go home ehoa
http://www.blogger.com/homekia ora koutou katoa
Well I guess the proponents of those who want us to think ngati porou and iwi will be very pleased indeed with the results of the foreshore and seabed act 2004 outcomes to date. well we the iwi independence paati are not happy about it not at all, in fact we find its potrayal as something good as in poor taste and farken unacceptable. What makes you think that this is a good outcome, veto can but survive in a climate of its own making not the making by an invading force plus it has to decided by the many not some invader gubermant all can be taken away if certain principles are not aboded by. makes one wonder at the sheer ridiculousness of why such support would be welcomed without even considering the 'for instances". rather presumptuous surely to think that this is a good thing.
let me tell you this, as well as not wanting to sound too pedantic on it as some are want to mention, the issue for me is that these little socalled concessions as the gubermant wants to show are sure good for the now, the immediate time, however it is for iwi a further entrenchment in this country of pakeha hegemony, which we do not want. we want you guys gone do not come back, get lost and don't come back thats what we want, this legislation delays your departure by three hundred years, I can not have you mean spirited maniacs, psychopaths and assassins killing our rangatahi any longer, get lost. your school system sucks, I have seen 7 year old kohanga reo iwi kids come out of kura and try and beat to death pigeons whats up with that, they even try and chop down trees what the heck are they teaching them in the schools they teach our people to become resource strippers. they even teach them how to be slaves to the white man to his way of life bugger that. how is that good for our people we want freedom.
this labour and national government are doomed to be the captains of a sinking ship we want freedom and this election will be a step in the right direction for our people. the foreshore and seabed bill is sure going to seem like it gives iwi something but do not be fooled this is merely a precursor for the government to hold iwi to task on anything to do with the resourse anyway we will fight and wait for ship to sink but sink it will. The people of this country were shocked at the way the Helen Clark socialist neo-liberalist monarchist commie labour party refused to sign the declaration of indigenous peoples. well it was a shock and a wake up call for all those disillusioned middling lower upper middle class whites browns and all other colors out there farming raping and destroying aotearoa. yeah what this government did by refusing to sign the declaration reaffirmed its desire to impose its colonial rule on its indigenous peoples with no care of the shifts in thinking the world over in reagrd to how you deal and work with youer indigenous people also the ramifications of the 1960 decolonisation ac, they will just carry on regardless. they are even experiencing vast growth in their territories with the building of new facilities for imprisonment indicating a beorgening growing population in each of the countries prisons that did not sign the declaration on some very angry indigenous peoples.
the trend is that those who did not sign or abstained from signing are countries who have terrible records in their pasts of massacres, mass graves, and genocide of the most horrendous kind, the spanish, the english, the dutch the norse they were all psychopaths, this government is no different we want them gone from our land why should we continue to vote for a government that condones mass murder and mass imprisonment of a third to three quarters of its indigenous population and keeps the rest imprisoned in housing estates and reservations and low paying jobs.
To live in bondage is all we have in this country we want aotearoa to be an independent nation we do not need no pakeha here we have the resources the people skilled in this. we are in the age of Aquarius the age of creativity the age of true enlightenment where first there will be the downfall of tyranny of fanatical democratic leadership. we will see the water bearer bring on the destruction of the industrial revolution with the failure of scientific endeavor because of its impreciseness. then there will be the return to communal living of pure unadulterated anarchy. in anarchy we see the end to central control more regionality local cooperatives, growers selling locally and businesses set to provide services for all. anarchy means the end of oppression freedom and peace to all, all industry belongs to the community the community selects its operatives those who collect the taxes and those who store the excesses all industry is public property. the difference of democracy to anarchy is that in democracy the governments are the domain of the elite those who have profited from what were normal people wants and needs. in an anarchist society those who operate the system create of excess for the people. the people must be changed every now and then if they profit too greatly they are imprisoned etc.
karena puhi
ps if you want to know what the answer is then log onto http://karenapuhi.webs.com/
--- In worlds-indigenous-people@yahoogroups.com, Clarke wrote:
>
> FYI....
