Post by Kiwi Frontline on Sept 22, 2016 6:52:26 GMT 12
The Press 22/9/16
REALITY CHECK OVER KERMADEC RESERVE
Nisbet’s cartoon is spot on (Sep 19). Traditional rights should only be permitted in traditional ways. Otherwise they are not ‘‘traditional’’ rights at all and are blatantly disadvantageous to the majority of the population, with no justification.
In a democracy everyone should be treated equally before the law.
New Zealand takes pride in being the first country in the world to emancipate women. Are we going to take the same pride in being one of the first democratic countries to erode our democracy?
L T
Prebbleton
AN OPPORTUNITY LOST
It would have been simple for Te Ohu Kaimoana to request confirmation that the Kermadec agreement does not create a prejudicial precedent for future negotiations. Instead Te Ohu’s action has created an impression that the primacy of guardianship (kaitiakitanga) has been blown out of the water.
Sir Maui Solomon has indicated it is a matter of loss of mana. I say a chance has been lost to show statesmanship, increase mana and unify all New Zealanders.
I have supported many of the Maori community’s endeavours as a strong Treaty partner. My daughter and grand-daughter have Nga Puhi whakapapa.
However, I am saddened this has become destructively divisive over claims of compensation and control and the consequent degrading of the strong conservation ethic which exists in all New Zealanders.
A R
Lyttelton
Taranaki Daily News 22/9/16
OUR BLOODY PAST
According to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr English, ( Taranaki Daily News, Appeal for shared sovereignty, August 22) we are going to have a national day commemorating the NZ Land Wars. Mr English said it was time to formally recognise the country’s bloody past.
There is no doubt that our New Zealand Land War history should be exposed for what it was and it would be a significant contribution by the Daily News if it played a major part in the research of the Taranaki Wars so that the facts may be presented to its readers as an educational exercise. So this raises the first question.
Will the researched material be subjected to censorship by Maori or non-Maori before it is published?
It is important that both sides of the events are factually/truthfully reported so that the public can judge for itself the reasons why there was a ‘‘bloody past’’.
Other questions are: Why were early settlers murdered by Maori? Why were lands confiscated by the Government? Why was law and order so difficult to achieve after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840?
One thing is for certain. The Land War history should not be a product of shoddy research or selective presentation of the facts.
Let us hope that the national day commemorating the New Zealand Land Wars does not generate more protests and a platform for further grievances but rather a day which celebrates how far we have come as a multicultural nation.
R W
New Plymouth
Northland Age 22/9/16
HAVE FISH HOOK.... .
In her September 13 column the tiresome Anahera Herbert-Graves refers to various high-sounding 'articles' from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to support her weekly race-dividing propaganda, without defining `indigenous peoples'.
According to David Round (law lecturer at University of Canterbury), "nowhere is there any definition of who or what exactly an indigenous person is in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples".
So what makes Herbert-Graves assume Maori are indigenous? They have only been here a mere 800 years. How do Maori claim to be indigenous when Japanese (Ainu being the exception) and Britons, who have occupied a country for thousands of years are not indigenous?
I guess the UN's and Herbert-Graves's criterion is 'having ancestors who arrived here first", therefore Sir Ed Hillary owned the top of Everest, the Americans own the moon, and the descendants of our early pioneers have more rights than recent fellow immigrants.
Today virtually all Maori are of mixed European and Maori descent. This is the 'whitening' of New Zealand, as the base colour early 18th Century was brown.
If this were not so serious, it would be laughable that these indigenous pretenders can hang a bone fish hook around their neck and claim fellow New Zealanders owe them.
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Kamo
DON'T BE SPLIT
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, issued by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris in 1948, sets out fundamental human rights that must be universally protected. The most important is that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". This is the equality of citizenship enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi.
The later UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, noted by Herbert-Graves (September 13), sadly contradicts that principle with its call for special rights for one section of the populace. Thus the third article, which Herbert-Graves relies on, suggests that the poorly-defined "indigenous people" should be separate, independent from all others, with the right to "freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development".
We must be determined to remain one people and refuse to be split into two communities based on race.
