Claiming rights to flora and fauna

[666Ozzfan]

Ok, here we go.

When the British landed in New Zealand, a treaty was formed and signed between the U.K. and many Maori tribes, and finalised in Waitangi, NZ, on the 6th of February, 1840

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi

This is the actual treaty transcript http://www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz/treaty/, although there are some discrepancy's between the two translations.

Basically, the treaty was the first one signed between the U.K. and an indigenous people. It was to secure the basic rights of those already living here, so they would be treated fairly and as equals.

Now, further down, the treaty was to ensure that what the Maori owned, would remain theirs, unless sold. (Very cheaply in those days - they sold land for muskets, alcohol, and clothing... basically the English kinda took advantage of the Maori. They had no concept of ownership of land.)

Jump 167 years and now, they are wanting to claim ownership rights to all native flora and fauna.

Previously, some Maori tribes have attempted to claim ownership rights for airspace, lake beds and the foreshore, and some more ridiculous things.

But, what comments do you people have on this. Is it possible for Maori people to own all native flora and fauna here. To me it seems kinda ridiculous to own every kauri, kiwi, and such - even though the entire country was not inhabited by Maori tribes. Me, I'm against it. I'll also let you know of developments from the Waitangi tribunal.

[griftadan]

how can you own flora or fauna that propbably didn't even exist at the time of transfer? how does one exactly own air in atmosphere?

basically, tell those people to shut the **** up.

[666Ozzfan]

how can you own flora or fauna that propbably didn't even exist at the time of transfer? how does one exactly own air in atmosphere?

Yeah, they failed at the airspace one, but what do you mean by "probably didn't exist at the time of transfer"

They want ownership of the native flora and fauna. I.e, the plants that were here before the British came along.

[griftadan]

but plants and animals are constantly rejuvinating itself, the only thing that is constant is the soil, which was apparently purchased.

i view flora and fauna as a feature of the land, i suppose.

[666Ozzfan]

Oh, I see.

Although some, like the rimu, have incredibly long lives (rimu has 800-900 year lifespan)

I agree with you, that whatever lives on the land is a feature of it.

I seriously don't know if they will end up winning the ownership rights. This IMO is a ridiculous claim. I just want to hear some reasonable arguments for it.

[griftadan]

indigenous peoples always get screwed over even when they're in the right, i don't see how they could posisble win this.

[Smokey D]

They've already made very significant gains regarding the Treaty, winning the right to fishery quotas, receiving large sums as monetary compensation and even had some land returned.

The problem with the Treaty is that the English version and the Maori version are not merely slightly different -- they promise radically opposing things. For example, the chiefs of the North Island Confederation promised in the Maori version to 'give up entirely to the Queen of England forever all governorship of their lands'. The English version says that they 'that the Confederation ceded to her Majesty absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty'. While they may not actually seem different, the word used in Maori text -- kawanatanga -- refered specifically to the right to govern, while sovereignty and ownership was actually retained by the chiefs. Kawanatanga had been used to describe the authority of Pontius Pilate in the Maori translation of the Bible.

To confuse things even further, the chiefs were promised in the second article of the Maori that they would keep 'full chieftainship of their lands. The English version merely said they would keep possession of their 'Lands and Estates Forests and Fisheries'. The word used in the Maori version -- te tino rangitiratanga -- had been used previously in the Maori translation of the Bible to refer to the sovereign authority of God. In short, the Maori version not only promised the chiefs they would only be ceding the right to govern their lands but also that they would retain their ultimate authority.

The Crown had a pretty horrible history of adhering to the Treaty in the first year of its existence -- it was declared 'a simple nulity' by NZ's judiciary and the Crown went on to confiscate lands of not only those who rebelled against it in the New Zealand Land Wars but even those who had fought for it.

However, trying to reconcile this issue in the present day illustrates the fundemental problems between the two systems. Maoridom had a completely different understanding to land ownership to Europeans. They believed you could transfer its use, but never its ownership. The British system, however, depends on the assumption that all title ultimately derives from the Crown. However, the Maori world view also depends on an assumption of a tribal, low population density civilisation with little development and virtually no democracy. Obviously we can't simply return it to a system of tikanga. I think what the past few governments have done has been appropriate. That is, they have sought to compensate Maori for the more henious of crimes committed against them, but have also statutorially incorporated the principles of the Treaty into new legislation.

[coheneran]

how can you own flora or fauna that propbably didn't even exist at the time of transfer? how does one exactly own air in atmosphere?

I don't know, but you'd better ask the corporations buying air pollution rights that. Or the ones taxing rain water. Or every person in the world that's charging people to stand on the ground that she supposedly owns.

Nobody has a right to buy or sell or rent any part of nature, because nobody has a right to give that nature away in the first place, hence all ownership is wrong.