>
> on 2/18/08 2:59 PM, Piki Kotuku at pikikotuku@... wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Editorial: Foreshore law proves its worth
> > 5:00AM Monday February 18, 2008
> > The much-maligned Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 has just this month shown its
> > true colours. An agreement reached between the Government and Ngati Porou
> > shows that, far from suppressing customary rights, the act is capable of
> > giving them powerful effect.
> > While it preserves public rights of access to the water for enjoyment and
> > navigation, it proposes to allow coastal-dwelling hapu exclusive authority and
> > rights over a range of marine activities. These include the right to veto
> > resource consents for activity that would harm the hapu's "relationship with
> > the environment", which would seem to cover everything.
> > There will also be a legal instrument giving the hapu power to make bylaws
> > under customary fishing regulations, and an environmental covenant that will
> > insist district planning must conform to a Ngati Porou statement of
> > sustainable management for the foreshore and seabed of its rohe (tribal
> > territory).
> > While public access will be generally preserved, the hapu will be able to
> > restrict or prohibit access to sacred places declared wahi tapu. And it will
> > be able to carry out specified customary activities on public foreshore and
> > seabed without needing resource consents.
> >
> > The agreement has been three years in negotiation and much remains to be
> > decided, including the protected customary activities and the coastal
> > boundaries of the signatories. Indeed, their rights under the deed of
> > agreement depend upon their proving that the hapu has been the exclusive
> > occupant and user of land adjoining the claimed foreshore since 1840.
> > That proviso could be hard to meet, according to judges of the Court of Appeal
> > in the landmark ruling that customary ownership of foreshore and seabed could
> > be established. The irony of the legislation passed to preserve public
> > ownership is that it may be a great deal easier to have a customary claim
> > recognised in negotiation than by litigation. Now that the meaning of
> > customary rights has been substantially agreed, the rights might more readily
> > be granted.
> > It remains to be seen, though, whether the rights and authorities recognised
> > in the agreement with Ngati Porou are sufficient to avoid conflict in
> > practice. It is one thing for lawyers to draw fine definitions on paper, quite
> > another for people at a beach, whether members of the hapu or recreational
> > visitors, to know or care where customary exclusions begin and end.
> > The principle of customary possession, once accepted, will be more important
> > than precise meanings in law. The East Coast agreement has now compromised
> > public ownership of beaches and sea much the way that Treaty settlements have
> > given claimants "guardianship" over mountains, lakes and parks.
> >
> > The arrangement seems to work without conspicuous problems for trampers,
> > campers, hunters and other recreational users of remote attractions. But
> > beaches and bays will be a more visible expression of privileges resting on a
> > pre-colonial heritage.
> > Four years ago, when the act was passed, the National Party's previous leader
> > said, "Maori can be owners, managers and regulators at the same time. It is
> > astonishing the Government could establish such a conflict-ridden model. It is
> > an absolute recipe for disaster."
> > He has gone and the first deal has been done. Much detail remains to be
> > decided, probably after the election, but the die seems cast; the coast in
> > some places is going to be controlled by a tribal mandate. The mana thus
> > acknowledged is enhanced when exercised with care and generosity. Maori know
> > that; others may be surprised at how well this agreement can work - for
> > everyone.
> >
> >
> >
> on 2/19/08 5:35 PM, Glenis Philip-Barbara at glenishiria@... wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Community Korero
> > By Glenis Philip-Barbara
> > Ngatirangi/Te Whanau a Tapuhi
> >
> > A Waitangi day deal in an election year
> >
> > E nga tini a Toi, tena ra koutou katoa i runga i nga tini ahuatanga o te wa.
> >
> > Like many in our community I read and heard the news reports that announced
> > the Foreshore and Seabed deal between the Government and Te Runanga o Ngati
> > Porou with mixed feelings. On one hand it looked like a sweet deal. The
> > words are sweet; the references to the hapu of Ngati Porou are there, the
> > words that describe the intent of the Heads of Agreement to recognise our mana
> > as inalienable seems in many respects to be the realisation of a dream long
> > held by our tipuna (ancestors) and pakeke (grandparents). So why then does my
> > puku (stomach) churn when I think about the process and the outcome of this
> > deal?
