A couple of useful links from a Google search for "did maori cedeAs do you, there is no weight of academic acceptance - you have not shown there to be such.
sovereignty in the treaty of waitangi"
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2024/08/23/did-maori-cede-sovereignty/
https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/05-02-2024/according-to-apirana-ngata-maori-ceded-sovereignty-by-signing-te-tiriti-is-he-right
https://thespinoff.co.nz/books/30-01-2024/a-te-tiriti-reading-and-watching-and-listening-guide
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/526393/iwi-write-to-pm-demanding-recognition-maori-did-not-cede-sovereignty
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/en/about/the-treaty/about-the-treaty
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
Now there are some who treat truth as malleable in their political
interests - see for example: >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXoonITkTn4&ab_channel=KiwiPulse
and
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/did_msori_cede_sovereignty
So the weight of academic accepted knowledge, including the Waitangi >Tribunal, is that the version of the Treaty that should be followed
is that signed by Maori; but we do have some who for political
purposes ignore academic advice and claim that we should follow a
different interpretation.
If you wish to follow the Hobson's PledgeAs you do.
idiots, or Christopher Luxon, or Winston Peters, then you can mislead >yourself if you wish.
The majority of Treaty Claims are not based on this difference inYou are sarcastic as ever, but your nastiness will one day be your downfall. You are deluded, wrong and offensive.
knowledge - the ignorance does not affect most claims that are based
on theft of lands, but in ignoring the academic research of the last
40 years the government is playing with fire - and deliberately
misleading the vulnerable like Tony . . .
A couple of useful links from a Google search for "did maori cede
sovereignty in the treaty of waitangi"
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2024/08/23/did-maori-cede-sovereignty/
https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/05-02-2024/according-to-apirana-ngata-maori-ceded-sovereignty-by-signing-te-tiriti-is-he-right
https://thespinoff.co.nz/books/30-01-2024/a-te-tiriti-reading-and-watching-and-listening-guide
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/526393/iwi-write-to-pm-demanding-recognition-maori-did-not-cede-sovereignty
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/en/about/the-treaty/about-the-treaty
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
Now there are some who treat truth as malleable in their political
interests - see for example: >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXoonITkTn4&ab_channel=KiwiPulse
and
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/did_msori_cede_sovereignty
So the weight of academic accepted knowledge, including the Waitangi >Tribunal, is that the version of the Treaty that should be followed
is that signed by Maori; but we do have some who for political
purposes ignore academic advice and claim that we should follow a
different interpretation. If you wish to follow the Hobson's Pledge
idiots, or Christopher Luxon, or Winston Peters, then you can mislead >yourself if you wish.
The majority of Treaty Claims are not based on this difference in
knowledge - the ignorance does not affect most claims that are based
on theft of lands, but in ignoring the academic research of the last
40 years the government is playing with fire - and deliberately
misleading the vulnerable like Tony . . .
On Sat, 03 May 2025 07:29:40 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 19:04:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:Certainly that may have been one aim of the new Governor from
A couple of useful links from a Google search for "did maori cede >>>sovereignty in the treaty of waitangi"
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2024/08/23/did-maori-cede-sovereignty/
https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/05-02-2024/according-to-apirana-ngata-maori-ceded-sovereignty-by-signing-te-tiriti-is-he-right
https://thespinoff.co.nz/books/30-01-2024/a-te-tiriti-reading-and-watching-and-listening-guide
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/526393/iwi-write-to-pm-demanding-recognition-maori-did-not-cede-sovereignty
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/en/about/the-treaty/about-the-treaty >>> >>>https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
Now there are some who treat truth as malleable in their political >>>interests - see for example: >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXoonITkTn4&ab_channel=KiwiPulse
and
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/did_msori_cede_sovereignty
So the weight of academic accepted knowledge, including the Waitangi >>>Tribunal, is that the version of the Treaty that should be followed
is that signed by Maori; but we do have some who for political
purposes ignore academic advice and claim that we should follow a >>>different interpretation. If you wish to follow the Hobson's Pledge >>>idiots, or Christopher Luxon, or Winston Peters, then you can mislead >>>yourself if you wish.
The majority of Treaty Claims are not based on this difference in >>>knowledge - the ignorance does not affect most claims that are based
on theft of lands, but in ignoring the academic research of the last
40 years the government is playing with fire - and deliberately >>>misleading the vulnerable like Tony . . .
This whole thing is ridiculous. What "sovereignty" did Maori even have
in pre-European New Zealand?
There was no country, no government and no universally recognized
property rights. The only law was the law of the jungle, so how can
any such sovereignty even be defined?
As for the treaty, it is an ill drafted and ambiguous document, which
was made even more obscure by having three different versions.
However the intent was clear. It was to give all all Maori the same
rights and protections that were afforded to British citizens.
In other words, the treaty was contrived to establish equality under
the law.
Australia, but I suspect more important was ending the myriad of small
wars that were making life very difficult for both Maori and Pakeha, >including the loss of lives on all sides.
There were a number of drafts of the Treaty - different versions being
sent to London and Sydney, but the version signed at Waitangi being
written following extensive discussion with the chiefs who had
traveled to that centre; those earlier versions may speak of intent on
the British side, but they are not what was signed by the Governor
that day. That the treaty signed that day was different is supported
by a copy in English being made that night that was given to the
Consul for the United States, who was present - he sent that copy to >Washington; it would be interesting to see what that version said. But
New Zealand and international law says that the version that was
signed is the version that became effective then and is still the
version that should be followed.
It is ironic that an organisation that seeks to deny or change the >interpretation of the Treaty that was signed calls itself "Hobson's
Choice" - Governor Hobson had little choice when he signed the Treaty;
Don Brash and his cronies want to deny the reality that he did sign,
and that the Treaty did grant Maori "Tino Rangitiratanga" which may
not be quite sovereignty as we now know it, but is not trivial either.
See for example: >https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/06-02-2018/the-treaty-of-waitangi-granted-us-tino-rangatiratanga-but-what-is-itWaffle, no substancve and not relevant.
https://maoridictionary.co.nz/word/8124 >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tino_rangatiratanga
and many others.
It has served it's purpose, it is done.
