XPost: nz.politics

Also quite long but also worthwhile. It is good to see more people prepared to speak the truth.
by Geoff Parker

THE CROWN, THE TREATY, THE PROMISES AND THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
At the centennial of the Treaty of Waitangi 1940 Sir Apirana said: �Let me acknowledge first that, in the whole world I doubt whether any native race has been so well treated by a European people as the Maori�
Occasionally, it is alleged that the Government failed to uphold �Treaty promises� in the nineteenth century. Here is my response to that allegation�
In 1840, New Zealand was a fledgling nation with two cultures at vastly different stages of development coming together. This made the time politically, financially, and socially difficult.
Following his arrival in the Bay of Islands in 1840, William Hobson, the British Consul, issued a proclamation prohibiting private land purchases from Maori unless validated by a Crown commissioner. This was done to assert control over land transactions and address concerns about rampant sales and to protect Maori land sellers from unscrupulous buyers. Hobson also appointed land commissioners to investigate all purchases made before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. If a transaction was deemed unfair, the land was taken from the European buyer and returned to the Maori seller�who, in many cases, later sold the land a second time. There appears to be no record that the European buyer was reimbursed.
Ngai Tahu is one example. They had sold much of the South Island before the Treaty was signed, and the Treaty commitment to investigate pre-1840 sales enabled chiefs to sell the land again�this occurred in ten deals over 20 years from 1844, for a total of �14,750.
Humans are a diverse lot. No government or political party can please everyone; there will always be someone or a group who is sidelined. However, since 1840, many statutes have been passed with good intentions to help Maori adapt to changing times.
For Instance:
� In 1867, voting rules were altered so that all Maori men holding land in common (i.e., most of them) were enfranchised. The rules were not similarly changed for settlers. For some years, therefore, virtually all Maori men had the vote, while most settlers did not�clearly, it was the settlers, not the Maori, who were at a disadvantage!
� Sir Apirana Ngata said: �Maori landowners did not pay land rates until 1894. After that, they only paid half the rates levied compared to their European counterparts until 1910.� He also said: �It was only in the year 1893 that Maori lands were taxed. It was a light tax�half of that payable by the Pakeha. However, only leasehold Maori lands were taxable. It was in the year 1917 that a heavier tax was levied on leased Maori land, equivalent to half the rate of taxation on European lands.�
? The Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 was intended to stop people using traditional Maori healing practices which had a supernatural or spiritual element. It grew out of concern over the practices of some self-appointed tohunga who played on superstition often travelling from pa to pa claiming to cure all kinds of illness.
The influential Te Aute College Students� Association was particularly critical, believing that tohunga might harm patients, and could hinder Maori progress. Tohunga also came under attack from the prominent Maori doctors Maui Pomare and Te Rangi Hiroa (Sir Peter Buck).
The Tohunga Suppression Act was presented by Maori MP James Carroll and supported by the four Maori members of parliament. It was passed in 1907.
The Treaty
Although called a treaty, it is arguably not a true treaty, as Maori were not a politically organised nation. It was a simple formal transfer of sovereignty document that had arguably served its purpose the moment it was signed�it could have been discarded thereafter. It has no legal standing in international law and, by itself, has no standing as part of New Zealand�s municipal law.
The three Treaty clauses state:
� Article One � The chiefs cede all their rights and powers of sovereignty (chiefly authority) to the Queen.
� Article Two � The Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs, tribes, and ALL people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings, and all their property.
� Article Three � The Queen�s government extends its protection to the people of New Zealand and grants Maori the status of British subjects.
(H/T David Round, page 62 in the book Twi$ting the Treaty)
So, what promises were inferred in those three clauses?
Article One: No promises.
Article Two: Promises the people of New Zealand (Maori included) the ownership of their physical assets.
Article Three: Promises to protect all New Zealand citizens (British subjects). Because Maori were granted the rights and privileges of British subjects in Article Three and most tribes accepted that by signing the Treaty, Maori then had responsibilities and obligations to abide by the law.
Note: The Colonial Office in England, shortly after the Treaty was signed, declared that the Treaty applied to all Maori, including those tribes whose chiefs had not signed.
When those who allege the Crown did not uphold its promises are challenged, they often cite the same issues � land confiscations, suppression of language and culture, systemic marginalisation and use the Waitangi Tribunal as validation.
Land Confiscations
Land confiscations were legal and targeted rebelling tribes. They occurred after warnings and skirmishes � not before. The land was taken to help pay for the cost of the wars, discourage further uprising, and to settle Europeans in these areas as a buffer.
Here is what Sir Apirana Ngata said about the land confiscations:
�The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation, and land was taken in payment. This, in itself, is a Maori custom � revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.�
Suppression Of Language And Culture
Maori language was banned only in schools, and this was at the request of Maori elders and statesmen, who wanted children to learn English in order to participate in the changing society. Outside of schools, no laws were ever passed to prohibit Maori from speaking their language. Maori adopted English language and culture of their own volition.
Systemic Marginalisation
Did the Government pass laws that marginalised Maori? That is unclear � it was likely more of a societal issue. However, that marginalisation may well have been preferable to pre-1840 marginalisation, where tribal warfare, slavery, cannibalism, land confiscation, and infanticide were rampant.
Waitangi Tribunal
The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 established the Waitangi Tribunal as a permanent commission of inquiry to examine any claim by Maori concerning laws, regulations, or actions (or inactions) of the Crown that may have caused harm. The Act also gave a small group of unelected Tribunal members exclusive authority to interpret the Treaty.
The Waitangi Tribunal is a racially stacked, pro-Maori lobby group. It is not a court authorised to make binding legal decisions � it can only make recommendations to the Government.
What some have said about this �venerable� body:
David Rankin (Ngapuhi elder): �The Tribunal makes up history as it goes along�� Brian Priestley, MBE: �It would be hard to imagine any public body less well-organised to get at the truth.�
Dr Michael Bassett (former Cabinet Minister and Waitangi Tribunal member for 10 years): �What you�ve been dealing with for the last 30 years are some very inventive people stretching the wording of the Treaty so far it is falling apart because of the games being played with it.�
Dr Bronwyn Byrnes: �The Tribunal�s reports increasingly champion or advocate the Maori cause. Maori characters and stories are given more weight than Pakeha ones.�
Other historians, including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave, and Bill Oliver, have raised similar concerns.
It is mainly this questionable Waitangi Tribunal and Maori sovereigntists that have judged that the Crown is guilty of breaking �promises� � The Crown is innocent until proven guilty by a reputable, unbiased, totally independent �Court�.
Who Really Broke The �treaty Promises�?
Noted historian John Robinson wrote: �The Crown, the several Governors, and the government never broke the Treaty of Waitangi. All actions taken were in accord with the accession of sovereignty and the assertion of British law. A number of Maori chiefs, and their iwi, committed acts of treason and rebellion in contradiction of the Treaty.
These included:�
1. The mass murder of settlers by chiefs Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata at Wairau in 1843.
2. Rebellion incited by the same chiefs in Wellington in 1846.
3. War waged by Hone Heke against the government in the north in 1845�46.
4. Rebellion at Waitara by Wiremu Kingi over the sale of the Pekapeka block in 1859.
5. The establishment of a rival Maori monarch, rebellion, and war beginning in 1859.
It�s the old story: people in the past behaving in accordance with the norms and mores of their own time and place, then being later condemned for not acting according to the norms and mores that came after them.
It is a naive and absolutist approach to history that obfuscates rather than enlightens. �Barend Vlaardingerbroek