> > Like everything in life there is a wider context to this. The obvious and
> > closet layer of context can be found in the Foreshore and Seabed Act passed
> > amidst huge controversy in 2004. According to the Crown the Foreshore and
> > Seabed Act was passed in order to "preserve the public foreshore and seabed in
> > perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders." While this seems to
> > be a fair and reasonable idea we must remember that 30,000 + New Zealanders
> > marched on Parliament because the Act effectively "extinguished all Maori
> > extant rights to the Foreshore in Seabed." So, in order to 'protect' the
> > rights of all New Zealanders the Act effectively revoked the rights of one
> > group of New Zealanders, tangata whenua. This is so serious it has been taken
> > up by the United Nations as a matter of International concern.
> >
> > Very reasonably minded commentators of the day wondered if the interests of
> > all New Zealanders in the Foreshore and Seabed could not have been preserved
> > in some other way. In fact the Waitangi Tribunal strongly recommended to the
> > Crown that it go back to the drawing board and sit down with Hapu to figure
> > out how this could be achieved. I can recall that the leaders and
> > representatives of the Hapu of this country interviewed at the time stated
> > that they did not see public access as an issue. Many people wondered why the
> > Government felt that all of a sudden it needed to be preserved.
> >
> > My father often says that truth is stranger than fiction. This is certainly
> > so in the case of the Foreshore and Seabed. It was difficult to assess the
> > necessity of the Act in the first place and now what we have is an election
> > year peace offering to Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou, the second biggest Hapu
> > grouping in the country with a sitting Labour MP in Parliament. This peace
> > offering is made up of a tightly defined set of rights that are consistent
> > with the Foreshore and Seabed Act. The same Act that took away the full and
> > inalienable rights of hapu in the first place.
> >
> > It's a bit like being in a situation where you owned a house; someone stole
> > it, moved in to the lounge and bedrooms and applied to the court to have their
> > ownership of your house recognised in law. You take them to court to assert
> > your original full ownership of the house only to find that a compromise has
> > been struck that gives you special rights to use the kitchen and the dining
> > room on Wednesdays and Thursdays.
> >
> > Some of my whanaunga say that this is the best deal that we can hope for and
> > that we should be grateful for all the hard work that went into securing it.
> > There is a view that we should be realistic as Hapu about our aspirations to
> > be recognised as Treaty partners in Aotearoa and just accept that the
> > Government will never allow Hapu to practice the "full, exclusive and
> > undisturbed possession of our lands and estates, forests and fisheries and
> > other properties" promised in the English translation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
> >
> > I worry that this kind of deal signals the beginning of the end of the dream
> > that some day justice would be restored in Aotearoa, and that the
> > confiscations of years gone by and 2004 would be redressed. I worry that if
> > in order to begin to think about reaching an agreement with the many Hapu of
> > Aotearoa that the Crown believes it must first strip away our rights using the
> > heavy hand of legislation that things are getting worse for Hapu rather than
> > better. I worry that if my whanaunga believe that this is as good as it gets
> > in 2008 that the future is very bleak indeed.
> >
> Most of all I worry about what this kind of deal means for the other Hapu
> and Iwi of Aotearoa, many of whom are still fighting to repeal the Foreshore
> and Seabed Act and restore their full inalienable tipuna rights. What kind
> of legacy does this deal leave for young people like me who have to carry
> the burden of this into the futures of our tamariki and mokopuna? How do my
> children face the children of Ngati Kahungunu and other Iwi knowing that the
> deal marginalises them and entrenches the confiscation we all marched
> against on the Hikoi in 2004? This kind of Iwi centric self interest is
> surely the peril of all time. As our whakapapa connects us, so too do the
> accountabilities for our actions bind us to the broader network of Iwi and
> Hapu of Aotearoa.