That sounds like Chamberlain, having 'appeased" Hitler by ceding half
another country to him, declaring "Peace in our Time!" on returning to >England. It sounds like Trump, hinting that Russia should keep all of
the Ukraine that they currently occupy by the reality of war, and that >Ukraine should pay the USA 4 times the value of what the USA had spent >supporting Ukraine through transferring ownership of various minerals.
Can our Government declare that the Treaty of Waitangi is now null and
void without agreement from Maori, and retain any reputation for
honesty and New Zealand for being a reliable partner in any agreement?
Such a declaration would be an admission of fundamental unreliability
and lack of honesty or integrity -
On Fri, 02 May 2025 19:04:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>Certainly that may have been one aim of the new Governor from
wrote:
A couple of useful links from a Google search for "did maori cede >>sovereignty in the treaty of waitangi"
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2024/08/23/did-maori-cede-sovereignty/
https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/05-02-2024/according-to-apirana-ngata-maori-ceded-sovereignty-by-signing-te-tiriti-is-he-right
https://thespinoff.co.nz/books/30-01-2024/a-te-tiriti-reading-and-watching-and-listening-guide
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/526393/iwi-write-to-pm-demanding-recognition-maori-did-not-cede-sovereignty
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/en/about/the-treaty/about-the-treaty
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
Now there are some who treat truth as malleable in their political >>interests - see for example: >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXoonITkTn4&ab_channel=KiwiPulse
and
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/did_msori_cede_sovereignty
So the weight of academic accepted knowledge, including the Waitangi >>Tribunal, is that the version of the Treaty that should be followed
is that signed by Maori; but we do have some who for political
purposes ignore academic advice and claim that we should follow a
different interpretation. If you wish to follow the Hobson's Pledge
idiots, or Christopher Luxon, or Winston Peters, then you can mislead >>yourself if you wish.
The majority of Treaty Claims are not based on this difference in
knowledge - the ignorance does not affect most claims that are based
on theft of lands, but in ignoring the academic research of the last
40 years the government is playing with fire - and deliberately
misleading the vulnerable like Tony . . .
This whole thing is ridiculous. What "sovereignty" did Maori even have
in pre-European New Zealand?
There was no country, no government and no universally recognized
property rights. The only law was the law of the jungle, so how can
any such sovereignty even be defined?
As for the treaty, it is an ill drafted and ambiguous document, which
was made even more obscure by having three different versions.
However the intent was clear. It was to give all all Maori the same
rights and protections that were afforded to British citizens.
In other words, the treaty was contrived to establish equality under
the law.
It has served it's purpose, it is done.
Bill.
On Sat, 03 May 2025 07:29:40 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 19:04:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:Certainly that may have been one aim of the new Governor from
A couple of useful links from a Google search for "did maori cede >>>sovereignty in the treaty of waitangi"
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2024/08/23/did-maori-cede-sovereignty/
https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/05-02-2024/according-to-apirana-ngata-maori-ceded-sovereignty-by-signing-te-tiriti-is-he-right
https://thespinoff.co.nz/books/30-01-2024/a-te-tiriti-reading-and-watching-and-listening-guide
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/526393/iwi-write-to-pm-demanding-recognition-maori-did-not-cede-sovereignty
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/en/about/the-treaty/about-the-treaty >>> >>>https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
Now there are some who treat truth as malleable in their political >>>interests - see for example: >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXoonITkTn4&ab_channel=KiwiPulse
and
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/did_msori_cede_sovereignty
So the weight of academic accepted knowledge, including the Waitangi >>>Tribunal, is that the version of the Treaty that should be followed
is that signed by Maori; but we do have some who for political
purposes ignore academic advice and claim that we should follow a >>>different interpretation. If you wish to follow the Hobson's Pledge >>>idiots, or Christopher Luxon, or Winston Peters, then you can mislead >>>yourself if you wish.
The majority of Treaty Claims are not based on this difference in >>>knowledge - the ignorance does not affect most claims that are based
on theft of lands, but in ignoring the academic research of the last
40 years the government is playing with fire - and deliberately >>>misleading the vulnerable like Tony . . .
This whole thing is ridiculous. What "sovereignty" did Maori even have
in pre-European New Zealand?
There was no country, no government and no universally recognized
property rights. The only law was the law of the jungle, so how can
any such sovereignty even be defined?
As for the treaty, it is an ill drafted and ambiguous document, which
was made even more obscure by having three different versions.
However the intent was clear. It was to give all all Maori the same
rights and protections that were afforded to British citizens.
In other words, the treaty was contrived to establish equality under
the law.
Australia, but I suspect more important was ending the myriad of small
wars that were making life very difficult for both Maori and Pakeha, including the loss of lives on all sides.
There were a number of drafts of the Treaty - different versions being
sent to London and Sydney, but the version signed at Waitangi being
written following extensive discussion with the chiefs who had
traveled to that centre; those earlier versions may speak of intent on
the British side, but they are not what was signed by the Governor
that day. That the treaty signed that day was different is supported
by a copy in English being made that night that was given to the
Consul for the United States, who was present - he sent that copy to Washington; it would be interesting to see what that version said. But
New Zealand and international law says that the version that was
signed is the version that became effective then and is still the
version that should be followed.
It is ironic that an organisation that seeks to deny or change the interpretation of the Treaty that was signed calls itself "Hobson's
Choice" - Governor Hobson had little choice when he signed the Treaty;
Don Brash and his cronies want to deny the reality that he did sign,
and that the Treaty did grant Maori "Tino Rangitiratanga" which may
not be quite sovereignty as we now know it, but is not trivial either.
See for example: https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/06-02-2018/the-treaty-of-waitangi-granted-us-tino-rangatiratanga-but-what-is-it
https://maoridictionary.co.nz/word/8124 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tino_rangatiratanga
and many others.
It has served it's purpose, it is done.
That sounds like Chamberlain, having 'appeased" Hitler by ceding half
another country to him, declaring "Peace in our Time!" on returning to England. It sounds like Trump, hinting that Russia should keep all of
the Ukraine that they currently occupy by the reality of war, and that Ukraine should pay the USA 4 times the value of what the USA had spent supporting Ukraine through transferring ownership of various minerals.
Can our Government declare that the Treaty of Waitangi is now null and
void without agreement from Maori, and retain any reputation for
honesty and New Zealand for being a reliable partner in any agreement?
