Is today April 1st?

[Bungle_Bear]

Saw this article and thought it must be a joke.

Iwi claiming rights to wind - Yahoo! New Zealand News

The obvious next claim would be a general air tax for people daring to breathe .

 

[Born to Watch]

The importance of the issue is usurped by the fact, seemingly, that someone gave them rights to the rain?
How can somebody own the rain.

Who votes for these people?

 

[mathclub]

Rights to the water actually, not to the rain.

If they have rights to the water then surely they have rights to the wind also? If its a resource that used to make money, then surely they are the same?

And they have rights to the water cause of the treaty of waitangi. So I assume this guy is right and they also have rights to the wind.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Actually, Treaty claims are supposed to be for breached property rights, not just a method to make financial gains. Since there was no property right to the wind in 1840, and there isn't one now either, that right has not been, and cannot be, breached. So the claim would have no merit.

 

[mathclub]

Actually, Treaty claims are supposed to be for breached property rights, not just a method to make financial gains. Since there was no property right to the wind in 1840, and there isn't one now either, that right has not been, and cannot be, breached. So the claim would have no merit.

actually, the treaty is far far more complicated than that, and I doubt you know enough about it to decide if the claim would have no merit. For a start the term 'propery rights' is a european concept that would have not meant the same thing to pre-european maori. Furthermore Maori culture at the time was an oral culture, so for them the emphasis would have been on what the english said, rather than what the document said. When you also factor in that the Maori and English version of the treaty have different meanings, I'd be pretty surprised if it was as simple as you try and make it.

i also don't see 'breached propery rights' anywhere in the court of appeals treaty principals:

The acquisition of sovereignty in exchange for the protection of rangatiratanga.
The Treaty established a partnership, and imposes on the partners the duty to act reasonably and in good faith.
The freedom of the Crown to govern.
The Crown’s duty of active protection.
The duty of the Crown to remedy past breaches.
Māori to retain rangatiratanga over their resources and taonga and to have all the privileges of citizenship.
Duty to consult.

What I do see is the ability of this tribe to claim that the wind is a resource in this case, a resource that is being used to generate financial gain, and claim a portion of that financial gain under the 2nd to last principal.

I'm not saying they should necessarily win, but I'm saying that it seems reasonable that they are making the claim, not 'an april fools joke' as your original post implied. The treaty gives them the right to that resource, regardless of when the technology to harvest it came about.

it's also a ridiculously long way from a tax on people trying to breathe the air, lol.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

i also don't see 'breached propery rights' anywhere in the court of appeals treaty principals:

Um, why did you include this then?

The duty of the Crown to remedy past breaches.

There is also the problem that the wind would need to be have been taonga when the Treaty was written. I doubt we have any way of determining whether or not it was.

it's also a ridiculously long way from a tax on people trying to breathe the air, lol.

Really? I struggle to see how you could claim the wind as a resource without claiming the air as a resource. Wind is, after all, nothing more than air (in motion). And if you own the air what's to stop you charging people to breathe it?

 

[mathclub]

Um, why did you include this then?

There is also the problem that the wind would need to be have been taonga when the Treaty was written. I doubt we have any way of determining whether or not it was.


Really? I struggle to see how you could claim the wind as a resource without claiming the air as a resource. Wind is, after all, nothing more than air (in motion). And if you own the air what's to stop you charging people to breathe it?

it refers to breaches of the treaty. it says nothing about property rights. and certainly your point that the treaty is about breaches of property rights and that's it is shown as false.

It would need to be shown as either a taonga or a resource. It could certainly be shown to be both. Maori oral tradition refers to Tawhiri being the god of winds and storm, and certainly not a big step from their to claim wind as a taonga to the people, as are many other parts of nature. And if Companies are using wind to power generators then it is definitely a resource.

Like I said, I'm not saying they should win, and I'm not a treaty expert by any means, but at the very least you have to admit they have a case that deserves to be presented before the tribunal. and it's not even close to an april fools joke.

you're just being ridiculouse claiming anyone is going to try and charge people to breathe air, lol. as if that's happening any time soon. it's not saying that Maori 'own' the air. it's saying that if the wind is used as a resource to make money (as it is) then Maori are due some of that money.

 

[mathclub]

just to make it clear. your position was that it was ridiculous of them to even suggest they have a right to claim on this. I'm disagreeing wholeheartedly and saying they do have the right to claim.

whether they win the claim or not is another matter, but when you look at the treaty it's not ridiculous at all to make a claim.

 

[Blessedj01]

your position was that it was ridiculous of them to even suggest they have a right to claim on this. I'm disagreeing wholeheartedly and saying they do have the right to claim.

I don't think the treaty gives them the right to claim the water and the wind. Rights to land/water spaces within that land are a different thing.

 

[Born to Watch]

Water comes from rain, you know. Might as well claim that as well, just saying

 

[Blessedj01]

They will, they will.