>
>
> http://bebo.com/FlashBox.jsp?FlashBoxId=2357190196&
> http://bebo.com/watch/2357190196
>
worlds-indigenous-people : Post Message
Well I guess the proponents of those who want us to think ngati porou and iwi will be very pleased indeed with the results of the foreshore and seabed act 2004 outcomes to date. well we the iwi independence paati are not happy about it not at all, in fact we find its potrayal as something good as in poor taste and farken unacceptable. What makes you think that this is a good outcome, veto can but survive in a climate of its own making not the making by an invading force plus it has to decided by the many not some invader gubermant all can be taken away if certain principles are not aboded by. makes one wonder at the sheer ridiculousness of why such support would be welcomed without even considering the 'for instances". rather presumptuous surely to think that this is a good thing.
let me tell you this, as well as not wanting to sound too pedantic on it as some are want to mention, the issue for me is that these little socalled concessions as the gubermant wants to show are sure good for the now, the immediate time, however it is for iwi a further entrenchment in this country of pakeha hegemony, which we do not want. we want you guys gone do not come back, get lost and don't come back thats what we want, this legislation delays your departure by three hundred years, I can not have you mean spirited maniacs, psychopaths and assassins killing our rangatahi any longer, get lost. your school system sucks, I have seen 7 year old kohanga reo iwi kids come out of kura and try and beat to death pigeons whats up with that, they even try and chop down trees what the heck are they teaching them in the schools they teach our people to become resource strippers. they even teach them how to be slaves to the white man to his way of life bugger that. how is that good for our people we want freedom.
this labour and national government are doomed to be the captains of a sinking ship we want freedom and this election will be a step in the right direction for our people. the foreshore and seabed bill is sure going to seem like it gives iwi something but do not be fooled this is merely a precursor for the government to hold iwi to task on anything to do with the resourse anyway we will fight and wait for ship to sink but sink it will. The people of this country were shocked at the way the Helen Clark socialist neo-liberalist monarchist commie labour party refused to sign the declaration of indigenous peoples. well it was a shock and a wake up call for all those disillusioned middling lower upper middle class whites browns and all other colors out there farming raping and destroying aotearoa. yeah what this government did by refusing to sign the declaration reaffirmed its desire to impose its colonial rule on its indigenous peoples with no care of the shifts in thinking the world over in reagrd to how you deal and work with youer indigenous people also the ramifications of the 1960 decolonisation ac, they will just carry on regardless. they are even experiencing vast growth in their territories with the building of new facilities for imprisonment indicating a beorgening growing population in each of the countries prisons that did not sign the declaration on some very angry indigenous peoples.
the trend is that those who did not sign or abstained from signing are countries who have terrible records in their pasts of massacres, mass graves, and genocide of the most horrendous kind, the spanish, the english, the dutch the norse they were all psychopaths, this government is no different we want them gone from our land why should we continue to vote for a government that condones mass murder and mass imprisonment of a third to three quarters of its indigenous population and keeps the rest imprisoned in housing estates and reservations and low paying jobs.
To live in bondage is all we have in this country we want aotearoa to be an independent nation we do not need no pakeha here we have the resources the people skilled in this. we are in the age of Aquarius the age of creativity the age of true enlightenment where first there will be the downfall of tyranny of fanatical democratic leadership. we will see the water bearer bring on the destruction of the industrial revolution with the failure of scientific endeavor because of its impreciseness. then there will be the return to communal living of pure unadulterated anarchy. in anarchy we see the end to central control more regionality local cooperatives, growers selling locally and businesses set to provide services for all. anarchy means the end of oppression freedom and peace to all, all industry belongs to the community the community selects its operatives those who collect the taxes and those who store the excesses all industry is public property. the difference of democracy to anarchy is that in democracy the governments are the domain of the elite those who have profited from what were normal people wants and needs. in an anarchist society those who operate the system create of excess for the people. the people must be changed every now and then if they profit too greatly they are imprisoned etc.
karena puhi
ps if you want to know what the answer is then log onto http://karenapuhi.webs.com/
--- In worlds-indigenous-people@yahoogroups.com, Clarke
>
> FYI....