Such a declaration would be an admission of fundamental unreliability
and lack of honesty or integrity -
Bill.
On 2025-05-02, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 03 May 2025 07:29:40 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 19:04:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:Certainly that may have been one aim of the new Governor from
A couple of useful links from a Google search for "did maori cede >>>>sovereignty in the treaty of waitangi"
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2024/08/23/did-maori-cede-sovereignty/
https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/05-02-2024/according-to-apirana-ngata-maori-ceded-sovereignty-by-signing-te-tiriti-is-he-right
https://thespinoff.co.nz/books/30-01-2024/a-te-tiriti-reading-and-watching-and-listening-guide
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/526393/iwi-write-to-pm-demanding-recognition-maori-did-not-cede-sovereignty
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/en/about/the-treaty/about-the-treaty >>>> >>>>https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
Now there are some who treat truth as malleable in their political >>>>interests - see for example: >>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXoonITkTn4&ab_channel=KiwiPulse
and
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/did_msori_cede_sovereignty
So the weight of academic accepted knowledge, including the Waitangi >>>>Tribunal, is that the version of the Treaty that should be followed
is that signed by Maori; but we do have some who for political
purposes ignore academic advice and claim that we should follow a >>>>different interpretation. If you wish to follow the Hobson's Pledge >>>>idiots, or Christopher Luxon, or Winston Peters, then you can mislead >>>>yourself if you wish.
The majority of Treaty Claims are not based on this difference in >>>>knowledge - the ignorance does not affect most claims that are based
on theft of lands, but in ignoring the academic research of the last
40 years the government is playing with fire - and deliberately >>>>misleading the vulnerable like Tony . . .
This whole thing is ridiculous. What "sovereignty" did Maori even have
in pre-European New Zealand?
There was no country, no government and no universally recognized >>>property rights. The only law was the law of the jungle, so how can
any such sovereignty even be defined?
As for the treaty, it is an ill drafted and ambiguous document, which
was made even more obscure by having three different versions.
However the intent was clear. It was to give all all Maori the same >>>rights and protections that were afforded to British citizens.
In other words, the treaty was contrived to establish equality under
the law.
Australia, but I suspect more important was ending the myriad of small
wars that were making life very difficult for both Maori and Pakeha,
including the loss of lives on all sides.
This point has been made some months ago in this thread, as in the Maori
were fed up with the infighting and were happy to have the British army as >peace keepers.
There were a number of drafts of the Treaty - different versions being
sent to London and Sydney, but the version signed at Waitangi being
written following extensive discussion with the chiefs who had
traveled to that centre; those earlier versions may speak of intent on
the British side, but they are not what was signed by the Governor
that day. That the treaty signed that day was different is supported
by a copy in English being made that night that was given to the
Consul for the United States, who was present - he sent that copy to
Washington; it would be interesting to see what that version said. But
New Zealand and international law says that the version that was
signed is the version that became effective then and is still the
version that should be followed.
It is ironic that an organisation that seeks to deny or change the
interpretation of the Treaty that was signed calls itself "Hobson's
Choice" - Governor Hobson had little choice when he signed the Treaty;
Don Brash and his cronies want to deny the reality that he did sign,
and that the Treaty did grant Maori "Tino Rangitiratanga" which may
not be quite sovereignty as we now know it, but is not trivial either.
See for example:
https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/06-02-2018/the-treaty-of-waitangi-granted-us-tino-rangatiratanga-but-what-is-it
https://maoridictionary.co.nz/word/8124
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tino_rangatiratanga
and many others.
It has served it's purpose, it is done.
That sounds like Chamberlain, having 'appeased" Hitler by ceding half
another country to him, declaring "Peace in our Time!" on returning to
England. It sounds like Trump, hinting that Russia should keep all of
the Ukraine that they currently occupy by the reality of war, and that
Ukraine should pay the USA 4 times the value of what the USA had spent
supporting Ukraine through transferring ownership of various minerals.
Can our Government declare that the Treaty of Waitangi is now null and
void without agreement from Maori, and retain any reputation for
honesty and New Zealand for being a reliable partner in any agreement?
Such a declaration would be an admission of fundamental unreliability
and lack of honesty or integrity -
Bill.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:No, it means that Maori were granted Tino Rangitiratanga. That granted
On Sat, 03 May 2025 07:29:40 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 19:04:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:Certainly that may have been one aim of the new Governor from
A couple of useful links from a Google search for "did maori cede >>>>sovereignty in the treaty of waitangi"
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2024/08/23/did-maori-cede-sovereignty/
https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/05-02-2024/according-to-apirana-ngata-maori-ceded-sovereignty-by-signing-te-tiriti-is-he-right
https://thespinoff.co.nz/books/30-01-2024/a-te-tiriti-reading-and-watching-and-listening-guide
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/526393/iwi-write-to-pm-demanding-recognition-maori-did-not-cede-sovereignty
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/en/about/the-treaty/about-the-treaty >>>> >>>>https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
Now there are some who treat truth as malleable in their political >>>>interests - see for example: >>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXoonITkTn4&ab_channel=KiwiPulse
and
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/did_msori_cede_sovereignty
So the weight of academic accepted knowledge, including the Waitangi >>>>Tribunal, is that the version of the Treaty that should be followed
is that signed by Maori; but we do have some who for political
purposes ignore academic advice and claim that we should follow a >>>>different interpretation. If you wish to follow the Hobson's Pledge >>>>idiots, or Christopher Luxon, or Winston Peters, then you can mislead >>>>yourself if you wish.
The majority of Treaty Claims are not based on this difference in >>>>knowledge - the ignorance does not affect most claims that are based
on theft of lands, but in ignoring the academic research of the last
40 years the government is playing with fire - and deliberately >>>>misleading the vulnerable like Tony . . .
This whole thing is ridiculous. What "sovereignty" did Maori even have
in pre-European New Zealand?
There was no country, no government and no universally recognized >>>property rights. The only law was the law of the jungle, so how can
any such sovereignty even be defined?
As for the treaty, it is an ill drafted and ambiguous document, which
was made even more obscure by having three different versions.
However the intent was clear. It was to give all all Maori the same >>>rights and protections that were afforded to British citizens.
