Dear
Christopher and Sylvia,
I have never in my life voted for National. This year I have been considering
doing so to try to stop the current socialist administration from wrecking New
Zealand further. However, I could not bring myself to do so if Mr Luxon is
prepared to speak dishonestly as was the case about his MP's Joseph Mooney's
obviously correct statement about Te Tiriti.
Authoritative translations into English of Te Tiriti including that by Sir Apirana Ngata in 1922 and even the biased (towards Maori preference) translation by Waitangi Tribunal member Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu in 1989 clearly state what Mr Mooney tweeted: that full possession (Sir Apirana), or unqualified exercise of chieftainship (Sir Hugh), or tino rangatiratanga (Te Tiriti) of land, homes and possessions was guaranteed to ALL THE PEOPLE OF NEW ZEALAND. Mr Luxon's claim that Mr Mooney "got it wrong on this occasion" cannot be reconciled with the facts.
Whether Mr Luxon's untruth resulted from his lack of knowledge of the contents of Te Tiriti or from some intention to avoid criticism from the woke, racist NZ minority, it's unacceptable to misrepresent the truth.
If and when National, through its leader's statements and support for the statements of its other spokespersons, keeps to the truth above attempted politicking, makes an unequivocal stand for equality of opportunity (as far as that can be provided through laws), democracy in which every person's vote has the same worth and power as anyone else's regardless of identity, and democracy in which those deciding over state and local body services can be held accountable to the voting public, then voting for National this year will become realistic for me again.
My vote for National would become even more likely if the party announced policies of recognizing that Te Tiriti in no way promised co-governance, and even more so with a policy of relegating Te Tiriti to the dustbin of history. Celebrating Te Tiriti as an important and unique historical event is great.
Even overlooking that Te Tiriti was not a treaty under strict definition, any such treaty is an agreement to something by two or more states. The matters agreed to in a treaty rarely if ever include any reference or intention regarding co-governance of any of the signatories' countries and Te Tiriti is no different in that respect. What's agreed to in a treaty is some matter relevant at the time of signing. Such matters rarely remain relevant for more than a few decades and it's rare for any treaty to remain in force unrevised beyond that.
Te Tiriti was relevant to the process of British and European settlement, the establishment of British law to protect the settlers from each other, the settlers from Maori and Maori from the settlers but at that stage British law wasn't envisaged as being imposed on iwi in their own settlements minding their own business. Indeed, during the two decades after 1840 only 36 criminal charges were brought against Maori individuals in the colonial Supreme Court. As was the case in the lower Courts, nearly all cases against Maori involved alleged crimes against non-Maori settlers while a few cases involving crimes by Maori against Maori resulted only when an iwi brought an accused in requesting British justice (Maclaurin, 2015). In 1844 the Native Exception Ordinance was passed with exceptional provisions in applying British law to Maori including that no British arrest warrant could be served on a Maori accused unless an indictment had been laid by two chiefs of the complainant's iwi and the warrant would then be delivered to the chiefs of the accused's iwi for execution; i.e. European interference was made dependent on Maori request. Even for alleged offences against non-Maori outside a settlement or town, an arrest warrant had to go through the chiefs of the accused's iwi. This law showed the intention at the time of Te Tiriti and explains the contradiction between Maori ceding governance in the First Article and retaining rangatiratanga in the Second. Rapid immigration and movement of Maori into European settlements for employment soon superseded the circumstances to which Te Tiriti applied. After several decades it became no longer realistic to keep to the provisions in Te Tiriti such as allowing sales of land by Maori only to the Crown and allowing Maori to be left to their own devices in their own areas. Te Tiriti had by then already outlived any realistic role and trying to adhere to its provisions would have prevented New Zealand from functioning as an intact, relatively peaceful country able to trade and interact with the rest of the world. Pursuing the mental gymnastics and dishonesty required to use Te Tiriti as a guide for the country in the 21st century is resulting in instability that could lead to a failed state.
Yours sincerely,
A.E. Thompson
REFERENCE: Maclaurin E (2015). The
Application of British Criminal Law Towards Maori During the Early Colonial
Period. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of
Bachelor of Laws (Honours) at the University of Otago.
A.E. Thompson is a working, tax-paying New Zealander who speaks up about threats to our hard-fought rights, liberties, egalitarian values, rational thinking and fair treatment by the state.
7 comments:
Indeed, Luxon would have better spent his time studying Te Tiriti, than Te Reo. Will he acknowledge his mistake and provide the undertakings that you seek - based on his performance to date - unlikely. Hence the imperative to have a guiding force like ACT.
Yeah, like a treaty written on dog skin is NZ's Founding Document!!!
Of course what they don't want you to know and have even hidden it from the public is that our true Founding Document and First Constitution is Queen Victoria's Royal Charter dated 1840. This Royal Charter/Letters Patent separated NZ from New South Wales on the 3rd May 1841 and made NZ into a British colony with a governor and a constitution that set up NZ's political, legal and justice systems under one flag and one law irrespective of race colour or creed.
This document issued by 'Victoria by the Grace of God', was not written on dog skin and supersedes Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Luxon would also do well to look into tbe 'Littlewood' treaty, which is the final English draft from which the Maori version was translated. It would be incomprehensible for the treaty to have been drafted by Hobson in Maori and then translated into English. Luxon should read the work of Martin Doutre, who has done a detailed analysis of the Littlewood version and has established that it was written by Busby on 4 Feb before being translated by the Williams on the 5th. The Littlewood treaty and the Maori version match.
A copy of the Littlewood treaty is held in Archives NZ but is displayed in such a way that only the face is visible - the obverse, with the date is hidden.
The Treaty of Waitangi also protected Maori from marauding Maori. Maori gave rights to the British Monarch. Everyone became equal under British law. Now the good Maori had a law in which to deal with bad Maori. It took a while cannibalism was pretty much gone by 1860.
Wow! Awesome! Love what you know, and what you state!
"TIRITI" is pigeon english for "TREATY".As Maori had no written language, use of the word 'TIRITI' in printed English is laughable.
I found this article to be quite an interesting read, shedding light on the complexities surrounding the Te Tiriti and its modern implications. The author's perspective on reevaluating its role in contemporary New Zealand is thought-provoking.
check cashing apps
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.