>
> on 2/18/08 2:59 PM, Piki Kotuku at pikikotuku@... wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Editorial: Foreshore law proves its worth
> > 5:00AM Monday February 18, 2008
> > The much-maligned Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 has just this month shown its
> > true colours. An agreement reached between the Government and Ngati Porou
> > shows that, far from suppressing customary rights, the act is capable of
> > giving them powerful effect.
> > While it preserves public rights of access to the water for enjoyment and
> > navigation, it proposes to allow coastal-dwelling hapu exclusive authority and
> > rights over a range of marine activities. These include the right to veto
> > resource consents for activity that would harm the hapu's "relationship with
> > the environment", which would seem to cover everything.
> > There will also be a legal instrument giving the hapu power to make bylaws
> > under customary fishing regulations, and an environmental covenant that will
> > insist district planning must conform to a Ngati Porou statement of
> > sustainable management for the foreshore and seabed of its rohe (tribal
> > territory).
> > While public access will be generally preserved, the hapu will be able to
> > restrict or prohibit access to sacred places declared wahi tapu. And it will
> > be able to carry out specified customary activities on public foreshore and
> > seabed without needing resource consents.
> >
> > The agreement has been three years in negotiation and much remains to be
> > decided, including the protected customary activities and the coastal
> > boundaries of the signatories. Indeed, their rights under the deed of
> > agreement depend upon their proving that the hapu has been the exclusive
> > occupant and user of land adjoining the claimed foreshore since 1840.
> > That proviso could be hard to meet, according to judges of the Court of Appeal
> > in the landmark ruling that customary ownership of foreshore and seabed could
> > be established. The irony of the legislation passed to preserve public
> > ownership is that it may be a great deal easier to have a customary claim
> > recognised in negotiation than by litigation. Now that the meaning of
> > customary rights has been substantially agreed, the rights might more readily
> > be granted.
> > It remains to be seen, though, whether the rights and authorities recognised
> > in the agreement with Ngati Porou are sufficient to avoid conflict in
> > practice. It is one thing for lawyers to draw fine definitions on paper, quite
> > another for people at a beach, whether members of the hapu or recreational
> > visitors, to know or care where customary exclusions begin and end.
> > The principle of customary possession, once accepted, will be more important
> > than precise meanings in law. The East Coast agreement has now compromised
> > public ownership of beaches and sea much the way that Treaty settlements have
> > given claimants "guardianship" over mountains, lakes and parks.
> >
> > The arrangement seems to work without conspicuous problems for trampers,
> > campers, hunters and other recreational users of remote attractions. But
> > beaches and bays will be a more visible expression of privileges resting on a
> > pre-colonial heritage.
> > Four years ago, when the act was passed, the National Party's previous leader
> > said, "Maori can be owners, managers and regulators at the same time. It is
> > astonishing the Government could establish such a conflict-ridden model. It is
> > an absolute recipe for disaster."
> > He has gone and the first deal has been done. Much detail remains to be
> > decided, probably after the election, but the die seems cast; the coast in
> > some places is going to be controlled by a tribal mandate. The mana thus
> > acknowledged is enhanced when exercised with care and generosity. Maori know
> > that; others may be surprised at how well this agreement can work - for
> > everyone.
> >
> >
> >
> on 2/19/08 5:35 PM, Glenis Philip-Barbara at glenishiria@... wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Community Korero
> > By Glenis Philip-Barbara
> > Ngatirangi/Te Whanau a Tapuhi
> >
> > A Waitangi day deal in an election year
> >
> > E nga tini a Toi, tena ra koutou katoa i runga i nga tini ahuatanga o te wa.
> >
> > Like many in our community I read and heard the news reports that announced
> > the Foreshore and Seabed deal between the Government and Te Runanga o Ngati
> > Porou with mixed feelings. On one hand it looked like a sweet deal. The
> > words are sweet; the references to the hapu of Ngati Porou are there, the
> > words that describe the intent of the Heads of Agreement to recognise our mana
> > as inalienable seems in many respects to be the realisation of a dream long
> > held by our tipuna (ancestors) and pakeke (grandparents). So why then does my
> > puku (stomach) churn when I think about the process and the outcome of this
> > deal?