In other words, the treaty was contrived to establish equality under
the law.
Australia, but I suspect more important was ending the myriad of small
wars that were making life very difficult for both Maori and Pakeha, >>including the loss of lives on all sides.
There were a number of drafts of the Treaty - different versions being
sent to London and Sydney, but the version signed at Waitangi being
written following extensive discussion with the chiefs who had
traveled to that centre; those earlier versions may speak of intent on
the British side, but they are not what was signed by the Governor
that day. That the treaty signed that day was different is supported
by a copy in English being made that night that was given to the
Consul for the United States, who was present - he sent that copy to >>Washington; it would be interesting to see what that version said. But
New Zealand and international law says that the version that was
signed is the version that became effective then and is still the
version that should be followed.
It is ironic that an organisation that seeks to deny or change the >>interpretation of the Treaty that was signed calls itself "Hobson's
Choice" - Governor Hobson had little choice when he signed the Treaty;
Don Brash and his cronies want to deny the reality that he did sign,
and that the Treaty did grant Maori "Tino Rangitiratanga" which may
not be quite sovereignty as we now know it, but is not trivial either.
So you agree that Tino Rangitiratanga is not sovereignty, good. That indicates >that Maori ceded sovereignty.
You will of course argue that you didn't meanIt is up to you to justify that unsupported assertion - you claim that sovereignty was ceded, but have no evidence in support of that
that but simply put you have never shown that sovereignty was not ceded and >therefore the intent of the Treaty is clear - it ceded sovereignty.
What is ironic is your determination to ignore the facts. Hobson's Choice does >not seek to do anything of the kind.They have not given any "facts" - just as you have not been able to
They do not want to change anything, merely clarify it and to ensure all peopleThat is yet another unsupported opinion from you.
are treated equally (no racism). Simple.
All of your posts fit that description, Tony. A personal objection orWaffle, no substancve and not relevant.
See for example: >>https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/06-02-2018/the-treaty-of-waitangi-granted-us-tino-rangatiratanga-but-what-is-it
https://maoridictionary.co.nz/word/8124 >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tino_rangatiratanga
and many others.
It has served it's purpose, it is done.
That sounds like Chamberlain, having 'appeased" Hitler by ceding half >>another country to him, declaring "Peace in our Time!" on returning to >>England. It sounds like Trump, hinting that Russia should keep all of
the Ukraine that they currently occupy by the reality of war, and that >>Ukraine should pay the USA 4 times the value of what the USA had spent >>supporting Ukraine through transferring ownership of various minerals.
Can our Government declare that the Treaty of Waitangi is now null and
void without agreement from Maori, and retain any reputation for
honesty and New Zealand for being a reliable partner in any agreement?
Such a declaration would be an admission of fundamental unreliability
and lack of honesty or integrity -
On Fri, 2 May 2025 22:12:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyNow you are changing the subject once more. What on earth is "full sovereignty"?
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:No, it means that Maori were granted Tino Rangitiratanga. That granted
On Sat, 03 May 2025 07:29:40 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 19:04:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:Certainly that may have been one aim of the new Governor from
A couple of useful links from a Google search for "did maori cede >>>>>sovereignty in the treaty of waitangi"
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2024/08/23/did-maori-cede-sovereignty/
https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/05-02-2024/according-to-apirana-ngata-maori-ceded-sovereignty-by-signing-te-tiriti-is-he-right
https://thespinoff.co.nz/books/30-01-2024/a-te-tiriti-reading-and-watching-and-listening-guide
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/526393/iwi-write-to-pm-demanding-recognition-maori-did-not-cede-sovereignty
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/en/about/the-treaty/about-the-treaty >>>>> >>>>>https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
Now there are some who treat truth as malleable in their political >>>>>interests - see for example: >>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXoonITkTn4&ab_channel=KiwiPulse
and
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/did_msori_cede_sovereignty
So the weight of academic accepted knowledge, including the Waitangi >>>>>Tribunal, is that the version of the Treaty that should be followed >>>>>is that signed by Maori; but we do have some who for political >>>>>purposes ignore academic advice and claim that we should follow a >>>>>different interpretation. If you wish to follow the Hobson's Pledge >>>>>idiots, or Christopher Luxon, or Winston Peters, then you can mislead >>>>>yourself if you wish.
The majority of Treaty Claims are not based on this difference in >>>>>knowledge - the ignorance does not affect most claims that are based >>>>>on theft of lands, but in ignoring the academic research of the last >>>>>40 years the government is playing with fire - and deliberately >>>>>misleading the vulnerable like Tony . . .
This whole thing is ridiculous. What "sovereignty" did Maori even have >>>>in pre-European New Zealand?
There was no country, no government and no universally recognized >>>>property rights. The only law was the law of the jungle, so how can
any such sovereignty even be defined?
As for the treaty, it is an ill drafted and ambiguous document, which >>>>was made even more obscure by having three different versions.
However the intent was clear. It was to give all all Maori the same >>>>rights and protections that were afforded to British citizens.
In other words, the treaty was contrived to establish equality under >>>>the law.
Australia, but I suspect more important was ending the myriad of small >>>wars that were making life very difficult for both Maori and Pakeha, >>>including the loss of lives on all sides.
There were a number of drafts of the Treaty - different versions being >>>sent to London and Sydney, but the version signed at Waitangi being >>>written following extensive discussion with the chiefs who had
traveled to that centre; those earlier versions may speak of intent on >>>the British side, but they are not what was signed by the Governor
that day. That the treaty signed that day was different is supported
by a copy in English being made that night that was given to the
Consul for the United States, who was present - he sent that copy to >>>Washington; it would be interesting to see what that version said. But >>>New Zealand and international law says that the version that was
signed is the version that became effective then and is still the
version that should be followed.
It is ironic that an organisation that seeks to deny or change the >>>interpretation of the Treaty that was signed calls itself "Hobson's >>>Choice" - Governor Hobson had little choice when he signed the Treaty; >>>Don Brash and his cronies want to deny the reality that he did sign,
and that the Treaty did grant Maori "Tino Rangitiratanga" which may
not be quite sovereignty as we now know it, but is not trivial either.
