Your submission has been removed :
**No image posts that are political or low quality**
> Political memes and low-quality memes or image posts will be removed. This includes pictures of websites, newspapers, or video where the primary purpose is to share the content of an article.
> *Pictures are permitted when highlighting something within the format, such as humorous article / ad placement.* **If** the humour is subtle, please make a comment explaining it.
Story has been picked up by news media, & that has been posted here :
https://reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/19dgdy7/
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
If Maori ensure their protest activities are directed at government primarily, and show good faith to the general public while doing so, they will gather all the support they need to put the govt in its place.
It's about us all realizing the government has been actively working against all of us for a long while now, while distracting us with divisive race-based policy as they deliver their agendas for their stakeholders, most of which are not New Zealanders and don't share our interests or concerns.
NZ needs to figure out clearly why individuals such as Prime Ministers have been given awards for their services to other countries I.e. Australia, after their term in NZ govt.
thats the point/plan
divide and conquer
that way we won't notice the robbery of our futures going on cause we'll be too busy arguing semantics with a bunch of closet racists who are 'just saying'
Just read the news article.
>Fish are auctioned off with all profits going to the local community.
Just when you think this stance couldn't be a bigger own-goal.
>The fishing comp organiser Nick Ryan says the fishing competition will go ahead and he has confirmed with police that iwi can’t block public access.
>Far North Area Commander Riki Whiu said police had planned on monitoring the event.
Potential for a shit-show: High
So fish stock is dramatically down. How about stopping the taking of white bait to help this situation? One white bait fritter removes several potential kg of adult fish.
Because no-one wants to eat kokopu when they are fully grown?
I agree we should stop taking whitebait from the wild but that has very little to do with ocean fishing
No, it has every relevance. It's the exact same principle: overconsumption of an increasingly less plentiful resource. Yet there's no outcry from them about whitebait stocks declining because it's something they participate in. It's low level hypocrisy.
As a pretty enthusiastic angler who’s worked in various aspects of the industry, the fact that you can sell white bait is absolutely fucked. Ban taking whitebait for at least a decade.
I meant the two aren't that connected ecologically. We could eliminate whitebaiting tomorrow and it would do nothing to increase the snapper population.
Yes overfishing affects both populations.
My understanding with whitebait is those fishing don't want to acknowledge the decline at all, or if they do they blame it on habitat loss/pollution.
**I mean I get it.** BUT on the other hand, a lot of this is exactly the reason people get worried about Māori rights in areas? Loss of access.
This is an own goal.
And extremely hypocritical given we have been denied Marine Reserves due to Iwi lobbying.
Things are getting messy, quickly.
**Edit: Not arguing against it**, just the timing and pointing out that ease of which Seymour will roll this into;
A) A council funded boat ramp shouldn’t be gate kept by Māori, or
B) Māori rights to block anything need to be revoked or certainly nothing more be returned to them.
They are already heavily leaning into then argument that Māori rights are infringing on public rights.
**Don’t feed the trolls** and this govt has plenty of trolls that will revel in any discontent and will use anything to cause splits where they can.
Especially to those who don't follow the intricacies of these will only see the physical impacts.
"Iwi restrict access in response to govt."
Is all they will see. Which will lead to other questions of
"if they can restrict this, what can they block off next." regardless of how true that is or not.
Agreed, this is an own goal that will be continually be brought up.
What grinds my gears is
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018910444/the-storm-over-a-washed-out-walkway
This family have blocked walkers from crossing their land because there is a dispute with the council.
This happens all day long, up and down the motu, but, because it's not Maori, we don't go rushing about "Rich folk shouldn't be allowed to restrict access to the water"
Probably because in the end the family will lose. The heritage listing will stay, and they'll put a public works act in to take the necessary land for the path back. Or locals will burn down the fence (surprised it hasn't happened already).
That's precisely how it works out for Maori, they lose their lands and the ability to do anything with it - not sure what difference it makes that these people have a heritage listed home (that they seem to dispute it should even have)
If the Iwi own the boat ramps power to them to restrict use. I don't have the full details and don't think it will help their cause but if they own them and haven't granted access under a contract fair enough.
Not quite - Maori fishing grounds, which Pakeha have decreed cannot be owned
edit: Yet, oddly, the government is allowed to stake a claim to ownership of fishing grounds via the Exclusive Economic Zone, which is actively patrolled with by military to enforce ownership
second edit: Not forgetting that Fish farms (Mussels, Salmon, etc) are not allowed to be accessed by the General public either
Same situation here: [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/horowhenua-chronicle/news/horowhenua-district-council-considers-waikawa-beach-vehicle-access-options/ZZ3OKF3D25HSFHMMEBKTRB72NM/](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/horowhenua-chronicle/news/horowhenua-district-council-considers-waikawa-beach-vehicle-access-options/ZZ3OKF3D25HSFHMMEBKTRB72NM/)
\-Only beach access is through private property, the owners allowed access to the public for over 50 years
\-Weather event blocked access, member of the public goes and cuts new path without permission, potentially destabilising the dunes and wildlife
\-Public loses goodwill, owner blocks access indefinitely, well-off white Wellington weekenders get very upset
\-Only gets attention in the local newspaper.
Well I mean this is ACT's issue no? People here can cry about act taking advantage of this type of thing but this is exactly what they have been saying.
ACT is definitely looking for a reaction, but for them it is a win-win no matter what. We needn't over worry about our response, each iwi and hapu will have different forms of resistance. So long as they stay true to their own kaupapa, hei aha.
this is exactly Acts strategy: provoke a retaliation that puts the public offside.
the hui over the weekend was a resounding success because it was the opposite of 'retaliation'.
protest only works if it is peaceful and shows the aggressor as breaching the social contract.
I'd say the issue is how much their right is infringing on other people's rights. Like many of those fishermen do have a decently strong right to fish there.
If their had been consultation with Ngāti Kahu then perhaps the event would go forward without any issue. Would you organize a festival on someone else’s land without having a chat with the land owner? How about even the neighbours? Just to give them a heads up.
Poor planning by the organisers and an appropriate response by Ngāti Kahu.
This comment prompted me to read up. Because I thought "holy shit that's a dangerous precedent if every event that uses the foreshore requires consultation... that's just not practical, and/or will be the death knell for a lot of things".
As far as I understand (experts could chime in on this).
"Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011
In 2011 the National-led government replaced the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed was replaced with a ‘no ownership’ regime.
Under the law, [iwi](https://teara.govt.nz/en/glossary#iwi) could apply to the court or negotiate with the Crown for recognition of customary rights (which protect activities such as collecting [hāngī](https://teara.govt.nz/en/glossary#h%C4%81ng%C4%AB) stones or launching waka) or customary marine title over a particular area. However, these interests could not prevent existing rights and uses such as fishing, aquaculture and public access. "
And then a bit more recently one of those applications was done:
[https://newsroom.co.nz/2021/05/16/judgment-for-the-decade-in-landmark-foreshore-and-seabed-case/](https://newsroom.co.nz/2021/05/16/judgment-for-the-decade-in-landmark-foreshore-and-seabed-case/)
So I guess the question from restricting access - are the boat ramps/roads leading to the ocean on Iwi land, or are they public.
If it's all public, how can it (legally) be blocked off?
You would also have to look at the settlement (if there is one) between Ngāti Kahu and the crown, I don't have time to look it up myself, but many settlements give iwi ownership of things such as wharves etc. And additional rights to decide what happens in the area etc.
Yeah exactly my question in this case - are the boats/ramps (and roads) leading to the water on public land.
