Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

foreshore and salmon

Expand Messages
  • Don
    ... Subject: Fw: foreshore and salmon Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:23:40 -0400 From: Russell Diabo To: FYI ...
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      -------- Original Message --------
      Subject: Fw: foreshore and salmon
      Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:23:40 -0400
      From: "Russell Diabo" <rdiabo@...>
      To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>



      FYI

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Boyce Richardson <mailto:brich@...>
      To: Russell Diabo <mailto:rdiabo@...>
      Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 10:27 AM
      Subject: Re: foreshore and salmon

      The following piece appears today on Boyce Richardson's personal web
      site, Boyce'sPaper (magma.ca/~brich):

      July 30 2003

      In Canada and New Zealand, major efforts are underway to undermine
      Aboriginal rights entrenched by law

      What happens when a dominant majority, for once, leans over in its
      attempt to bring some kind of justice to a minority group? Two
      interesting cases have emerged, in Canada and New Zealand, about exactly
      this situation.

      Both suggest that the idea of restoring to Aboriginal groups some of the
      resources that were stolen from them in earlier generations (and which
      the law of the land has recognized they have a right to) quickly runs
      into irredentist objections from the people who have been making use of
      those resources, and don't wish to acknowledge that they have been using
      stolen property.

      First, the Canadian case:

      In the early nineties the Dickson Supreme Court issued the Sparrow
      judgment, which reognized that natives had the constitutional right to
      fish along the Fraser river, in British Columbia, "for food and
      ceremonial purposes". (Aboriginal rights, one should add, are
      guaranteeed in the Canadian constitution, and other court decisions have
      decreed that other laws should not be allowed to infringe these rights,
      and that in case of conflict, the Aboriginal perspective should have
      priority.)

      The Conservative government of the time introduced what is called the
      Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy, under which Aboriginal fishermen were
      given the right to fish for salmon on the Fraser in a limited native-run
      commercial fishery. From the beginning this was opposed by non-native
      fishermen, even though the native fishery was opening something less
      than one per cent of the Canadian salmon harvest to them.

      Finally, one of these groups took the matter to court under the Charter
      of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that they (the majority) are
      discriminated against, and that the government is supporting racial
      discrimination by excluding non-natives from the fishery.

      Last week a BC Provincial Court judge, William Kitchen, found in favor
      of the majority and declared the native fishery unconstitutional, and an
      affront to the equality provisions of the Charter.

      My comment on this is that this judgment strikes at the very heart of
      Canada's recognition of Aboriginal rights as guaranteed in the
      constitution. Either Aboriginal people have rights arising from their
      prior occupancy of the land (as accepted by the courts), or they don't.
      If Judge Kitchen's argument is accepted, any recognition of Aboriginal
      rights could be attacked on the grounds that it discriminates against
      those who don't have such rights. It is weird, twisted thinking that
      accords to the majority (who have a long record of having themselves
      discriminated against native people) recognition that they are being
      discriminated because a minority are granted their legal rights.

      Now the New Zealand case:

      New Zealand is wracked by an argument over the ownership of the
      foreshore. This is part of the same process that is happening in Canada,
      the belated recognition by the majority of the legal rights of the
      minority. But, the issue has elicited the same result: protest by at
      least some of the majority population against the granting of special
      rights to the minority. The following three articles explain the New
      Zealand situation with startling clarity:

      First, the protest:

      500 march against Maori claims to foreshore, seabed
      28 July 2003

      More than 500 people marched along Trafalgar St in central Nelson today
      in protest over the issue of Maori claims to the foreshore and seabed.

      Carrying placards saying "Whites have rights too", "When do we stop
      giving?" and "one law for all New Zealanders", the march left Wakatu
      Square shortly after noon.

      Chanting "foreshores for all", the protesters marched to the Church
      Steps, where they heard speeches from organisers, United Future leader
      Peter Dunne and Nelson MP Nick Smith.

      "This is a great turnout. I'm rapt. Thank you very much. You are going
      to make a difference," one of the organisers, Dennis Wells, told the
      crowd.

      The protest was organised by United Future members after the Court of
      Appeal ruled that the Maori Land Court could hear claims for customary
      title over the foreshore and seabed. Another of the organisers, Gray
      Eatwell, brought a copy of the Bill of Rights Act. He told protesters
      that it gave New Zealanders equal rights and provided that "no court
      shall override this act".

      "It is high time the Government realised that," he said.

      Port Nelson chief executive Jim Williamson was among those marching, but
      said he was there in a "personal capacity".

      When the protesters reached the Church Steps, they were met by a man
      carrying a patu, or short weapon. He brandished it over Mr Wells' head
      from the steps before stepping back to listen to the speeches.

      A Nelson group opposed to genetic engineering had put its own banner at
      the top of the steps, but was forced to take it down after the crowd
      members objected. The group later raised it again.

      Mr Dunne said: "We in this country pride ourselves on our free and open
      access to the great outdoors."