So you agree that Tino Rangitiratanga is not sovereignty, good. That >>indicates
that Maori ceded sovereignty.
them considerable authority and powers in respect of their lands and
people. Tino Rangitiratanga contained considerable elements that would
be included in Sovereignty, but the Treaty did not say that full
sovereignty was ceded by Maori.
No, you are saying they did not, you prove it.You will of course argue that you didn't meanIt is up to you to justify that unsupported assertion - you claim that >sovereignty was ceded, but have no evidence in support of that
that but simply put you have never shown that sovereignty was not ceded and >>therefore the intent of the Treaty is clear - it ceded sovereignty.
assertion.
A challenge for you - try to find anyone that provides evidence that >sovereignty was ceded in the Treaty of Waitangi - remember that the >determinative document is the one signed by a majority of Maori ChiefsNo it is one of three.
at Waitangi.
You have provided no evidence, not a tiny sniff of evidence, you try again. Losing against you is impossible.What is ironic is your determination to ignore the facts. Hobson's Choice >>doesThey have not given any "facts" - just as you have not been able to
not seek to do anything of the kind.
justify your assertions. Your posts to nz.general consist largely of >expressions of your unsupported opinion - look back through this
thread and you will find that you have not posted any evidence to
refute the evidence I have put forward. You lose again, Tony.
It is obvious if you read what they write.They do not want to change anything, merely clarify it and to ensure all >>peopleThat is yet another unsupported opinion from you.
are treated equally (no racism). Simple.
Nonsense. You have never shown evidence of your case, never. Time to do so.All of your posts fit that description, Tony. A personal objection orWaffle, no substancve and not relevant.
See for example: >>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/06-02-2018/the-treaty-of-waitangi-granted-us-tino-rangatiratanga-but-what-is-it
https://maoridictionary.co.nz/word/8124 >>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tino_rangatiratanga
and many others.
It has served it's purpose, it is done.
That sounds like Chamberlain, having 'appeased" Hitler by ceding half >>>another country to him, declaring "Peace in our Time!" on returning to >>>England. It sounds like Trump, hinting that Russia should keep all of
the Ukraine that they currently occupy by the reality of war, and that >>>Ukraine should pay the USA 4 times the value of what the USA had spent >>>supporting Ukraine through transferring ownership of various minerals. >>>Can our Government declare that the Treaty of Waitangi is now null and >>>void without agreement from Maori, and retain any reputation for
honesty and New Zealand for being a reliable partner in any agreement? >>>Such a declaration would be an admission of fundamental unreliability
and lack of honesty or integrity -
opinion from a single individual such as you is worth nothing. If you
wish to assert a particular view it would help if you had some
credible argument and were not contradicted by relevant authoritative
posts from others . . .
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Neither "sovereignty" or "Sovereignty" appear in the Treaty that the
On Fri, 2 May 2025 22:12:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyNow you are changing the subject once more. What on earth is "full sovereignty"?
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:No, it means that Maori were granted Tino Rangitiratanga. That granted
On Sat, 03 May 2025 07:29:40 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 19:04:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:Certainly that may have been one aim of the new Governor from >>>>Australia, but I suspect more important was ending the myriad of small >>>>wars that were making life very difficult for both Maori and Pakeha, >>>>including the loss of lives on all sides.
A couple of useful links from a Google search for "did maori cede >>>>>>sovereignty in the treaty of waitangi"
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2024/08/23/did-maori-cede-sovereignty/
https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/05-02-2024/according-to-apirana-ngata-maori-ceded-sovereignty-by-signing-te-tiriti-is-he-right
https://thespinoff.co.nz/books/30-01-2024/a-te-tiriti-reading-and-watching-and-listening-guide
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/526393/iwi-write-to-pm-demanding-recognition-maori-did-not-cede-sovereignty
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/en/about/the-treaty/about-the-treaty >>>>>> >>>>>>https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
Now there are some who treat truth as malleable in their political >>>>>>interests - see for example: >>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXoonITkTn4&ab_channel=KiwiPulse >>>>>>and
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/did_msori_cede_sovereignty
So the weight of academic accepted knowledge, including the Waitangi >>>>>>Tribunal, is that the version of the Treaty that should be followed >>>>>>is that signed by Maori; but we do have some who for political >>>>>>purposes ignore academic advice and claim that we should follow a >>>>>>different interpretation. If you wish to follow the Hobson's Pledge >>>>>>idiots, or Christopher Luxon, or Winston Peters, then you can mislead >>>>>>yourself if you wish.
The majority of Treaty Claims are not based on this difference in >>>>>>knowledge - the ignorance does not affect most claims that are based >>>>>>on theft of lands, but in ignoring the academic research of the last >>>>>>40 years the government is playing with fire - and deliberately >>>>>>misleading the vulnerable like Tony . . .
This whole thing is ridiculous. What "sovereignty" did Maori even have >>>>>in pre-European New Zealand?
There was no country, no government and no universally recognized >>>>>property rights. The only law was the law of the jungle, so how can >>>>>any such sovereignty even be defined?
As for the treaty, it is an ill drafted and ambiguous document, which >>>>>was made even more obscure by having three different versions.
However the intent was clear. It was to give all all Maori the same >>>>>rights and protections that were afforded to British citizens.
In other words, the treaty was contrived to establish equality under >>>>>the law.
There were a number of drafts of the Treaty - different versions being >>>>sent to London and Sydney, but the version signed at Waitangi being >>>>written following extensive discussion with the chiefs who had
traveled to that centre; those earlier versions may speak of intent on >>>>the British side, but they are not what was signed by the Governor
that day. That the treaty signed that day was different is supported
by a copy in English being made that night that was given to the
Consul for the United States, who was present - he sent that copy to >>>>Washington; it would be interesting to see what that version said. But >>>>New Zealand and international law says that the version that was
signed is the version that became effective then and is still the >>>>version that should be followed.
It is ironic that an organisation that seeks to deny or change the >>>>interpretation of the Treaty that was signed calls itself "Hobson's >>>>Choice" - Governor Hobson had little choice when he signed the Treaty; >>>>Don Brash and his cronies want to deny the reality that he did sign, >>>>and that the Treaty did grant Maori "Tino Rangitiratanga" which may
not be quite sovereignty as we now know it, but is not trivial either.