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: nz.politics

On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Also quite long but also worthwhile. It is good to see more people prepared to >speak the truth.
by Geoff Parker

Yet another misleading reference to Sir Apirana Ngata, whose
mis-understanding were based on what Pakeha wanted to believe while
they were still taking land from Maori. It was written for the NZ
Centre for Political Research - yet another part of the far-right
propaganda war being waged by the ACT Party and now a majority of
National Party MPs, with their MPs being given no guidance to reject
such lies now that the befuddled Luxon is nominally in charge of the
party - in reality he is a puppet to ACT and Atlas Network linked
organisations such as the NZ Initiative who provide both ACT and
National with advice . . .

THE CROWN, THE TREATY, THE PROMISES AND THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
At the centennial of the Treaty of Waitangi 1940 Sir Apirana said: �Let me >acknowledge first that, in the whole world I doubt whether any native race has >been so well treated by a European people as the Maori�
Occasionally, it is alleged that the Government failed to uphold �Treaty >promises� in the nineteenth century. Here is my response to that allegation� >In 1840, New Zealand was a fledgling nation with two cultures at vastly >different stages of development coming together. This made the time >politically, financially, and socially difficult.
Following his arrival in the Bay of Islands in 1840, William Hobson, the >British Consul, issued a proclamation prohibiting private land purchases from >Maori unless validated by a Crown commissioner. This was done to assert control
over land transactions and address concerns about rampant sales and to protect >Maori land sellers from unscrupulous buyers. Hobson also appointed land >commissioners to investigate all purchases made before the Treaty of Waitangi >was signed. If a transaction was deemed unfair, the land was taken from the >European buyer and returned to the Maori seller�who, in many cases, later sold >the land a second time. There appears to be no record that the European buyer >was reimbursed.
Ngai Tahu is one example. They had sold much of the South Island before the >Treaty was signed, and the Treaty commitment to investigate pre-1840 sales >enabled chiefs to sell the land again�this occurred in ten deals over 20 years >from 1844, for a total of �14,750.
Humans are a diverse lot. No government or political party can please everyone;
there will always be someone or a group who is sidelined. However, since 1840, >many statutes have been passed with good intentions to help Maori adapt to >changing times.
For Instance:
� In 1867, voting rules were altered so that all Maori men holding land in >common (i.e., most of them) were enfranchised. The rules were not similarly >changed for settlers. For some years, therefore, virtually all Maori men had >the vote, while most settlers did not�clearly, it was the settlers, not the >Maori, who were at a disadvantage!
� Sir Apirana Ngata said: �Maori landowners did not pay land rates until 1894. >After that, they only paid half the rates levied compared to their European >counterparts until 1910.� He also said: �It was only in the year 1893 that >Maori lands were taxed. It was a light tax�half of that payable by the Pakeha. >However, only leasehold Maori lands were taxable. It was in the year 1917 that >a heavier tax was levied on leased Maori land, equivalent to half the rate of >taxation on European lands.�
? The Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 was intended to stop people using >traditional Maori healing practices which had a supernatural or spiritual >element. It grew out of concern over the practices of some self-appointed >tohunga who played on superstition often travelling from pa to pa claiming to >cure all kinds of illness.
The influential Te Aute College Students� Association was particularly >critical, believing that tohunga might harm patients, and could hinder Maori >progress. Tohunga also came under attack from the prominent Maori doctors Maui >Pomare and Te Rangi Hiroa (Sir Peter Buck).
The Tohunga Suppression Act was presented by Maori MP James Carroll and >supported by the four Maori members of parliament. It was passed in 1907.
The Treaty
Although called a treaty, it is arguably not a true treaty, as Maori were not a
politically organised nation. It was a simple formal transfer of sovereignty >document that had arguably served its purpose the moment it was signed�it could
have been discarded thereafter. It has no legal standing in international law >and, by itself, has no standing as part of New Zealand�s municipal law.
The three Treaty clauses state:
� Article One � The chiefs cede all their rights and powers of sovereignty >(chiefly authority) to the Queen.
� Article Two � The Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs, tribes, and >ALL people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings, and all >their property.
� Article Three � The Queen�s government extends its protection to the people >of New Zealand and grants Maori the status of British subjects.
(H/T David Round, page 62 in the book Twi$ting the Treaty)
So, what promises were inferred in those three clauses?
Article One: No promises.
Article Two: Promises the people of New Zealand (Maori included) the ownership >of their physical assets.
Article Three: Promises to protect all New Zealand citizens (British subjects).
Because Maori were granted the rights and privileges of British subjects in >Article Three and most tribes accepted that by signing the Treaty, Maori then >had responsibilities and obligations to abide by the law.
Note: The Colonial Office in England, shortly after the Treaty was signed, >declared that the Treaty applied to all Maori, including those tribes whose >chiefs had not signed.
When those who allege the Crown did not uphold its promises are challenged, >they often cite the same issues � land confiscations, suppression of language >and culture, systemic marginalisation and use the Waitangi Tribunal as >validation.
Land Confiscations
Land confiscations were legal and targeted rebelling tribes. They occurred >after warnings and skirmishes � not before. The land was taken to help pay for >the cost of the wars, discourage further uprising, and to settle Europeans in >these areas as a buffer.
Here is what Sir Apirana Ngata said about the land confiscations:
�The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty and
authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that >authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into >operation, and land was taken in payment. This, in itself, is a Maori custom � >revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that >right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the >light of the Treaty.�
Suppression Of Language And Culture
Maori language was banned only in schools, and this was at the request of Maori
elders and statesmen, who wanted children to learn English in order to >participate in the changing society. Outside of schools, no laws were ever >passed to prohibit Maori from speaking their language. Maori adopted English >language and culture of their own volition.
Systemic Marginalisation
Did the Government pass laws that marginalised Maori? That is unclear � it was >likely more of a societal issue. However, that marginalisation may well have >been preferable to pre-1840 marginalisation, where tribal warfare, slavery, >cannibalism, land confiscation, and infanticide were rampant.
Waitangi Tribunal
The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 established the Waitangi Tribunal as a >permanent commission of inquiry to examine any claim by Maori concerning laws, >regulations, or actions (or inactions) of the Crown that may have caused harm. >The Act also gave a small group of unelected Tribunal members exclusive >authority to interpret the Treaty.
The Waitangi Tribunal is a racially stacked, pro-Maori lobby group. It is not a
court authorised to make binding legal decisions � it can only make >recommendations to the Government.
What some have said about this �venerable� body:
David Rankin (Ngapuhi elder): �The Tribunal makes up history as it goes along��
Brian Priestley, MBE: �It would be hard to imagine any public body less >well-organised to get at the truth.�
Dr Michael Bassett (former Cabinet Minister and Waitangi Tribunal member for 10
years): �What you�ve been dealing with for the last 30 years are some very >inventive people stretching the wording of the Treaty so far it is falling >apart because of the games being played with it.�
Dr Bronwyn Byrnes: �The Tribunal�s reports increasingly champion or advocate >the Maori cause. Maori characters and stories are given more weight than Pakeha
ones.�
Other historians, including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave, and Bill Oliver,
have raised similar concerns.
It is mainly this questionable Waitangi Tribunal and Maori sovereigntists that >have judged that the Crown is guilty of breaking �promises� � The Crown is >innocent until proven guilty by a reputable, unbiased, totally independent >�Court�.
Who Really Broke The �treaty Promises�?
Noted historian John Robinson wrote: �The Crown, the several Governors, and the
government never broke the Treaty of Waitangi. All actions taken were in accord
with the accession of sovereignty and the assertion of British law. A number of
Maori chiefs, and their iwi, committed acts of treason and rebellion in >contradiction of the Treaty.
These included:�
1. The mass murder of settlers by chiefs Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata at >Wairau in 1843.
2. Rebellion incited by the same chiefs in Wellington in 1846.
3. War waged by Hone Heke against the government in the north in 1845�46.
4. Rebellion at Waitara by Wiremu Kingi over the sale of the Pekapeka block in >1859.
5. The establishment of a rival Maori monarch, rebellion, and war beginning in >1859.
It�s the old story: people in the past behaving in accordance with the norms >and mores of their own time and place, then being later condemned for not >acting according to the norms and mores that came after them.
It is a naive and absolutist approach to history that obfuscates rather than >enlightens. �Barend Vlaardingerbroek

