Liar-bours Land Theft plans continue

[Imported from Whale Oil Beef Hooked on Blogger]

The Government has resurrected its plan to create public walkways beside rivers crossing farmland – believed to be one of the main reasons it lost rural seats in the election.

Farmers were overwhelmingly opposed to such moves and presented Parliament a 26,000-signature petition against the proposal.

Sutton in the face of such oppostion in election year back-tracked but was often heard to mutter in the halls of parliament that he would get even and just wait till after the election.

Unfortunately for Jim he lost his seat by quite a wide margin, and then was ousted from his Ministers job. But that hasn’t stopped Liar-bour stooge Jim Anderton carrying on where little Jimmy left off.

He had no preconceived ideas about what form access should take, but people’s rights to rivers and the foreshore should be protected, he said. “Farmers say there’s access now, you only have to ask. Maori say the same about the foreshore. But what if someone says, `No, it’s my land, stay off it’?

“Most farmers are reasonable, but what if someone is unreasonable? Could that catch on and more people get unreasonable?”

Well Jim, What about Farmers rights to own the land that they bought and paid for, currently there are no rights for the public to cross that private land and nor should there be. By “protecting” peoples rights (that they don’t have) he is going to trample all over the rights that other people (the farmers) do.

Of course Liar-bour has won the election so they will now ram this legislation through and use the big lie method of countering opposition.

Mr Anderton said the argument against the walkways ended in a big “stoush”. “All sorts of perceptions that weren’t rooted in reality were out there.”

See the big lie….you watch them use greedy farmers, selfish land-owners, protecting rights, arguments not based in reality etc, etc.

For the Farmers it is much clearer.

Federated Farmers president Charlie Pedersen said the federation had never opposed access to rivers. “What we were opposed to was confiscation of property rights and the threats access created for the commercial farming business and the farming family.”

0%