The Breaking Views blog is administered by the New Zealand Centre for Political Research at NZCPR.com. The views expressed are those of the author alone.
The Breaking Views blog is administered by the New Zealand Centre for Political Research at NZCPR.com. The views expressed are those of the author alone.
3 comments:
Tino Rangatiratanga= full Chieftainship - as in the full Chieftainship of their lands, their settlements, and their property (property rights) for all the people of New Zealand. It is Not self-determination.
This being the one "conversation" we desperately need to have, lest Zimbabwe or South Africa here we come.
So go for it Mr Seymour, and Messrs Luxon and Peters please acknowledge that politicians, the Waitangi Tribunal, and the judiciary have been meddling for far too long and it has got us into the divisive pickle we are now in. Placation will not solve the problem and it's long overdue that the people of New Zealand had the right to finally have THEIR say.
After all, WE ARE ALL PAYING FOR IT and IT'S OUR COUNTRY and we are fed up with politicians saying one thing and doing another, or the WT and Judges falsely interpreting the intent of the written word to promote division and dissent. We need to get "back on track" and create a united nation for the benefit of us all.
An excellent proposal David, and one NZ absolutely needs to have.
If we want race relations to get ‘back on track’ and improve, we need to have that discussion, for we are well past the point of ‘kicking the can down the road’ as some would prefer us to do – invariably for self-centred reasons.
I do, however, take some exception to you referring to Maori as “tangata wenua” (or ‘whenua’ in modern reo) when Maori are patently not indigenous, nor were they the first peoples of this land (as there were others before them), which they themselves used to readily acknowledge before modern revisionism.
As the verbally relayed Te Tiriti document was what the Maori Chiefs of the time agreed to (as recorded by Colenso at the time of its signing and, after all, written language was still comparatively foreign to many of them), I agree with you that that Treaty document is the only version of the Treaty we should be having regard to. And, in that regard, what you're proposing not only aligns and clarifies that Te Tiriti document, but it also is an entirely appropriate way for our nation to go forward ‘as one’.
Our current PM says he stands "to uphold the Treaty" - the question which he now needs to be required to answer is, “which one?” The original Te Tiriti, or some other version (or revision) of it? If his answer is anything but, ‘Te Tiriti’, he needs to explain to all New Zealanders which version he is upholding and why? And if he, and his present Deputy (and their respective Parties), are not prepared to support your (their Coalition Partner’s) proposal beyond the Bill hearing stage, they need to explain why what is being proposed is in anyway at odds with Te Tiriti; the specific reasons why they and their parties (as the elected governing representatives of the New Zealand voting public) are not prepared to support it; and, why the public should be denied the right to a referendum if there is patently significant support for one?
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.