Treaty Backgrounder

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Article published a couple of days ago, which offers a more academic
analysis of the Treaty of Waitangi
<https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/waitangi-day-2024-five-myths-and-misconceptions-that-confuse-the-treaty-of-waitangi-debate/NS5RHTNGBVC6RFOW23B3A5MSWI/>.

Note the concept of “originalism” (which also plagues interpretations
of their Constitution in the USA). The Brits “had no intention to
govern Māori or usurp Māori sovereignty”, and yet “relationships
evolve over time”. Particularly this part:

Finally, there is the argument that the Treaty supports the
democratic process. In fact, the Treaty ushered in a
non-representative regime in the colony. It was the 1852 New
Zealand Constitution Act that gave the country a democratic
government – a statute that incidentally made no reference to the
Treaty’s provisions.

In other words, NZ is a democracy _in spite_ of the Treaty, not
because of it.

[Rich80105]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 22:39:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<l...@nz.invalid> wrote:

>Article published a couple of days ago, which offers a more academic
>analysis of the Treaty of Waitangi
><https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/waitangi-day-2024-five-myths-and-misconceptions-that-confuse-the-treaty-of-waitangi-debate/NS5RHTNGBVC6RFOW23B3A5MSWI/>.
>
>Note the concept of “originalism” (which also plagues interpretations
>of their Constitution in the USA). The Brits “had no intention to

>govern M?ori or usurp M?ori sovereignty”, and yet “relationships

>evolve over time”. Particularly this part:
>
> Finally, there is the argument that the Treaty supports the
> democratic process. In fact, the Treaty ushered in a
> non-representative regime in the colony. It was the 1852 New
> Zealand Constitution Act that gave the country a democratic
> government – a statute that incidentally made no reference to the
> Treaty’s provisions.
>
>In other words, NZ is a democracy _in spite_ of the Treaty, not
>because of it.

The early voting system in New Zealand was not the level of democracy
we now have - it was based on property ownership, but as most Maori
owned land collectively, Section 71 of the New Zealand Constitution
Act 1852 allowed for the provision of self-governing Maori districts –
as envisaged in the 1846 constitution. Maori saw this as
implementation of the tino rangatiratanga (sovereignty) guaranteed to
them under the Treaty of Waitangi. The 1860s saw war which influenced
debate about Maori representation - the 4 Maori seats in parliament
were introduced in 1867

[Tony]

You pathetic liar, sovereignty was not guaranteed to Maori in the Treaty -
sovereignty was ceded to the crown. It is actually time you read the document.
There are three articles and one of them cedes sovereignty to the crown for
all New Zealanders.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 17:02:48 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

> The 1860s saw war which influenced
> debate about Maori representation - the 4 Maori seats in parliament
> were introduced in 1867

They were introduced to limit Māori representation, not enhance it.

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 05:45:59 GMT, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:

No, governance was ceded to the Crown, but not sovereignty.

Search for: "Which New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 allowed for the
establishment of Maori districts within which Maori law could operate"

> It is actually time you read the document.
>There are three articles and one of them cedes sovereignty to the crown for
>all New Zealanders.

No it does not - but by all means give the text in Ti Tiriti that you
are relying on . . .

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 06:21:36 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<l...@nz.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 17:02:48 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
>
>> The 1860s saw war which influenced
>> debate about Maori representation - the 4 Maori seats in parliament
>> were introduced in 1867
>

>They were introduced to limit M?ori representation, not enhance it.

That depends on your viewpoint - weren't there none previously?

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

They were apparently winning representation in the regular seats, and this
scared the British.

[Tony]

Read the Treaty - Sir Apirana Ngata disagrees with you and compared to him you
have zero credibility. You are lying.

>
>Search for: "Which New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 allowed for the
>establishment of Maori districts within which Maori law could operate"

I prefer Sir Apirany to your dysfunctional lies.

>> It is actually time you read the document.
>>There are three articles and one of them cedes sovereignty to the crown for
>>all New Zealanders.
>No it does not - but by all means give the text in Ti Tiriti that you
>are relying on . . .

See above - you are lying.

[Willy Nilly]

On Tue, 06 Feb 2024, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>No, governance was ceded to the Crown, but not sovereignty.

Big Fail, Rich. As Tony mentioned, Sir Apirana Ngata (he on the $50
bill) gave a thorough translation and commentary on the ToW in 1922.
The First Article of the ToW covers your statement; it says:

"The Chiefs ... hereby cede absolutely to the Queen of England for
ever the Government of all of their lands."

Two aspects of this sentence are clear that this means Sovereignty:

(1) The Queen/King is a Sovereign person, not a governing person.
Apirana Ngata writes: "The English word for such a personage as a King
or a Queen is "Sovereign". This is the same as the Maori words 'Ariki
Tapairu' and is referred to as the absolute authority."

(2) What is ceded is ceded "for ever". Only Sovereignty is "for
ever", not government. Apirana Ngata writes: "The main purport was
the transferring of the authority of the Maori chiefs for making laws
for their respective tribes and sub-tribes under the Treaty of
Waitangi to the Queen of England for ever."

"absolutely ... for ever" means sovereignty. And for those among us
who want to disassociate from the British Crown, in so doing you also
disestablish the Treaty of Waitangi which is a covenent between Maori
and the English Crown, and not some random Pakeha.

[Ras Mikaere]

"Constitution" --- ?

WHAT A FUCKING JOKE ---
NEW ZEALANDERS HAVE NO BILL OF RIGHTS.
JUST THE SAME CRAP BRITISH PIECE OF SHIT SITUATION,
WHERE THEY ENTER YOUR HOME WITH NO WARRANT,
AND ARE LISTENING (spying) ON EVERY M.P.