone who is of Maori descent is treated should mean that the rest of us will also be treated the same way. However, a non-Maori is treated should also go for someone of Maori descent. Surely that isn’t hard to work out!! Whatever way we are treated under the law goes for everyone – part-Maori, non-Maori, whoever. So where’s the problem? This is what the much reinvented Treaty originally said. ‘We are now One People’ was recited by Hobson as each Chief signed!!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Redbaiter (10,361 comments) says:

    “Red: Still waiting for YOUR definition of racism…”

    Sorry for the delay Dave, had things to do.

    I never said it was my definition. Its the Prog definition that is mostly used today and that’s why I am a bit surprised you don’t know it.

    ..it’s important to note that because racial minorities in the U. S. have spent their lifetimes in a society that has traditionally valued whites over them, they are also likely to believe in the superiority of whites. It’s also worth noting that in response to living in a racially stratified society, people of color sometimes complain about whites. Typically, such complaints serve as coping mechanisms to withstand racism rather than as anti-white bias. Even when minorities are actually prejudiced against whites, they lack the institutional power to adversely affect whites’ lives.

    http://racerelations.about.com/od/understandingrac1/a/WhatIsRacism.htm

    You see? What you think is racism is actually A “coping mechanism to withstand racism”. The point about racism today Dave is the power aspect, in that only that group perceived as being powerful can be racists. The difference is the old definition you dredged up relies upon logic and reasoning whereas the new definition results from Marxist indoctrination and its subset of convenience, tribalism.

    You’re so far behind the hipsters on this issue Dave I think you might have caught the Conservative virus. Naaaah.. that will never happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Viking2 (11,665 comments) says:

    This stance has particularly incensed the police. In a television interview, the officer in charge of Operation Art, Detective Inspector Graham Bell, complained that “these people consider themselves outside of the laws of New Zealand.” Iti stated Bell had boasted to him of his grandfather’s leadership of a police operation in 1916 against the Maori settlement founded by Tuhoe leader Rua Kenana. Two Maori were killed as the police arrested Kenana on a charge of sedition, for calling on Maori not to enlist in the New Zealand army in World War I.
    ========================

    Two men who were murdered, in the opinion of, two Gisbourne Police Officers who were also at the siege of the Roundhouse.
    A siege driven by Apirana Ngata. and his dislike of Rua.

    Read up in Rua Kanana by Judith Binney.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. flipper (4,327 comments) says:

    Viking..
    Let’s keep it in 2014
    Bell, I would not trust with a barge pole ….. and that is neither personal,nor business.
    Just an educated gut assessment, that when needed, he could verbalise with the best of the “gang in blue”.

    Let It go…and move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    According to Unity, New Zealand enjoyed ‘one law for all’ until recently, when the Treaty of Waitangi was reinvented by Maori radicals and PC academics and similar dodgy types, and legal separatism became a trend.

    But between 1841 and 1962, when the Juries Amendment Act was passed, Maori were not allowed to sit on common juries. Under the Jury Amendment Ordnance of 1844, there was provision for ‘half-caste’ Maori to sit on common juries. In practice, it was extremely rare for anyone who identified as Maori to sit on a jury that pondered the fate of a Pakeha.

    And for a century women were completely excluded from New Zealand juries. It was only in 1942, when the war had sent many NZ men overseas, that they were given that right.

    One law for all? I think not…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. UrbanNeocolonialist (310 comments) says:

    David: Defendants have the option of not using a jury – they can opt for the judge to decide the case. Most don’t because they know it is easier to bamboozle a jury and that they have less information to base a conviction on. So why not give the jury access to the same information that the judge gets? If defendants think that is bad for their chances (because they have prior convictions) then they can opt for a judge to decide.

    That would save a hell of a lot of money on jury trials too.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    The Juries Act of 1868 helped to clarity the role, or rather non-role, of Maori in NZ’s legal system. Here’s a summary of the law from the Otago Daily Times:
    http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=ODT18800429.2.13&srpos=5&e=——-10–1—-0maori+common+juries–

    Quote: ‘According to the Act every man between the ages of 21 and 60 years, not being a Maori, and who shall be of good fame and character, and shall reside within the Colony, shall be qualified and liable to serve as a juror upon all junta empanelled for any trial or inquiry within the jury district in which he resides; and any Maori whose capability has been certified to, under regulations made on that behalf, is authorised and deemed qualified to serve on any jury in any case where the property of a Maori may be concerned.’

    That sounds more like apartheid than ‘one law for all’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Sublime (296 comments) says:

    David Garrett – that sounds interesting, could you elaborate (within the bounds you’re allowed to) about what may or may not have been going on up there that we don’t know about?

    I remember reading a bit of the [leaked] stuff years later about the apparent weapons cache and modus operandi employed … it was compelling reading!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Nostalgia-NZ (5,317 comments) says:

    I’ve been a little puzzled why police apologised for the Tuhoe raids after maintaining they would not. I think we may have an answer now.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Shazzadude (531 comments) says:

    gump (1,541 comments) says:
    August 25th, 2014 at 2:20 pm
    “He’s been named as a list MP for the Maori Party.

