This site is an archived version of Indymedia prior to 5th November 2012. The current site is at www.indymedia.org.nz.

Ngai Tuhoe Disappointed at Loss of Nerve

in

"The Government’s decision not to proceed with an offer of settlement for our historical claims against the Crown is extremely disappointing. It reflects a failure of nerve and a loss of resolve to settle serious and longstanding grievances by a fair and just offer.

"We understand Cabinet was supposed to consider an offer to us today but that the Prime Minister pulled the proposal at the eleventh hour.

"Despite overwhelming public support to Tuhoe ownership of Te Urewera, which includes key Park user groups, Territorial Local Authorities and key governmental departments engaged in the negotiations, internal National Party political concerns have won out. We believe these concerns are based in superstition and not fact.

"We have had clear understandings that the vesting of Te Urewera is at the heart of an acceptable settlement to our people. These are our homelands filched by the Crown who must now not hesitate to do the right and honourable thing and return it.

"The Tuhoe settlement proposal prescribes a 5 – 10 year transition period to corroborate with the Crown to enhance bio-diversity values and conservation programmes aimed at improving public enjoyment, services and amenities. Tuhoe accepts financial responsibility for governance and management of Te Urewera. Negotiations have always taken very seriously the interests of others in the area and plan to raise the heritage and iconic status amongst domestic and international visitors.

"We believe our proposals best serve the rights and privileges of all New Zealanders. It is not a situation of trading off one set of rights for another.

"While disappointed we will now regroup to preview our options. Our first task is to communicate the decision to Tuhoe people then seek an explanation from Cabinet in order to focus upon a way forward to an acceptable settlement.

"We had believed our engagement with the Crown over the last 18 months to have been sincere on both sides and we both wanted a solution that would work for us all. We still believe that is possible."

Comments

Yeah that is real

Yeah that is real disappointing for Tuhoe people. It sounds from this press statement that they are still hopeful of a resolution to this issue but I saw Key on the news tonight and he does not look conciliatory at all so that means to me the Urewera return would be off the list indefinately.

As someone who attended a few of the hui around the motu, in those hui the general consensus as I remember it was that if the Urewera is off the menu then there was no desire for any cash payouts or co-management deals. If that is still the case which I presume it may be, then I would say this round of negotiations is finished.

Kia kaha Tuhoe

Is the McCully/Hyde BBQ

Is the McCully/Hyde BBQ caucus the real government?

Sounds like a certain PM musta got a weekend invite to a BBQ at Hydes lair where one thing lead to another, a bit of a threat to the coalition here, a threat of an internal uprising there and hey presto, we have a complete about face from Friday afternoons talks on the return of the Urewera to Monday mornings slap in the upoko, generally referred to as a shafting.

I am interested to see if the Maori Party is going to merely give this lip service or are they willing to put their cards on the table in their unholy partnership with two partys that span the political spectrum from the center rightists like Key to pro Pinochetists like Roger Douglas, through to ultra-right nationalists like David Garrett.

Either way the mask of pretence is removed now and the real agenda of the Crown is again exposed, something I doubt any Tuhoe would be surprised by.

I am interested to see if the

I am interested to see if the Maori Party is going to merely give this lip service or are they willing to put their cards on the table in their unholy partnership with two partys that span the political spectrum from the center rightists like Key to pro Pinochetists like Roger Douglas, through to ultra-right nationalists like David Garrett.

and lose their big salaries guaranteed for the next couple of years, weekly hot stone massages from key? bit like the greens back in the day during the anti-GE campaigns. they should have walked then too.

the reality is that the Tuhoe deal wasnt a bottom line for the Maori Party and they have already traded heavily for whanau ora, recognition of the declaration, but its the seabed and foreshore repeal still hanging out front like a carrot that keeps them going forward with national and signing off whatever key wants them to sign off.

such is the life of politicing, and for the Maori Party, being the ruling party's brown offsider having to watch them whip the slaves, bite the bullet and trudge on chasing that carrot.

i think they are fools to remain in power chasing the carrot. Turia needs to heed her own words and make this an issue of leadership and justice, and WALK with whatever pitence of intergrity they have left.

Hooray for the free market and capitalism?

I wouldn't be surprised if there are plans to sell the land off to the Chinese, so they can mine it. They are already buying some large dairy farms.

I'm not suprised the

I'm not suprised the Government is refusing to give into Tuhoe's demands. Why should NZers today pay for things that happened so long ago

What demands Pakeha? Last I

What demands Pakeha? Last I heard they were in negotiations and had a tentative agreement.

As to your other point, the Urewera Native Forest was confiscated from Tuhoe in the 1950s not 1860s, but so what if it was 100 years ago, if the crown is now saying it was stolen, then they should give it back should they not?.

Hey, I'm just saying its a

Hey, I'm just saying its a bit unfair for Tuhoe people to accept the "benefits" of the New Zealand government, but expect different treatment in return. They're either own their on, or they live like all other NZers

Some people will be

If this is referring to me,

If this is referring to me, then no I'm not happy.

How would you feel then if

How would you feel then if someone came along and took 90% of your tribal land in 1954 then made it into a national park. Does that in anyway feel unfair to you? Or do you think that because it was confiscated so that the rest of NZ could benefit from it (even though we were anyways at the time) that this somehow has a greater good argument to it?

Sorry, that was a question

Sorry, that was a question for pakeha maori

It's unfair but life is

It's unfair but life is unfair sometimes. The Germans and the Japanese had a hard time but they got over it, now look at them. Why can't Tuhoe be the same (and other Maori tribes). Stop complaining and asking for handouts and get on trying to make life better for themselves, nobody is stopping them

Did you have to take a class

Did you have to take a class in sweepingly ludicrous statements or does it come naturally? For a start Germany and Japan were industrial nations who were silly enough to pick fights with more powerful industrial nations and got beat up. The more powerful nations then remembering the mess Germany was left after the reperations they were forced to pay after the first world war actually threw masses of money and resources into rebuilding Germany and Japan - There was also the possibility of a coming war with the Soviet Union to take into account.

The leap of logic to compare this situation with what is happening to the Tuhoe Nation is incredible, I'm quite impressed.

Pakeha [sighs] well firstly a

Pakeha [sighs] well firstly a backgrounder, and I must confess I am not an expert in this, but this is what I have learnt from taking the time to learn a bit about issues going on in Tuhoe to date.

Tuhoe did not sign the treaty but nevertheless the Crowns' Waitangi Tribunal approached Tuhoe to discuss the history between Tuhoe and the Crown. Tuhoe agreed and a series of meetings took place beginning in 2005 which resulted in the disgusting history being exposed and documented, also tested for its accuracy and heavily cross examined by the Crown lawyers.

From that series of meetings came the recommendations that the Crown negotiate a settlement with Tuhoe redressing things like Scorched Earth campaigns (almost holocaust), ethnic cleansing/systematic executions and of course mass forced relocations and confiscations of land.

The history between the Crown and Tuhoe has been their dirty little secret for a long time and all the media has allowed people to see is the disgust that Tuhoe have for the way they have been treated, but it was during that process that the issue of the confiscation of the Urewera National Park in 1954 was raised by Tuhoe and they put it as number one in any negotiated settlement.

See Tuhoe don't have to go through this process and many I have spoke with would quite happily give it all a miss but being that this is driven from the Crown side, many Tuhoe are humouring them I feel, as there is still massive mistrust in the intentions of the Crown and in general with dealing with anything that comes from that direction - historically proven I would say too.

But in keeping with their forked tongued approach to dealing with Tuhoe from the get go, the Crown allowed the return of the Urewera to go on the table and right up until last Friday had made every signal that a vote was going to take place in the National caucus Monday morning which by my count would have been a 8 to 2 majority decision to return the stolen Urewera National Park to Tuhoe.

However the fact that things had progressed that far shows that something terrible has gone wrong in the process of the perception of democracy where normally in these situations the vote should have been stacked the other way as is per usual and where monetary redress and empty rhetoric like co-management should have been the outcome, what took place that resulted in the reverse of this, in my estimation can only stem from the absolute damning report detailing Crown actions all the way to the 1950s, 90 years of destruction of the Tuhoe people, culture, land, lakes etc - words comparing it to ethnic clensing and almost genocide - which by the way could well be a first in Waitangi Tribunal reports to use such strong language.

So to put a stop to this runaway freight train, Key has ruled over the top of the National Party negotiation team by ringing the lead Tuhoe negotiator to notify him that the Urewera was off the table therefore preventing it from going to vote.

Hope that helps dispell the ignorant, misinformed and lazy belief that Tuhoe are just sitting around looking for a handout.

As I said in the beginning, I am no expert in this, so no doubt there are others more informed than me who could add more to this and/or correct any misperceptions I may have in this matter.

Thanks for that Wu. That is a

Thanks for that Wu. That is a pretty good analysis of the now dire situation in the Government/Tuhoe negotiations.

This isn't a loss of nerve.

This isn't a loss of nerve. This is John Key realising that the majority of NZers don't support giving Te Urewera National Park to Tuhoe. An elected leader acting in accordance with his people's wishes is not dishonour. It's democracy.

John Key broke his word!

Whether you support self-determination and some kind of autonomy for the Tuhoe people or not, what is at issue here is that John Key has according to Tamati Kruger and others clearly broken his word. He was quoted as before showing willingness to discuss the handing back ot Te Urewera National Park to Tuhoe People, yet yesterday he did a sudden turnaround and stated publicly that this will not happen. So he has fallen the Tuhoe negotiators and representatives into the back. This is not surprising to many, because J.K. has already done many  "flip flops". So while you respect him for his supposedly "acting in accordance with his people's wishes..." and claim "It's democracy" you are simply justifying a great hyppocrite and untrustworthy person at the helm of this state! Having read other comments from you it does not surprime me or others that you come across with such nonsensical statements. The conduct of JK is not going to help the solution of grievances between Tuhoe and the Crown at all, it only entrenches mistrust and disappointments. The sooner that opportunist at the top is gone, the better!

No Tamati Kruger is right

No Tamati Kruger is right this is a loss of nerve. Had it gone to caucus for a vote then the outcome would have been a majority in support of the return of the Urewera, thats democracy. Bowing to the wishes of a few conservatives like McCully and his little mob and over ruling your own caucus's right to decide is not democracy in action, in fact its the very opposite.

But the majority of NZers do

But the majority of NZers do support giving the Urewera back to Tuhoe.

Democracy

Democracy - is an interesting word, which has latin orgins, demos: 'for the people'; it has historically been used for the majority population to justify and rationalise their oppression and rule over the minorities.

The irony is that in this instance, Tuhoe and their ancestors are the majority in Te Urewera and have been for the last 1000 years.

"His" (John Keys) people may choose to mill the forest and mine the land, according to the democratic wishes of the country.  This is exactly why Tuhoe want no part of the wider democracy. Why should people who don't whakapapa, or haven't even lived their (doc workers don't count) or haven't even set foot in Te Urewera, have any say or voice in Te Urewera?  

Of course a lot of Pakeha like the idea of Maori, iwi, hapu property rights becoming the nations property rights, we have given enough property for schools, churchs, parks, reserves, town belts, and everything you can think of.  Whos really greedy?  I am yet to hear of any pakeha making a similar contribution, let alone being FORCED too!  Like hell they would stand for that all the middle aged white decision makers would be up in arms.

