High Court hearing on Maori water rights

21/11/2012 5:16:27 p.m.

Mike wrote:

IMAN. Because there is no response to your comments from Adrian I must assume what you say is accepted as accurate and correct. What more can I add except to say you are perfectly correct in what you say and Adrian poor sole, is lost in a wilderness of confusion and misconception.

10/11/2012 7:57:46 a.m.

IMAN wrote:

Adrian. Because you are so entrenched in your distorted opinions of the past and refuse to accept the reality of what is. I concede you are unable to be educated about what facts are and what are simply imaginative wishful thinking, and your obvious overlapping confusion between the two. I accept you have the right to hold on to your blinkered vision of history and your obvious bitterness of not wanting to accept things are different and that you are unlikely to change from being one of a tiny minority who think that way. I do now wonder if you are also a member of the 'Fat Earth Society' or believe 9/11 was an American government hoax or we really do have pixies living in our garden and the Easter Bunny will supply you with eggs etc. Adrian, I will not reply to any more of your biased verbiage but as a last comment I say "Dream on Adrian, enjoy your fantasy world while you can, while the rest of us move into the future with hope and togetherness and a more positive and contributing outlook on life than yourself".

7/11/2012 8:02:36 p.m.

Adrian wrote:

Iman, and we descend from neanderthals and chimpanzees, big deal! Your fabricated mono cultural views delude you Iman. Maaori had loving relationships with Moriori in the same way Maaori had loving relationships with genuine European settlers. Denying and lieing really exposes your intellectually stunted world view. A view that seriously lacks completely any ounce of credibility. Your views do not represent the views of all us decent NZers. Iman try looking at life from another lens, one that encourages partnership, equality, liberties, freedoms for non western cultures to practice their own self determination solutions better suited to them. Being entrenched in a colonial rule mind set is retarded. Grow up, get a decent education and live a life that accepts everyone for who they are and what they represent, not what you think they should represent or defined by what you think it is because simply you are stunted Iman. Its our moral duty to uphold a high standard of integrity. Unfortunately for you Iman, you fail miserably along with all those who participated directly or indirectly in the theft of  Maaori land and; extinguishing Iwi/hapuu rights to rule over their own territories, as it was prior to our deceitful, illegal manipulated occupation campaign promoting us to rulers. Iman I know you're a very proud NZer ... unfortunately for all the wrong reasons.

6/11/2012 10:45:49 p.m.

IMAN wrote:

Adrian you continue to confuse theory and possibilities with fact. While Maori would like to believe Maoriori were early Maori, not a single Maoriori among those alive today would agree. In fact Maoriori features, DNA and other distinctive Polynesian differences prove conclusively otherwise. On the other hand, Maori lineage has been tracked back to Asia through a distinctively different DNA.

6/11/2012 9:52:30 p.m.

IMAN wrote:

Adrian. The trouble is your bold assumptions, wishful thinking and overly imaginative mind blind you to the modern truth. Selective reports from dubious and sometimes biased history doesn't help your case either. Best you learn to live with today than dream of yesteryear that no longer exists.

6/11/2012 4:11:33 p.m.

Adrian wrote:

Iman you're analysis is shocking to say the least and lala land has recaptured youre ability to rationalize. Ownership ultimately belongs to the rulers of the land, in our case the Crown managed and represented by our government.  What you may consider what is and what isn't ownership is meaningless. Sovereign States which we are one though stolen, own entirely everything within its borders. To argue that we don't allows other nations to exploit our resources unchallenged. Iman Moriori many scholars argue are an earlier diaspora of ancient Maaori a subset of early polynesians that most Maaori trace their lineage to. Language, ideology, traditional practices align with Maaori practices and culture of today. When Kupe discovered Aotearoa around 1250AD, in the stories handed down Kupe was convinced that human existence existed. While paddling on the Patea river an unknown source mimicked Kupes whistles and important to note they weren't Moriori, instead an identity retained by the Taranaki/Wanganui people known to them and other existing identities of that era i.e. the Waitaha people (South Island), the Urukehu (Urewera) and others of whom most Maaori of today affiliate to in one way or another. The fact is many Maaori possess Moriori lineage and earlier identities for that matter and seems pointless dividing Maaori amongst themselves, though let's face it, that's what we do best (divide and rule tactics) then move in to settle the peace at a cost to the feuding parties; their land. Iman you seriously need to get educated, being intellectually stunted isn't an honourable position to protect. In fact highly laughable. Your immature and descriminative views shames all of us decent NZers! Finally a Treaty can not exist without a Declaration, it's impossible given the circumstances, they go hand in hand. Maaori statehood was stolen to create NZ. Don't you think we should give it back? Iman, knock knock anyone home? Fantasy land won't help you Iman the truth will.