[Smokey D]

That's silly. I should be able to claim exclusive right to the things I produce.

[coheneran]

That's silly. I should be able to claim exclusive right to the things I produce.

You can claim rights to the things you use. You can't just own something because you got there with your flag first, or because you have more money than someone who can actually make good use of it.

[Smokey D]

My money is the value of my labour. I can use it to purchase whatever I want, provided I have enough.

Ownership by discovery is a legal construct, but it's a pretty useful one.

[coheneran]

It's crap. It's used to steal land from those who actually need and use it, it's not useful to anyone because ownership by need/use is far fairer and beneficial than ownership by power.

[Smokey D]

If I find a group of apple trees that can support my family alone, and someone with five other orchards already much closer to him decides to pick mine clear, I should have recourse.

[coheneran]

If I find a group of apple trees that can support my family alone, and someone with five other orchards already much closer to him decides to pick mine clear, I should have recourse.

Yup, pick the apples from one of the other five orchards, and then go "have words" with the dude who's picked your orchard bare without any regard to you or your family. I'm sure you'll find him agreeable.

[Smokey D]

What if he's 3 days walk away? What if he picked my apples merely to spite me and not to subsist?

[coheneran]

You're writing under the assumption that humans are purely malicious, spiteful and only out to get each other without thinking of the benefit to themselves.

Still, in the highly unlikely situation that this will happen, I would make the journey to talk to him. If he could be bothered to travel three days just to spite me, I can be bothered to walk three days to sort things out with him.

[Smokey D]

You're writing under the assumption that humans are purely malicious, spiteful and only out to get each other without thinking of the benefit to themselves.

No I'm not. I'm writing under the assumption there's always going to be one bad apple, so to speak, out there.


Still, in the highly unlikely situation that this will happen, I would make the journey to talk to him. If he could be bothered to travel three days just to spite me, I can be bothered to walk three days to sort things out with him.

You can only sort things out if he's willing to listen. What if he's not, and you've wasted three days work getting there to talk to him? What if, without your work and your apple trees, your family will starve?

[coheneran]

No I'm not. I'm writing under the assumption there's always going to be one bad apple, so to speak, out there.

People don't have the capacity to be bad, but only to do bad things.

You can only sort things out if he's willing to listen. What if he's not, and you've wasted three days work getting there to talk to him? What if, without your work and your apple trees, your family will starve?

I wouldn't have gone if I thought he wasn't willing to talk. People are always willing to talk, unless you've wronged them in some terrible and, to them, unforgivable way.

If I lived my life by "what ifs" I would get nothing done.

[Smokey D]

People don't have the capacity to be bad, but only to do bad things.

If I could be bothered going into the a metaphysical debate on the origin of evil, I would say that doing bad and being bad are essentially the same thing. However, that's another debate altogether. We've already hijacked this thread once. We probably shouldn't do it again.

I wouldn't have gone if I thought he wasn't willing to talk. People are always willing to talk, unless you've wronged them in some terrible and, to them, unforgivable way.


Or he might just not like how you stole the love of his life 23 years ago.


If I lived my life by "what ifs" I would get nothing done.

This is a hypothetical trying to prove that property is a useful construct. What ifs are pretty rare, but if something can happen there should be a way to deal with it.

[coheneran]

This is a hypothetical trying to prove that property is a useful construct. What ifs are pretty rare, but if something can happen there should be a way to deal with it.

No method/system of living is foolproof. We could do the same "what ifs" testing on private ownership, and it'd end up the same. Testing a theory by looking at its weakest points is as important as testing it by looking at its strongest points.

[Smokey D]

Yup. That's what I'm doing. I don't think we can rely on people being nice to one another to keep the peace.

[griftadan]

I don't know, but you'd better ask the corporations buying air pollution rights that. Or the ones taxing rain water. Or every person in the world that's charging people to stand on the ground that she supposedly owns.

Nobody has a right to buy or sell or rent any part of nature, because nobody has a right to give that nature away in the first place, hence all ownership is wrong.

i think the difference between owning land and owning parts of the water system and the atmospere i spretty obvious.

[coheneran]

Not really. The difference between using land and owning land is pretty clear though, in day to day terms.

[thedeadwalk!]

how can you own flora or fauna that propbably didn't even exist at the time of transfer? how does one exactly own air in atmosphere?
Isn't everything in this world owned? Oceans around countries belong to them. Mineral mines are purchased. Highways are adopted. Ideas are patented. Even the White House has it's own personal piece of airspace no one's allowed in.

And doesn't the concept of flora and fauna refer to indigenous plants and animals anyway?

[MattSharpIsCool]

Are they trying to claim the rights to everyone's shoes? Because I hear they have a nasty habit of stealing people's shoes off their doorsteps.