What John Key said was that

What John Key said was that he would consider giving Te Urewera National Park to Tuhoe. He's considered it, and decided against it. That's called "making a decision". There's nothing dishonourable about that.

We elected John Key to make decisions for NZ. Here, he has done exactly that. He has shown that he would rather endure the dummy spitting theatrics of a small but loud minority than subvert the wishes of nation. 

That is not a "loss of nerve". That is leadership.

Again you are wrong. At the

Again you are wrong. At the beginning of this exercise some 18 months ago, both sides were asked to put their bottom lines on the table. Tuhoe negotiators put their only bottom line to be the return of the Urewera. Under the conditions the negotiators from both sides fleshed out over the last 18 months they came to a settlement agreement that had the support of 8 of the 10 members of the nat party caucus including John Key and all the surrounding organisations for whom those ministers are accountable to. That was up until last friday. Then on Monday Key ran rough shot over them all and kicked the Urewera off the table effectively ending negotiations with Tuhoe.

Lentil you seem to confuse leadership with dictatorship when it comes to your views on Tuhoe.

This was a loss of nerve through and through because had it gone to vote...and in saying that I mean, democratic vote in nat caucus, we would have been discussing a very different issue Monday night.

Wait. So you think there are

Wait. So you think there are only 10 people in the National Party caucus? And you're giving me a lecture about political theory? Am I missing something here, or are you?

...

Anyway, "bottom lines" and positions change. That's what happens in negotiations. You can choose to either cry about it or deal with it.

Your call.

Sorry I meant cabinet. My

Sorry I meant cabinet. My bad. It was a cabinet vote that was to take place on Monday of which all indications were that it was to be a 8 to 2 split vote for which Key rode rough shot over denying the vote on the return of the Urewera - happy now?

No doubt Tuhoe will deal with it as they always have.

And Cabinet is chosen by?  

And Cabinet is chosen by?

...and cabinet is chosen

...and cabinet is chosen for....as in a real job to do.

Fair point

Cabinet is appointed by the Prime Minister to make the key decisions (no pun intended) of executive government.

I take your point that Cabinet might have voted on the issue to gauge support. But NZ voted National into government on the strength of John Key's leadership. So ultimately, I think he was well within his political and legal remit to make the decision he did.

Take Helen Clarke's government, for example. She ran a very tight ship. Although I don't doubt there would have been vigorous debate in Cabinet, she had the final say. Period.I don't think John Key has quite the same level of control over his Cabinet. But I imagine that, in practice, he would have much more of a say that 1/10 votes.

Just to clarify though:

  • Why would Cabinet need to consider the issue before the decision was made to pull Te Urewera ownership from the negotiations? (e.g. it is part of the terms of negotiation? Is there something in the Cabinet manual about this?) 

  • Even though it didn't go to the formal Cabinet vote on the Monday, perhaps there was an informal meeting and the call was made that John Key would front the decision in manner he did?

Going by some of the

Going by some of the reactions from various national cabinet ministers and a show of embarassment by associated groups and by the national party treaty negotiator it is clear that this was a veto as reported and commented on here.

Noone is saying that Key had no legal right to do what he did, but the presupposition that both negotiation teams worked on was that once negotiations were over the national party treaty negotiation team would put the final draft before the national cabinet to formally vote on. From there the process of the return of the Urewera would begin in what some were reporting as a 10 year transitional handover.

That is how both sides of the negotiations clearly understood the process and had worked towards that for the last 18 months...toward meeting that cabinet vote date set for the Monday. So back to your original contention, what is clear now is that Keys intervention was a veto, to me there is no argument there, and most believe that, notwithstanding other evidence forthcoming, the motive has been simply proposed as 'cold feet'.

According to radio waatea's

According to radio waatea's report, Tamati Kruger states:

"He had a view that it was too political and too difficult and there was obvious risks there that his government would have to contend with and I got the feeling he wasn’t in a confident mood about that"

What part of that does not scream of cold feet Lentil?

Cold feet democracy

That's exactly the point. Key got "cold feet" (if you want to call it that) because he realised that the people that voted for him, in our democratic elections, didn't want him to go ahead with it. He listened to those sentiments and made his decision accordingly. And he did it knowing full well that there would be a loud and strong backlash. That he went ahead with the decision anyway shows his leadership and his democratic commitment to his constituents.

Lentil says: This isn't a

Lentil says:

This isn't a loss of nerve

Lentil says:

That's exactly the point. Key got "cold feet"

You incorrectly see yourself as bringing light to this place when all you are conveying is hegemony...and I might add considering your two comments there, just being argumentative for the sake of hearing your own voice.

Ok lets play the same game here. Key had two choices, the voice of conservatives in his own ranks, or the voice of what is a just response. There has been no canvassing of the voting population for their view on the return of the Urewera so I do not know where you get that from.

He took the easy choice which preserved his place as boss and settled down the racists in the far right of his ranks....and that is not leadership by any standard I believe in, that is merely a selfish, weak and naive committment to seeing his next term in office and preserving the cohesion of his little alliance at the expense of what is just and at the expense of his own integrity which by the way, I doubt there will be any Maori tribe in this country that will believe a word he has to say anymore, and he knows it which is why he is doing a whirlwind tour around the tribal elites to reassure them that he wont be shafting them like he did Tuhoe.

Same circumstances, but translated to you through another hegemonic viewpoint, mine. You prefer the easier hegemonic view of the majority, fine, but don't confuse that with being more right than anyone else.

Selective quoting, selective understanding

I'm not sure how selectively quoting part-sentences from my posts proves anything. You could do that to anyone and make them appear to contradict themselves. If you read my posts in their entirety you'll find quite the opposite. 

I've had a consistent, coherent position throughout the entire discussion: John Key, our elected leader, acted in accordance with what he views as the wishes of the nation, despite knowing there would be a backlash from a vocal minority. Spin it all you like. At the end of the day, that is democratic and it is leadership.

Well in the end its all

Well in the end its all spinning it isn't it, you go to spin alley just like anyone else, which was my point about hegemony. From my perspective people always pull the 'this is democracy' when it suits them, this suits you due to your racially prejudiced and misinformed views about Tuhoe.

Racism?

Rather than address the issue, you prefer to launch personal attacks calling me racist and ignorant. 

That's exactly the kind of predictable, lazy mudslinging one would expect from a person who has run out of ideas to support their argument.

Thanks for confirming that you really have nothing intelligent to add to this discussion.

Well we could sit around all

Well we could sit around all day dancing around with the supposed issues or I could just call a spade a spade which I did. It would be lazy mudslinging if I was making it up, but it is my view on your attitude toward Tuhoe and toward Maori, get over it.

You're calling me  "racist"

You're calling me "racist" and "ignorant" because I said John Key's decision was courageous and democratic. That's an extremely long bow to draw. Any reasonable person will recognise your comments for what they are: an attempt to undermine a viewpoint that you don't like by bullying, bluster and the tired and predictable tactic of crying "racism".

You've been called out.

The answer to your question

The answer to your question is no, it is not because of you calling Key couragious for what I believe was him sticking up for his rich mates, if it were just that I would be calling you slightly offensive, naive, misinformed and servile. However I am calling much of your views of Maori to be racially prejudiced base on my observations of everything that you have posted to date on Indymedia. Its an opinion I now hold of you, you are going to have to live with it sorry.

Whatever.

I didn't ask you a question. And, given the questionable quality of your other opinions, I don't care what you think of me.

I didn't ask you a

I didn't ask you a question.

Well no, but I posed it to myself as a question from you, since your statement you make is just plainly wrong.

You stated:

You're calling me "racist" and "ignorant" because I said John Key's decision was courageous and democratic.

Which I was not, I then went on to state that I think most of your opinions are racially prejudiced when it comes to Maori and in this instance, Tuhoe, not because of your servile opinions of Key.

And, given the questionable quality of your other opinions, I don't care what you think of me.

Thats good to hear...

What you are missing here is that you are an IMMIGRANT!

So believe you are 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation PAKEHA - good on, but that does not mean you are a true Kiwi or else?

Prove your heritage and we will talk!

This isn't a debate about me.

This isn't a debate about me. Who I am is irrelevant. Please stick to the issue.

I recognise Tuhoe mana whenua of Urewera

"the majority of NZers don't support giving Te Urewera National Park to Tuhoe"

 

Of course you mean they don't support recognising Tuhoe ownership of Urewera. See the confusion is that the NZ state thought it could just confiscate a people's homeland with the flick of a pen. Not just take *access* to their land, which alone has propertarian right-wingers wringing their hands in horror if it happens to their land now (remember the furore over public access to waterways on privately owned farms?), but *ownership* of their land.

 

Aren't there some democractic principles so important that they are not subject to a majority vote? Would you accept slavery being legalized in Aotearoa if the majority of the public were said by John Key to support it?Surely even a right-winger can see the injustice of the government arbitrarily confiscating people's land, even if the is majority support among the public? Besides I'd like to see you present some evidence that this is the majority view. Saying the PM did it because that's what the people want, and it must be what the people want because the PM did it wonderfully circular logic, proving nothing.

 

My iwi are Clan Bruce, and Clan Ross, La Famiglia Dini, and the Moorhouse and Efford families. I am a pakeha. I recognise Tuhoe as tangata whenua of Urewera. I condemn the historical attempted genocide of the NZ state against Ngai Tuhoe, and the ongoing cultural genocide that John Key is contributing to by refusing to acknowledge the Tuhoe claim to their turangawaewae. This is not about money - something many pakeha who seem to value nothing else cannot grasp - is it about mana.

From the NZ Herald

From the NZ Herald magazine

Paul Moon: Tuhoe's long-standing call for autonomy

By the time Elsdon Best was jotting down notes for what would be a pioneering study of Tuhoe at the beginning of the twentieth century, the iwi had already been shunted into the hinterland of the Ureweras as a result of one of the most avaricious land confiscations in New Zealand history.

Condemned as anti-Crown collaborators, in 1866, Governor George Grey assented to thousands of hectares of Tuhoe land being confiscated, depriving the iwi of most of its arable terrain, and vital access to the coast.

As unedifying as the fact of the confiscation is, it was overshadowed by the means in which it was executed. Crops were destroyed by Crown troops, communities forcibly uplifted and re-settled elsewhere, and the means of economic survival deprived from some Tuhoe hapu, to the point where they endured starvation, on top of all the other Crown-instigated privations.

As late as 1895, some hapu in the Ureweras were preparing to resist Government incursions by force - a crisis that was averted by the intervention of the Northern Maori MP Hone Heke Ngapua. Both the Crown and Tuhoe were forced into making some concessions at this time, but Tuhoe's desire for autonomy was a firm as ever.

This urge for self-government manifested itself again in the early decades of the twentieth century in the actions of the Tuhoe tohunga and prophet, Rua Kenana. Rua established a community of followers of his Iharaira faith (an off-shoot of Ringatu) among the mossy crags of Maungapohatu - Tuhoe's sacred mountain. There, Rua preached a combination of salvation, millenarian judgement, and independence from the outside world.