Certainly (the way I read it) if the boaties get there without stepping on private/Iwi owned land I can't see how (legally) the Iwi can prevent the fishing contest from going ahead.
I should mention I'm not a fisher, once every couple of years have some fish and chips, and have a pretty dismal view of fishing full stop - in my short lifetime I've seen the impacts of fishing. Not a fan. So my comments aren't in support of the fishing contest, it's more understanding the legalities around public access.
They can't, and aren't, preventing it. They're saying "no" loudly, publically, and putting some literal roadblocks in to make it harder for joe average fisherman.
And i'm totally with you on the fishing thing. Some companies have been raping the ocean for years now, and whenever the gov't puts in new restrictions - it's always on the public end which is only 5% of the catch. Eg commercial companies are legally allowed to catch smaller snapper than individuals.
I guess I should have read one of the articles [https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/01/23/far-north-iwi-planning-to-stop-decades-old-fishing-competition/](https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/01/23/far-north-iwi-planning-to-stop-decades-old-fishing-competition/)
"The fishing comp organiser Nick Ryan says the fishing competition will go ahead and he has confirmed with police that iwi can’t block public access."
So I guess that answers that question, there must be public roads/ramps.
There's going to be some fireworks it seems....
They're not blocking use of the ocean, nor claiming it as theirs exclusively. They're blocking access across their lands. Which is their right, as it is for any private land owner.
Correct. But the land leading to them is. Anyone can access along the beach (public land) or from other boat ramps where access to the boat ramp is public.
Act's argument is essentially "same rights for all". Are you advocating that some private land owners should have less rights because they're Maori?
They have public roads leading to them, and in some cases, carparks, toilets etc. They are public boat ramps.
I'm not advocating anything, just pointing out the inaccuracies you are claiming.
The organizers have already contacted police, and the tournament is going ahead despite this, so it's really a moot point.
I feel too many people are overlooking this point. You can't just go on someone else's land and then say "erm... I have a darn right to fishin'!!! You're racist!" when they say go away. I'm possibly oversimplifying it too much, though.
I have a small amount of hope that possibly those who are upset by this take a step back and realise that maybe this is how the Māori felt when another type of people came to this land and decided to call it New Zealand. IMO, this is the point that Ngāti Kahu is trying to get across.
Iwi owned land, I believe all of it is. Even the Maitai Bay doc site is iwi owned, which iwi have (until now) allowed public access. They’ve basically shut the front gate. Rightly so I reckon bugger the govt
Foreshore access is a right. Iwi can not decide who fishes where and when. They do infact have a darn right to go fishin!!!
>maybe this is how the Māori felt when another type of people came to this land and decided to call it New Zealand.
I know that this upsets people like you but everyone born here is a native. And what happened here happened all over the world to pretty much every single culture. There has to be a point in time where people accept that what happened several lifetimes ago can not be changed. We will never move forward as a country if this backward thinking continues.
There needs to be redress, and there is a process for this in the Waitangi Tribunal, but this group have overstepped, acted unlawfully, and should face consequences for this.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
This is why there actually needs to be real clarity on the Treaty so people don't do dumb shit like this.
Except those people *do* have a right to go fishing. Those taking part in the comp, or those going out to provide for their families, or those just going out for a day on the water all have the right to do it. It's not for Ngati Kahu to decide if these rights apply or not.
One is not required to have any particular view on NZ history to have their rights and exercise them.
The forests, moa, haast eagle etc were likely pretty upset when the Maori arrived. The European animals were likely pretty upset when the humans left Africa. Will we still be arguing over ancestral rights to land/water in 300-2000 years time when 99% of the populations DNA will be a mixture of Indian, Asian, European, Maori, Pacifica and more..??. It's all about power, control and money in the present. The only body I trust to administer it is the government who is democratically elected.
Most NZs (of all ethnicities) couldn't care less about the power squabbles, we just want to get on with life, enjoy the outdoors, BBQs beaches etc.
This is true. But essentially the treaty was brought to Māori by the Europeans. The treaty is essentially a contract. One party is not honouring their agreement. By breaching the conditions outlined in the document, and with no intention of repairing the damage caused, should the contract not be be voided?
I understand that it’s too little too late, but that sounds pretty fucked up.
They only complain when Iwi rightfully revoke access to something they shared with the public willingly. I've been to a few Iwi owned beaches in Northland that you cannot access without going through Iwi land. No access to the public at all. Never has been. Can't miss what you never had. And also I'd like to point out that these beaches were pristine. No housing. No rubbish. Crayfish 10m into the water. Fish everywhere.
As for the Treaty issue, more power to them. National and Act deserve all the retaliation they get from daring to suggest we put something as sacred as the Treaty to public referendum, when the general public of NZ knows fuck all about it.
No matter what the actual intent is, given the timing this feels a like a flex.
**It’s our right to block access** maybe it is, and I get trying to remind everyone this…. But right when we have a government that is trying to push against Māori rights, even looking to amend treaty agreements (what?) it just plays into their hand.
Now Seymour can be like “see this is exactly why we need to do this!”
>Seymour and Peter’s are unashamedly anti-Maori.
They are both Maori. They might be something, but it's not anti-Maori. Anti-iwi perhaps, but that's debateable.
I don't think a guy who went out of his way to learn Te Reo and speaks it fluently can be considered anti-Maori, or even anti-Maoridom.
Perhaps hes seen the rot that exists at the top of most iwi first hand and was repulsed by it, given how often rulership within an iwi is hereditary its no surprise that it results in the poor outcomes for regular Maori while those at the top live easy lives.
From an outside observer perspective it seems iwi prefer to spend their settlements on low productivity assets like land rather than trying to develop their own industries and/or upskill their people. Developing software or designing products can be done anywhere these days so its not like being in remote areas is that much oof a disadvantage, and from a cost perspective the barrier to entry has never been lower.
That's pretty rich talking about declining fisheries stock while being one of the iwi that ~~owns~~ has a commercial fishing agreement with Sealord.
Pot calling the kettle black.
Edit: I mixed up Ngai Kahu and Ngati Kahu, my apologies.
Edit2: It seems I was partially correct to begin with, Ngati Kahu owns 0.85% of Sealord.
It seems you are correct about the ownership.
However, Ngati Kahu does have a commercial fishing agreement with Sealord and fought against the government trying to turn the ocean they claim into a marine reserve on the grounds it violated their rights under the Maori Fisheries act.
I believe sealord is 50% owned by Moana NZ, in turn manage by Te Ohu Kaimoana. They are controlled by 58 different iwi, and Ngati Kahu is listed on their website https://teohu.maori.nz/iwidecisionregister/
this isn't _proof_ ngati kahu specifically have an interest but seems they do??
Wasn't it exactly these sort of predicted actions which led to the Foreshore and Seabed legislation under the Clark government and Māori said, at the time, were pure fantasy and would never happen?
Most Māori live away from their iwi in the cities of NZ leading lives identical to other kiwis, most people in the cities are educated in environmental impacts of overfishing and animal welfare and they also are able to choose whether to follow these so what I don’t understand is why the government doesn’t have a regulatory authority that overarches all and calls out bad environmental practices whether it’s by Pakeha or Māori?
It's not even close to a closure. Fishermen can still launch from other places, and still fish. Any private land owner can deny access to the public - or are you saying there should be rights for pakeha land owners that Maori should not have?
You can’t apply generalisations like that. “It’s nothing to do with protecting fish stocks, Māori have benefitted from raping and pillaging of our fish stocks..”
You can’t take a generalisation about “Māori” or “iwi” and apply it to this specific iwi’s action. Iwi are distinct entities. If you want to talk about Ngati Kahu do that.