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: nz.politics

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Also quite long but also worthwhile. It is good to see more people prepared >>to
speak the truth.
by Geoff Parker

Yet another misleading reference to Sir Apirana Ngata, whose >mis-understanding were based on what Pakeha wanted to believe while
they were still taking land from Maori.

You are a disgrace, Sir Apirata was not naive and infinitrely more intelligent than you. He was never misled and never dominated by non-Maori folk. You are not fit to judge a man like that.

It was written for the NZ
Centre for Political Research - yet another part of the far-right
propaganda war being waged by the ACT Party

Act are not far right, there are no far right politicians in our parliament - that is the lie you and other left wing fools use every time someone diagrees with you - another shameful Rich habit.

and now a majority of
National Party MPs, with their MPs being given no guidance to reject
such lies now that the befuddled Luxon is nominally in charge of the
party - in reality he is a puppet to ACT and Atlas Network linked >organisations such as the NZ Initiative who provide both ACT and
National with advice . . .

Absolute bullshit.

THE CROWN, THE TREATY, THE PROMISES AND THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
At the centennial of the Treaty of Waitangi 1940 Sir Apirana said: �Let me >>acknowledge first that, in the whole world I doubt whether any native race >>has
been so well treated by a European people as the Maori�
Occasionally, it is alleged that the Government failed to uphold �Treaty >>promises� in the nineteenth century. Here is my response to that allegation� >>In 1840, New Zealand was a fledgling nation with two cultures at vastly >>different stages of development coming together. This made the time >>politically, financially, and socially difficult.
Following his arrival in the Bay of Islands in 1840, William Hobson, the >>British Consul, issued a proclamation prohibiting private land purchases from >>Maori unless validated by a Crown commissioner. This was done to assert >>control
over land transactions and address concerns about rampant sales and to >>protect
Maori land sellers from unscrupulous buyers. Hobson also appointed land >>commissioners to investigate all purchases made before the Treaty of Waitangi >>was signed. If a transaction was deemed unfair, the land was taken from the >>European buyer and returned to the Maori seller�who, in many cases, later >>sold
the land a second time. There appears to be no record that the European buyer >>was reimbursed.
Ngai Tahu is one example. They had sold much of the South Island before the >>Treaty was signed, and the Treaty commitment to investigate pre-1840 sales >>enabled chiefs to sell the land again�this occurred in ten deals over 20 >>years
from 1844, for a total of �14,750.
Humans are a diverse lot. No government or political party can please >>everyone;
there will always be someone or a group who is sidelined. However, since >>1840,
many statutes have been passed with good intentions to help Maori adapt to >>changing times.
For Instance:
� In 1867, voting rules were altered so that all Maori men holding land in >>common (i.e., most of them) were enfranchised. The rules were not similarly >>changed for settlers. For some years, therefore, virtually all Maori men had >>the vote, while most settlers did not�clearly, it was the settlers, not the >>Maori, who were at a disadvantage!
� Sir Apirana Ngata said: �Maori landowners did not pay land rates until >>1894.
After that, they only paid half the rates levied compared to their European >>counterparts until 1910.� He also said: �It was only in the year 1893 that >>Maori lands were taxed. It was a light tax�half of that payable by the >>Pakeha.
However, only leasehold Maori lands were taxable. It was in the year 1917 >>that
a heavier tax was levied on leased Maori land, equivalent to half the rate of >>taxation on European lands.�
? The Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 was intended to stop people using >>traditional Maori healing practices which had a supernatural or spiritual >>element. It grew out of concern over the practices of some self-appointed >>tohunga who played on superstition often travelling from pa to pa claiming to >>cure all kinds of illness.
The influential Te Aute College Students� Association was particularly >>critical, believing that tohunga might harm patients, and could hinder Maori >>progress. Tohunga also came under attack from the prominent Maori doctors >>Maui
Pomare and Te Rangi Hiroa (Sir Peter Buck).
The Tohunga Suppression Act was presented by Maori MP James Carroll and >>supported by the four Maori members of parliament. It was passed in 1907. >>The Treaty
Although called a treaty, it is arguably not a true treaty, as Maori were not >>a
politically organised nation. It was a simple formal transfer of sovereignty >>document that had arguably served its purpose the moment it was signed�it >>could
have been discarded thereafter. It has no legal standing in international law >>and, by itself, has no standing as part of New Zealand�s municipal law.
The three Treaty clauses state:
� Article One � The chiefs cede all their rights and powers of sovereignty >>(chiefly authority) to the Queen.
� Article Two � The Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs, tribes, and >>ALL people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings, and all >>their property.
� Article Three � The Queen�s government extends its protection to the people >>of New Zealand and grants Maori the status of British subjects.
(H/T David Round, page 62 in the book Twi$ting the Treaty)
So, what promises were inferred in those three clauses?
Article One: No promises.
Article Two: Promises the people of New Zealand (Maori included) the >>ownership
of their physical assets.
Article Three: Promises to protect all New Zealand citizens (British >>subjects).
Because Maori were granted the rights and privileges of British subjects in >>Article Three and most tribes accepted that by signing the Treaty, Maori then >>had responsibilities and obligations to abide by the law.