The Crown's response was initially through legislation (the notorious Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 was aimed at this recalcitrant religious leader) and when that failed, it turned, once again, to the use of force. In April 1916, seventy heavily-armed police raided Rua's settlement at Maungapohatu. Rua's son and another resident were killed in the skirmish, and around half a dozen people were injured.

Rua was found not guilty of sedition at the subsequent 47-day trial, but was none-the-less imprisoned for resisting Police attempts to arrest him. His community remained, but during the next decade, dwindled in size.

In 1954, confident that the age of Tuhoe resistance had passed, the Government brought the Urewera National Park into being. At over 2,100 square kilometres, it is the largest national park in the North Island. A handful of Maori settlements in the area were not included in the park's territory, but this was largely a nominal concession and a means of overcoming the fact that there were existing settlements in the national park.

Just how sensitive the Crown and Tuhoe were on matters of the iwi's desire for autonomy was again exposed on 2007, in the so-called "anti-terror raids". The sediment has not yet settled on this matter, and it may be left to a future generation of historians to discern with greater clarity than we can now the motives for the Government's actions, but from the perspective of some of those at the receiving end of the police actions, the after taste has reaffirmed long-standing suspicions over the Crown's intentions, and helped quicken the enthusiasm for a "Tuhoe nation".

Editorial policy

Under the Editorial Policy, the above post should be hidden:

Editorial Process for Hiding Newswire Posts

This policy explains the process by which postings to the Aotearoa IMC newswire may be hidden, or removed from view, by members of the editorial collective under certain conditions.

A. Problems That Do Not Require Notification

...

  • Commercial media repostings available elsewhere online (these will be moved to the otherpress section).
... 
Or replace the post with a link.

Wow you go to so much effort

Wow you go to so much effort to suppress facts when a news item disagrees with your narrow view of reality. If the moderators feel to do so please do, unlike you lentil when your spam gets hidden I wont be bawling about it.

I'm not suppressing anything.

I'm not suppressing anything. I'm just asking for a link, in place of this cut & paste job. Readers will still be able to click through and read the article, and it will clean up this thread.

Stop with this "suppression" conspiracy theory BS. I WANT you to post viewpoints opposed to mine. That way we can have a DISCUSSION. I'm asking for a link, instead of quoted text, so we can have a clean, discussion focused thread. FFS.

I'm not suppressing

I'm not suppressing anything...Stop with this...

Typical of the right winged elitists, two standards for all.

One. I'm not a "right wing

One. I'm not a "right wing elitist".

Two. I have a single standard for everything - I'm just telling you to stop these hysterical accusations that I'm trying to suppress stuff.

Three. You mean "double standards". Or "one standard for some, and a different standard for others". Not "two standards for all". 

1) No, you are a right wing

1) No, you are a right wing elitist, and I might add, a right wing elitist living in denial.

2) You keep trying in vain to suppress free speech and I will keep using whatever language and wording I feel as appropriate....k?

3) No I meant two standards...my words not yours.

Now lets bet back to wasting our time with your right wing elitist views.

1) I characterised John Key's

1) I characterised John Key's decision as "leadership" and "democratic". How does that make me a "right wing elitist"? Please explain.

2) No. I want you to express your opinions. It injects some humour into my day.

3) You intended to make no sense? Ok... That figures.

1) Please try not to misquote

1) Please try not to misquote me, I updated it to right wing elitist in denial ok. Like anyone living in denial I doubt any explanation will appease your denial 'issues'.

2) No you want me to express an editted version of my opinion which I will not.

3) It makes sense, get over it.

Now where are we at. Oh thats right, we were about to get a lesson from you on some spelling, punctuation or other trivial matter other than the real issues.

Its ok if this whole Tuhoe/Crown settlement debacle pisses off your right wing elitism, but you should just come out and say it instead of dancing around it with sideshows of Key is right, Key is democratic or some other 'pro-do nothing' rhetoric.

Goodness me, you are still at

Goodness me, you are still at it Lentil. So much energy to try and achieve so little. I am suspicious of people that have that much energy and time to spend actively discrediting an independant news webportal and one could surmise that they might be on a payroll.

Soooo are you on a payroll Lentil and which political group is funding you to spend all your day as agent provocateur in here? Come on now, out with it! Is it police intelligence? ACT? National? Come now its time for some honesty, be truthful please.

I'm on your Mum's payroll.

I'm on your Mum's payroll. She's got me on speed dial.

I work for the Council of

I work for the Council of Trade Unions. That's why I have all day to sit around and post on this website. 

I very much doubt that you

I very much doubt that you do....just more shit stirring again.

Just joking. The truth is

Just joking. The truth is that my forefathers stole hundreds of thousands of hectares of land from the indigenous toad people of the Amazon. Now I lease it back to them, living off the rents, and spending my days sipping martinis and complaining about the heat.

...

Ask a stupid question Quintin, and you get a stupid answer.

I am Miley Cyrus taking down

I am Miley Cyrus taking down time from lap dancing.

Who do you work for Quintin?

Who do you work for Quintin? Who's your paymaster?

Good luck getting anyone on

Good luck getting anyone on the editorial collective to listen to your bleatings. Do you honestly think they'll hide anything at your request?

 

No.

No, I don't. But I was just pointing out that, under the Editorial Policy, the post should be hidden (without notification) or replaced by a link. That would clean up the thread and leave more space for real discussion.

Why are so many people getting their knickers in a twist over this?

There is also an interesting

There is also an interesting discussion taking place to that opinion piece as well.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectID=10644446&pnum=2#cmnts_Start

It seems the problem arose

It seems the problem arose from the National Party regional conference in Masterton at the weekend where National cabinet ministers were given stick from their conservative base about whanau ora, the declaration of the rights of indigenous people, seabed and foreshore repeal and the return of the Urewera to Tuhoe.

So definately a case of cold feet on the Tuhoe issue as the conservatives in National see it as a "brown bridge too far".

Once we have had a hui-a-iwi there will be a Tuhoe response to this.

George Rangiaho
Ngati Rongo
Tuhoe Nation

I think John Key's conduct

I think John Key's conduct demonstrates that he must really have nothing but contempt for aspirations of Maori self-determination. He was successful in buying off the Maori Party for support in the House (although, the craven attitude of the Maori Party as part of that process was truly disgraceful).

Now, with the Tuhoe negotiations nearing completion, Key backslides on promises and bows to political pressure. He really is a cynical politican.

He probably views the whole thing as some sort of commerical transaction - we'll say this, they'll say that. It's all good sport at the end of the day. Ignoring all the while that he is dealing with fundamental matters of culture and identity. What a naive fool.

i have been quite impressed

i have been quite impressed by the temerity of Tuhoe to date. tamati kruger has shown real leadership in representing the viewpoint of the Tuhoe iwi.

mr kruger states: "the prime minister's statement yesterday has devalued and really demeaned Tuhoe....suggests to me that those people are all liars and cheats."

even though as you said sympathetic pakeha, that the negotiations may have been near completion i am pretty sure that there is little ground left to negotiate on now that the return of the park is off the negotiating table.

certainly an opportunity missed and i would suspect Tuhoe will just put it on the back burner and wait for another government to come knocking on their door to talk reconciliation.

John Key says Tuhoe are still

The cheek of it. I am sure

The cheek of it. I am sure Tuhoe will not get that joke at all.

I don't think this prime

I don't think this prime minister has any idea of the gravity of the situation he has created.

Well all I can say is that

Well all I can say is that the people of Tuhoe have tried using the processes available to them. What is left now for them to see justice done and their land returned?

They should eat John Key.

They should eat John Key.

They should eat John Key. It

They should eat John Key.

It is clear you get a lot of enjoyment from others misery Lentil. Your other defining quality, and I suspect, something you are quite proud of is your comprehensive lack of any empathy. You will have to excuse those of us in this discussion who allow ourselves to be contaminated with humane feelings while you have managed to keep yourself so insulated from such things.

These comments by Key are disgusting and he should be sacked for making them.

So now, in addition to being

So now, in addition to being a "right wing elitist", I'm a psychopath as well? 

You guys really need to grow a sense of humour, lay off the personal insults and stay on topic.

No wrong again, just a troll,

No wrong again, just a troll, an internet troll, google it, you will have to agree on that one.

You guys really need to grow

You guys really need to grow a sense of humour, lay off the personal insults and stay on topic.

I doubt you realise this Lentil but what K is stating is correct. I see you've been a registered member of Indymedia Aotearoa for about 6 weeks now and from what I have observed, you have spent all of that time using highly inflamatory techniques to push your agenda across along with many extraneous and intentionally provocative conversations that seem designed to be highly disruptive to discussion threads.

That really is the perfect embodiment of what the term internet troll is so I agree with K on that matter.

As to your comment on the sense of humour, perhaps you miss the mood around the place with the loss of the Urewera for the moment from Tuhoe tribes grasp. You can imagine how your sarcasm would go down at any funeral couldn't you which goes toward Quintins observations of your seemed lack of empathy.

Well all I can say is that the people of Tuhoe have tried using the processes available to them. What is left now for them to see justice done and their land returned?

Sorry you had to read through all of that to get to my comment Sarah, but anyhow there isn't much that I can see that can be done if the Urewera deal is dead in the water. All I can see is that it is going to cause a lot of grief in the near future I am afraid. History shows us that people should never be left without political options for redress of political wrongdoings.

The return of the national park has always been the only thing Tuhoe have been asking for (the money idea was nationals proposal). The Clark government knew it and so did the Key government when they embarked on this exercise.

Clark was straight up from the get go that she was not going to have that conversation with Tuhoe and told them so. John Key on the other hand came across as being quite keen on the return of the national park but his reservations that were conveyed via his negotiator to Tuhoe were that there would be an agreement reached about public access, which was achieved last week, and that the majority of his national party cabinet had to be in support of it and as of the end of last week was that there was a majority of them that supported the return, as others have correctly stated here.

It seems the decline in support came from the national party conference on the weekend where they took a grilling from some very vocal members who opposed the deals they were doing with the Maori Party, in particular the indigenous declaration, whanau-ora and the seabed and foreshore legislation.

According to an associate of mine that attended she did not recall the Tuhoe issue being raised or being a major discussion point but there was no doubt in her mind that there would have been an enormous backlash from the far right in the National Party had Keys cabinet voted for the return on Monday morning, that would have certainly been the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.

Most assuredly this is a case of cold feet and such is the fracard called politics, no big surprises there.

...using highly inflamatory

...using highly inflamatory techniques to push your agenda across along with many extraneous and intentionally provocative conversations that seem designed to be highly disruptive to discussion threads...

Just because I disagree with the prevailing political point of view around here doesn't make me a troll. And neither does the fact that I respond to personal attacks in kind.

My only "agenda" is to try and have a reasoned debate, albeit representing the opposing viewpoint. It's unfortunate and disappointing that when the prevailing political point of view here is challenged the response is often a personal attack. Why do people feel so threatened?

Mostly, when faced with the kind of gratuitous, tired insults that get lobbed at me (e.g. "racist", "right wing elitist", "ignorant", "conservative") I try and keep debate focused on the issue. Occasionally, I lose my cool and return the favour. Frankly, I don't think you can fault me for that.