So you agree that Tino Rangitiratanga is not sovereignty, good. That >>>indicates
that Maori ceded sovereignty.
them considerable authority and powers in respect of their lands and >>people. Tino Rangitiratanga contained considerable elements that would
be included in Sovereignty, but the Treaty did not say that full >>sovereignty was ceded by Maori.
Sovbereignty is an absolute and cannot be qualified except by those who don't >understand English.
When have you ever provided any evidence to support any of your wild assertions, Tony? The word does not appear in the Treaty that wasNo, you are saying they did not, you prove it.You will of course argue that you didn't meanIt is up to you to justify that unsupported assertion - you claim that >>sovereignty was ceded, but have no evidence in support of that
that but simply put you have never shown that sovereignty was not ceded and >>>therefore the intent of the Treaty is clear - it ceded sovereignty.
assertion.
Which one includes the word sovereignty, Tony?No it is one of three.
A challenge for you - try to find anyone that provides evidence that >>sovereignty was ceded in the Treaty of Waitangi - remember that the >>determinative document is the one signed by a majority of Maori Chiefs
at Waitangi.
See the links above - did you read any of them?You have provided no evidence, not a tiny sniff of evidence, you try again. >Losing against you is impossible.
What is ironic is your determination to ignore the facts. Hobson's Choice >>>doesThey have not given any "facts" - just as you have not been able to
not seek to do anything of the kind.
justify your assertions. Your posts to nz.general consist largely of >>expressions of your unsupported opinion - look back through this
thread and you will find that you have not posted any evidence to
refute the evidence I have put forward. You lose again, Tony.
made above, Tony. You are willfully ignorant, and repeat falseIt is obvious if you read what they write.
They do not want to change anything, merely clarify it and to ensure all >>>peopleThat is yet another unsupported opinion from you.
are treated equally (no racism). Simple.
Nonsense. You have never shown evidence of your case, never. Time to do so. And that line goes as close as you ever get to proving the statement I
All of your posts fit that description, Tony. A personal objection or >>opinion from a single individual such as you is worth nothing. If youWaffle, no substancve and not relevant.
See for example: >>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/06-02-2018/the-treaty-of-waitangi-granted-us-tino-rangatiratanga-but-what-is-it
https://maoridictionary.co.nz/word/8124 >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tino_rangatiratanga
and many others.
It has served it's purpose, it is done.
That sounds like Chamberlain, having 'appeased" Hitler by ceding half >>>>another country to him, declaring "Peace in our Time!" on returning to >>>>England. It sounds like Trump, hinting that Russia should keep all of >>>>the Ukraine that they currently occupy by the reality of war, and that >>>>Ukraine should pay the USA 4 times the value of what the USA had spent >>>>supporting Ukraine through transferring ownership of various minerals. >>>>Can our Government declare that the Treaty of Waitangi is now null and >>>>void without agreement from Maori, and retain any reputation for >>>>honesty and New Zealand for being a reliable partner in any agreement? >>>>Such a declaration would be an admission of fundamental unreliability >>>>and lack of honesty or integrity -
wish to assert a particular view it would help if you had some
credible argument and were not contradicted by relevant authoritative
posts from others . . .
On Sat, 3 May 2025 04:48:10 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are the one who confused sovereignty with government (stupidly), you are the one that confuses treaty with contract so don't you preach to me about English comprehension - you are wallowing in your ignorance.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Neither "sovereignty" or "Sovereignty" appear in the Treaty that the
On Fri, 2 May 2025 22:12:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyNow you are changing the subject once more. What on earth is "full >>sovereignty"?
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:No, it means that Maori were granted Tino Rangitiratanga. That granted >>>them considerable authority and powers in respect of their lands and >>>people. Tino Rangitiratanga contained considerable elements that would
On Sat, 03 May 2025 07:29:40 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:So you agree that Tino Rangitiratanga is not sovereignty, good. That >>>>indicates
On Fri, 02 May 2025 19:04:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:Certainly that may have been one aim of the new Governor from >>>>>Australia, but I suspect more important was ending the myriad of small >>>>>wars that were making life very difficult for both Maori and Pakeha, >>>>>including the loss of lives on all sides.
A couple of useful links from a Google search for "did maori cede >>>>>>>sovereignty in the treaty of waitangi"
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2024/08/23/did-maori-cede-sovereignty/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/05-02-2024/according-to-apirana-ngata-maori-ceded-sovereignty-by-signing-te-tiriti-is-he-right
https://thespinoff.co.nz/books/30-01-2024/a-te-tiriti-reading-and-watching-and-listening-guide
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/526393/iwi-write-to-pm-demanding-recognition-maori-did-not-cede-sovereignty
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/en/about/the-treaty/about-the-treaty
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
Now there are some who treat truth as malleable in their political >>>>>>>interests - see for example: >>>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXoonITkTn4&ab_channel=KiwiPulse >>>>>>>and
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/did_msori_cede_sovereignty
So the weight of academic accepted knowledge, including the Waitangi >>>>>>>Tribunal, is that the version of the Treaty that should be followed >>>>>>>is that signed by Maori; but we do have some who for political >>>>>>>purposes ignore academic advice and claim that we should follow a >>>>>>>different interpretation. If you wish to follow the Hobson's Pledge >>>>>>>idiots, or Christopher Luxon, or Winston Peters, then you can mislead >>>>>>>yourself if you wish.
The majority of Treaty Claims are not based on this difference in >>>>>>>knowledge - the ignorance does not affect most claims that are based >>>>>>>on theft of lands, but in ignoring the academic research of the last >>>>>>>40 years the government is playing with fire - and deliberately >>>>>>>misleading the vulnerable like Tony . . .
This whole thing is ridiculous. What "sovereignty" did Maori even have >>>>>>in pre-European New Zealand?
There was no country, no government and no universally recognized >>>>>>property rights. The only law was the law of the jungle, so how can >>>>>>any such sovereignty even be defined?
As for the treaty, it is an ill drafted and ambiguous document, which >>>>>>was made even more obscure by having three different versions.
However the intent was clear. It was to give all all Maori the same >>>>>>rights and protections that were afforded to British citizens.
In other words, the treaty was contrived to establish equality under >>>>>>the law.