Note: The Colonial Office in England, shortly after the Treaty was signed, >>declared that the Treaty applied to all Maori, including those tribes whose >>chiefs had not signed.
When those who allege the Crown did not uphold its promises are challenged, >>they often cite the same issues � land confiscations, suppression of language >>and culture, systemic marginalisation and use the Waitangi Tribunal as >>validation.
Land Confiscations
Land confiscations were legal and targeted rebelling tribes. They occurred >>after warnings and skirmishes � not before. The land was taken to help pay >>for
the cost of the wars, discourage further uprising, and to settle Europeans in >>these areas as a buffer.
Here is what Sir Apirana Ngata said about the land confiscations:
�The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty >>and
authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that >>authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into >>operation, and land was taken in payment. This, in itself, is a Maori custom >>�
revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that >>right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the >>light of the Treaty.�
Suppression Of Language And Culture
Maori language was banned only in schools, and this was at the request of >>Maori
elders and statesmen, who wanted children to learn English in order to >>participate in the changing society. Outside of schools, no laws were ever >>passed to prohibit Maori from speaking their language. Maori adopted English >>language and culture of their own volition.
Systemic Marginalisation
Did the Government pass laws that marginalised Maori? That is unclear � it >>was
likely more of a societal issue. However, that marginalisation may well have >>been preferable to pre-1840 marginalisation, where tribal warfare, slavery, >>cannibalism, land confiscation, and infanticide were rampant.
Waitangi Tribunal
The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 established the Waitangi Tribunal as a >>permanent commission of inquiry to examine any claim by Maori concerning >>laws,
regulations, or actions (or inactions) of the Crown that may have caused harm.
The Act also gave a small group of unelected Tribunal members exclusive >>authority to interpret the Treaty.
The Waitangi Tribunal is a racially stacked, pro-Maori lobby group. It is not >>a
court authorised to make binding legal decisions � it can only make >>recommendations to the Government.
What some have said about this �venerable� body:
David Rankin (Ngapuhi elder): �The Tribunal makes up history as it goes >>along��
Brian Priestley, MBE: �It would be hard to imagine any public body less >>well-organised to get at the truth.�
Dr Michael Bassett (former Cabinet Minister and Waitangi Tribunal member for >>10
years): �What you�ve been dealing with for the last 30 years are some very >>inventive people stretching the wording of the Treaty so far it is falling >>apart because of the games being played with it.�
Dr Bronwyn Byrnes: �The Tribunal�s reports increasingly champion or advocate >>the Maori cause. Maori characters and stories are given more weight than >>Pakeha
ones.�
Other historians, including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave, and Bill >>Oliver,
have raised similar concerns.
It is mainly this questionable Waitangi Tribunal and Maori sovereigntists >>that
have judged that the Crown is guilty of breaking �promises� � The Crown is >>innocent until proven guilty by a reputable, unbiased, totally independent >>�Court�.
Who Really Broke The �treaty Promises�?
Noted historian John Robinson wrote: �The Crown, the several Governors, and >>the
government never broke the Treaty of Waitangi. All actions taken were in >>accord
with the accession of sovereignty and the assertion of British law. A number >>of
Maori chiefs, and their iwi, committed acts of treason and rebellion in >>contradiction of the Treaty.
These included:�
1. The mass murder of settlers by chiefs Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata at >>Wairau in 1843.
2. Rebellion incited by the same chiefs in Wellington in 1846.
3. War waged by Hone Heke against the government in the north in 1845�46. >>4. Rebellion at Waitara by Wiremu Kingi over the sale of the Pekapeka block >>in
1859.
5. The establishment of a rival Maori monarch, rebellion, and war beginning >>in
1859.
It�s the old story: people in the past behaving in accordance with the norms >>and mores of their own time and place, then being later condemned for not >>acting according to the norms and mores that came after them.
It is a naive and absolutist approach to history that obfuscates rather than >>enlightens. �Barend Vlaardingerbroek

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: nz.politics

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 07:57:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Also quite long but also worthwhile. It is good to see more people prepared >>>>to
speak the truth.
by Geoff Parker

Yet another misleading reference to Sir Apirana Ngata, whose >>>mis-understanding were based on what Pakeha wanted to believe while
they were still taking land from Maori.

You are a disgrace, Sir Apirata was not naive and infinitrely more >>intelligent
than you. He was never misled and never dominated by non-Maori folk. You are >>not fit to judge a man like that.

I have not claimed that he was misled, or commented on his
intelligence.

You maligned him. You are incapable of understaning how much you did that, it was disgraceful..

He was educated in an era in which it was accepted that
Maori had ceded sovereignty, and that "understanding" was only shown
to be false from about 1958

It is not and was not false - they ceded sovereignty and were pleased to do so. Sir Apirana's intelligence and profound honesty eclipses yours to the point of making you an absurd nonentity - just more evidence of that proven fact.

, but more particularly in the 1970's, when
academic research demonstrated that the Maori version of the Treaty ,
which reflected as best we can tell the understanding of those Maori
Chiefs who signed) indicates clearly that they did not cede
sovereignty.

That is a lie, you have never shown it to be true.

You have been told this number of time, Tony - do catch
up.