JOHN ROBINSON
Wellington
REALITY CHECK OVER KERMADEC RESERVE
Nisbet’s cartoon is spot on (Sep 19). Traditional rights should only be permitted in traditional ways. Otherwise they are not ‘‘traditional’’ rights at all and are blatantly disadvantageous to the majority of the population, with no justification.
In a democracy everyone should be treated equally before the law.
New Zealand takes pride in being the first country in the world to emancipate women. Are we going to take the same pride in being one of the first democratic countries to erode our democracy?
L T
Prebbleton
AN OPPORTUNITY LOST
It would have been simple for Te Ohu Kaimoana to request confirmation that the Kermadec agreement does not create a prejudicial precedent for future negotiations. Instead Te Ohu’s action has created an impression that the primacy of guardianship (kaitiakitanga) has been blown out of the water.
Sir Maui Solomon has indicated it is a matter of loss of mana. I say a chance has been lost to show statesmanship, increase mana and unify all New Zealanders.
I have supported many of the Maori community’s endeavours as a strong Treaty partner. My daughter and grand-daughter have Nga Puhi whakapapa.
However, I am saddened this has become destructively divisive over claims of compensation and control and the consequent degrading of the strong conservation ethic which exists in all New Zealanders.
A R
Lyttelton
Taranaki Daily News 22/9/16
OUR BLOODY PAST
According to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr English, ( Taranaki Daily News, Appeal for shared sovereignty, August 22) we are going to have a national day commemorating the NZ Land Wars. Mr English said it was time to formally recognise the country’s bloody past.
There is no doubt that our New Zealand Land War history should be exposed for what it was and it would be a significant contribution by the Daily News if it played a major part in the research of the Taranaki Wars so that the facts may be presented to its readers as an educational exercise. So this raises the first question.
Will the researched material be subjected to censorship by Maori or non-Maori before it is published?
It is important that both sides of the events are factually/truthfully reported so that the public can judge for itself the reasons why there was a ‘‘bloody past’’.
Other questions are: Why were early settlers murdered by Maori? Why were lands confiscated by the Government? Why was law and order so difficult to achieve after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840?
One thing is for certain. The Land War history should not be a product of shoddy research or selective presentation of the facts.
Let us hope that the national day commemorating the New Zealand Land Wars does not generate more protests and a platform for further grievances but rather a day which celebrates how far we have come as a multicultural nation.
R W
New Plymouth
Northland Age 22/9/16
HAVE FISH HOOK.... .
In her September 13 column the tiresome Anahera Herbert-Graves refers to various high-sounding 'articles' from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to support her weekly race-dividing propaganda, without defining `indigenous peoples'.
According to David Round (law lecturer at University of Canterbury), "nowhere is there any definition of who or what exactly an indigenous person is in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples".
So what makes Herbert-Graves assume Maori are indigenous? They have only been here a mere 800 years. How do Maori claim to be indigenous when Japanese (Ainu being the exception) and Britons, who have occupied a country for thousands of years are not indigenous?
I guess the UN's and Herbert-Graves's criterion is 'having ancestors who arrived here first", therefore Sir Ed Hillary owned the top of Everest, the Americans own the moon, and the descendants of our early pioneers have more rights than recent fellow immigrants.
Today virtually all Maori are of mixed European and Maori descent. This is the 'whitening' of New Zealand, as the base colour early 18th Century was brown.
If this were not so serious, it would be laughable that these indigenous pretenders can hang a bone fish hook around their neck and claim fellow New Zealanders owe them.
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Kamo
DON'T BE SPLIT
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, issued by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris in 1948, sets out fundamental human rights that must be universally protected. The most important is that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". This is the equality of citizenship enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi.
The later UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, noted by Herbert-Graves (September 13), sadly contradicts that principle with its call for special rights for one section of the populace. Thus the third article, which Herbert-Graves relies on, suggests that the poorly-defined "indigenous people" should be separate, independent from all others, with the right to "freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development".
We must be determined to remain one people and refuse to be split into two communities based on race.
JOHN ROBINSON
Wellington