Jump to content


Photo

Orakei Moorings


  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#121 Knot Me... maybe

Knot Me... maybe

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 08:38 AM

Kevin, someone who gives or takes from a section of society based purely on that sections race is a racist.

 

You need to read your post closer dude as you've just done exactly that. You are no better than Winston.


  • 0

#122 Kevin McCready

Kevin McCready

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 11:16 AM

I disagree KMB. It's simply following the law. Treaty of Waitangi is law in NZ, like it or not. I happen to like it.


  • 0

#123 Knot Me... maybe

Knot Me... maybe

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 11:36 AM

You speak as if you'd like to be part of the solution but in reality you are part of the problem.

 

A law that is puts one section of society above all others purely due to race is a racist law and that can only actively promote racism.

The people who enact laws like that can only be described as racists.

The peoples who likes laws like that can only be described as racists.

 

As I've said for many a year, NZ is inherently a racist country full of well meaning but self deluding people, and a few total arseholes, who are actively encouraging separatism and racism. Until that stops we will never be one nation of equals.

 


  • 0

#124 DrWatson

DrWatson

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,985 posts
  • LocationLand locked

Posted 22 July 2017 - 02:39 AM

I think we need to define a little more carefully here who the benefactors of this are, and the difference between a tribe and a race. 

 

As I understand it, this move does not take from the public and give to a race in particular. It removes what had become a customary and traditional right-of-use of a particular resource from the general public, and assigns a more exclusive governance of that resource to a particular group, who in this case are not defined by their race, but by their tribe. It's a tribal (family, hapu) thing.

 

The area was traditionally under the control of a tribe or family, and not a race or people as a whole - you might like to think of this as "the family estate". The use of the resource was then, through one manner or another, the legality or moral validity of which I shall not debate in this post, assumed to be a public asset and to no longer belong or be governed by the original stakeholder. Now, through a process designed to try to correct errors of the past, the original stakeholder is being reestablished as the primary player in the governance of that resource.

 

However, in the intervening years, the general public, through no malicious intent and irrespective of race, tribal affiliation or family blood lines, have established an additional and valid "customary use" of the area - this makes the entire process extremely difficult to resolve - again this is another issue, and won't be further discussed here.

 

If the claim was on behalf of "All Maori"  as a race, and as I understand it, it is not, then the process and the solution could be described as racist. I believe that "tribalist" might be a better descriptor to use in this discussion.

 

One more thing I will add is more of a philosophical question; We judge the actions and events of the past from our own perspective, that being an advantageous viewpoint of the increased liberty and improvements in human rights that have occurred in the intervening years. Is it right to judge the actions of our forefathers based on the standards of today? 


  • 3

"Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer"

 


#125 erice

erice

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,876 posts

Posted 22 July 2017 - 07:51 AM

the past is a foreign country

 

they do things differently there

 

L.P. Hartley


  • 0

if posts offend .. or even too hard

 

please "ignore" :thumbup:

 

http://crew.org.nz/f...ea=ignoredusers


#126 GregW

GregW

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 22 July 2017 - 08:47 AM

Based on past experience Kevin's definition of a racist (or misogynist, compulsory safety/PFD-denier etc)  is somebody who doesn't share his view.

 

Moving back to the question of consultation about this proposal (to clear Okahu Bay of moored boats by making mooring there a prohibited activity) under the PAUP. I cant find any information that this actually happened. In fact the zoning plan in the PAUP shows Okahu Bay as a mooring area.

Attached File  PAUP Okahu.jpg   360.38KB   0 downloads

 

Move on to the UP op in part version (November 2016) and Okahu is no longer designated a mooring area. My understanding is that this is the first time anyone was made aware of this. 

Attached File  Unitary Plan op in part.jpg   404.82KB   0 downloads

 

So it appears that this was included by the hearings panel without any consultation with public or those directly affected, the mooring owners. If anyone knows otherwise than please point me towards that information. I'm sure if this had been proposed as part of the original PAUP it would have been acted on. 

 

Hobson Bay would make a great mooring area to relocate boats to, but it needs some facilities provided - easy to do off the city side of the Marina. Some improvement to the breakwater wouldn't go amiss either, but I wouldn't hold my breath.


  • 0

#127 native

native

    useless around the house

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,457 posts
  • LocationThe Shore

Posted 22 July 2017 - 08:56 AM

If they get rid of the fence and the moored boats then Okahu would make a lovely day anchorage for a picnic. Its a very nice sheltered spot (in the right conditions) and we have very few in AK city that offer the same.

 

I cant see that moving the moorings is such a big deal, it s shitty spot in a NE anyway as is most of that area.


  • 1

#128 ScottiE

ScottiE

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,026 posts
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 22 July 2017 - 08:58 AM

Greg - I have a vague recollection of a consultation paper floating about around August '16 but can't recall where. It may have been on this site actually . . .
  • 0
After a decade or so of Euphoria . . . it's time to go Ballistic!
Anthony

#129 harrytom

harrytom

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 22 July 2017 - 10:41 AM

Does not Hobson bay have an insurance problem for mooring holders?ie being mainly papa rock with little mud the moorings tend to slide rather than dig in?


  • 0
The boss said "see you in the morning"didnt know he liked sailing

#130 twisty

twisty

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts

Posted 22 July 2017 - 12:48 PM

Well said Dr. Let's also not forget that the moorings may be going but the public aren't being excluded in any way from using Okahu bay. I agree that it is a shitty place to put a boat anyway. We do have a growing problem with where to park boats that is affordable. I think it will get way worse before it gets better


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users