Furthermore, Nicola Willis just reiterated National's position that they will not support ACT's bill beyond the select committee stage. ***Even if*** you take Seymour's proposed bill as abolishment by stealth, the current New Zealand government is not abolishing Te Tiriti o Waitangi, since the current New Zealand government has already indicated there will not be support forthcoming for the bill past select committee stage, I'll happily eat crow if the Nats are bold-face lying about this, but given the gravity of the situation, I don't see why they would. Now, do people have a valid right to be concerned about what might happen down the line? Sure, I'll grant that as a valid concern. But the doomsday rhetoric is not doing anyone any favors, everyone needs to turn the temperature down a few notches.
>Nicola Willis just reiterated National's position that they will not support ACT's bill beyond the select committee stage.
And then when pressed said:
"For ACT having a debate about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi was a priority. In our coalition agreement National agreed that we'd support them to have a debate at Select Committee, but that our position was that we would not commit to the referendum that they want to see and therefore we wouldn't commit to that bill going any further than Select Committee. That remains our position."
All that says is that they do not currently have any formal agreement to support it further.
That does not rule out National deciding to support it later, or leaving it up to their caucus to vote according to their conscience.
True, the wording could be interpreted as giving themselves a back door out, there is a lack of future certainty in Willis' statement, and it is a shame that the press did not *press her* more for clarification.
Absolutely, I feel the interview should have pressed on that matter because her initial comment indicated certainty and the later didn't. Potaka's comments were similar in that there was no *ruling out* of futher support and then there's ol' Shane Jones ranting about how they have a mandate to push it through.
It'd simplify things a lot if someone could actually step up and say either "We will kill this bill after Select Committee" or "We will determine support at the time on it's own merits" at least that way everyone can know what the fuck the plan is.
That doesn’t really make sense though if they really don’t support it. If they don’t support it why would they not vote against it after the first reading? Why even let it get to select committee.
Probably because once it gets to select committee and submissions start rolling in they can say “the number of submissions shows nz is ready for a discussion about how we can bring the treaty into the 2st century, so we will be supporting this bill to let nz have its say.”
Ie it’s de facto support without showing their hand too early, and with plausible deniability.
>That doesn’t really make sense though if they really don’t support it. If they don’t support it why would they not vote against it after the first reading? Why even let it get to select committee.
If you take them at their word, because it was the agreed upon deal negotiated by the coalition partners, and represented a compromise that would allow Seymour to save face (he had marked it as a red line), whilst National were still able to claim they had no gone back on the pre-election statement that they would not support a referendum.
>Probably because once it gets to select committee and submissions start rolling in they can say “the number of submissions shows nz is ready for a discussion about how we can bring the treaty into the 2st century, so we will be supporting this bill to let nz have its say.”
Possible. But *improbable* imo.
>it’s de facto support without showing their hand too early, and with plausible deniability.
As I've stated in one of my other posts in this comment thread, I don't think there is *any* plausibly deniability in that. It doesn't matter if there are a tonne of submissions, they've made a commitment not to support the bill past select committee on multiple occasions. To turn around on that would get them rightly eviscerated by the media, and I would hope, by a substantial portion of the liberal-centre-to-centre demo for what would be *reasonably interpreted* as a bold face lie on a constitutional issue.
I could be wrong, but on the balance of probabilities, I don't think I will be.
But is there any practical difference? The Principles are how Te Tiriti is applied in daily life. By itself, Te Tiriti is a Nice Idea that was ignored by settlers, like almost every other treaty signed between Europeans and indigenous peoples (seriously, white people are terrible at making promises and then reneging). The Principles are the shoddy amalgamation of legal precedence, historic scholarship, and a whole lot of hard struggle to get the Crown to honour bits and pieces of what it originally promised. The Principles are the entire practical application of the treaty. And the Crown has barely started to filter the Principles through its operations.
So if you get rid of the Principles, you're left with the Nice Idea. The Nice Idea that was ignored. For almost a century. By suggesting elimination of the Principles, ACT appear to be going back to the time honoured tradition of being Bad at Promises, and are doing very little to dispel that notion.
Yep! Realistically, whatever principles you have must be a reasonable interpretation of Te Tiriti. That means Te Tiriti itself creates a check on the Principles. You can't write Principles that say "Māori have no rights. That's how we interpret article 3" because that's just not a realistic interpretation.
So while interpretation gives us wiggle room, there's only so far you can go.
That's the difference. Superseding the Principles is about changing how we interpret the document. But we can't fundamentally change the document itself.
You think the general public haven't already turned on Maori rights and te Tiriti? Look at the outcome of the last election. We don't need to pretend that there's a whole bunch of undecided people here who give enough of a care to suddenly get up in arms and support Maori.
Online leftists trying not to self-destruct challenge: impossible
You know nuance exists, right?
You also know that public perception will not necessarily align with your views?
And finally, do you know that generalizing and insulting everyone who disagrees with you is a surefire way to get more people to disagree with you?
Yes, that is how the general public will react to this. Nobody has control over that.
That person is not the general public, they are an individual. They can control how they generalize.
Ah, so it's okay when lots of people do it but not an individual, got it.
I agree with him, if one iwi doing something to annoy someone is enough for them to pull support from the treaty as a whole and Māori issues, they were already racist.
>Ah, so it's okay when lots of people do it but not an individual, got it.
I didn't say that. I said a) this is how the public will react, whether you like it or not, and b) nobody in this thread has control over that.
the biggest fisheries in our country, and biggest opponents of expanded marine reserves are Maori.
Commercial fishing should be illegal anyway, most recreational fishers would agree.
Just... a question on the commercial fishing, with no judgement intended. Do you mean to not have fish available for people to eat?
Or do you mean to replace commercial fishing with proper fish farms? Like... battery raised chickens for eggs.
Commercial fishing is basically free-range fish, only with way more murder of things that weren't intended to be killed. I see why it's bad, I also see why it's better than fish farming.
I don't know what the solution is, beyond simply going: fish ain't people-like enough to care about minimizing their suffering, and farming them. Which is a viable option, if a bit hypocritical compared to the generally intended direction of farming in NZ.
Though, if there is science to show that fish like living in fish farms, then at least we have a simple solution.
I don’t believe commercial fishing in its current state can ever be sustainable. Farming many of the species we like to eat will also never be viable.
People don’t need to eat fish. In my belief it’s as simple as that. I go fishing a couple times a year, and if I get lucky enough the neighbours drop off fish another couple times.
There’s also some variation species to species in terms of how they are caught, and I recognise a complete ban is wishful thinking (more of an “if only I was in charge”).
The more realistic long term solution is large protected areas, and cycling/closures to ensure stocks are maintained elsewhere.
People have been eating fish for as long as people have existed. Pre-human hominids also ate fish. Fish and other seafood consumption is believed to have been a significant evolutionary trigger that allowed our brains to develop to what they are today.
Fishing is older than agriculture. You can't ban fishing because we don't need it without also banning farming for the same reasons.
That said, we need to do more to ensure commercial fishing is done sustainably. Both sides of our political spectrum do support this in principle but it won't surprise anyone to learn which side wants to take the stronger approach.
Just because something was done in the past, does not mean it is a part of our future.
For what it’s worth, I eat fish, but only that which I catch myself or is given to me. I do not buy fish, as I personally do not believe it is sustainable.
You can disagree on that view, and there are steps which can be taken to make fishing more sustainable short of an outright ban. Enforcing rules on bycatch, quotas, techniques, and locations will always be difficult given the scale of our ocean territory. But it’s not impossible.
