The Foreshore and Seabed has never been about beach access you clowns
Labour confiscated the foreshore and seabed to pacify rednecks, National are confiscating the foreshore and seabed to pacify corporates. How outrageous is it that Maori have to jump through legally imposed hoops to prove their ownership, yet the oil companies, mining companies, big utility companies and infrastructure companies get to speed up the privatization of our coastline, which is exactly the outcome of ramming National's new version of this confiscation through in Parliament!
This has never been about who can and can't walk on the bloody beach, and the fact it has been boiled down to such a baseless assumption by the braindead mainstream media is more an inditement on the quality of our journalism than the reality of what amounts to legalized confiscation for corporate gain.
You won't be banned from walking on the beach because of Maori, you will be banned from walking on the beach because the mega conglomerate interests this legislation empowers will ban you from walking on the beach. All this sorry little saga shows is how easily led and confused NZ public opinion can be.
posted by Bomber @ 2:15 pm
5 comments
5 Comments:
The level of indignation expressed by those who claim to represent Maori when ACT's amendment to the seabed and foreshore bill was proposed was very telling, and reveals much about their real intent. This claim, like all other treaty claims, is based on the often repeated mantra that "Maori ownership" of the foreshore and seabed (and other assets) constitutes a property right.
For a property right to exist, both the property and the owner or owners need to be properly established. In terms of property ownership, "iwi" or "Maori" are nebulous terms. The law requires certainty and "iwi" does not define any clear and concise owner. Who exactly are "iwi", and how is ownership of a given asset divided among the members of said "iwi"? All the lawyers and bureaucrats involved in the treaty claims process cannot answer this question, but are happy to keep on campaigning on behalf of these loosely defined groups of people as long as other people keep paying them to do so.
Property rights did not exist in NZ during pre-European times. There was no civil society. Land and parts of the foreshore were not owned, they was merely occupied, and this occupation lasted only until one group was displaced by another. Attempts to establish pre-European land or foreshore ownership appear to be based on the most recent indigenous occupier, regardless of any previous occupation.
The foreshore and seabed claims, like any land or property claim, should be made through the civil courts where the claimants would need to show proof of exactly what was stolen, who stole it, and who were the individuals it was stolen from. As things stand, the NZ taxpayer is now being held liable for all these alleged thefts. It should not be forgotten that Maori are taxpayers too, which puts many of them in the absurd position of having to pay compensation for their own grievance.
Bill (BR)
Bill IMO your claim that property rights did not exist for maori is wrong. They weren't a european model but developed and implemented by the indigenous people of this land. You only have to listen to or read the histories to know how jealously guarded these rights were - wars were fought when the rights were abused or disregarded.
Perhaps it is the term 'owned' where the misunderstanding occurs - isn't ownership the ability to use, and control the use of, resources?
Hmmm...a slight ethnocentric bias there bill?
Ethnocentrism was the cause of this mess, its not the answer.
"It should not be forgotten that Maori are taxpayers too, which puts many of them in the absurd position of having to pay compensation for their own grievance."
And you had to throw in the 'taxpayer' argument at the end didn't you?
Rodney Hide would be so proud of you, although maybe next time you could also use the word 'freedom'.
Remember Bill, the word freedom works just like taxpayer, the context is irrelevant, as long as you use it, the idiots will follow.
Yes, one can be more or less of a taxpayer but one cannot be more or less of a citizen.
I hate the word taxpayer, it assumes control over the politicial process is defined by how much tax you pay, kinda 19th Century.
Oppose the Marine and Coastal Area Bill - Takutaimoana Hikoi 2011
http://takutaimoana.webs.com
This Bill ia A wolf dressed in Sheeps clothing.
It was the "Foreshore and Seabed" and now "Marine and Coastal Area"
The indicator was there, when Helen Clark went and greet and meet "Skrek" the sheep but not people of thousands.
Post a Comment
<< Home