> > Like everything in life there is a wider context to this. The obvious and
> > closet layer of context can be found in the Foreshore and Seabed Act passed
> > amidst huge controversy in 2004. According to the Crown the Foreshore and
> > Seabed Act was passed in order to "preserve the public foreshore and seabed in
> > perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders." While this seems to
> > be a fair and reasonable idea we must remember that 30,000 + New Zealanders
> > marched on Parliament because the Act effectively "extinguished all Maori
> > extant rights to the Foreshore in Seabed." So, in order to 'protect' the
> > rights of all New Zealanders the Act effectively revoked the rights of one
> > group of New Zealanders, tangata whenua. This is so serious it has been taken
> > up by the United Nations as a matter of International concern.
> >
> > Very reasonably minded commentators of the day wondered if the interests of
> > all New Zealanders in the Foreshore and Seabed could not have been preserved
> > in some other way. In fact the Waitangi Tribunal strongly recommended to the
> > Crown that it go back to the drawing board and sit down with Hapu to figure
> > out how this could be achieved. I can recall that the leaders and
> > representatives of the Hapu of this country interviewed at the time stated
> > that they did not see public access as an issue. Many people wondered why the
> > Government felt that all of a sudden it needed to be preserved.
> >
> > My father often says that truth is stranger than fiction. This is certainly
> > so in the case of the Foreshore and Seabed. It was difficult to assess the
> > necessity of the Act in the first place and now what we have is an election
> > year peace offering to Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou, the second biggest Hapu
> > grouping in the country with a sitting Labour MP in Parliament. This peace
> > offering is made up of a tightly defined set of rights that are consistent
> > with the Foreshore and Seabed Act. The same Act that took away the full and
> > inalienable rights of hapu in the first place.
> >
> > It's a bit like being in a situation where you owned a house; someone stole
> > it, moved in to the lounge and bedrooms and applied to the court to have their
> > ownership of your house recognised in law. You take them to court to assert
> > your original full ownership of the house only to find that a compromise has
> > been struck that gives you special rights to use the kitchen and the dining
> > room on Wednesdays and Thursdays.
> >
> > Some of my whanaunga say that this is the best deal that we can hope for and
> > that we should be grateful for all the hard work that went into securing it.
> > There is a view that we should be realistic as Hapu about our aspirations to
> > be recognised as Treaty partners in Aotearoa and just accept that the
> > Government will never allow Hapu to practice the "full, exclusive and
> > undisturbed possession of our lands and estates, forests and fisheries and
> > other properties" promised in the English translation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
> >
> > I worry that this kind of deal signals the beginning of the end of the dream
> > that some day justice would be restored in Aotearoa, and that the
> > confiscations of years gone by and 2004 would be redressed. I worry that if
> > in order to begin to think about reaching an agreement with the many Hapu of
> > Aotearoa that the Crown believes it must first strip away our rights using the
> > heavy hand of legislation that things are getting worse for Hapu rather than
> > better. I worry that if my whanaunga believe that this is as good as it gets
> > in 2008 that the future is very bleak indeed.
> >
> Most of all I worry about what this kind of deal means for the other Hapu
> and Iwi of Aotearoa, many of whom are still fighting to repeal the Foreshore
> and Seabed Act and restore their full inalienable tipuna rights. What kind
> of legacy does this deal leave for young people like me who have to carry
> the burden of this into the futures of our tamariki and mokopuna? How do my
> children face the children of Ngati Kahungunu and other Iwi knowing that the
> deal marginalises them and entrenches the confiscation we all marched
> against on the Hikoi in 2004? This kind of Iwi centric self interest is
> surely the peril of all time. As our whakapapa connects us, so too do the
> accountabilities for our actions bind us to the broader network of Iwi and
> Hapu of Aotearoa.
>
>
> http://bebo.com/FlashBox.jsp?FlashBoxId=2357190196&
> http://bebo.com/watch/2357190196
>
worlds-indigenous-people : Post Message
posted by karenapuhi at 12:08 AM
0 comments