There were a number of drafts of the Treaty - different versions being >>>>>sent to London and Sydney, but the version signed at Waitangi being >>>>>written following extensive discussion with the chiefs who had >>>>>traveled to that centre; those earlier versions may speak of intent on >>>>>the British side, but they are not what was signed by the Governor >>>>>that day. That the treaty signed that day was different is supported >>>>>by a copy in English being made that night that was given to the >>>>>Consul for the United States, who was present - he sent that copy to >>>>>Washington; it would be interesting to see what that version said. But >>>>>New Zealand and international law says that the version that was >>>>>signed is the version that became effective then and is still the >>>>>version that should be followed.
It is ironic that an organisation that seeks to deny or change the >>>>>interpretation of the Treaty that was signed calls itself "Hobson's >>>>>Choice" - Governor Hobson had little choice when he signed the Treaty; >>>>>Don Brash and his cronies want to deny the reality that he did sign, >>>>>and that the Treaty did grant Maori "Tino Rangitiratanga" which may >>>>>not be quite sovereignty as we now know it, but is not trivial either. >>>>
that Maori ceded sovereignty.
be included in Sovereignty, but the Treaty did not say that full >>>sovereignty was ceded by Maori.
Sovbereignty is an absolute and cannot be qualified except by those who don't >>understand English.
Maori Chiefs signed at Waitangi, Tony, so it is irrelevant to what was >agreed.
See above.When have you ever provided any evidence to support any of your wild >assertions, Tony? The word does not appear in the Treaty that wasNo, you are saying they did not, you prove it.You will of course argue that you didn't meanIt is up to you to justify that unsupported assertion - you claim that >>>sovereignty was ceded, but have no evidence in support of that
that but simply put you have never shown that sovereignty was not ceded and >>>>therefore the intent of the Treaty is clear - it ceded sovereignty.
assertion.
signed - so what are you talking about?
See above.....again!Which one includes the word sovereignty, Tony?No it is one of three.
A challenge for you - try to find anyone that provides evidence that >>>sovereignty was ceded in the Treaty of Waitangi - remember that the >>>determinative document is the one signed by a majority of Maori Chiefs
at Waitangi.
It is you who has failed to do that, not me.See the links above - did you read any of them?You have provided no evidence, not a tiny sniff of evidence, you try again. >>Losing against you is impossible.
What is ironic is your determination to ignore the facts. Hobson's Choice >>>>doesThey have not given any "facts" - just as you have not been able to >>>justify your assertions. Your posts to nz.general consist largely of >>>expressions of your unsupported opinion - look back through this
not seek to do anything of the kind.
thread and you will find that you have not posted any evidence to
refute the evidence I have put forward. You lose again, Tony.
When have you ever provided evidence, Tony? Certainly not in this
thread . . .
Ause gone, Rich is incapable of not being abusive, especially when he is wrong, as here.made above, Tony.It is obvious if you read what they write.
They do not want to change anything, merely clarify it and to ensure all >>>>peopleThat is yet another unsupported opinion from you.
are treated equally (no racism). Simple.
Nonsense. You have never shown evidence of your case, never. Time to do so. >And that line goes as close as you ever get to proving the statement I
All of your posts fit that description, Tony. A personal objection or >>>opinion from a single individual such as you is worth nothing. If you >>>wish to assert a particular view it would help if you had someWaffle, no substancve and not relevant.
See for example: >>>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/06-02-2018/the-treaty-of-waitangi-granted-us-tino-rangatiratanga-but-what-is-it
https://maoridictionary.co.nz/word/8124 >>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tino_rangatiratanga
and many others.
It has served it's purpose, it is done.
That sounds like Chamberlain, having 'appeased" Hitler by ceding half >>>>>another country to him, declaring "Peace in our Time!" on returning to >>>>>England. It sounds like Trump, hinting that Russia should keep all of >>>>>the Ukraine that they currently occupy by the reality of war, and that >>>>>Ukraine should pay the USA 4 times the value of what the USA had spent >>>>>supporting Ukraine through transferring ownership of various minerals. >>>>>Can our Government declare that the Treaty of Waitangi is now null and >>>>>void without agreement from Maori, and retain any reputation for >>>>>honesty and New Zealand for being a reliable partner in any agreement? >>>>>Such a declaration would be an admission of fundamental unreliability >>>>>and lack of honesty or integrity -
credible argument and were not contradicted by relevant authoritative >>>posts from others . . .
On Sat, 03 May 2025 07:29:40 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 19:04:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:Certainly that may have been one aim of the new Governor from
A couple of useful links from a Google search for "did maori cede >>>sovereignty in the treaty of waitangi"
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2024/08/23/did-maori-cede-sovereignty/
https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/05-02-2024/according-to-apirana-ngata-maori-ceded-sovereignty-by-signing-te-tiriti-is-he-right
https://thespinoff.co.nz/books/30-01-2024/a-te-tiriti-reading-and-watching-and-listening-guide
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/526393/iwi-write-to-pm-demanding-recognition-maori-did-not-cede-sovereignty
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/en/about/the-treaty/about-the-treaty >>> >>>https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
Now there are some who treat truth as malleable in their political >>>interests - see for example: >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXoonITkTn4&ab_channel=KiwiPulse
and
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/did_msori_cede_sovereignty
So the weight of academic accepted knowledge, including the Waitangi >>>Tribunal, is that the version of the Treaty that should be followed
is that signed by Maori; but we do have some who for political
purposes ignore academic advice and claim that we should follow a >>>different interpretation. If you wish to follow the Hobson's Pledge >>>idiots, or Christopher Luxon, or Winston Peters, then you can mislead >>>yourself if you wish.
The majority of Treaty Claims are not based on this difference in >>>knowledge - the ignorance does not affect most claims that are based
on theft of lands, but in ignoring the academic research of the last
40 years the government is playing with fire - and deliberately >>>misleading the vulnerable like Tony . . .
This whole thing is ridiculous. What "sovereignty" did Maori even have
in pre-European New Zealand?
There was no country, no government and no universally recognized
property rights. The only law was the law of the jungle, so how can
any such sovereignty even be defined?
As for the treaty, it is an ill drafted and ambiguous document, which
was made even more obscure by having three different versions.
However the intent was clear. It was to give all all Maori the same
rights and protections that were afforded to British citizens.
In other words, the treaty was contrived to establish equality under
the law.