Repeating that lie does not change the truth, time you stopped it but that would mean you have nothing to post.

It was written for the NZ
Centre for Political Research - yet another part of the far-right >>>propaganda war being waged by the ACT Party

Act are not far right, there are no far right politicians in our parliament - >>that is the lie you and other left wing fools use every time someone diagrees >>with you - another shameful Rich habit.

Since you only ever listen to yourself you can assert any stupidity
you like, Tony. I have shown you evidence that they are at the extreme
right but you of course cannot provide any evidence to the contrary .

You have never shown anything of the sort - I do not have to prove anything, that is your job - and you have failed once morfe.

. .

and now a majority of
National Party MPs, with their MPs being given no guidance to reject
such lies now that the befuddled Luxon is nominally in charge of the >>>party - in reality he is a puppet to ACT and Atlas Network linked >>>organisations such as the NZ Initiative who provide both ACT and
National with advice . . .

Absolute bullshit.

THE CROWN, THE TREATY, THE PROMISES AND THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
At the centennial of the Treaty of Waitangi 1940 Sir Apirana said: �Let me >>>>acknowledge first that, in the whole world I doubt whether any native race >>>>has
been so well treated by a European people as the Maori�
Occasionally, it is alleged that the Government failed to uphold �Treaty >>>>promises� in the nineteenth century. Here is my response to that allegation�
In 1840, New Zealand was a fledgling nation with two cultures at vastly >>>>different stages of development coming together. This made the time >>>>politically, financially, and socially difficult.
Following his arrival in the Bay of Islands in 1840, William Hobson, the >>>>British Consul, issued a proclamation prohibiting private land purchases >>>>from
Maori unless validated by a Crown commissioner. This was done to assert >>>>control
over land transactions and address concerns about rampant sales and to >>>>protect
Maori land sellers from unscrupulous buyers. Hobson also appointed land >>>>commissioners to investigate all purchases made before the Treaty of >>>>Waitangi
was signed. If a transaction was deemed unfair, the land was taken from the >>>>European buyer and returned to the Maori seller�who, in many cases, later >>>>sold
the land a second time. There appears to be no record that the European >>>>buyer
was reimbursed.
Ngai Tahu is one example. They had sold much of the South Island before the >>>>Treaty was signed, and the Treaty commitment to investigate pre-1840 sales >>>>enabled chiefs to sell the land again�this occurred in ten deals over 20 >>>>years
from 1844, for a total of �14,750.
Humans are a diverse lot. No government or political party can please >>>>everyone;
there will always be someone or a group who is sidelined. However, since >>>>1840,
many statutes have been passed with good intentions to help Maori adapt to >>>>changing times.
For Instance:
� In 1867, voting rules were altered so that all Maori men holding land in >>>>common (i.e., most of them) were enfranchised. The rules were not similarly >>>>changed for settlers. For some years, therefore, virtually all Maori men >>>>had
the vote, while most settlers did not�clearly, it was the settlers, not the >>>>Maori, who were at a disadvantage!
� Sir Apirana Ngata said: �Maori landowners did not pay land rates until >>>>1894.
After that, they only paid half the rates levied compared to their European >>>>counterparts until 1910.� He also said: �It was only in the year 1893 that >>>>Maori lands were taxed. It was a light tax�half of that payable by the >>>>Pakeha.
However, only leasehold Maori lands were taxable. It was in the year 1917 >>>>that
a heavier tax was levied on leased Maori land, equivalent to half the rate >>>>of
taxation on European lands.�
? The Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 was intended to stop people using >>>>traditional Maori healing practices which had a supernatural or spiritual >>>>element. It grew out of concern over the practices of some self-appointed >>>>tohunga who played on superstition often travelling from pa to pa claiming >>>>to
cure all kinds of illness.
The influential Te Aute College Students� Association was particularly >>>>critical, believing that tohunga might harm patients, and could hinder >>>>Maori
progress. Tohunga also came under attack from the prominent Maori doctors >>>>Maui
Pomare and Te Rangi Hiroa (Sir Peter Buck).
The Tohunga Suppression Act was presented by Maori MP James Carroll and >>>>supported by the four Maori members of parliament. It was passed in 1907. >>>>The Treaty
Although called a treaty, it is arguably not a true treaty, as Maori were >>>>not
a
politically organised nation. It was a simple formal transfer of >>>>sovereignty
document that had arguably served its purpose the moment it was signed�it >>>>could
have been discarded thereafter. It has no legal standing in international >>>>law
and, by itself, has no standing as part of New Zealand�s municipal law. >>>>The three Treaty clauses state:
� Article One � The chiefs cede all their rights and powers of sovereignty >>>>(chiefly authority) to the Queen.
� Article Two � The Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs, tribes, >>>>and
ALL people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings, and all >>>>their property.
� Article Three � The Queen�s government extends its protection to the >>>>people
of New Zealand and grants Maori the status of British subjects.
(H/T David Round, page 62 in the book Twi$ting the Treaty)
So, what promises were inferred in those three clauses?
Article One: No promises.
Article Two: Promises the people of New Zealand (Maori included) the >>>>ownership
of their physical assets.
Article Three: Promises to protect all New Zealand citizens (British >>>>subjects).
Because Maori were granted the rights and privileges of British subjects in >>>>Article Three and most tribes accepted that by signing the Treaty, Maori >>>>then
had responsibilities and obligations to abide by the law.
Note: The Colonial Office in England, shortly after the Treaty was signed, >>>>declared that the Treaty applied to all Maori, including those tribes whose >>>>chiefs had not signed.
When those who allege the Crown did not uphold its promises are challenged, >>>>they often cite the same issues � land confiscations, suppression of >>>>language
and culture, systemic marginalisation and use the Waitangi Tribunal as >>>>validation.
Land Confiscations
Land confiscations were legal and targeted rebelling tribes. They occurred >>>>after warnings and skirmishes � not before. The land was taken to help pay >>>>for
the cost of the wars, discourage further uprising, and to settle Europeans >>>>in
these areas as a buffer.
Here is what Sir Apirana Ngata said about the land confiscations:
�The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty >>>>and
authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that >>>>authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into >>>>operation, and land was taken in payment. This, in itself, is a Maori >>>>custom
�
revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that >>>>right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in >>>>the
light of the Treaty.�
Suppression Of Language And Culture
Maori language was banned only in schools, and this was at the request of >>>>Maori
elders and statesmen, who wanted children to learn English in order to >>>>participate in the changing society. Outside of schools, no laws were ever >>>>passed to prohibit Maori from speaking their language. Maori adopted >>>>English
language and culture of their own volition.
Systemic Marginalisation
Did the Government pass laws that marginalised Maori? That is unclear � it >>>>was
likely more of a societal issue. However, that marginalisation may well >>>>have
been preferable to pre-1840 marginalisation, where tribal warfare, slavery, >>>>cannibalism, land confiscation, and infanticide were rampant.
Waitangi Tribunal
The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 established the Waitangi Tribunal as a >>>>permanent commission of inquiry to examine any claim by Maori concerning >>>>laws,
regulations, or actions (or inactions) of the Crown that may have caused >>>>harm.
The Act also gave a small group of unelected Tribunal members exclusive >>>>authority to interpret the Treaty.
The Waitangi Tribunal is a racially stacked, pro-Maori lobby group. It is >>>>not
a
court authorised to make binding legal decisions � it can only make >>>>recommendations to the Government.
What some have said about this �venerable� body:
David Rankin (Ngapuhi elder): �The Tribunal makes up history as it goes >>>>along��
Brian Priestley, MBE: �It would be hard to imagine any public body less >>>>well-organised to get at the truth.�
Dr Michael Bassett (former Cabinet Minister and Waitangi Tribunal member >>>>for
10
years): �What you�ve been dealing with for the last 30 years are some very >>>>inventive people stretching the wording of the Treaty so far it is falling >>>>apart because of the games being played with it.�
Dr Bronwyn Byrnes: �The Tribunal�s reports increasingly champion or >>>>advocate
the Maori cause. Maori characters and stories are given more weight than >>>>Pakeha
ones.�
Other historians, including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave, and Bill >>>>Oliver,
have raised similar concerns.
It is mainly this questionable Waitangi Tribunal and Maori sovereigntists >>>>that
have judged that the Crown is guilty of breaking �promises� � The Crown is >>>>innocent until proven guilty by a reputable, unbiased, totally independent >>>>�Court�.
Who Really Broke The �treaty Promises�?
Noted historian John Robinson wrote: �The Crown, the several Governors, and >>>>the
government never broke the Treaty of Waitangi. All actions taken were in >>>>accord
with the accession of sovereignty and the assertion of British law. A >>>>number
of
Maori chiefs, and their iwi, committed acts of treason and rebellion in >>>>contradiction of the Treaty.
These included:�
1. The mass murder of settlers by chiefs Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata at >>>>Wairau in 1843.
2. Rebellion incited by the same chiefs in Wellington in 1846.
3. War waged by Hone Heke against the government in the north in 1845�46. >>>>4. Rebellion at Waitara by Wiremu Kingi over the sale of the Pekapeka block >>>>in
1859.
5. The establishment of a rival Maori monarch, rebellion, and war beginning >>>>in
1859.
It�s the old story: people in the past behaving in accordance with the >>>>norms
and mores of their own time and place, then being later condemned for not >>>>acting according to the norms and mores that came after them.
It is a naive and absolutist approach to history that obfuscates rather >>>>than
enlightens. �Barend Vlaardingerbroek