Anyway, if people here want to be challenged and stimulated by real debate then I'm up for it. Alternatively, if they want to trade insults we can go a few rounds at that as well.

 

Lentil

P.S. You might also like to note that, in the thread on Tuhoe self-governance, I made it clear that if Te Urewera was taken wrongly from Tuhoe, then I think the Crown should give it back. Of course, no one has picked up on that. They would rather call me a racist-right-wing-conservative-ball-head-afrikaan-speaking-elitist.

I guess after a long tirade

I guess after a long tirade of your opinions people will probably just switch off to them and it seems they seemed to have missed the one redeeming comment you made. I think the bit you may be missing in all of this is that your username is an alias as are many usernames here, so you are not really trading insults with anyone unless they are using their real name, which is pretty much the reason why two aliases trading personal insults is generally seen as spam.

Most people want to be stimulated by real debate, even contentious debate, but more than anything people I have talked with want to hear something new preferably not a rehash of old ideas and certainly not the current moderate status-quo perspective for which you have re-presented in many of your past comments.

Lastly and most indicative of your input to date, you seem to have managed to turn almost every comments section you have participated in, into a drama focussed on you which to me is a big indicator of the size of your ego and why people often get frustrated with your so called stimulating real debates.

Hope that helps

Impressive. Most impressive.

Most people want to be stimulated by real debate, even contentious debate, but more than anything people I have talked with want to hear something new preferably not a rehash of old ideas and certainly not the current moderate status-quo perspective for which you have re-presented in many of your past comments.

That's the point. The moderate status quo is contentious here. Challenging people with that viewpoint and exploring why they disagree clarifies the reasons for their beliefs. Or it shows they don't have any.

As for hearing "something new". Very few points of view are "new". Most of the opinion expressed here is just a "rehash" of the same dogma that I spouted and believed in (strongly) when I was younger. It's unfair for you to accuse me of having old ideas, when those that I challenge are equally old (or older for me).

Lastly and most indicative of your input to date, you seem to have managed to turn almost every comments section you have participated in, into a drama focussed on you which to me is a big indicator of the size of your ego and why people often get frustrated with your so called stimulating real debates.

That's the most intelligent insult I've received. Very impressive. 

Rather than tag you back, let me explain why: because the vast majority of responses to my comments are insults. I try and stay on the issue. But it's hard in the face of the hysterical accusations of "racism". If people didn't throw insults at me, then I wouldn't respond to them. Simple as that.

Anyway, what are your views on John Key's decision?

"That's the point. The

"That's the point. The moderate status quo is contentious here. Challenging people with that viewpoint and exploring why they disagree clarifies the reasons for their beliefs. Or it shows they don't have any."

Paru's one belief is patua te kawanatana. So time to get on that trusty steed Hidalgo and head to the Urewera..."Lentil"

parukiore@gmail.com

piss off you troll

piss off you troll

Chillax dude.

Chillax dude.

Calm down Lentil I am here and with you!

Lentil your extraordinary courage to face the ignorant on this forum is refreshing and deserves total support. I may not agree with all you say and write, but you have a point and deserve to raise it and have it published. True democracy must allow dissent, whether it is liked or not. this forum tends to be on the leftist side, I am sure the rightist side of web forums will also allow the leftists to make statements. If that is not so they should raise their voices.

We need to take a radical stand for democracy, no matter what orientation. That is what NZ should be about. So your arguments are most welcome. But be real that you may find a lot of disagreement here. That is the challenge you have to put up with.

Do you believe rather in the theories of Hitler or Marx I ask. That is of importance to many here, because we are at a cross roads in this country and th world as a whole. Those were radicals of either orientation that divided and ruled before, but we should look beyond those narrow minded ideologies, otherwise we end up in a big mess.

 

So state your true opinion and orientation for once, we will all look forward to it and work from there.

Please don't pass yourself

Please don't pass yourself off as me, Honest Leon. 

So state your true opinion and orientation for once, we will all look forward to it and work from there.

But isn't that what the Real Lentil has been doing all along? 

@Paru.What?@Honest

@Paru.

What?

@Honest Leon.

Thanks... I think.

I don't support the theories of Hitler or Marx. 

My true opinions are the ones I've already stated.

Also, you shouldn't try and pass yourself off as "I am Leon". He writes differently to you. And that difference is obvious.

He paanui tenei i era o Tuhoe

He paanui tenei i era o Tuhoe ki te hui kotahi ki iarohe ki iarohe epa ana i tenei take nei ara kote korero puutiotio okingi kaikoka, ko Hone Kii. Kia mau tonu ra ki to tatou kawau maro o te mana motuhake o Tuhoe!

Lentils in the soup!

What do you guys expect from this character calling himself "True Lentil". He is member of the Young Nationals and wants to stir things up. He has claimed so many things, but he is simply BS!

Get over it, ignore that idiot!

Same as this character called "Leon" that appeared now and then on this forum!

Hone Kii has today shown his true colours once again. He is NOT interested in honest discourse and negotiations with Tuhoe or other Maori tribes. He even makes jokes about you guys.

We all have our moments and make jokes about each other, but after doing a total turn coat on the Urewera issue Hone Kii has shown he rather listens to his red-neck voters than sincerely discuss any issues with Tuhoe or other Maori interest groups.

Where does this leve Tariana and her crowd?

 know that Hone Harawira is just waiting to call an end to this unholy alliance between National Party and Maori Party. It cannot work any longer, even if those few still hope to gain something out of the Foreshore and Seabed Issue. It is a lost cause. Many would have realised this before that agreement of support was ever entered into. But now it is so obvious, the Maori Party make themselves the "dick of the month" to stick with this stupid and hopeless agreement they made with Hone Kii and his treacherous party.

Any comments are most welcome!

NGAI TUHOE

It is disappointing that some here use derogatory comments about Tuhoe and Maori. We do not need to relive the colonial times, for sure. Maori will through the Waitangi Tribunal seek redress for all the wrongs that have truly happened. Whether some rubbish this, call us cannibals, whatever. They were once primitive tribes in Europe that fought each other. What have they to tell us? Hone Kii is anyway a Jewish traitor, he comes from questionable backgrounds and goes on about his hardship ubringing and such, to most of us he still was privileged! He now makes jokes about some Maori and thinks he can entertain overseas investors and tourism operators that way. Thank you Hone KII, you have betrayed us once again, representing the Crown. You are not worthy to respect and to talk to! You have treated many of us with disrespect and with insult! You dare to talk about the treaty, reconciliation and improving relationships with Maori, you are hollow as the hollow me written about! You have given away the authority that was endowed into you in the beginning. I doubt if any Maori would seriously wish to talk and discuss with you in future!

@JDog.See what I mean. This

@JDog.

See what I mean. Madman's post begins, not with any critique of anything I've said, but with a wild assertion that I'm associated with the National Party (I've said elsewhere that I vote Labour) and an assertion that I'm "simply BS". How am I meant to respond to that?

You claim to be Labour means you are Labour nationalist!

National Party or Labour Party, they both are CORRUPT TO THE CORE! They have played the migrant game to get their votes UP! So you are obviously part of the game! Thank you for clarifying things! You are one of those hyppocrates that go on about a "free and equal society" that is just a pretext to rip off all decent people and sell this country out! Now I have caught you out! You are one of those benefiting of the sell out bull shit this country is about, and you are obviously benefiting of this. So this is most despiccable and makes me as a true migrant of civilised Europe realise even more the deceipt that goes on in this bull shit country. You entice migrants to bail your BS out, to balance the racial cards with Maori and Pacific Islanders and expect us to get you corrupt guys on track again! Your are a dispiccable person, I rather support the suppressed Maori than you lying and corrupt Anglo Saxons that took this country to a cleaner. Tamati Kruger is also part German. At least the Germans stood for some form of integrity, the Maori know this, same as some Samoans, the Anglo Saxon bullshitters of your kind never got the reality. So we are having battle lines drawn. I still believe that this country would have turned out much better under French rule as to be compared by bastardised and primitive English rule we got in the end. So f off for goodness sake!

Stereotypes when it suits

Sloppy post, Radical. You are playing off precisely the same kinds of racial and national stereotypes as John Key. Anglo-Saxon "Bullshiters", German integrity, benevolent French government. On what basis can you justify this? Clearly, you can't (you just assert it). So you are no better than John Key and his assumptions about Tuhoe diet. 

hope dis help

hope dis help

Maybe he was just joking - like Hone Kii

Maybe Radical was just joking - like Hone KII? Perhaps look at the law in this country, then you will see how it serves the privileged, same as in England. The body of case law that is not used in this manner in countries like France and Germany does make the law in NZ - as in other anglo saxon countries - one of the most complex and complicated bodies of law in the world. If you have the means to get a good lawyer you can get off almost anything, except perhaps murder. That is not so easy in continental Europe, where they stick to clearer and  less ambiguous statutes and regulations. Taking matters to a court does depend on being able to pay fees and pay a good lawyer, otherwise you may as well forget it. That is "justice" a la Aotearoa NZ! Radical may have more of a point than you think.

Just wanted to throw a challenge to get you out of the woods

Well 'I am Leon' - I just wanted to throw in a comment to get you other hippocrite out of the woodwork once more! Thanks for showing us that you are still around.

Wonder you have not joined your mate Lentil to support our great and gracious leader Hone Kii.

What is your view? I guess it is the same as Lentil's view.

Anyway John Key has done us all a favour to show his true colours once again. Those that do not realise that he is a self-serving opportunist simply fulfilling his childhood dream of being the  Prime Minister and at the same time playing cynical games with the population - ultimately serving his well heeled mates - will never get it.

The Maori Party will have to do one thing to survive: Quit this nonsensical agreement they entered into with the government and join the opposition.

 

I am not Leon

 What is your view? I guess it is the same as Lentil's view.

Actually, it appears "I am Leon" and "The Real Lentil" have different views. [click for link]

Lentil and other reactionaries

Dear Lentilious and caring and rebellious non discriptor non annihaltor! You are such an enginious intellect of non discript, you are truly a genious of desirability. Get down, get down, get down and get real, that is the challenge. You are living in a diluded environment, but there is a chance of getting REAL! So wake up, discover, learn and come back to the REAL WORLD to survice. All the best for now.

Detectable traitors

Lentil you are an honest person. Yet you are a looser. You are at war with everybody but lose clearly So where do you get it from? I wish you were wiser, bu you are not. Are you from South Africa, Jo-burg or wha? It would help to inform. All the best for now.

Who I am is irrelevant to

Who I am is irrelevant to this debate. Please stay on topic and cut out the personal attacks.