 

[mathclub]

I don't think the treaty gives them the right to claim the water and the wind. Rights to land/water spaces within that land are a different thing.

i don't think anyone has ever tried to claim they own the wind. they are claiming they have a right to a portion of financial profits made off a natural resource, and to have a say in how that resource is used, be it water or wind.

as you say, very different thing

 

[mathclub]

Water comes from rain, you know. Might as well claim that as well, just saying

all rain is water, but not all water is rain.

just saying

 

[Bungle_Bear]

i don't think anyone has ever tried to claim they own the wind. they are claiming they have a right to a portion of financial profits made off a natural resource, and to have a say in how that resource is used, be it water or wind.

as you say, very different thing

But to be entitled to a portion of the financial profits they have to have a claim on the wind. The Treaty does not say "resources", it mentions some specific physical things (land, villages, forests and fisheries) and "taonga". So to claim a share of profit from the wind they would first have to demonstrate that the wind was taonga.

Your claim that having a god for something makes that thing taonga is dubious. I doubt that war (Tumatauenga), death (Hine-nui-te-po) or evil (Whiro) were taonga.

You then run into the problem of kawanatanga and rangatiratanga. Call them governorship, chieftainship, sovereignty or anything you like - the terms imply ownership or stewardship/guardianship. Nobody claims to own or steward the wind.

And lastly, the claim goes against the second principle you listed "The Treaty established a partnership, and imposes on the partners the duty to act reasonably and in good faith." There is nothing good faith about grabbing for money just because it seems like a good idea .

 

[mathclub]

But to be entitled to a portion of the financial profits they have to have a claim on the wind. The Treaty does not say "resources", it mentions some specific physical things (land, villages, forests and fisheries) and "taonga". So to claim a share of profit from the wind they would first have to demonstrate that the wind was taonga.

Your claim that having a god for something makes that thing taonga is dubious. I doubt that war (Tumatauenga), death (Hine-nui-te-po) or evil (Whiro) were taonga.

You then run into the problem of kawanatanga and rangatiratanga. Call them governorship, chieftainship, sovereignty or anything you like - the terms imply ownership or stewardship/guardianship. Nobody claims to own or steward the wind.

And lastly, the claim goes against the second principle you listed "The Treaty established a partnership, and imposes on the partners the duty to act reasonably and in good faith." There is nothing good faith about grabbing for money just because it seems like a good idea .

sorry, i forgot about this thread, but to be honest I think we are done.

Your initial post was about how it's ridiculous and it's a joke to even suggest that they have a claim by them.

My point was that you were totally wrong, they absolutely have the right to make this claim and they may even win. I'm not saying they will win, but on the surface they seem to have enough of a case to justify at least getting a hearing.

I don't agree with some of what you wrote above, but there's not much point us getting into this level of detail when that's really the job of the courts. We are just going to go round and round and circles and disagree, and the fact that we are even getting to this level just proves that my initial point was correct ....

They definitely have the right to make a claim based on this, and it's not 'an april fools joke'. In fact they may even win.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

My point was that you were totally [bold is my edit] wrong, they absolutely have the right to make this claim

Well that's quite an arrogant claim in the face of the evidence . I took the time to show how they quite possibly do not have such a right, pointed out the errors in your argument and your rebuttal is "you were totally wrong"? You've been arguing with BtW too much .

and the fact that we are even getting to this level just proves that my initial point was correct ....

It only proves that you disagree with what I'm saying. It does not give any validity to your argument. Were you tired when you wrote that? it's unlike you to be so sloppy.

 

[mathclub]

Well that's quite an arrogant claim in the face of the evidence . I took the time to show how they quite possibly do not have such a right, pointed out the errors in your argument and your rebuttal is "you were totally wrong"? You've been arguing with BtW too much .


It only proves that you disagree with what I'm saying. It does not give any validity to your argument. Were you tired when you wrote that? it's unlike you to be so sloppy.

no i think you've missed my point. the fact that we are able to have such a back and forth proves in my mind that it is not an open and shut case. and that the best option is for the tribunal, who actually know the treaty better than both of us, to decide the case. which is counter to what your opening post implied.

For example, I would talk about how death and evil are not physical things, such as the forests, oceans and wind. and the fact that if a culture worships a god of a particular natural phenomenon, that obviously it has some level of sacredness (is that a word, lol) and is something that is important to them. and this is the sort of thing the treaty covers.

and i'm sure you would have another point of view, and we would continue going back and forth.

but at the end of the day i wasn't really out to prove that they should get paid. I was just out to prove that there was enough substance behind the case to have it heard, and not call it a joke - and I feel like i've proved it, even if you disagree. And I also feel like they have a good chance to win the hearing, but only time will tell.

And i wish BTW would read this and learn how two adults can discuss an issue they disagree on without result to personal attacks or constantly changing the subject because they don't have anything behind their point of view.