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: nz.politics

On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 07:57:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Also quite long but also worthwhile. It is good to see more people prepared >>>to
speak the truth.
by Geoff Parker

Yet another misleading reference to Sir Apirana Ngata, whose >>mis-understanding were based on what Pakeha wanted to believe while
they were still taking land from Maori.

You are a disgrace, Sir Apirata was not naive and infinitrely more intelligent >than you. He was never misled and never dominated by non-Maori folk. You are >not fit to judge a man like that.

I have not claimed that he was misled, or commented on his
intelligence. He was educated in an era in which it was accepted that
Maori had ceded sovereignty, and that "understanding" was only shown
to be false from about 1958, but more particularly in the 1970's, when
academic research demonstrated that the Maori version of the Treaty ,
which reflected as best we can tell the understanding of those Maori
Chiefs who signed) indicates clearly that they did not cede
sovereignty. You have been told this number of time, Tony - do catch
up.

It was written for the NZ
Centre for Political Research - yet another part of the far-right >>propaganda war being waged by the ACT Party

Act are not far right, there are no far right politicians in our parliament - >that is the lie you and other left wing fools use every time someone diagrees >with you - another shameful Rich habit.

Since you only ever listen to yourself you can assert any stupidity
you like, Tony. I have shown you evidence that they are at the extreme
right but you of course cannot provide any evidence to the contrary .
. .

and now a majority of
National Party MPs, with their MPs being given no guidance to reject
such lies now that the befuddled Luxon is nominally in charge of the
party - in reality he is a puppet to ACT and Atlas Network linked >>organisations such as the NZ Initiative who provide both ACT and
National with advice . . .

Absolute bullshit.