6/11/2012 9:38:36 a.m.

IMAN wrote:

Adrian. Unfortunately your philosophy is based on assumptions. Firstly that resources that predated Maori were owned by Maori which in my opinion is not correct. I agree everyone has a right to use resources in a managed way, but no-one has any right to claim outright ownership. If they did, Maoriori would have a prior claim and as more Maoriori live in the South Island today than anywhere else, they would have the greater claim to the most resources in the country. I am pleased you have toned down your earlier emotive language and to now say "..it could be argued..." However, that aside, the now defunct Declaration of Independence was signed by a handful of North Island Chiefs while the 'Treaty' represents a majority of Iwi throughout the country. Another assumption is to claim the 'Treaty' infers partnership. While Govt has agreed it may have, that does not necessarily make it fact. I appreciate your candor and your passion but again, that does not make the approach any more correct or acceptable but perhaps a less confrontable way would win you wider support? Kaore ahau e raparapa i tou pononga.

5/11/2012 10:05:28 p.m.

Adrian wrote:

Iman your research is tainted with omissions. A central east cost rangatira by the name of Te Hapuku and the then Tainui paramount chief signed the Declaration of Independence. One needs to understand that all those rangatira that signed the Declaration of Independence mana extended beyond their own territory and incorporated tacitly the wider waka migration kinship; a genealogical connection traditionally practiced among Maaori. According to the Maaori nation the Declaration of Independence was and still is a preamble, a fundamental prerequisite from which to build a functional relationship with an alien nation; ourselves. Partnership therefore was and still is inferred in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi as a way to move forward as a collective, two nations genuinely  sharing Maaori natural resource like land, lakes, rivers, forest, fishing grounds, sky elements and earth elements. It's important to note that statehood didn't apply to the NZ nation then due to its insufficient stake holding in land acquisition; territory being an integral measurement in defining a sovereign state. One cold then argue that NZ stole its statehood status from the sovereign Maaori state purposely reducing Maaori to a status of nationhood. Regardless Iwi still today express statehood exercising a commanding level of autonomy within their own territory. Iman, I'm startled to say the least. Though your views displays colonial leaning tendencies factually acknowledging and celebrating, now acknowledged colonial settler convicts behaviour, you've made an effort nonetheless to research the facts. We Iman carry the legacy of our once decorated now disgraceful serviceman. Our forefathers were terrorist, treaty settlements expose this truth. The chip on the shoulders is the inept reluctance to live a truthful life, opting for denial. Work with the truth Iman the days of colonization driven by hegemonic practices is uncivil in a world where Maaori deserve reinstatement of statehood and nothing less.

5/11/2012 11:00:22 a.m.

IMAN wrote:

Adrian. I'm pleased you show an inkling of intelligence and may be worth educating yet. Yes, the agreement I referred to signed initially by 34 chiefs (only from the Northern area) in 1835 was called the 'Declaration of Independence' that merely represented a few tribes rather than independent states. Even after a further 18 Chiefs had added their signature by 1839, it was still in no way representative of NZ Maori. The replacement 1840 Waitangi Treaty was meant to fix things but has since become even more of a farce as many Maori Chiefs signed only the Maori version with others signing the English version and some choosing not to sign anything at all. The 'Treaty' also never included anything to indicate partnership which has evolved only from a wish to appease on one hand and to dominate on the other. As I said before, maybe things would have been a lot tidier today if the French had got here first. However, the best that could happen today is for those still living in the past simply to get over it, knock that chip off their shoulders and start showing they can actually become adults in today's world instead of trying to lay a guilt trip on people who had nothing to do with what went on generations ago. In other words, grow up and get a meaningful life that will contribute positively to NZ.

5/11/2012 8:38:35 a.m.

Adrian wrote:

Iman please try to make sense, you really are sounding like the simple type. International actors are nation states. Please explain the treaty agreement prior to 1840. Are you referring to the Declaration of Independence 1835 recognizing Iwi and hapuu collective (Maaori) as a nation state, made up of many interdependent states? Or are you just simply fabricating an argument that supports denying that our forefathers stole Aotearoa, a multi-nation state during our short tenure here principally on Maaori land that we now occupy? Or are you referring to a non Westminster arrangement that annuls western law from applying judicial practices as we know it in the modern era? It's imperative the we flesh out the facts in order to remove impurities in our colonial, mono cultural psyche sometimes referred to as redneckism, discriminative and very much racist in nature.