tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post8269591556513848664..comments2024-03-18T21:56:06.882+13:00Comments on Karl du Fresne: The nation cringes and looks awayKarl du Fresnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05054853925940134404noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post-52835238546605666862011-02-19T16:11:00.638+13:002011-02-19T16:11:00.638+13:00I wrote a couple weeks back prompted by a John Rou...<a href="http://probligo.blogspot.com/2011/02/on-liberalism-with-small-l.html" rel="nofollow">I wrote a couple weeks back</a> prompted by a John Roughan op-ed in the Herald and an essay that appeared in the same issue from Richard Habersham.<br /><br />Habersham had been invited to NZ to address a convention of gang members - the Otatara Awakening. He certainly did not give confirmation to the ideas of his audience. But, as I realised after a debate through the comments, there was a message he was delivering which applied equally to BOTH sides in the Waitangi Day debate.<br /><br />Simply put, it is unlikely that the Waitangi debate will end until BOTH sides can see past their personal preconceptions of how the other side sees the world. <br /><br />For example, who now remembers the genesis of the foreshore and seabed debate? It was a High Court case, confirming the legitimacy of a ruling of the Waitangi Tribunal. But what was it that prompted the Tribunal decision? It was a series of decisions by the Marlborough District Council in allowing and not allowing applications for mussel farming rights within the Sounds. That process resulted in the approval of two applications, both almost identical to two previously rejected by the Council. The two applications approved were submitted by pakehas, the two turned down were initiated by Maori.<br /><br />The point I am making is that we are still a long, long way from the view that Habersham presented. In fact, we are still - in isolated cases - making the same mistakes. It is not a case that Maori should be deferred to in an application. But if an application is declined then the same rules should be applied to subsequent similar applications. It was that which appeared to fail in the Marlborough decision-making process.<br /><br />Take another example.<br /><br />There are any number of people in high places who five years ago were wishing they could see the back of Tame Iti.<br /><br />Then came the "anti-terrorism" raids on Ruatoria. Who has heard of or from Iti since then? He has been particularly quiet; abnormally so. I suspect that he is quite aware he has the NZ justice system by the short and curlys. None of the "terrorism" charges remain last I heard; only firearms charges. But I would bet all of my boots that the defence for the Urewera Seven is going to make a lot of political hay for the more radical Maori.<br /><br />I don't think that there are many (pakeha included) who still believe the police justifications for that raid, or who still support the way it was carried out.<br /><br />Take the Popata boys. Their "invasions" at Taipa might have come to nowt had the other side - Brown from FNDC and McWho from the government - taken a couple days out to go and talk to the little buggers. There are a fair number of people up that way who are unhappy that they took matters into their own hands.<br /><br />And, for as long as these mistakes are being made there will be grievances - on both sides - and those will be expressed on Waitangi Day whether we pakeha like it or not.The probligohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17882103150181414348noreply@blogger.com