You just have - so what is the problem

You just have - so what is the problem? You voted Labour you say. Ha that is good is it not? It may show that Labour has lost its ways some time ago, that is why people like you do even vote for them! You give the impression of rather being a National supporter. So who would believe you anyway. Maybe you were just too flabbergasted about my comments? It appears to be the case. Anyway you do obviously support John Key. That man has repeatedly shown that he is totally untrustworthy. He had done so many turnabouts it is not funny. Now he did this week intervene in an unconventional manner in ongoing negotiations between Tuhoe and the Crown by stating that the Urewera National Park would not be handed back to Tuhoe. Tuhoe were considering a deal between them and the Crown to perhaps administer the park jointly. So JK did suddenly change the position of the Crown by intervening. A deal was close to be signed, but JK stopped it all. It is commonly called a betrayal what he did. Yet it serves his conservative and red-neck supporters well. That was the cause for his change of mind. To make a sick joke, albeit "light heartedly" only days afterwards that he "would be dinner" if he went to Tuhoe now, is plainly stupid, insensitive and irresponsible in the circumstances that exist. So he is in the wrong place. He may have made himself a person of ridicule overseas when meeting other leaders of countries, if he would have displayed such a kind of humour. Naturally many in NZ think it is just a joke and funny, that is most outside Maoridom. But that displays the level of ignorance that abounds in this brainwashed and dumbed down society. You are not so stupid, but you are worse in supporting this kind of system. That is ultra irresponsible and obnoxious. Maybe you are one of the main beneficiaries of the state of affairs we have. It appears to be so.

?

I'm confused, what's your point?

I'm sorry Madman. Is that

I'm sorry Madman. Is that post meant to be addressed to me? If so, I don't quite understand the point that you're making. Would you be able to clarify (preferable using paragraphs to separate your thoughts)?

Was not addressed to you in particular, but in wider sense

You are a dear, dear debater much cherished here, we all try to conform you to the "true conviction", but then that is what Catholics, Mormons, Morons and the like or lick try too. So good on ya to get into debate. Do not get hung up. I like to sting into the side of ribs, because in this country that is what is NEEDED! Too many are half asleep or totally asleep all the time, so we try to shake and rock a little. My arguments will continue to be on the revolutionary side of things, whether you like it or not. That is the least of my worries. At least you have the guts to debate, which 99 % of Kiwis do not understand! Good on and carry on disregarding!

?

Thanks... I think.

Cochise say this was a veto

Cochise say this was a veto by PM Honikii to protect valuable mining assets that will be used to pay off NZ overseas loansharks keeping this country afloat.

finally decided to fuck it

finally decided to fuck it all an become a big fat fucken capitalist. in keeping with honi kii festive humour paru going to sell karl volkner eyeball lollies on trademe. two designs, one called 'police surveillance state' the other called 'love that dirty dollar'. pundits can buy them eyeballs and suck on 'em all day long much like real life. as honikii say, im sure people will get da joke. what uz rekon?

Double standards.

How is this post tolerated? Talk about double standards.

My guess is that it is

My guess is that it is because paru_k is pointing out a double standard and your offence to his example is case in point to how obnoxious Keys apology was in stating that Tuhoe would understand the humour, just after he had kicked them in the groin. You get the drift? Or are you just being contentious again for the sake of it again?

I'm not being contentious for

I'm not being contentious for the sake of it. I just don't understand how Paru can make a joke about cannibalism and get praised for it, but John Key is condemned for the doing same. Isn't that the double standard here?

Also, when I post some farcical quip about Tuhoe eating John Key, it is deemed highly offensive, and hidden by the editorial collective. But Paru is apparently free to post about sucking on an the eyeballs of a real person who was murdered in the most brutal way. That also seems a double standard.

i a lentil.You don't

i a lentil.

You don't understand it or you don't want to? If the Kiore had made the "quip" about eyeball lollies out of the blue with no historical context then your whining would have weight to it, but because you do not want to see the link between the abusive behaviour of your leader John Key in making his snide tasteless and insensitive remark that Tuhoe would get his sense of humour, then you prevent yourself from seeing the context of the equally insulting post by the Kiore who it seems he/she intended to use the same level of abuse to point out how that humour would not be extended both ways, and you probably don't realise that your reaction is proof of that.

What is ok for Key is not ok for the Kiore, is that what you are saying?

Also to straighten out another of your little pro-white hypocracies, in any declared war, spies are executed not murdered whether that is by trial, or just lined up against the wall and shot. Welcome to the realities of war. volkner was a spy during wartime and was executed as one.

Bias

E Kaiwhata,

If John Key had made his cannibalism joke in this forum it would almost certainly have been hidden by the editorial staff. My cannibalism joke certainly was. Neither were particularly graphic, and yet both have been the subject of extremely negative comment here.

By contrast, Paru appears to be able to make graphic, specific cannibalism jokes with impunity. That smacks of a double standard. And people rush to his defence when I question it.

***

Also to straighten out another of your little pro-white hypocracies, in any declared war, spies are executed not murdered whether that is by trial, or just lined up against the wall and shot. Welcome to the realities of war. volkner was a spy during wartime and was executed as one.

Land confiscation and "collateral damage" are also "realities of war". Yet those are the "injustices" that form the basis of Tuhoe's settlement claim. Go figure.

Volkner

E kaiwhata,

In this forum, there are moderators. They decide to hide some posts and not others. A consistent rule should be applied in that process. But it has not. That is my point.

* * *

Also to straighten out another of your little pro-white hypocracies, in any declared war, spies are executed not murdered whether that is by trial, or just lined up against the wall and shot. Welcome to the realities of war. volkner was a spy during wartime and was executed as one.

Firstly, according to a Waitangi Tribunal report, there was no declared war at the time of Volkner's killing. And that report characterises the killing as "murder".

Secondly, there is no evidence that Carl Volkner was a spy. Rather it appears that he was killed because he was a missionary and therefore seen as a threat to the Pai Marire religious/political movement.

Thirdly, the "realities of war" also include land confiscation, "collateral damage" and "victor's justice". Those are the "injustices" Tuhoe are relying on in their claim against the Crown. If Volkner's killing can be excused as "a reality of war" then doesn't it follow that the injustices against Tuhoe can be too?

There is plenty of evidence

There is plenty of evidence that Volkner was a spy and many of his letters with his intel in them specifically about the people of Whakatohea and the hauhau are held on file in the Grey collection of letters. Wikipedia should be updated to say so.

The Hauhau wars began in 1864 and ended in 1872. The killing of Volkner was a part of that war and is the reason why the army was dispatched from Wanganui and Wellington to Opotiki early in September, 1865, to conduct operations against the Hauhau.

Calling the killing a murder was probably because Grey denied that Volkner was a spy, but of course evidence held in the Grey collection clearly shows that Volkner was trading secret informant information with Grey for information on other churches (of different denominations of course) that Grey was supplying him.

It is still recorded as a murder today because it has not officially been challenged as such, but in truth it was an execution in a time of war, so Kaiwhata is correct on that matter.

If you want to learn more about the Hauhau war then read a book called

The New Zealand Wars: A History of the Maori Campaigns and the Pioneering Period: Volume II: The Hauhau Wars, (1864–72)

On a side note. You need to be a bit more thoughtful before you go defending some of these eurocentric words used in these historical accounts Lentil. In Kereopa's case, his wife and kids were locked in a church building along with dozens of others and burned alive by the NZ Army as they overran Te Awamutu, and thats called collateral damage by you, and you defend the use of the word murder when it comes to the Governments number one spy in the east coast, Carl Volkner?

Would you concede that to be a double standard or is there a defence for that?

Good post.

Very good post. Thank you.

Re: Volkner and War status. My information came from the Waitangi Tribunal report. As a legal document, One assumes that it is an reliable source of fact. If there is an alternative, authoritative source available then of course that is something that people should take into consideration. Thank you for referencing a source, it's something I'll look into.

Re: "Collateral damage". I'm not saying that there weren't injustices. And I don't pretend to downplay the gravity of them. I'm just saying that if you excuse Volkner's murder (or "execution", if you prefer) as a "reality of war" then it should follow that other "realities of war" should also be excused. Saying one "reality of war" is Ok, but others are not is the "double standard".

I'm just saying that if you

I'm just saying that if you excuse Volkner's murder (or "execution", if you prefer) as a "reality of war" then it should follow that other "realities of war" should also be excused. Saying one "reality of war" is Ok, but others are not is the "double standard".

This is of course highly problematic for a number of reasons.

The British have for a long time executed people under treason laws and treachery laws. The risks to spying would have been clear to Volkner as he would have known the history of spies under the high treason acts in Britain.

Not only that he had been warned that Kereopa had found him out and not to return to Opotiki.

In fact in the UK you could get a trial during peacetimes if you committed treachery or treason but during wartime you would be lucky to be just beheaded, hung or shot (in later times) so one could argue that the trial of Volkner which on the face of it looked like a show trial, would have been unecessary even under British law during wartime.

So in my opinion on the matter of Volkner's execution being collateral damage, I believe it should not be categorised as collateral damage since he was an active spy spying on Crown enemies during war time.

Moving on to the massacre in which Kereopa's family was killed.

In my opinion collateral damage should not ever be used to describe a massacre. The history books are quite clear on their descriptions of the massacres that took place at the hands of Kereopa and co after his family was slaughtered and so to refer to the slaughter of his family as collateral damage while not rewriting the history of the massacres that took place at his hand following that would be bigotted at the very least.

However that is just semantics.

Wikipedia states that collateral damage is, "damage that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome". There have been a few cases in the past where certain individuals have attempted to define massacres as collateral damage, the latest being Timothy McVeigh who contended during his trial that the children killed in his bombing in Oklahoma were collateral damage, and if one had a twisted enough mind one could argue that point on a technicality.

But in general it is seen as quite and immoral argument to make.

So in light of all that Lentil, I think you may be grasping at straws now to go down that route?

Clarity needed

Ok. Let's clarify so that we're not arguing at cross purposes.

I never characterised the Volkner incident as "collateral damage". However, "k" did characterise it as a "reality of war" and excused it on that basis. My point is that if "k" can excuse the Volkner incident as a "reality of war" then he or she should also excuse the Crown's injustices against Tuhoe on the same basis. Clearly, 'k' does not excuse those injustices. I wonder how that can not be a double standard.

I use quotation marks around "collateral damage" and "victor's justice" for a reason. Most people understand that those terms are a euphemism for something much darker and more horrific than their plain meaning. So by using those terms, I was demonstrating that passing off the Volkner incident as a "reality of war" (as 'k' did) is to do the same injustice to the event as passing off the massacre of civilians as "collateral damage" and the judicially dubious execution of their leaders as "victor's justice". With your obvious experience in deconstructive analysis, I thought you might have understood that. 

And for clarity, I have never attempted to excuse the inexcusable or justify the unjustifiable acts of the Crown. If someone murdered my family I would also expect "utu" and I would probably extract it regardless of the law of the day. But it does not follow that Paru Kiore (someone who, AKAIK is completely unrelated to Kereopa and who, in any event, is some four or five generations removed) should be exempt from the A IMC editorial policy just because he shares the same general ethnicity as someone whose family was murdered.

Some of my ancestors had a hard time too. But around here, that doesn't seem to count.

reality of war vs collateral

reality of war vs collateral damage

Spies that get caught during war time often get executed, that is a reality of participating in espionage.

Was Volkner a spy? a=yes.
Was Volkner executed for being a spy? a=yes.
Was this during wartime? a=yes

Now lets apply that test to Tuhoe.