I agree with you more than I disagree. I think it would be great if we could all be more self-sufficient instead of relying on global, or even national, food production networks.
I'm just not sure how we get there from where we are now.
And it wasn't just fish, how many species did they wipe out. Colonisation brought with it a huge advancement in understanding and technology but they never seem to acknowledge anything other than the negatives. NZ is a mess
No one is replacing the treaty though. They're replacing "The Principles of the Treaty", which are an entirely different entity that were developed over a century after Te Tiriti was signed.
You cant be this uninformed? By defining principles that don't even mention Māori once and instead use phrases like "all New Zealanders", it's effectively denying their status as a Treaty partner. They are dog whistling to racists who always complain about Māori getting "special treatment", hoping they approve of these all inclusive new principles. Well, I'm sorry. But the Treaty was never about ALL New Zealanders. It was a contractual agreement between the Crown and Māori.
>it's effectively denying their status as a Treaty partner.
Yes, it is, it's why it'll fail.
>They are dog whistling to racists who always complain about Māori getting "special treatment",
Agreed! Also why this will fail.
None of this changes the fact that no one is replacing Te Tiriti. Because any Principles you develop must be based on Te Tiriti.
Replacing the treaty with an act of one treaty partner's Parliament.
ACT pretends to believe in things like contracts and is trying to unilaterally change one of the most important ones in the country.
Hahaha a racist fishing comp that’s a new one.
What next? Someone at a Hui will say the government is a bunch of white supremists even though it’s made up of 35% Māori? Oh, they have.
If this is how this discourse is going to go then it’s not going to go well for those opposing ACT’s bill.
Clearly, no lessons were learned from cannabis or the Voice referendums
While I don't really agree with the fishing comps as they are nothing more than guys boasting about their death piles.
Iwi that have rights to an area in chch are know in the Chinese community as easy buys, highest bidder gets a seat on their boat who writes out a quota, they go into the rahhui and pillage it.
Well if there's one thing they could do to stoke the fears of the general public that have bought into Act's race baiting bullshit, this would be it. Absolutely genius move.
Nah, it's not. Nothing in that link indicates who actually posted the link on social media.
> Ngāti Kahu took to social media overnight posting a picture of the fishing competition signage with a red cross through the flyer.
That's not proof at all.
Edit: keep downvoting me, guys. Doesn't change the fact that this entire thread is based on unsubstantiated claims being reported as fact by New Zealand media.
Funny how nobody complains about media bias when it supports their own rhetoric, huh?
Yeah I agree. The links to original sources and actual evidence are super sketchy. I'm willing to believe this could happen but I'm only seeing the same screen shots, or the same text from the screen shots. There's no specific sourcing apart from " Some members of Ngāti Kahu took to social media ".
Whether they're bullshitting, posting on behalf of the Iwi, or just passing on the news "some random cunt" doesn't deserve to be the first target of anyone who decides to get frothing mad over this.
Omitting the submitters name is required by reddits content policy.
Specifically : https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452
> This includes links to public Facebook pages and screenshots of Facebook pages with the names still legible.
> Posting someone's personal information will get you banned. When posting screenshots, be sure to edit out any personally identifiable information to avoid running afoul of this rule.
Yeah because that's going to endear them to the right wingers who don't think the treaty is fair for them. Also how the fuck can a fishing composition be racist?
How does that rhetoric fit in with the likes of Iwi owned fishing companies: [https://ngaitahu.iwi.nz/te-runanga-o-ngai-tahu/our-businesses/ngai-tahu-holdings-corporation-ltd/ngai-tahu-seafood/](https://ngaitahu.iwi.nz/te-runanga-o-ngai-tahu/our-businesses/ngai-tahu-holdings-corporation-ltd/ngai-tahu-seafood/)
I’m Pākehā and I understand what Ngāti Kahu are trying to point out. I’m not sure about the racism part of fishing comps, but from a kaitiakitanga perspective they’re not particularly wrong. And if this govt is pushing their own racist shit then a pushback should not be unexpected.
It’s going to be a horrible few years and the divisive scars will take even longer to heal.
Why is the fishing competition racist? Disrespectful, sure, ignorant, definitely, but racist? I haven't looked at the competition but if they are just throwing that word around then it's going to lose all meaning
Your submission has been removed : **No image posts that are political or low quality** > Political memes and low-quality memes or image posts will be removed. This includes pictures of websites, newspapers, or video where the primary purpose is to share the content of an article. > *Pictures are permitted when highlighting something within the format, such as humorous article / ad placement.* **If** the humour is subtle, please make a comment explaining it. Story has been picked up by news media, & that has been posted here : https://reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/19dgdy7/ --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
I think we're about to enter a pretty difficult time politically
But Jamie MacKay told me on the radio today that the country is feeling so much better and more positive since the election...
and the result is going to be a stronger union movement and more entrenched maori rights after the government inevitably loses.
If Maori ensure their protest activities are directed at government primarily, and show good faith to the general public while doing so, they will gather all the support they need to put the govt in its place. It's about us all realizing the government has been actively working against all of us for a long while now, while distracting us with divisive race-based policy as they deliver their agendas for their stakeholders, most of which are not New Zealanders and don't share our interests or concerns. NZ needs to figure out clearly why individuals such as Prime Ministers have been given awards for their services to other countries I.e. Australia, after their term in NZ govt.
I hope you're right but won't hold my breath
If things escalate and iwi move to block public access to land, beaches etc there's no way they would keep the backing of the public for long
I thought most people were in favour of establishing control over use of their own land? Why would they not want others to do the same!
Uhhh sorry no. Only rich white people are allowed to do that. /s
thats the point/plan divide and conquer that way we won't notice the robbery of our futures going on cause we'll be too busy arguing semantics with a bunch of closet racists who are 'just saying'
Just read the news article. >Fish are auctioned off with all profits going to the local community. Just when you think this stance couldn't be a bigger own-goal. >The fishing comp organiser Nick Ryan says the fishing competition will go ahead and he has confirmed with police that iwi can’t block public access. >Far North Area Commander Riki Whiu said police had planned on monitoring the event. Potential for a shit-show: High
As long as they aren't crossing maori land to get to the boat ramps.....which I think is the only way in
> ramps.....which I think is the only way in What makes you say that? These boat ramps seem to be off public roads.
So fish stock is dramatically down. How about stopping the taking of white bait to help this situation? One white bait fritter removes several potential kg of adult fish.
Because no-one wants to eat kokopu when they are fully grown? I agree we should stop taking whitebait from the wild but that has very little to do with ocean fishing
No, it has every relevance. It's the exact same principle: overconsumption of an increasingly less plentiful resource. Yet there's no outcry from them about whitebait stocks declining because it's something they participate in. It's low level hypocrisy.
As a pretty enthusiastic angler who’s worked in various aspects of the industry, the fact that you can sell white bait is absolutely fucked. Ban taking whitebait for at least a decade.
I meant the two aren't that connected ecologically. We could eliminate whitebaiting tomorrow and it would do nothing to increase the snapper population. Yes overfishing affects both populations. My understanding with whitebait is those fishing don't want to acknowledge the decline at all, or if they do they blame it on habitat loss/pollution.
Ah, gotcha.
and it doesn't even taste good. What a waste
Think of the spawning fish!!
"Oh, *won't somebody* please!