Australia, but I suspect more important was ending the myriad of small
wars that were making life very difficult for both Maori and Pakeha, >including the loss of lives on all sides.
There were a number of drafts of the Treaty - different versions being
sent to London and Sydney, but the version signed at Waitangi being
written following extensive discussion with the chiefs who had
traveled to that centre; those earlier versions may speak of intent on
the British side, but they are not what was signed by the Governor
that day. That the treaty signed that day was different is supported
by a copy in English being made that night that was given to the
Consul for the United States, who was present - he sent that copy to >Washington; it would be interesting to see what that version said. But
New Zealand and international law says that the version that was
signed is the version that became effective then and is still the
version that should be followed.
It is ironic that an organisation that seeks to deny or change the >interpretation of the Treaty that was signed calls itself "Hobson's
Choice" - Governor Hobson had little choice when he signed the Treaty;
Don Brash and his cronies want to deny the reality that he did sign,
and that the Treaty did grant Maori "Tino Rangitiratanga" which may
not be quite sovereignty as we now know it, but is not trivial either.
It has served it's purpose, it is done.
That sounds like Chamberlain, having 'appeased" Hitler by ceding half
another country to him, declaring "Peace in our Time!" on returning to >England. It sounds like Trump, hinting that Russia should keep all of
the Ukraine that they currently occupy by the reality of war, and that >Ukraine should pay the USA 4 times the value of what the USA had spent >supporting Ukraine through transferring ownership of various minerals.
Can our Government declare that the Treaty of Waitangi is now null and
void without agreement from Maori, and retain any reputation for
honesty and New Zealand for being a reliable partner in any agreement?
Such a declaration would be an admission of fundamental unreliability
and lack of honesty or integrity -
Bill.
On Sat, 03 May 2025 09:54:34 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 03 May 2025 07:29:40 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 19:04:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:Certainly that may have been one aim of the new Governor from
A couple of useful links from a Google search for "did maori cede >>>>sovereignty in the treaty of waitangi"
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2024/08/23/did-maori-cede-sovereignty/
https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/05-02-2024/according-to-apirana-ngata-maori-ceded-sovereignty-by-signing-te-tiriti-is-he-right
https://thespinoff.co.nz/books/30-01-2024/a-te-tiriti-reading-and-watching-and-listening-guide
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/526393/iwi-write-to-pm-demanding-recognition-maori-did-not-cede-sovereignty
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/en/about/the-treaty/about-the-treaty >>>> >>>>https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
Now there are some who treat truth as malleable in their political >>>>interests - see for example: >>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXoonITkTn4&ab_channel=KiwiPulse
and
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/did_msori_cede_sovereignty
So the weight of academic accepted knowledge, including the Waitangi >>>>Tribunal, is that the version of the Treaty that should be followed
is that signed by Maori; but we do have some who for political
purposes ignore academic advice and claim that we should follow a >>>>different interpretation. If you wish to follow the Hobson's Pledge >>>>idiots, or Christopher Luxon, or Winston Peters, then you can mislead >>>>yourself if you wish.
The majority of Treaty Claims are not based on this difference in >>>>knowledge - the ignorance does not affect most claims that are based
on theft of lands, but in ignoring the academic research of the last
40 years the government is playing with fire - and deliberately >>>>misleading the vulnerable like Tony . . .
This whole thing is ridiculous. What "sovereignty" did Maori even have
in pre-European New Zealand?
There was no country, no government and no universally recognized >>>property rights. The only law was the law of the jungle, so how can
any such sovereignty even be defined?
As for the treaty, it is an ill drafted and ambiguous document, which
was made even more obscure by having three different versions.
However the intent was clear. It was to give all all Maori the same >>>rights and protections that were afforded to British citizens.
In other words, the treaty was contrived to establish equality under
the law.
Australia, but I suspect more important was ending the myriad of small
wars that were making life very difficult for both Maori and Pakeha, >>including the loss of lives on all sides.
There were a number of drafts of the Treaty - different versions being
sent to London and Sydney, but the version signed at Waitangi being
written following extensive discussion with the chiefs who had
traveled to that centre; those earlier versions may speak of intent on
the British side, but they are not what was signed by the Governor
that day. That the treaty signed that day was different is supported
by a copy in English being made that night that was given to the
Consul for the United States, who was present - he sent that copy to >>Washington; it would be interesting to see what that version said. But
New Zealand and international law says that the version that was
signed is the version that became effective then and is still the
version that should be followed.
It is ironic that an organisation that seeks to deny or change the >>interpretation of the Treaty that was signed calls itself "Hobson's
Choice" - Governor Hobson had little choice when he signed the Treaty;
Don Brash and his cronies want to deny the reality that he did sign,
Clearly there were, as subsequent determinations of the Waitangiand that the Treaty did grant Maori "Tino Rangitiratanga" which may
not be quite sovereignty as we now know it, but is not trivial either.
Well if it isn't sovereignty, what is it?
It has served it's purpose, it is done.
That sounds like Chamberlain, having 'appeased" Hitler by ceding half >>another country to him, declaring "Peace in our Time!" on returning to >>England. It sounds like Trump, hinting that Russia should keep all of
the Ukraine that they currently occupy by the reality of war, and that >>Ukraine should pay the USA 4 times the value of what the USA had spent >>supporting Ukraine through transferring ownership of various minerals.
Irrelevant and off topic.
Can our Government declare that the Treaty of Waitangi is now null and
void without agreement from Maori, and retain any reputation for
honesty and New Zealand for being a reliable partner in any agreement?
Sure they can. There are no Maori, there are only part Maori. This
means the treaty becomes less relevant with each passing generation.
The Waitangi tribunal are a waste of time and money. They produce
nothing of value, and exist only to maintain a division between non
Maori and those of mixed descent. The only beneficiaries of the treaty >grievance are lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians and the Maori tribal
elite, and it is always at the expense of everybody else including
productive working Maori.
Such a declaration would be an admission of fundamental unreliability
and lack of honesty or integrity -
What nonsense. There wasn't a problem until a politician in a racist
Maori seat introduced the unnecessary and expensive Treaty of Waitangi
Act in 1975.
Bill.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 163:29:27 |
| Calls: | 12,095 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,787 |