When the officers in the NZ Army commanded their troops in the Urewera on occasion to exterminate everyone were those that were slaughtered victims of collateral damage? a=no
Was extermination an acceptable wartime activity of the day? a=no
When the NZ Army set fire to villages in order to burn everyone out was that collateral damage? a=no
When said army moved entire hapu into concentration camp styled containment areas and starved many of them even to death was that collateral damage? a=no
Was any of the aforementioned excusable actions of war? a=no except for the execution of some Tuhoe soldiers by Crown armies, who had join up with Kereopa and participated in savage attacks, and vice-versa, and also the trial and execution of a certain spy caught in the act was also a reality of doing such a thing.

Remember when you started down this line of discussion, in your thinking apparently Volkner wasn't a spy and was murdered. Now that you know he was a spy, that he was a spy during a wartime period and was not murdered but was tried and executed, then isn't his execution the same as any other captured enemy combatant of the time that was summarily executed?

Perhaps you should be asking yourself what is it about Volkners execution that abhors you so much to motivate you to defend the almost indefencable.

Do you realise that while any Tribe can take claims to the Tribunal concerning the execution of captured combatants, the Tribunal does see much of that as the realities of war as well and while they will include those things in their reports, they don't include them in their recommendations. Most of the Tuhoe claim though is not about the treatment of combatants and active participants such as soldiers and spies, its about large tracks of land that were confiscated before during and after those wars.

What the Waitangi Tribunal is saying is that the land confiscation was not collateral damage to the Crown armies devastations in Tuhoe, the Tribunal makes strong recommendations that land confiscation was the point of it all and the fact that large scale confiscations of the flat lands already took place  before the Ngati Rangiwewehi leader Kereopa and the Rongowhakaata guerilla leader Te Kooti came along is evidence of this.

Confiscations took place in Tuhoe before those wars, during those wars, after those wars, long after those wars and the largest one off confiscation took place during the childhood of many Tuhoe still alive today, that of the park, their memory of the confiscation is not a past down memory, its a personal one which many of them witnessed.

My point is that if "k" can

My point is that if "k" can excuse the Volkner incident as a "reality of war" then he or she should also excuse the Crown's injustices against Tuhoe on the same basis.

Well I do not read K's comments as excusing but rather seen from the point of view that there is a difference between being executed for being an agent of the Crown and being executed for being Tuhoe as many Tuhoe were.

Lets also not forget the fact that whilst Volkners name is preserved in lights by even the Waitangi Tribunal, most of the names of the Tuhoe slaughtered by Crown troops in their duel quest for more land and for bandits, are not known to anyone other than to the people of Tuhoe. Something not uncommon when the victor also writes the history book.

So I can empathise with the frustrations of the people who Tuhoe and of Whakatohea when so much emphasis is put on the actions that lead to the execution of Volkner and not reciprocated with the swathes of Tuhoe that died when Crown troops entered their lands chasing Volkners executioners and again later chasing Te Kooti around the Urewera.

I do not see the execution of Volkner as an injustice for that reason but there is an argument about the desecration of his body after the fact although as I understand it desecrations of bodies were commonplace on both sides during that era.

paru like most Tuhoe, understands the intended humour in hoani kees racially derrogatory remarks and paru return him in kind with a pinch of 'non pc' korero about the dead spook pakeha war hero volkner...thats utu lentil, return in kind ahakoa the good or the bad.

I do get the point Paru Kiore is making on this issue and it is a well made point in a classic animated fashion we have come to expect from Tuhoe, made in hers/his now hidden comments.

I really have little more to say on this issue and I think we have sufficiently moved this whole discussion away from its original topic?

Discussion is futile.

I think we're sufficiently talking at cross-purposes to make further discussion around the Volkner incident futile.

...

I see the editorial collective have hidden Paru's original comment. I commend that decision.

Lentil: If Volkner's killing

Lentil: If Volkner's killing can be excused as "a reality of war" then doesn't it follow that the injustices against Tuhoe can be too?

The short answer which has been clearly explained to you by several commentors here including myself is no. Noone in their right mind would dare make the argument that because Margaretha Zelle was executed by the French for being German spy, that her execution justified the massacre of 6 million Jews, Pols, French and others during the holocaust....would they!

There is a world of difference in the two positions, you should know this by now, so why are you still demanding an answer to your absurd question???

Does any of this ring a bell in your head at all, can you see why most people are not even bothering trying to answer your little unthought through proposition?

Lentil: I think we're sufficiently talking at cross-purposes to make further discussion around the Volkner incident futile.

When people take into consideration the hidden comments of yours, they can make their minds up about your wider agenda here, whether you are here to voluntarily spawn debate, patronise us with your higher comprehension of politics (which turns out to date to just be misinformed and kneejerk defences of the status quo), or whether you are just being a patronising shit stirring agent provacteur, but my opinion of you is in the latter.

The first thing I think you need to do is concede that you have been wrong on every point in this discussion except for your personal opinion on the dislike of a comment made about Volkner, and you need to apologise to the Tuhoe that read this discussion for being so bloody callous about the wholesale slaughter of their ancestors.

The other thing is, what I have read in here clearly shows me your knowledge of Maori culture, Tuhoe culture and history in particular, is so deficient and misinformed that almost all your comments on those matters need correcting so in the future you should try to show some more courtesy when people take time out of their busy days to correct the often racist views that have been either taught to you in school or that you have unintentionally picked up along the way...

Noone in their right mind

Noone in their right mind would dare make the argument that because Margaretha Zelle was executed by the French for being German spy, that her execution justified the massacre of 6 million Jews, Pols, French and others during the holocaust....would they!

To add to that comment, the execution of Zelle can clearly be categorised as the realities of war, but I dare you to make the comparison with the Holocaust....oh well, Zelle was executed, 6 million people were exterminated, such is the realities of war.....go on I dare you to.

O rly?

You've just compared what happened to Tuhoe to the Holocaust. That takes about the same level of audaciousness.

Absurd.

I thought this discussion was over. If you want to revisit it, then I'll oblige. But before you go accusing me of being a "shit stirring provocateur" remember that you're the one dragging this up again.

You're comparing the Crown's acts against Tuhoe to the Holocaust. That is typical of the kind of absurd hyperbole we've come to expect in discussions about Maori claims against the Crown. If it weren't mildly offensive, it would be laughable.

Setting aside your rather bizarre Mata Hari analogy, you're effectively saying "Volkner's murder? He was executed as a Spy. That's a reality of war. Get over it." I'm just asking how you can so flippantly excuse one thing as a "reality of war" while at the same time characterising other "realities of war" as horrendous injustices forming the basis for a claim against the Crown.

Presumably that's because you don't think land confiscation, civilian deaths and the execution of losing side's leaders are not "realities of war". We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. They have been a feature of most significant conflicts in the 20th century, as well as of inter-tribal warfare amongst Maori in the pre-European period.

remember that you asked for

remember that you asked for this

Asked for that? is that it? A rehash of the same victors bias that has been the common denominator through everything you have written here. Here I was waiting your trump card.

No one is comparing what happened anywhere to the scale or the horror of the holocaust in Germany. That is just you completely avoiding and missing the point, again. You are the one trying to compare the execution of a spy (Volkner) to be on parr with the deaths of a quarter of Tuhoe so don't try to spin this around to be what it isn't.

Remember your starting point was that it was a murder because Volkner was killed during peacetime, and the other bit you got wrong is that you said there was no evidence he was a spy.

I'm just asking how you can so flippantly excuse one thing as a "reality of war" while at the same time characterising other "realities of war" as horrendous injustices forming the basis for a claim against the Crown.

I think this has been spelled out to you already, but it seems you like to hear things repeated so here it is again. Like most people, I draw the line between combatants and non-combatants in wars. If you want to arm yourselves and fight, or go undercover and be a spy, and you get caught by the enemy, then that is the reality of war, get over it, thats it, its a throw away comment that you picked up on and then made the most offensive comparisons between the execution of a military spy to the wholesale and relentless slaughter of amny many hundreds of Tuhoe people, innocent families whose only crime was that they lived in the Urewera, targetted under orders by NZ Government soldiers, and slaughtered.

If you are the commander of an army and you command your troops to exterminate everyone irregardless of being civilians or not then you are guilty of genocide even if you only kill 10, 20, 50, 100, 500, 1000 people. Its not an issue of scale Lentil and it sickens me that you seem to think that it is.

You call that an absurd hyperbole we've come to expect in discussions about Maori claims against the Crown.

Whose the 'we' in that statement Lentil.

Do you think that you hold some superior intellectual position on this matter, it may come as a suprise to you but being completely wrong is not a very superior position to hold to. If you took a minute to observe your own words you would realise that all you have done is assumed the position and perspective of the victor who committed those acts of genocide against the people of Tuhoe, for whom the Crown, Waitangi Tribunal and any other scholars that have taken an indepth look into the issues have all said words to that affect, from sitting on the fence and saying that it was akin to ethnic cleansing or genocide, to outright listing as so.

But in truth it was genocide Lentil, records show military actions based on military orders from the top brass to exterminate the population, targetted at a civilian population most of whom were not involved in armed insurgency although it wouldn't have mattered if they were or were not, extermination orders are just that. You should call it for what it was and not downplay it to the lower 'collateral damage' just so you can be right on the issue of Volkners execution.

Is that is your final position on the deaths of a thousand or so innocent people and children, that their slaughter is on a parr with military deaths such as soldiers and spies? That if the death of Volkner was the reality of war then that means the genocidal type slaughter of Tuhoe civilians was also the reality of war?

If that is the case then I am deeply sickened by your callous, inhumane and immoral beliefs. You should take some time to go find your soul, which you have clearly misplaced.

Lentil, I see many people

Lentil, I see many people have taken time out here to point out to you just how wrong you are with some very articulate and often point by point debunkings of your mistaken views on not just Volkner and Kereopa but on much of your views of Tuhoe and your knowledge or the lack of it of Tuhoe history, in fact almost all of what you have had to say in this discussion so far.

If you do not see the execution of Volkner as a reality of war, or want to compare the death of Volkner the spy to the massacre of masses of Tuhoe to be the realities of war then fine by me but there is no point in trying to badger other people into your way of thinking.

I see many people have taken

@Quintin

I see many people have taken time out here to point out to you just how wrong you are with some very articulate and often point by point debunkings of your mistaken views on not just Volkner and Kereopa but on much of your views of Tuhoe and your knowledge or the lack of it of Tuhoe history blah blah blah

The only facts I've asserted come from a Waitangi Tribunal report. Those facts were found with the benefit of expert evidence by a body that has a disproportionate level of Maori representation and a strong pro-Maori bias. Even so, when I had an alternative source pointed out to me, I thanked the person and said I'd look into it. I've been more than fair. So if that's not good enough for you, I don't give a shit.

If you do not see the execution of Volkner as a reality of war, or want to compare the death of Volkner the spy to the massacre of masses of Tuhoe to be the realities of war then fine by me...

I never said that Volkner's murder wasn't a reality of war. I made no direct comparison between Volkner's murder with what happened to Tuhoe. Read more carefully.

there is no point in trying to badger other people into your way of thinking.

Well said. You should take your own advice.

--

[]

Sleepy.

@K

From absurd hyperbole to feigned outrage. Another well trodden path. (Yawns).

Your post really underscored that further discussion was futile. But since you seem to like it so much, I'll drag it out some more.

...

Here I was waiting your trump card.