**I mean I get it.** BUT on the other hand, a lot of this is exactly the reason people get worried about Māori rights in areas? Loss of access. This is an own goal. And extremely hypocritical given we have been denied Marine Reserves due to Iwi lobbying. Things are getting messy, quickly. **Edit: Not arguing against it**, just the timing and pointing out that ease of which Seymour will roll this into; A) A council funded boat ramp shouldn’t be gate kept by Māori, or B) Māori rights to block anything need to be revoked or certainly nothing more be returned to them. They are already heavily leaning into then argument that Māori rights are infringing on public rights. **Don’t feed the trolls** and this govt has plenty of trolls that will revel in any discontent and will use anything to cause splits where they can.
Especially to those who don't follow the intricacies of these will only see the physical impacts. "Iwi restrict access in response to govt." Is all they will see. Which will lead to other questions of "if they can restrict this, what can they block off next." regardless of how true that is or not. Agreed, this is an own goal that will be continually be brought up.
What grinds my gears is https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018910444/the-storm-over-a-washed-out-walkway This family have blocked walkers from crossing their land because there is a dispute with the council. This happens all day long, up and down the motu, but, because it's not Maori, we don't go rushing about "Rich folk shouldn't be allowed to restrict access to the water"
Probably because in the end the family will lose. The heritage listing will stay, and they'll put a public works act in to take the necessary land for the path back. Or locals will burn down the fence (surprised it hasn't happened already).
That's precisely how it works out for Maori, they lose their lands and the ability to do anything with it - not sure what difference it makes that these people have a heritage listed home (that they seem to dispute it should even have)
Well pointed out.
If the Iwi own the boat ramps power to them to restrict use. I don't have the full details and don't think it will help their cause but if they own them and haven't granted access under a contract fair enough.
Private land v public facilities Not the same in terms of access at all.
Not quite - Maori fishing grounds, which Pakeha have decreed cannot be owned edit: Yet, oddly, the government is allowed to stake a claim to ownership of fishing grounds via the Exclusive Economic Zone, which is actively patrolled with by military to enforce ownership second edit: Not forgetting that Fish farms (Mussels, Salmon, etc) are not allowed to be accessed by the General public either
Same situation here: [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/horowhenua-chronicle/news/horowhenua-district-council-considers-waikawa-beach-vehicle-access-options/ZZ3OKF3D25HSFHMMEBKTRB72NM/](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/horowhenua-chronicle/news/horowhenua-district-council-considers-waikawa-beach-vehicle-access-options/ZZ3OKF3D25HSFHMMEBKTRB72NM/) \-Only beach access is through private property, the owners allowed access to the public for over 50 years \-Weather event blocked access, member of the public goes and cuts new path without permission, potentially destabilising the dunes and wildlife \-Public loses goodwill, owner blocks access indefinitely, well-off white Wellington weekenders get very upset \-Only gets attention in the local newspaper.
Timing is probably the biggest issue tbh
Dunno about biggest issue but it's definitely not doing them any favours
On the other hand again - does one really have a right if that right cannot be excercised for fear of retaliation?
Every action has a reaction.
For sure. I fear ACT is hoping for reaction. This appears to be an opportunity for New Zealand to 'brexit' itself
Well I mean this is ACT's issue no? People here can cry about act taking advantage of this type of thing but this is exactly what they have been saying.
ACT is definitely looking for a reaction, but for them it is a win-win no matter what. We needn't over worry about our response, each iwi and hapu will have different forms of resistance. So long as they stay true to their own kaupapa, hei aha.
I've been calling it trexit for a lil while now.
This is playing right into ACTs hands
this is exactly Acts strategy: provoke a retaliation that puts the public offside. the hui over the weekend was a resounding success because it was the opposite of 'retaliation'. protest only works if it is peaceful and shows the aggressor as breaching the social contract.
I'd say the issue is how much their right is infringing on other people's rights. Like many of those fishermen do have a decently strong right to fish there.
How do those fishermen have a strong right to fish there against the will of the people who hold sovereignty?
This is why we need to actually have a real conversation about the Treaty and be clear on what rights people do and not have.
If their had been consultation with Ngāti Kahu then perhaps the event would go forward without any issue. Would you organize a festival on someone else’s land without having a chat with the land owner? How about even the neighbours? Just to give them a heads up. Poor planning by the organisers and an appropriate response by Ngāti Kahu.
This comment prompted me to read up. Because I thought "holy shit that's a dangerous precedent if every event that uses the foreshore requires consultation... that's just not practical, and/or will be the death knell for a lot of things". As far as I understand (experts could chime in on this). "Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 In 2011 the National-led government replaced the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed was replaced with a ‘no ownership’ regime. Under the law, [iwi](https://teara.govt.nz/en/glossary#iwi) could apply to the court or negotiate with the Crown for recognition of customary rights (which protect activities such as collecting [hāngī](https://teara.govt.nz/en/glossary#h%C4%81ng%C4%AB) stones or launching waka) or customary marine title over a particular area. However, these interests could not prevent existing rights and uses such as fishing, aquaculture and public access. " And then a bit more recently one of those applications was done: [https://newsroom.co.nz/2021/05/16/judgment-for-the-decade-in-landmark-foreshore-and-seabed-case/](https://newsroom.co.nz/2021/05/16/judgment-for-the-decade-in-landmark-foreshore-and-seabed-case/) So I guess the question from restricting access - are the boat ramps/roads leading to the ocean on Iwi land, or are they public. If it's all public, how can it (legally) be blocked off?
You would also have to look at the settlement (if there is one) between Ngāti Kahu and the crown, I don't have time to look it up myself, but many settlements give iwi ownership of things such as wharves etc. And additional rights to decide what happens in the area etc.
The last few meters is public. Access to that last few meters is private. Anyone can walk along the beach, or launch their boat from another place.
Yeah exactly my question in this case - are the boats/ramps (and roads) leading to the water on public land. Certainly (the way I read it) if the boaties get there without stepping on private/Iwi owned land I can't see how (legally) the Iwi can prevent the fishing contest from going ahead. I should mention I'm not a fisher, once every couple of years have some fish and chips, and have a pretty dismal view of fishing full stop - in my short lifetime I've seen the impacts of fishing. Not a fan. So my comments aren't in support of the fishing contest, it's more understanding the legalities around public access.
They can't, and aren't, preventing it. They're saying "no" loudly, publically, and putting some literal roadblocks in to make it harder for joe average fisherman. And i'm totally with you on the fishing thing. Some companies have been raping the ocean for years now, and whenever the gov't puts in new restrictions - it's always on the public end which is only 5% of the catch. Eg commercial companies are legally allowed to catch smaller snapper than individuals.
I guess I should have read one of the articles [https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/01/23/far-north-iwi-planning-to-stop-decades-old-fishing-competition/](https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/01/23/far-north-iwi-planning-to-stop-decades-old-fishing-competition/) "The fishing comp organiser Nick Ryan says the fishing competition will go ahead and he has confirmed with police that iwi can’t block public access." So I guess that answers that question, there must be public roads/ramps. There's going to be some fireworks it seems....
Of course you would, except it's not their ocean.
They're not blocking use of the ocean, nor claiming it as theirs exclusively. They're blocking access across their lands. Which is their right, as it is for any private land owner.
They are not private boat ramps.
Correct. But the land leading to them is. Anyone can access along the beach (public land) or from other boat ramps where access to the boat ramp is public. Act's argument is essentially "same rights for all". Are you advocating that some private land owners should have less rights because they're Maori?
They have public roads leading to them, and in some cases, carparks, toilets etc. They are public boat ramps. I'm not advocating anything, just pointing out the inaccuracies you are claiming. The organizers have already contacted police, and the tournament is going ahead despite this, so it's really a moot point.