THE CROWN, THE TREATY, THE PROMISES AND THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
At the centennial of the Treaty of Waitangi 1940 Sir Apirana said: �Let me >>>acknowledge first that, in the whole world I doubt whether any native race >>>has
been so well treated by a European people as the Maori�
Occasionally, it is alleged that the Government failed to uphold �Treaty >>>promises� in the nineteenth century. Here is my response to that allegation� >>>In 1840, New Zealand was a fledgling nation with two cultures at vastly >>>different stages of development coming together. This made the time >>>politically, financially, and socially difficult.
Following his arrival in the Bay of Islands in 1840, William Hobson, the >>>British Consul, issued a proclamation prohibiting private land purchases from
Maori unless validated by a Crown commissioner. This was done to assert >>>control
over land transactions and address concerns about rampant sales and to >>>protect
Maori land sellers from unscrupulous buyers. Hobson also appointed land >>>commissioners to investigate all purchases made before the Treaty of Waitangi
was signed. If a transaction was deemed unfair, the land was taken from the >>>European buyer and returned to the Maori seller�who, in many cases, later >>>sold
the land a second time. There appears to be no record that the European buyer
was reimbursed.
Ngai Tahu is one example. They had sold much of the South Island before the >>>Treaty was signed, and the Treaty commitment to investigate pre-1840 sales >>>enabled chiefs to sell the land again�this occurred in ten deals over 20 >>>years
from 1844, for a total of �14,750.
Humans are a diverse lot. No government or political party can please >>>everyone;
there will always be someone or a group who is sidelined. However, since >>>1840,
many statutes have been passed with good intentions to help Maori adapt to >>>changing times.
For Instance:
� In 1867, voting rules were altered so that all Maori men holding land in >>>common (i.e., most of them) were enfranchised. The rules were not similarly >>>changed for settlers. For some years, therefore, virtually all Maori men had >>>the vote, while most settlers did not�clearly, it was the settlers, not the >>>Maori, who were at a disadvantage!
� Sir Apirana Ngata said: �Maori landowners did not pay land rates until >>>1894.
After that, they only paid half the rates levied compared to their European >>>counterparts until 1910.� He also said: �It was only in the year 1893 that >>>Maori lands were taxed. It was a light tax�half of that payable by the >>>Pakeha.
However, only leasehold Maori lands were taxable. It was in the year 1917 >>>that
a heavier tax was levied on leased Maori land, equivalent to half the rate of
taxation on European lands.�
? The Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 was intended to stop people using >>>traditional Maori healing practices which had a supernatural or spiritual >>>element. It grew out of concern over the practices of some self-appointed >>>tohunga who played on superstition often travelling from pa to pa claiming to
cure all kinds of illness.
The influential Te Aute College Students� Association was particularly >>>critical, believing that tohunga might harm patients, and could hinder Maori >>>progress. Tohunga also came under attack from the prominent Maori doctors >>>Maui
Pomare and Te Rangi Hiroa (Sir Peter Buck).
The Tohunga Suppression Act was presented by Maori MP James Carroll and >>>supported by the four Maori members of parliament. It was passed in 1907. >>>The Treaty
Although called a treaty, it is arguably not a true treaty, as Maori were not
a
politically organised nation. It was a simple formal transfer of sovereignty >>>document that had arguably served its purpose the moment it was signed�it >>>could
have been discarded thereafter. It has no legal standing in international law
and, by itself, has no standing as part of New Zealand�s municipal law. >>>The three Treaty clauses state:
� Article One � The chiefs cede all their rights and powers of sovereignty >>>(chiefly authority) to the Queen.
� Article Two � The Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs, tribes, and >>>ALL people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings, and all >>>their property.
� Article Three � The Queen�s government extends its protection to the people
of New Zealand and grants Maori the status of British subjects.
(H/T David Round, page 62 in the book Twi$ting the Treaty)
So, what promises were inferred in those three clauses?
Article One: No promises.
Article Two: Promises the people of New Zealand (Maori included) the >>>ownership
of their physical assets.
Article Three: Promises to protect all New Zealand citizens (British >>>subjects).
Because Maori were granted the rights and privileges of British subjects in >>>Article Three and most tribes accepted that by signing the Treaty, Maori then
had responsibilities and obligations to abide by the law.
Note: The Colonial Office in England, shortly after the Treaty was signed, >>>declared that the Treaty applied to all Maori, including those tribes whose >>>chiefs had not signed.
When those who allege the Crown did not uphold its promises are challenged, >>>they often cite the same issues � land confiscations, suppression of language
and culture, systemic marginalisation and use the Waitangi Tribunal as >>>validation.
Land Confiscations
Land confiscations were legal and targeted rebelling tribes. They occurred >>>after warnings and skirmishes � not before. The land was taken to help pay >>>for
the cost of the wars, discourage further uprising, and to settle Europeans in
these areas as a buffer.
Here is what Sir Apirana Ngata said about the land confiscations:
�The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty >>>and
authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that >>>authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into >>>operation, and land was taken in payment. This, in itself, is a Maori custom >>>�
revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that >>>right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the >>>light of the Treaty.�
Suppression Of Language And Culture
Maori language was banned only in schools, and this was at the request of >>>Maori
elders and statesmen, who wanted children to learn English in order to >>>participate in the changing society. Outside of schools, no laws were ever >>>passed to prohibit Maori from speaking their language. Maori adopted English >>>language and culture of their own volition.
Systemic Marginalisation
Did the Government pass laws that marginalised Maori? That is unclear � it >>>was
likely more of a societal issue. However, that marginalisation may well have >>>been preferable to pre-1840 marginalisation, where tribal warfare, slavery, >>>cannibalism, land confiscation, and infanticide were rampant.
Waitangi Tribunal
The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 established the Waitangi Tribunal as a >>>permanent commission of inquiry to examine any claim by Maori concerning >>>laws,
regulations, or actions (or inactions) of the Crown that may have caused harm.
The Act also gave a small group of unelected Tribunal members exclusive >>>authority to interpret the Treaty.
The Waitangi Tribunal is a racially stacked, pro-Maori lobby group. It is not
a
court authorised to make binding legal decisions � it can only make >>>recommendations to the Government.
What some have said about this �venerable� body:
David Rankin (Ngapuhi elder): �The Tribunal makes up history as it goes >>>along��
Brian Priestley, MBE: �It would be hard to imagine any public body less >>>well-organised to get at the truth.�
Dr Michael Bassett (former Cabinet Minister and Waitangi Tribunal member for >>>10
years): �What you�ve been dealing with for the last 30 years are some very >>>inventive people stretching the wording of the Treaty so far it is falling >>>apart because of the games being played with it.�
Dr Bronwyn Byrnes: �The Tribunal�s reports increasingly champion or advocate >>>the Maori cause. Maori characters and stories are given more weight than >>>Pakeha
ones.�
Other historians, including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave, and Bill >>>Oliver,
have raised similar concerns.
It is mainly this questionable Waitangi Tribunal and Maori sovereigntists >>>that
have judged that the Crown is guilty of breaking �promises� � The Crown is >>>innocent until proven guilty by a reputable, unbiased, totally independent >>>�Court�.
Who Really Broke The �treaty Promises�?
Noted historian John Robinson wrote: �The Crown, the several Governors, and >>>the
government never broke the Treaty of Waitangi. All actions taken were in >>>accord
with the accession of sovereignty and the assertion of British law. A number >>>of
Maori chiefs, and their iwi, committed acts of treason and rebellion in >>>contradiction of the Treaty.
These included:�
1. The mass murder of settlers by chiefs Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata at >>>Wairau in 1843.
2. Rebellion incited by the same chiefs in Wellington in 1846.
3. War waged by Hone Heke against the government in the north in 1845�46. >>>4. Rebellion at Waitara by Wiremu Kingi over the sale of the Pekapeka block >>>in
1859.
5. The establishment of a rival Maori monarch, rebellion, and war beginning >>>in
1859.
It�s the old story: people in the past behaving in accordance with the norms >>>and mores of their own time and place, then being later condemned for not >>>acting according to the norms and mores that came after them.
It is a naive and absolutist approach to history that obfuscates rather than >>>enlightens. �Barend Vlaardingerbroek

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: nz.politics

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 03:03:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 07:57:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Also quite long but also worthwhile. It is good to see more people >>>>>>prepared
to
speak the truth.
by Geoff Parker

Yet another misleading reference to Sir Apirana Ngata, whose >>>>>mis-understanding were based on what Pakeha wanted to believe while >>>>>they were still taking land from Maori.