Obviously you expected me to say "Tuhoe lost the war. Get over it." Then you could really blow your top at me. Sorry. No such luck. I say, give Urewera back. 

No one is comparing what happened anywhere to the scale or the horror of the holocaust in Germany.

Yes. You did - Volkner and Tuhoe, Mata Hari and the Holocaust. Or are you backtracking on that now? Have you got "cold feet"? "Lost your nerve" perhaps?

Its not an issue of scale Lentil and it sickens me that you seem to think that it is.

I think what? Where did I say that?

You call that an absurd hyperbole we've come to expect in discussions about Maori claims against the Crown.

Whose the 'we' in that statement Lentil.

Everyone who's had to listen to it.

Do you think that you hold some superior intellectual position on this matter, it may come as a suprise to you but being completely wrong is not a very superior position to hold to.

That made me lol. I like how you break up outrage with comic relief. You almost convinced me you had a sense of humour. But then, disappointingly:

If that is the case then I am deeply sickened by your callous, inhumane and immoral beliefs. You should take some time to go find your soul, which you have clearly misplaced.

Come on. You can do better at insults than that. Surely?

....

Te Tuturu Pi

there are specific rules for

there are specific rules for hiding comments.  when they don't offer anything qualitatively to the discussion I believe or something along those lines.

Irony.

[starts] there are specific rules for hiding comments.  when they don't offer anything qualitatively to the discussion I believe or something along those lines. [ends]

A post that implies that it should not exist.

Irony.

paru understands

paru like most Tuhoe, understands the intended humour in hoani kees racially derrogatory remarks and paru return him in kind with a pinch of 'non pc' korero about the dead spook pakeha war hero volkner...thats utu lentil, return in kind ahakoa the good or the bad.

in fact if i were the Ngati Porou i be more pissed bout the subtle insinuations of being compared to a crown bootlicker.

but its not the intended pun of kee that piss Tuhoe off the most but that it come straight after the bite to the ankle from that lying snake mouth of his, and now the areshole is laughing at us over wine and crackers from his ivory sanctuary???

he can go get fucked! thats the sentiment from here.

so paru had small epiphony about volkner eyeball keyring which evolved into eyeball lollies idea after a cup of tea and a rewatch of kees smart arsed cheesy greasy apology. now if can jis get the $$$ bill symbols imprinted on the lollie eyeballs...think i might be on to a winner, get me some green backs off of trademe and get on with being that brown capitalist aye!

Naughty Paru, naughty Lentil

My dear brother Lentil, do not get upset with Paru. He is Maori himself, so he is entitled to make fun of himself and his people. John Key made fun of other people - namely Tuhoe. There is a different quality in this. So perhaps look at it this way. Making fun of oneself is more acceptable than making fun of others, especially if it is degrading or derogatory.

So warm up your lentil soup and eat it too. Go to bed, have a rest and tomorrow will be another day that you can go about your game afresh and with new energy.

Volkner war Deutsch

[Paru] is Maori himself, so he is entitled to make fun of himself and his people.

I don't disagree with that. But Volkner is the subject of Paru's "joke". And Volkner was German, not Maori.

But Volkner is the subject of

But Volkner is the subject of Paru's "joke". And Volkner was German, not Maori.

Volkner was a spy for the Crown, that spy bit, it seems was the point of using him in the example.

I believe the intention was to point out that its not funny when its a cannibalism joke about a Pakeha, like Volkner, so why does Key think its funny when its a cannibalism joke about Maori, like the Tuhoe.

And while I am on the subject, where is your moral outrage at the tasteless joke by John Key Lentil, why is it we only see it flare when a non-Tuhoe is the butt of the jibe.

You Lentil obviously did not get Parus joke and I dont think Paru ever intended you to as it was obviously aimed not at you but at the bigotted apology from Key. I can only assume from your reaction that Volkner must be a relation of yours? Irregardless, the more you are insensed by it the more Paru's point is made I suppose.

I can only assume from your

I can only assume from your reaction that Volkner must be a relation of yours?

Yup Lentil is of German decent, but it is not just the physical relationship that seems to be at issue here. Lentil you seem to have endless time for the death of one of your own countrymen who turns out to be someone whose spying brought misery to most of the East Coast for 100 years, but have little to no empathy for the deaths of many Maori at the hands of your own countrymen (Maj. Von Tempsky).

I am not surprised, that is the prevalent theme that ran through the school curriculim right up until the end of the 90s that affected the perspectives of generations of Pakeha even to this day and will continue to affect us for generations to come.

But in saying that, the level of contempt you display here for the attempted extermination of the people of Tuhoe is above and beyond that found in ultra right conservatives in this country.

Missing the point, again.

Hey Quintin, Goji:

Try reading the discussion above. "Lentilious" said it's OK for Paru to make fun of Maori because he is Maori. I said that's fine, but Paru is making fun of Volkner, and Volkner was German. It follows that the "it's OK to make fun of your own race" principle doesn't excuse Paru's joke.

It's really no more complicated than that. If it entertains you to read too much into my comments, then no one is stopping you. But please don't mind if I tell you "you're full of shit" and have a laugh at your expense.

L

Hi, we just want to add our

Hi, we just want to add our disappointment at the treachery perpetrated by John Key and his party. Anyone in touch with Tuhoe people please pass on our regards.

Gerard Germinator
Save the Seeds Collective
savetheseedscollective@gmail.com

The focus for Tuhoe now on in

The focus for Tuhoe now on in is to make plans based on the new playing field. We are not the first iwi around this world to be in this situation, in we are one of many thousands and it is key that we link up with those other indigenous whanau and iwi around Te Ao Marama and learn from their plights, their successes and failures.

The owership issue was the Tuhoe bottom line for any working settlement with the Crown but it is not an immediate necessity to the continued planning and moving of Tuhoe toward Mana Motuhake for the reason that Governments come and go and no doubt there will be one in the future that will have the temerity to stick it through the thick in order to deliver the justice this Government had indicated.

In the meantime Tuhoe are meeting to decide what will be our response to this latest development.

George Rangiaho
Ngati Rongo
Tuhoe Nation

Radical is clearly an agent

Radical is clearly an agent provoceteur, anyway to ban his police.govt ip?

Ha - the dark hooded man

Ha - the dark hooded man behind the bush? What a joke. You are paranoic

Be quiet little Kiore

Be quiet little Kiore

F YOU LITTLE BROWN NAZI

GOT IT

KAHUI LITTLE NAZIS

THANK YOU KAHUI - I DO NOW WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT JOHN KEY IN HIS STAND AGAINST YOU SORT OF PEOPLE THAT WANT TO DIVIDE THIS COUNTRY AND CREATE RACIST DIVIDES! YOU HAVE PROVED WHAT A LOT OF YOU SORTS ARE ALL ABOUT! BETTER TRUST NO ONE LIKE YOU AND MAKE SURE THAT THIS COUNTRY STAYS FREE AND DEMOCRATIC!

Non Sequitor

George,

let us not forget who runs this nation. Would Tuhoe as part of the Polynesian waka really want a part of the foreshore and seabed? Because if we pick that one up then we have picked up another stinking turd.

What has happened in the Gulf of Mexico is the ultimate, it is going to spread around the world on the sea currents. When one bites mammas nipple too hard, she stomps. She is gonna stomp!

Think New Zealand .. and what we are .. and the reality of the dire situation that faces us all .. but above all let us get real ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHtZJC_4YmE&feature=player_embedded

not sure how long its been

not sure how long its been since ive said this, and a big arohamai to the atua for not making it a DAILY TASK, but need to say that the kawana can GO GET FUCKED!!! Tuhoe struggle go on forever till we get the Urewera off the kawana books and get those wrecking pokokohua and their forest trucks out of there. get that into your numb skull kawanatanga hamuti honikii. it will be FOREVER on the table. if you or any of your ballhead mates that fill your shoes when ur out of there wanna come talk to Tuhoe again, NO MORE DISCUSSIONS, you come with your signed paper saying it not yours anymore….thieving bastards!

Question.

Q: doesn't "paru kiore" translate as "filthy rat"?

I reckon Tuhoe should go on

I reckon Tuhoe should go on strike and refuse any type of government assistance, ie benefit and unemployment just live off the land until this horrible injustice and inequity is addressed.

Good idea.

I think that would be fine by the remaining 99% of NZ too.

The world goes belly up so Tuhoe are on right territory

The world goes belly up so Tuhoe are on right territory! Who needs all this BS where stock exchanges drop, others struggle for food, water and survival? Tuhoe are right there to SURVIVE and show the rest oto get stuffed. So let the rest of NZ suck shit.

Tuhoe are right there to

Tuhoe are right there to SURVIVE and show the rest oto get stuffed. So let the rest of NZ suck shit.

I don't see that as a common view in the Urewera. Most of them just want their land and to be left alone to enjoy being who they are.

I think that would be fine by

I think that would be fine by the remaining 99% of NZ too

What would be fine Lentil, are you another one that assumes that much of Tuhoe are full of dole bludgers who should get off the dole?

Better off?

That's a bit simplistic.

One of Tuhoe's complaints relates to the lower socio-economic status of its constituents. If that is true, then compared to the rest of NZ, they would consume a greater portion of public spending in the form of welfare and benefits and contribute less in the way of tax revenue. It may be an unfortunate fact of the NZ welfare state that the country would be better off without those at the bottom end of the socio-economic spectrum. But if they choose to leave it voluntarily then why would the rest of us complain?

Kahui, would it surprise you

Kahui, would it surprise you to know that most Tuhoe actually work? So surely you mean go on strike from their jobs? Or is it the assumption that if they live in the Urewera that they must be dole bludgers?

Tuhoe are enslaved like all of us

Yes, why would Tuhoe be any better off? Tuhoe people are slaving away like most of us! What is freedom anyway? Does it represent something we can buy? It seems not, so we have to be working slaves to get whatever we need or even want! Forget revolution, dreams of freedom and so, we are in bondage like people have been for thousands of years!

If National were to hand back

If National were to hand back the stolen Urewera National Park it would result in a serious impediment in their plans which are in progress to privatise all minerals largely found in national parks for which the Urewera is the largest park. This action would have lead to an iwi revolt where all iwi would have fought to get their own parks back and National and its big business owners would have no oil, gas, coal and gold to hock off to pay back the loan sharks who are keeping this country living beyond its means.

Totally. When word got out

Totally. When word got out that National ministers were going to sign over the Urewera Park back to its rightful owner there was an emergency meeting held with Key by privatisation proponents just days before the token canbinet vote, who brought up that very matter of mineral rights and their plans to sell them. It was on that basis of fear, along with the superstitions with which some have come out even in this discussion forum, that this country's prime minister veto'd the return, then went on tv and lied saying the return was never on the cards. Negotiations for the return had even gotten to the point that it was agreed that special signing pens would be made up for the event, motels and flights were booked by ministers of the Crown to attend the signing. That is way past discussing or not discussing the return, those are the signs of a done deal.

Right...So, you reckon that

Right...

So, you reckon that although the minerals policy is something that's been on the cards for over a year it was only at the last minute that the penny dropped for John Key and he thought:

"Oh shit! If we give Urewera national park back to Tuhoe we can't mine it. That's going to fuck things up for my mining mates... I'd better ring Kruger and tell him it's not happening."