      On those occasions when the country united behind sports teams such as
      the All Blacks and Silver Ferns, "we are New Zealanders, we are not
      Maori New Zealanders, European New Zealanders, Asian New Zealanders, or
      Pacific New Zealanders. On those occasions we were all together for the
      common good."

      Dr Smith earlier urged hobby groups to get behind a National Party
      petition against Maori seabed and foreshore claims, saying they could
      face restricted access and increased costs if the claims proceed.

      The National Party launched the paper petition after receiving strong
      support on a website petition calling for the Government to claim
      exclusive Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed.

      Dr Smith said the response to the website petition had
      been "phenomenal", with more than 40,000 e-mail signatures since it was
      launched last Tuesday.

      "This is a world record. But there are tens of thousands of New
      Zealanders who do not have access to the web who also want to send a
      message to the Government."

      The petition is now available from Dr Smith's Nelson office. It
      had "very strong support" from the Nelson Yacht Club and there were
      plans to mail copies out to other local boating, fishing, yachting and
      recreational groups, the MP said.

      Hobby groups faced issues such as loss of free access and paying rent
      for clubrooms that were on the foreshore, he said.

      "Ordinary New Zealanders, who have shown a huge degree of tolerance to
      treaty claims and spending on Maori issues, have had enough," he said.
      "The foreshore and seabed claim by Maori has become a line in the sand
      that New Zealanders do not want to cross."

      Dr Smith said there would also be ramifications for the fishing
      industry, but companies such as Sealord were "appropriately" not taking
      part in debate over the issue.

      "Sealord is in a very difficult position because they're 50 percent
      owned by the Maori Fisheries Commission and the Treaty of Waitangi
      Fisheries Commission has funded the whole claim."

      Senior government ministers are negotiating with the Maori MPs to find
      what the Government describes as a "win-win" solution to the situation.

      Dr Smith said the answer to the issue was "very simple", and the
      Government should pass legislation confirming the Crown as owner on
      behalf of all New Zealanders.

      "Parliament is the highest court in the land, it determines the law. It
      is fundamental to a democratic society that Parliament decides the rules
      of the land and not the courts."

      Maori activists have accused the Government of intending to
      extinguish their rights and have threatened a march to Parliament.

      It will be noted that in New Zealand, as in Canada, right-wing white
      political movements are supporting the anti-Aboriginal case, and helping
      whip up public feeling against the natives.

      On that same day, a group of activists from 10 organizations, and
      individuals, including many pakehas (whites) wrote an open letter to
      Prime Minister Helen Clark expressing opposition to the government's
      response to the Appeal Court decision to allow the issue to be judged by
      a Maori Court. The government promised to would legislate to assert the
      Crown's ownership of seabed and foreshore, and to extinguish Mäori
      customary title. (This also has echoes in Canadian behavior in related
      issues).

      Here is the letter to the Prime Minister, dated July 28, 2003:



      Helen Clark, Prime Minister;
      Michael Cullen, Deputy Prime Minister;
      Margaret Wilson, Attorney-General, Minister for Treaty of Waitangi
      Negotiations.


      Dear Ms Clark, Dr Cullen and Ms Wilson,

      We are profoundly concerned by the Government's response to the Court of
      Appeal's judgment in respect of Ngati Apa and Others v Attorney General
      and Others, issued on 19 June 2003. The matter before the court was an
      appeal by the eight Iwi at the top of the South Island for their claim
      to the Marlborough seabed and foreshore (the area between high and low
      tide marks) to be considered by the Mäori Land Court.

      The Court of Appeal judges were unanimous in their decision that the
      claim should be put before the Mäori Land Court for consideration and
      that Mäori customary title to seabed and foreshore has never been
      legally extinguished.

      In response, on 23 June 2003 an announcement was made that the
      Government would legislate to assert the Crown's ownership of seabed and
      foreshore, and to extinguish Mäori customary title.

      We are deeply troubled by this, as it:

      a) Breaches due legal process by preempting a future decision of the
      Mäori Land Court;
      b) Fosters social disharmony by implying that there is something scary
      about Mäori customary title to seabed and foreshore, and that
      public access to beaches is now at risk;
      c) Misleads by failing to acknowledge that since 1840 it has been
      private owners, commercial enterprise and government agencies, rather
      than Iwi and Hapü, who have denied public access to beaches. Tangata
      Whenua have not excluded others, provided wahi tapu are respected and
      natural resources are not damaged or depleted;
      d) Demonstrates a monocultural view of 'ownership' by suggesting that
      Mäori customary title is somehow the same as private ownership; and
      e) Ignores the historical reality that customary title existed long
      before European settlement and was reaffirmed by the Treaty of Waitangi
      in 1840; that Mäori have never consented to the extinguishment of
      customary title, and that Tangata Whenua consent would be required
      before this could happen. For example, the Court of Appeal judgment
      quoting from a passage approved by the Privy Council: ... "it cannot be
      too solemnly asserted" that native property over land is entitled to be
      respected and cannot be extinguished ("at least in times of peace")
      otherwise than by the consent of the owners." [Ngati Apa and Others v
      Attorney-General and Others, 19 June 2003:16]

      We record our support for the Declaration on the foreshore and seabed
      that was issued at the Paeroa hui of Iwi and Hapü on 12 July 2003, which
      reaffirms that the foreshore and seabed have always been under the
      jurisdiction of Iwi and Hapü as part of the authority of tino
      rangatiratanga.