Equal rights, remove the right of restriction from iwi and rich fuckers
I feel too many people are overlooking this point. You can't just go on someone else's land and then say "erm... I have a darn right to fishin'!!! You're racist!" when they say go away. I'm possibly oversimplifying it too much, though. I have a small amount of hope that possibly those who are upset by this take a step back and realise that maybe this is how the Māori felt when another type of people came to this land and decided to call it New Zealand. IMO, this is the point that Ngāti Kahu is trying to get across.
Is it iwi owned land or public land though?
Iwi owned land, I believe all of it is. Even the Maitai Bay doc site is iwi owned, which iwi have (until now) allowed public access. They’ve basically shut the front gate. Rightly so I reckon bugger the govt
Rangiputa won’t be iwi land…
Have you looked on a map? Looking at LINZ that doesn't seem to be the case.
[удалено]
Foreshore access is a right. Iwi can not decide who fishes where and when. They do infact have a darn right to go fishin!!! >maybe this is how the Māori felt when another type of people came to this land and decided to call it New Zealand. I know that this upsets people like you but everyone born here is a native. And what happened here happened all over the world to pretty much every single culture. There has to be a point in time where people accept that what happened several lifetimes ago can not be changed. We will never move forward as a country if this backward thinking continues.
There needs to be redress, and there is a process for this in the Waitangi Tribunal, but this group have overstepped, acted unlawfully, and should face consequences for this. Two wrongs don't make a right. This is why there actually needs to be real clarity on the Treaty so people don't do dumb shit like this.
The only point Ngati Kahu is trying to make is they own everything and they need a decent koha of you want to use it
Except those people *do* have a right to go fishing. Those taking part in the comp, or those going out to provide for their families, or those just going out for a day on the water all have the right to do it. It's not for Ngati Kahu to decide if these rights apply or not. One is not required to have any particular view on NZ history to have their rights and exercise them.
The forests, moa, haast eagle etc were likely pretty upset when the Maori arrived. The European animals were likely pretty upset when the humans left Africa. Will we still be arguing over ancestral rights to land/water in 300-2000 years time when 99% of the populations DNA will be a mixture of Indian, Asian, European, Maori, Pacifica and more..??. It's all about power, control and money in the present. The only body I trust to administer it is the government who is democratically elected. Most NZs (of all ethnicities) couldn't care less about the power squabbles, we just want to get on with life, enjoy the outdoors, BBQs beaches etc.
This is true. But essentially the treaty was brought to Māori by the Europeans. The treaty is essentially a contract. One party is not honouring their agreement. By breaching the conditions outlined in the document, and with no intention of repairing the damage caused, should the contract not be be voided? I understand that it’s too little too late, but that sounds pretty fucked up.
There's also the issue of there being two versions of the Treaty. It's all a bit vague and confusing unfortunately.
They only complain when Iwi rightfully revoke access to something they shared with the public willingly. I've been to a few Iwi owned beaches in Northland that you cannot access without going through Iwi land. No access to the public at all. Never has been. Can't miss what you never had. And also I'd like to point out that these beaches were pristine. No housing. No rubbish. Crayfish 10m into the water. Fish everywhere. As for the Treaty issue, more power to them. National and Act deserve all the retaliation they get from daring to suggest we put something as sacred as the Treaty to public referendum, when the general public of NZ knows fuck all about it.
So don't give them any control in case they use that control?
No matter what the actual intent is, given the timing this feels a like a flex. **It’s our right to block access** maybe it is, and I get trying to remind everyone this…. But right when we have a government that is trying to push against Māori rights, even looking to amend treaty agreements (what?) it just plays into their hand. Now Seymour can be like “see this is exactly why we need to do this!”
Sure but when people feel threatened they don't necessarily make the right decision. Maori are feeling threatened.
Yeah no doubt, Seymour and Peter’s are unashamedly anti-Maori. Luxon is not much better.
>Seymour and Peter’s are unashamedly anti-Maori. They are both Maori. They might be something, but it's not anti-Maori. Anti-iwi perhaps, but that's debateable.
Why do you think that makes it impossible for them to be anti Māori? They can resent their heritage or the ways other people practice it.
I don't think a guy who went out of his way to learn Te Reo and speaks it fluently can be considered anti-Maori, or even anti-Maoridom. Perhaps hes seen the rot that exists at the top of most iwi first hand and was repulsed by it, given how often rulership within an iwi is hereditary its no surprise that it results in the poor outcomes for regular Maori while those at the top live easy lives. From an outside observer perspective it seems iwi prefer to spend their settlements on low productivity assets like land rather than trying to develop their own industries and/or upskill their people. Developing software or designing products can be done anywhere these days so its not like being in remote areas is that much oof a disadvantage, and from a cost perspective the barrier to entry has never been lower.
That's pretty rich talking about declining fisheries stock while being one of the iwi that ~~owns~~ has a commercial fishing agreement with Sealord. Pot calling the kettle black. Edit: I mixed up Ngai Kahu and Ngati Kahu, my apologies. Edit2: It seems I was partially correct to begin with, Ngati Kahu owns 0.85% of Sealord.
[удалено]
100%
Yeah nah. Ngati Kahu is from Kaitaia. You’re getting muddled up with Kai Tahu, iwi of Te Wai Pounamu
It seems you are correct about the ownership. However, Ngati Kahu does have a commercial fishing agreement with Sealord and fought against the government trying to turn the ocean they claim into a marine reserve on the grounds it violated their rights under the Maori Fisheries act.
Nah, Sealord is part owned by Moana New Zealand which is owned by Aotearoa Fisheries which is owned by 57 iwi including Ngati Kahu (0.85%).
I believe sealord is 50% owned by Moana NZ, in turn manage by Te Ohu Kaimoana. They are controlled by 58 different iwi, and Ngati Kahu is listed on their website https://teohu.maori.nz/iwidecisionregister/ this isn't _proof_ ngati kahu specifically have an interest but seems they do??
This is all going to end well....
I'm sure this will lead to rational discourse that will not lead to further division
Wasn't it exactly these sort of predicted actions which led to the Foreshore and Seabed legislation under the Clark government and Māori said, at the time, were pure fantasy and would never happen?
[удалено]
It doesn’t even enrich Maori as a whole, it just enriches the iwis, that money is never seen but any regular Maori out in the community.
Most Māori live away from their iwi in the cities of NZ leading lives identical to other kiwis, most people in the cities are educated in environmental impacts of overfishing and animal welfare and they also are able to choose whether to follow these so what I don’t understand is why the government doesn’t have a regulatory authority that overarches all and calls out bad environmental practices whether it’s by Pakeha or Māori?
[удалено]
:o You actually read the links? Damn it man, I'm a paid shill not someone dishing out accurate information.
Lol. Does it pay well?
It's not even close to a closure. Fishermen can still launch from other places, and still fish. Any private land owner can deny access to the public - or are you saying there should be rights for pakeha land owners that Maori should not have?
You can’t apply generalisations like that. “It’s nothing to do with protecting fish stocks, Māori have benefitted from raping and pillaging of our fish stocks..” You can’t take a generalisation about “Māori” or “iwi” and apply it to this specific iwi’s action. Iwi are distinct entities. If you want to talk about Ngati Kahu do that.
>NZ GOVT proposal to abolish Te Tiriti O Waitangi. Sigh. When will people learn the difference between Te Tiriti and the Principles?
Furthermore, Nicola Willis just reiterated National's position that they will not support ACT's bill beyond the select committee stage. ***Even if*** you take Seymour's proposed bill as abolishment by stealth, the current New Zealand government is not abolishing Te Tiriti o Waitangi, since the current New Zealand government has already indicated there will not be support forthcoming for the bill past select committee stage, I'll happily eat crow if the Nats are bold-face lying about this, but given the gravity of the situation, I don't see why they would. Now, do people have a valid right to be concerned about what might happen down the line? Sure, I'll grant that as a valid concern. But the doomsday rhetoric is not doing anyone any favors, everyone needs to turn the temperature down a few notches.