Come on. Take a strong, dark shot of reality.

If National were to hand back

If National were to hand back the stolen Urewera National Park it would result in a serious impediment in their plans which are in progress to privatise all minerals largely found in national parks for which the Urewera is the largest park.

That is certainly one of the motives behind the last minute shafting that has come to light. Along with the issues of privatisation and access to minerals that Tuhoe have said they would not allow, are the threat of a general backlash from the fundamentalists in National to the Key cabinet. A case of too many pro-Maori policies I'm afraid and it looks like one of them had to go so Key chose the one in his mind that had the least affect across the board.

All I can say is that it is

All I can say is that it is foolish for any Government to back such a large and grounded group of people such as the Tuhoe iwi into a corner as they have despicably done by falsely leading Tuhoe negotiators to believe that they were going to give their land back. They had better go find some other viable options for negotiations and do it quickly or get back to the negotiating table with the return of the Urewera Nat Park still up for discussion or else there will be trouble on the horizon.

A threat?

That's a pretty thinly veiled threat.

I know! Perhaps they should run some training camps up in the Mountains and plan to kill the Prime Minister... Oh wait... That didn't work out so well last time, did it?

I think you are right Rush

I think you are right Rush that is an accurate assessment of the situation, although as we all know, Tuhoe will have the last say on that matter, it is not as if this is their first big setback on the trail to seeing justice and toward their nationhood.

Interesting discussion. With

Interesting discussion.

With Key denying that the Urewera was on the cards to go back to Tuhoe, the question that remains insufficiently answered, and not even asked at all by the main stream media is why did Key prevent the proposal from going to cabinet vote, and a lesser question of what was going to cabinet vote that he veto'd.

The answer is of course that the cabinet vote was going to finalise the return of the Urewera, nationals cabinet was to vote on the final draft of the negotiations to return the Urewera to Tuhoe. Key was aware that 8 out of his 10 cabinet ministers were going to vote in favour of the return. Key was approached by the 2 dissenting cabinet members and following that he intervened to prevent it ever going to vote.

Now what this says to me is that in order for you to write a final draft and have it ready to present to a cabinet for voting on, that means that the issue of returning the Urewera would have certainly been discussed by the Crown negotiator and Finlayson had come to a finality in his negotiations with Kruger in order for the final draft to be drawn up.

The final draft recommended the full return of the Urewera to Tuhoe and the Tuhoe were told that once it had passed its vote in cabinet that it was a done deal.

Key is lying when he says the return of the Urewera was never on the cards, it was the only card that was played and the Tuhoe had won even to the point and had mitigated all the concerns, to the point that Keys cabinet would have voted for the return. Key knew this and stepped in and played the ultimate race card, his dictatorial power of prime ministeral veto over a fair voting process.

Keys veto goes beyond cold feet, it was a shafting of the process and another injustice in a long line of injustices perpetrated by the Crown on the Tuhoe people.

Key, Clark, whats the diff?

Key, Clark, whats the diff? Apart from the higher tone in Keys voice he has shown like Clark did with the seabed and foreshore legislation (which btw is a quasi-veto of common law) that he will use every power available to him to keep the settlment process focussed on bloody money and cosy rhetoric, and away from anything of real substance even if he has to use standover tactics over his own team to achieve that end.

Good point too about this country living beyond its means.

rewording by: Te

rewording by:

Te Puhoataparuhi Kiore,
Automonous Region of Tuhoe

Idioms are so cliche

Com'on Tuhoe Negotiators .. which part of "Don't count your chickens before they've hatched" didn't you understand? You should have waited until the ink was dry on the parchment and not jumped the gun. Possession is 9/10ths of the law, and guess who still possesses Te Urewera? In contemporary venacular, you have been served! .. (Cost Saving Tip - Don't order commemorative pens, until you have something to commemorate!)

Possession is 9/10ths of the

Possession is 9/10ths of the law, and guess who still possesses Te Urewera

If by possession you mean occupancy then that would be Tuhoe, since they occupy the Urewera.

some great discussions on

some great discussions on this issue on facebook too

Te Urewera Belongs To Tuhoe: Give it Back!http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=120709841290165&v=wall

Also an interview here with

Also an interview here with Tamati Kruger on The Nation show:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1005/S00145.htm

Lots of support flowing in

Lots of support flowing in for Tuhoe via online means like Facebook and also Tuhoe spokespeople have been inundated with calls of support through the week from many many iwi representatives and others around the country.

Kia ora mo tera

Once the decision had been

Once the decision had been made by Key to reneg on the Urewera promise due to pressure from those in the far right of National backed by big business whose vested interest is in the privatisation of mineral rights who told him that giving back the Urewera was a bridge too far, Key called in Doug Graham for an emergency meeting on the Sunday prior to the official reneg announcement for damage control, to come up with a list of reasons to sell the reneg to the largely docile nation.

Graham made up a list which was orchestrated to paint the perception that these were real concerns for National even though every point on that list had been worked through over a year ago by the negotiation teams and affectively ticked off as sorted, however not being a part of that process Graham was unaware of this and had he been he would have been able to select more believable lies that could stand more scrutiny than just a day or two.

This really has been quite the exercise in social engineering by Key, but he must think he is out of the thick now with the budget set to upstage almost everything including his reneg to Tuhoe.

Looks like another 100 year

Looks like another 100 year wait for Tuhoe to get their land back. Good to see that they are getting on with their nationhood though, no point in waiting on this lot. Just protect the Urewera as best one can since they are its primary occupant and one day a Government with temerity will step up and do the honourable thing.

Historian throws the book at

Historian throws the book at PM over Tuhoe claim

HISTORIAN Dame Judith Binney has slated John Key's refusal to return ownership of Te Urewera National Park to Tuhoe, saying his claim that it created a precedent was "quite wrong".

Tuhoe's situation was unique, and Key "could have responded to it if he'd understood the history clearly", Binney told the Sunday Star-Times.

Binney, made a principal companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2006, is the author of the book, Encircled Lands: Te Urewera, 1820-1921, published last year. She is now recovering after being badly hurt in a traffic accident in Auckland in December.

The Crown had not acted honourably in its dealings with Tuhoe and it was time it did, Binney said....

Full article here

Tuhoe talks on again

Tuhoe talks on again
TREATY negotiations minister Chris Finlayson has written to Tuhoe seeking a meeting in three weeks to renew attempts at a settlement....

It will be interesting to go

It will be interesting to go hear what the chief representative of the state thief has to say.

Tuhoe considers bringing in

Suggest a Deal

Suggest a Deal to have Tuhoe gain autonony and enter an alliance with the state of Germany for future economic and social and cultureal development. That way independence can be realistically ensured by also entering economic mutual relationship trusts furthering the prosperity of Tuhoe nation within Aotearoa. The artificial "state" of New Zealand must and will be overcome once bilateral or multilateral agreements between Tuhoe Nation and other independent countries are established. This is a suggestion of sincere considerations. Only by opting out of the Crown suppression will Tuhoe Nation become a force to be reckoned with. There are all kinds of avenues open to Tuhoe People, whether to enter into any kind of agreement with Mainland China, Japan, Germany, France or whosoever. The colonial age has been put behind us and it is time to move further ahead. The artificial Paheka dominated and dictated state of so-called "New Zealand" cannot be the answer for the future well-being of the peoples of Maoritanga and the South Pacific Island nations. Look ahead and consider. There may be an abundance of opportunities ahead to negotiate for and to advance your people!

I don't think they are

I don't think they are anywhere near the step of secession. This move to bring in a 3rd party to the negotiations I think is just sending a message to the Government that the trust has been spent between them. Last I heard, Tuhoe were still seeking interdependence if not from this government then a future one.

That is the problem!

They keep begging and negotiating for negotiation's sake. This leaves Tuhoe open to abuse and exploitation. Any people can self-determine and say: We had enough, we never signed your treaties and we will not have any more of it. I know though that the economic truth at present is that many Tuhoe depend on this government and its welfare programs, so what bargaining power is there really. I believe to get true autonomy and some independence you have to jump the gun and take things further. Hence some ideas mentioned. It is not easy, but as long as many Tuhoe depend on WINZ and certain other agencies: FORGET AUTONOMY AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT MAY RESEMBLE IT!

For the majority of those

For the majority of those that live in the Urewera they are not dependent on social welfare as they live off the land in communities that produce their own food crops and forage and hunt for their own miiti. Those who I talked to who received WINZ support during the leadup to the negotiations with the Crown saw their vote for the return of the Urewera also as a vote to also become hapu-sufficient and kiss that benefit goodbye.

For the most though they are not as dependent on social welfare as people that live in towns and cities are.

I think you might be mistaking Tuhoe for asking for autonomy which they are not, they are already a fairly autonomous region/rohe. The Tuhoe people are not even asking the Government for their land back. They consider the national park to still belong to them - most of Tuhoe were alive when the Urewera National Park area was confiscated from them which puts them in quite a unique position where the memory is theirs not a passed down crime against them.

What I see they are requiring is more to do with the Waitangi Tribunals acknowledging of the illegal confiscations of 330,000 acres by 1921 much of which was the flat lands, dairy lands, then further confiscations with the formation of the 525,521 acre Urewera National Park. To many, the report acknowledges what they have been saying for a long time, that the land is still theirs, that what was taken should be returned, that they never ceded sovereignty on any level, ever.

Some of the 330,000 acres confiscated before 1921, has been past in succession down through ownership from parents to children in mostly Pakeha families in the area, and some of it is in business ownership so it would be a difficult thing to request much of that land back, however there are small areas within those 330,000 acres that are not in such ownerships and should be returned and that is part of the negotiations.

For the rest, it lays in Crown ownership. So to mitigate any difficulties due to the process of time they are proposing the National Park be recognised as Tuhoe land and all encumbrances be removed from the land, some of which was confiscated during the past 120 years, but for the most, was taken in the 1950s when the Government of that day formed the park.

In my thinking it is quite the slap in the face for the Government to be saying on one hand, yes that land was wrongly plundered, and yes we own 500,000 plus acres of it, but no we won't do a 'change of ownership' because it might set a precedent.

The last minute veto (not fogetting the denials that followed which turned out to be lies) shows a complete absence of integrity and I doubt there will be a single person in Tuhoe ready to listen to any more proposals coming from the PMs office for a long while.

From that I can see why the only way Tuhoe can possibly entertain any more negotiations at present would be to request in a 3rd party, in this case the UN, into the mix as a witness and as a monitor on negotiations, to me it is a fair request and an honourable one in the mids of massive political underhandedness from John Key and coordinated mostly by Steven Joyce.

Going in the favour of Tuhoe is that the majority of the Tuhoe iwi live in Te Urewera, and possession is stil 9/10ths of the law? They say its still theirs, I agree with them on that and so do a lot of non-Tuhoe in this country.

Very informative

 

Thanks - take your point!

Heart of the Tuhoe

Heart of the Tuhoe Nation
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/3750363/Heart-of-the-Tuhoe-Nation

That is a fairly well written newspiece.

yesterday the Tuhoe Nation

yesterday the Tuhoe Nation tell kaikoka kii to put the nations land back on the teepu or ka mutu te korero.