    At the risk of stating the obvious, this means it’s effectively impossible for him to get elected. The Maori Party always has a massive overhang because of their directly elected electorate MPs in the Maori seats.”

    The Maori Party are only expected to be competitive in one seat, Waiariki. 1 seat and 1.3% of the party vote means a list MP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. hj (7,142 comments) says:

    On Radio NZ this morning the minor parties, the Maori Party talked about taking advantage of opportunities with overseas interests
    = circle the wagons around resources sell to highest bidder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Sarkozygroupie (209 comments) says:

    There are 33,000-45,000 Tuhoe votes up for grabs. I don’t know the proportion of Tuhoe under voting age or whether the 5,000 domiciled in Australia will/can vote.

    ^ “2006 Census for Tūhoe”, tpk.govt.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Unity (633 comments) says:

    Scott, of course we Maori couldn’t immediately be totally under the ‘one law for all’ concept because they were a Stone Age people in 1840. They have gradually been brought into civilisation and there is now nothing they are not allowed to do that the rest of us can do. It’s now swung the other way and ‘they’ actually have special privileges and funding that is not available to the rest of us even though most of their descent is from other white people – hence we have now become an apartheid State. You were being deliberately obtuse because you would have known exactly what I meant!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    ‘Maori couldn’t immediately be totally under the ‘one law for all’ concept because they were a Stone Age people in 1840′

    I think you need to look the word ‘immediately’ up, Unity. Maori couldn’t sit on common juries until 1962. You’re justifying one hundred and twenty-two years of segregation in the NZ court system – and you’re doing it in the name of ‘one law for all’.

    Women were barred from juries until 1942. I guess you’ll tell us that was done in the interests of gender equality.

    The truth is that you spouted a lot of rhetoric about one for law for all, but had no idea that NZ’s court system was for a very long time segregated. That’s what happens when people take history lessons from conspiracy theory magazines like Franklin E Local.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Unity (633 comments) says:

    There was much inequality for white people, especially women, too for long after 1840. It was the nature of the times. Today and for a long time past there has been nothing someone of Maori descent couldn’t do that was open to non-Maori people. The Treaty brought us all under the same laws. You are splitting hairs. It is today that’s important, not times gone by when there were different priorities and expectations.

    Racial equality under the law today is what’s important. Not, special racial privilege and funding. We have all lived together, played together, worked together and intermarried for far too long now for there to be special treatment for one race. As I said there are no full blooded ‘Maori’ now, nor are there the same people who signed the Treaty. There are only people of Maori descent, many with more ‘other’ ancestry than ‘Maori’. We are blended. This shows how very wrong the Government is and also those pursuing separatism. I long for a country where we are all equal under the law. The past is the past – you can’t change it. It’s the future that is important. It’s a pity those still living in the past don’t join the present and make the future for everyone great – together.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    I’m not splitting hairs, Unity – I’m showing your hypocrisy. You talk about the evils of racism, but when it’s pointed out that the NZ government excluded people from juries for 122 years on the basis of their ancestry and skin colour you defend that policy, on the basis that folks with Maori blood were too primitive to have the same legal privileges as whites. That argument is identical to the one that defenders of apartheid in South Africa used, when they denied blacks the right to sit on common juries, along with other democratic rights.

    Under the laws that you defend as just, Sir Peter Buck, one of the world’s leading anthropologists in the first half of the twentieth century, was barred from sitting on a common jury in New Zealand, simply because he had the wrong ancestry. Perhaps you can explain why he was too primitive to play such a role?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Unity (633 comments) says:

    Scott, why do you keep on harking back to the past? I have no idea what used to happen with regard to people of Maori descent not being allowed on Juries etc. The point is that there is no distinction like that today and that’s what’s important. Maybe it took some time for some laws which were put in place originally for a very good reason, to be brought up to date.

    Today, people of Maori descent enjoy far more privilege and financial initiatives than are available to the rest of us, so actually the pendulum has swung very disproportionately the other way. It is the non-Maori who now have cause for complaint when in fact we have all been around together for long enough for us to all be pulling our own weight and be racially equal under the law.

    Forget the past, look to the future. Can you deny that people of Maori descent have far more to be thankful for than to be unhappy about today. If the colonists hadn’t come this country would be another Samoa or Fiji. Those who have aspired, got an education and worked hard are decent worthwhile citizens and indistinguishable from the rest of us. Those who are still bogged down in the past, continually looking backwards, and blaming everyone else for their poor situation, are the problem ones and it is all of their own making because they have had had more and more special assistance since the year dot and the same opportunities of us all. The decent citizens of Maori decent have proved that anyone who wants to can get ahead in this country. They need to take advantage of the education that is available to everyone and work hard with the aspiration to get ahead and better their situation by whatever means it takes. That’s what is lacking. You can take a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

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