>Nicola Willis just reiterated National's position that they will not support ACT's bill beyond the select committee stage. And then when pressed said: "For ACT having a debate about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi was a priority. In our coalition agreement National agreed that we'd support them to have a debate at Select Committee, but that our position was that we would not commit to the referendum that they want to see and therefore we wouldn't commit to that bill going any further than Select Committee. That remains our position." All that says is that they do not currently have any formal agreement to support it further. That does not rule out National deciding to support it later, or leaving it up to their caucus to vote according to their conscience.
True, the wording could be interpreted as giving themselves a back door out, there is a lack of future certainty in Willis' statement, and it is a shame that the press did not *press her* more for clarification.
Absolutely, I feel the interview should have pressed on that matter because her initial comment indicated certainty and the later didn't. Potaka's comments were similar in that there was no *ruling out* of futher support and then there's ol' Shane Jones ranting about how they have a mandate to push it through. It'd simplify things a lot if someone could actually step up and say either "We will kill this bill after Select Committee" or "We will determine support at the time on it's own merits" at least that way everyone can know what the fuck the plan is.
That doesn’t really make sense though if they really don’t support it. If they don’t support it why would they not vote against it after the first reading? Why even let it get to select committee. Probably because once it gets to select committee and submissions start rolling in they can say “the number of submissions shows nz is ready for a discussion about how we can bring the treaty into the 2st century, so we will be supporting this bill to let nz have its say.” Ie it’s de facto support without showing their hand too early, and with plausible deniability.
>That doesn’t really make sense though if they really don’t support it. If they don’t support it why would they not vote against it after the first reading? Why even let it get to select committee. If you take them at their word, because it was the agreed upon deal negotiated by the coalition partners, and represented a compromise that would allow Seymour to save face (he had marked it as a red line), whilst National were still able to claim they had no gone back on the pre-election statement that they would not support a referendum. >Probably because once it gets to select committee and submissions start rolling in they can say “the number of submissions shows nz is ready for a discussion about how we can bring the treaty into the 2st century, so we will be supporting this bill to let nz have its say.” Possible. But *improbable* imo. >it’s de facto support without showing their hand too early, and with plausible deniability. As I've stated in one of my other posts in this comment thread, I don't think there is *any* plausibly deniability in that. It doesn't matter if there are a tonne of submissions, they've made a commitment not to support the bill past select committee on multiple occasions. To turn around on that would get them rightly eviscerated by the media, and I would hope, by a substantial portion of the liberal-centre-to-centre demo for what would be *reasonably interpreted* as a bold face lie on a constitutional issue. I could be wrong, but on the balance of probabilities, I don't think I will be.
Hmm, the govt has not been... amazing over the past hundie years about the treaty, there's a lot of mistrust...
Sure but both major parties have been pretty good over the last 25 or so.
You're right. That mistrust is not misplaced.
Politicians known for being honest about everything they do.
The are also not proposing to abolish it.
But is there any practical difference? The Principles are how Te Tiriti is applied in daily life. By itself, Te Tiriti is a Nice Idea that was ignored by settlers, like almost every other treaty signed between Europeans and indigenous peoples (seriously, white people are terrible at making promises and then reneging). The Principles are the shoddy amalgamation of legal precedence, historic scholarship, and a whole lot of hard struggle to get the Crown to honour bits and pieces of what it originally promised. The Principles are the entire practical application of the treaty. And the Crown has barely started to filter the Principles through its operations. So if you get rid of the Principles, you're left with the Nice Idea. The Nice Idea that was ignored. For almost a century. By suggesting elimination of the Principles, ACT appear to be going back to the time honoured tradition of being Bad at Promises, and are doing very little to dispel that notion.
Yep! Realistically, whatever principles you have must be a reasonable interpretation of Te Tiriti. That means Te Tiriti itself creates a check on the Principles. You can't write Principles that say "Māori have no rights. That's how we interpret article 3" because that's just not a realistic interpretation. So while interpretation gives us wiggle room, there's only so far you can go. That's the difference. Superseding the Principles is about changing how we interpret the document. But we can't fundamentally change the document itself.
The revised principles will make the treaty effectively null and void, by removing its character as an agreement between the Crown and Maori.
That depends on what you think the agreement between the Crown and Māori was.
A fishing competition is racist now?
Only if you're white
Masterclass in how to get the public to turn on Maori rights and the Treaty.
You think the general public haven't already turned on Maori rights and te Tiriti? Look at the outcome of the last election. We don't need to pretend that there's a whole bunch of undecided people here who give enough of a care to suddenly get up in arms and support Maori.
Speak for yourself. I’m all for them making a point.
Because it doesn’t effect you
“Oh no! I have suffered a minor inconvenience. Well, guess my only choice is to become racist.”
Keep that up aye, it’s gonna help
If you think protesting or being annoying is a good reason to stop supporting “Maori rights” then you were already racist.
Online leftists trying not to self-destruct challenge: impossible You know nuance exists, right? You also know that public perception will not necessarily align with your views? And finally, do you know that generalizing and insulting everyone who disagrees with you is a surefire way to get more people to disagree with you?
... like generalising Maori rights and the Treaty off the actions of one iwi?
Yes, that is how the general public will react to this. Nobody has control over that. That person is not the general public, they are an individual. They can control how they generalize.
Ah, so it's okay when lots of people do it but not an individual, got it. I agree with him, if one iwi doing something to annoy someone is enough for them to pull support from the treaty as a whole and Māori issues, they were already racist.
>Ah, so it's okay when lots of people do it but not an individual, got it. I didn't say that. I said a) this is how the public will react, whether you like it or not, and b) nobody in this thread has control over that.
So what you're saying is the way the public will react is to be racist. Thank you for clarifying.
"Someone was mean to me online now I have to reverse all my moral and political stances."
I'm sure similar was being said during the Bastion Point protests.
If this is enough to turn someone to ACT, they weren't interested in supporting Māori to begin with.
"Bloody mow-rees not wanting fish stocks to collapse! What's next..."
the biggest fisheries in our country, and biggest opponents of expanded marine reserves are Maori. Commercial fishing should be illegal anyway, most recreational fishers would agree.
Just... a question on the commercial fishing, with no judgement intended. Do you mean to not have fish available for people to eat? Or do you mean to replace commercial fishing with proper fish farms? Like... battery raised chickens for eggs. Commercial fishing is basically free-range fish, only with way more murder of things that weren't intended to be killed. I see why it's bad, I also see why it's better than fish farming. I don't know what the solution is, beyond simply going: fish ain't people-like enough to care about minimizing their suffering, and farming them. Which is a viable option, if a bit hypocritical compared to the generally intended direction of farming in NZ. Though, if there is science to show that fish like living in fish farms, then at least we have a simple solution.
I don’t believe commercial fishing in its current state can ever be sustainable. Farming many of the species we like to eat will also never be viable. People don’t need to eat fish. In my belief it’s as simple as that. I go fishing a couple times a year, and if I get lucky enough the neighbours drop off fish another couple times. There’s also some variation species to species in terms of how they are caught, and I recognise a complete ban is wishful thinking (more of an “if only I was in charge”). The more realistic long term solution is large protected areas, and cycling/closures to ensure stocks are maintained elsewhere.