      We consider any legislation to extinguish customary title to be an
      extraordinary breach and dishonouring of the Treaty of Waitangi by the
      Crown.

      We therefore strongly urge you to abandon any plan to extinguish
      customary title.

      We appreciate that there are issues around private and foreign
      ownership of coastal property, public access, and commercial
      exploitation of foreshore and seabed resources that need to be
      addressed.

      However, we are united in our belief that extinguishing Mäori
      customary title is not the way to go about this.

      Yours sincerely,

      Edwina Hughes, Coordinator, Peace Movement Aotearoa
      Janine Ahie, Executive Director, YWCA of Aotearoa-New Zealand
      Gillian Southey, Christian World Service;
      Leigh Cookson, Director, ARENA;
      Catriona Budge, Anne Wells, Elizabeth Thompson, and Kathy Lys, Päkehä
      Women for the Treaty, Wellington;
      Joan Macdonald, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
      (Aotearoa - New Zealand);
      Moea Armstrong, Tim Howard, Joan and Russ Cook, Kathryn McKenzie, Don
      Ross, Pat and Les Gray, Carol Peters, Ange Jones, Cheree Corban, Network
      Waitangi Whangarei;
      Mitzi Nairn, Marisa Maclachlan, Susan Healy, Ingrid Huygens, Richard
      Green, Sue Vugler, Catherine Smith, Maxine Revell, and David Tutty,
      Tamaki Treaty Workers, Auckland;
      Adrienne Ross, Gywn John, Abigael Vogt, and Jennifer Margaret, arc
      (aotearoa reality check);
      Charmaine Pountney, CNZM, Awhitu;
      Tim Jones, Writer, Wellington;
      Prue Hyman, ARENA Trustee, Paekakariki;
      Sue Watson, Wellington;
      Geraldine Harvey, Rotorua;
      Elena Ilalio, Nelson;
      Don Polly, Paekakariki;
      Ngaire Rae, Whangarei;
      Simon Delahunt, Wellington;
      Jo Cottrell, Hamilton;
      Jim Holdom, Hamilton;
      Tanya Cumberland, Awhitu;
      Marion Sanson, Wellington;
      Sue Abel, Bay of Islands;
      Catherine Amey, Wellington.

      Finally, a third article from the New Zealand Press Association carries
      a warning from the Associate Maori Assairs Minister John Tamiyhere, that
      this issue could be a "tinder box" that could alight trouble in race
      relations throughout New Zealand. Here is that article:


      Tamihere warns of foreshore 'tinder box'
      29 July 2003 By TRACY WATKINS and NZPA

      Debate over Maori claims on the foreshore and seabed could ignite a race
      relations tinder box, Associate Maori Affairs Minister John Tamihere has
      warned.

      Ahead of a speech on race relations in Wellington today, Mr Tamihere
      said the foreshore and seabed loomed as an issue as serious as the 1975
      land march over Maori land grievances.
      "It has the ability to be a catalyst, to just flick race relations in
      this country . . . it just needs a spark, it could be tinder dry. You
      just don't appreciate the sense of feeling out there, on both sides."

      Five hundred people marched in central Nelson yesterday protesting at
      Maori claims on the foreshore and seabed, carrying placards stating
      "Whites have rights too".
      Government allies United Future joined the protest, with leader Peter
      Dunne calling on the Government to legislate to protect Crown ownership
      over the foreshore and seabed.
      He has accused the Government of driving a wedge between Maori and
      Pakeha New Zealanders by failing to act more swiftly.

      Mr Tamihere said the issue had been whipped up by the Government's
      political opponents into a war of "slogans and poll ratings".

      "We just don't deserve it, as a young melting pot nation . . . that sort
      of nonsense." The issue was resonating with some voters, but only
      because of their ignorance of the issue.

      "Voters, 85 per cent of them are non-informed and non-discerning. So
      they're only as good as the slogans and billboards."

      More than half of the 18,000 kilometres of foreshore was effectively
      held in private ownership now, because the beaches were landlocked and
      difficult to get to, he said.

      Most of that land was in the hands of Pakeha landowners.
      "Will customary rights be able to impinge on that, or impugn that? The
      answer is No. We've (the Government) made that very clear. No private
      property rights will be impugned or challenged."

      The most important aspect of any solution was that it was fair, Mr
      Tamihere said.

      "If you can demonstrate that you're being fair, most Kiwis will accept
      that. But if it's deemed you're getting greedy and out of hand and the
      pendulum's swung too far in favour of the natives, you've got problems."

      Debate at the moment, however, was aimed at exploiting New Zealanders'
      passion for "hunting, fishing and shooting".
      "Most Kiwi blokes ... it's the last domain where they're allowed to male
      bond with consent ... it's part of the blood right and birthright you
      bring to your young sons."


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.