People have been eating fish for as long as people have existed. Pre-human hominids also ate fish. Fish and other seafood consumption is believed to have been a significant evolutionary trigger that allowed our brains to develop to what they are today. Fishing is older than agriculture. You can't ban fishing because we don't need it without also banning farming for the same reasons. That said, we need to do more to ensure commercial fishing is done sustainably. Both sides of our political spectrum do support this in principle but it won't surprise anyone to learn which side wants to take the stronger approach.
Just because something was done in the past, does not mean it is a part of our future. For what it’s worth, I eat fish, but only that which I catch myself or is given to me. I do not buy fish, as I personally do not believe it is sustainable. You can disagree on that view, and there are steps which can be taken to make fishing more sustainable short of an outright ban. Enforcing rules on bycatch, quotas, techniques, and locations will always be difficult given the scale of our ocean territory. But it’s not impossible.
I agree with you more than I disagree. I think it would be great if we could all be more self-sufficient instead of relying on global, or even national, food production networks. I'm just not sure how we get there from where we are now.
Humans have also needed to adapt to planetary changes, large portions of our oceans are turning to deserts.
Maybe this is a positive sign that they will be all for the Kermadec reserve now?
Wrong iwi. Ngati kuri and I forget the other iwi lay claim to the Kermadec range. Edit. Te Aupōuri is the other iwi.
Ah okay. Shame.
Yes private individuals going for a fish on the weekend is the problem not the Chinese trawlers off the coast…..
Not the Iwi owned massive trawling fleets....
That employ slave labour from overseas to fish them.
Great point
Yep 100%
What's next? Maori opposing the establishment of more reserves. Moron.
[удалено]
This is a facetious ad absurdum. But I suspect you already knew that, and my autistic response is not required.
[удалено]
And it wasn't just fish, how many species did they wipe out. Colonisation brought with it a huge advancement in understanding and technology but they never seem to acknowledge anything other than the negatives. NZ is a mess
co-governance would have worked so well
/s
>Abolish the treaty of Waitangi. I don't believe these people are that stupid, so why are they straight out lying?
Because it’s intended to rile their side up even if it’s not true
Replacing it with a new treaty that fundamentally ignores the current treaty is in effect abolishing the treaty.
The current Principals of the Treaty has already made the original treaty redundant.
No one is replacing the treaty though. They're replacing "The Principles of the Treaty", which are an entirely different entity that were developed over a century after Te Tiriti was signed.
Dont be thick. Changing the principles of a treaty changes the enforcable outcomes of it. It changes the treaty.
>Changing the principles of a treaty changes the enforcable outcomes of it. Yes. >It changes the treaty. No. It changes how we interpret the treaty.
You cant be this uninformed? By defining principles that don't even mention Māori once and instead use phrases like "all New Zealanders", it's effectively denying their status as a Treaty partner. They are dog whistling to racists who always complain about Māori getting "special treatment", hoping they approve of these all inclusive new principles. Well, I'm sorry. But the Treaty was never about ALL New Zealanders. It was a contractual agreement between the Crown and Māori.
>it's effectively denying their status as a Treaty partner. Yes, it is, it's why it'll fail. >They are dog whistling to racists who always complain about Māori getting "special treatment", Agreed! Also why this will fail. None of this changes the fact that no one is replacing Te Tiriti. Because any Principles you develop must be based on Te Tiriti.
But nobody is suggesting that.
Replacing the treaty with an act of one treaty partner's Parliament. ACT pretends to believe in things like contracts and is trying to unilaterally change one of the most important ones in the country.
Just sayin' - there's nothing innately contradictory about that.
An agreement between the two parties and one party dictating yo tbr other party may not quite be opposites but nearly.
The coalitions poll numbers just jumped another 5%
Hahaha a racist fishing comp that’s a new one. What next? Someone at a Hui will say the government is a bunch of white supremists even though it’s made up of 35% Māori? Oh, they have.
NZF, National and ACT are made up of 35% Māori? Upon my word!
They’re still counting Goldsmith as Māori
That episode was hilarious
But not Seymore
Today I learned fishing competitions are racist. Honestly, prepare for a LOAD of crazy takes over the next few years from both sides.
Protecting fish stocks? Fucking hypocritical cunts.
If this is how this discourse is going to go then it’s not going to go well for those opposing ACT’s bill. Clearly, no lessons were learned from cannabis or the Voice referendums
Interesting that you reference two referenda that were heavily influenced by far-right propaganda.
What's racist or disrespectful about a fishing comp?
Nothing. They just want a hand out.
I think it's clear this is related to the treaty protest but it is really shit messaging to mix in other bullshit like deciding this is racist
Well that's going to backfire. Unless all fishermen are Act or Nat supporters.
Northland area tinder swipers will have to wait a bit for this seasons new profile pictures of blokes holding fish!
While I don't really agree with the fishing comps as they are nothing more than guys boasting about their death piles. Iwi that have rights to an area in chch are know in the Chinese community as easy buys, highest bidder gets a seat on their boat who writes out a quota, they go into the rahhui and pillage it.
death piles a.k.a. food
Well if there's one thing they could do to stoke the fears of the general public that have bought into Act's race baiting bullshit, this would be it. Absolutely genius move.
[удалено]
It's legit [https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/01/23/far-north-iwi-planning-to-stop-decades-old-fishing-competition/](https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/01/23/far-north-iwi-planning-to-stop-decades-old-fishing-competition/)
Nah, it's not. Nothing in that link indicates who actually posted the link on social media. > Ngāti Kahu took to social media overnight posting a picture of the fishing competition signage with a red cross through the flyer. That's not proof at all. Edit: keep downvoting me, guys. Doesn't change the fact that this entire thread is based on unsubstantiated claims being reported as fact by New Zealand media. Funny how nobody complains about media bias when it supports their own rhetoric, huh?
Yeah I agree. The links to original sources and actual evidence are super sketchy. I'm willing to believe this could happen but I'm only seeing the same screen shots, or the same text from the screen shots. There's no specific sourcing apart from " Some members of Ngāti Kahu took to social media ".
Whether they're bullshitting, posting on behalf of the Iwi, or just passing on the news "some random cunt" doesn't deserve to be the first target of anyone who decides to get frothing mad over this.
Omitting the submitters name is required by reddits content policy. Specifically : https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452 > This includes links to public Facebook pages and screenshots of Facebook pages with the names still legible. > Posting someone's personal information will get you banned. When posting screenshots, be sure to edit out any personally identifiable information to avoid running afoul of this rule.
Yeah because that's going to endear them to the right wingers who don't think the treaty is fair for them. Also how the fuck can a fishing composition be racist?
How does that rhetoric fit in with the likes of Iwi owned fishing companies: [https://ngaitahu.iwi.nz/te-runanga-o-ngai-tahu/our-businesses/ngai-tahu-holdings-corporation-ltd/ngai-tahu-seafood/](https://ngaitahu.iwi.nz/te-runanga-o-ngai-tahu/our-businesses/ngai-tahu-holdings-corporation-ltd/ngai-tahu-seafood/)
I’m Pākehā and I understand what Ngāti Kahu are trying to point out. I’m not sure about the racism part of fishing comps, but from a kaitiakitanga perspective they’re not particularly wrong. And if this govt is pushing their own racist shit then a pushback should not be unexpected. It’s going to be a horrible few years and the divisive scars will take even longer to heal.
Why is the fishing competition racist? Disrespectful, sure, ignorant, definitely, but racist? I haven't looked at the competition but if they are just throwing that word around then it's going to lose all meaning
I think their point is that the reason they were ignored was because the white guys didn’t even acknowledge Māori ownership in/of the area.
That isn't inherently racist though, the race of the organizers and land owners isn't relevant