You are a disgrace, Sir Apirata was not naive and infinitrely more >>>>intelligent
than you. He was never misled and never dominated by non-Maori folk. You >>>>are
not fit to judge a man like that.

I have not claimed that he was misled, or commented on his
intelligence.

You maligned him. You are incapable of understaning how much you did that, it >>was disgraceful..

Of course I did not.

Yes you certainly did, you need English lessons, or better still a lobotomy. >He knew what he was taught - it was not his fault

that the understanding of the Treaty at that time was wrong.

It was not wronmg. That has never been shown to be the case.

He was educated in an era in which it was accepted that
Maori had ceded sovereignty, and that "understanding" was only shown
to be false from about 1958

It is not and was not false - they ceded sovereignty and were pleased to do >>so.
Sir Apirana's intelligence and profound honesty eclipses yours to the point >>of
making you an absurd nonentity - just more evidence of that proven fact.

So show that proof . . .

No you cretin. You prove what you have posted, it is not my place to disprove something you have failed to show,

, but more particularly in the 1970's, when
academic research demonstrated that the Maori version of the Treaty , >>>which reflected as best we can tell the understanding of those Maori >>>Chiefs who signed) indicates clearly that they did not cede
sovereignty.

That is a lie, you have never shown it to be true.

You have been told this number of time, Tony - do catch
up.

Repeating that lie does not change the truth, time you stopped it but that >>would mean you have nothing to post. >https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/

https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/

https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/moana-jackson-there-is-no-word-in-te-reo-maori-for-cede/

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/sites/default/files/documents/All_about_the_Treaty.pdf

https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2022/11/02/the-myth-of-sovereignty.html None of that is proof. posting idiotic stuff like that shows that you are lost.

Abuse gone.>>>>>It was written for the NZ

Centre for Political Research - yet another part of the far-right >>>>>propaganda war being waged by the ACT Party

Act are not far right, there are no far right politicians in our parliament >>>>-
that is the lie you and other left wing fools use every time someone >>>>diagrees
with you - another shameful Rich habit.

Since you only ever listen to yourself you can assert any stupidity
you like, Tony. I have shown you evidence that they are at the extreme >>>right but you of course cannot provide any evidence to the contrary .

You have never shown anything of the sort - I do not have to prove anything, >>that is your job - and you have failed once morfe.

. .

and now a majority of
National Party MPs, with their MPs being given no guidance to reject >>>>>such lies now that the befuddled Luxon is nominally in charge of the >>>>>party - in reality he is a puppet to ACT and Atlas Network linked >>>>>organisations such as the NZ Initiative who provide both ACT and >>>>>National with advice . . .

Absolute bullshit.

THE CROWN, THE TREATY, THE PROMISES AND THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
At the centennial of the Treaty of Waitangi 1940 Sir Apirana said: �Let >>>>>>me
acknowledge first that, in the whole world I doubt whether any native >>>>>>race
has
been so well treated by a European people as the Maori� >>>>>>Occasionally, it is alleged that the Government failed to uphold �Treaty >>>>>>promises� in the nineteenth century. Here is my response to that >>>>>>allegation�
In 1840, New Zealand was a fledgling nation with two cultures at vastly >>>>>>different stages of development coming together. This made the time >>>>>>politically, financially, and socially difficult.
Following his arrival in the Bay of Islands in 1840, William Hobson, the >>>>>>British Consul, issued a proclamation prohibiting private land purchases >>>>>>from
Maori unless validated by a Crown commissioner. This was done to assert >>>>>>control
over land transactions and address concerns about rampant sales and to >>>>>>protect
Maori land sellers from unscrupulous buyers. Hobson also appointed land >>>>>>commissioners to investigate all purchases made before the Treaty of >>>>>>Waitangi
was signed. If a transaction was deemed unfair, the land was taken from >>>>>>the
European buyer and returned to the Maori seller�who, in many cases, later >>>>>>sold
the land a second time. There appears to be no record that the European >>>>>>buyer
was reimbursed.
Ngai Tahu is one example. They had sold much of the South Island before >>>>>>the
Treaty was signed, and the Treaty commitment to investigate pre-1840 >>>>>>sales
enabled chiefs to sell the land again�this occurred in ten deals over 20 >>>>>>years
from 1844, for a total of �14,750.
Humans are a diverse lot. No government or political party can please >>>>>>everyone;
there will always be someone or a group who is sidelined. However, since >>>>>>1840,
many statutes have been passed with good intentions to help Maori adapt >>>>>>to
changing times.
For Instance:
� In 1867, voting rules were altered so that all Maori men holding land >>>>>>in
common (i.e., most of them) were enfranchised. The rules were not >>>>>>similarly
changed for settlers. For some years, therefore, virtually all Maori men >>>>>>had
the vote, while most settlers did not�clearly, it was the settlers, not >>>>>>the
Maori, who were at a disadvantage!
� Sir Apirana Ngata said: �Maori landowners did not pay land rates until >>>>>>1894.
After that, they only paid half the rates levied compared to their >>>>>>European
counterparts until 1910.� He also said: �It was only in the year 1893 >>>>>>that
Maori lands were taxed. It was a light tax�half of that payable by the >>>>>>Pakeha.
However, only leasehold Maori lands were taxable. It was in the year 1917 >>>>>>that
a heavier tax was levied on leased Maori land, equivalent to half the >>>>>>rate
of
taxation on European lands.�
? The Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 was intended to stop people using >>>>>>traditional Maori healing practices which had a supernatural or spiritual >>>>>>element. It grew out of concern over the practices of some self-appointed >>>>>>tohunga who played on superstition often travelling from pa to pa >>>>>>claiming
to
cure all kinds of illness.
The influential Te Aute College Students� Association was particularly >>>>>>critical, believing that tohunga might harm patients, and could hinder >>>>>>Maori
progress. Tohunga also came under attack from the prominent Maori doctors >>>>>>Maui
Pomare and Te Rangi Hiroa (Sir Peter Buck).
The Tohunga Suppression Act was presented by Maori MP James Carroll and >>>>>>supported by the four Maori members of parliament. It was passed in 1907. >>>>>>The Treaty
Although called a treaty, it is arguably not a true treaty, as Maori were >>>>>>not
a
politically organised nation. It was a simple formal transfer of >>>>>>sovereignty
document that had arguably served its purpose the moment it was signed�it >>>>>>could
have been discarded thereafter. It has no legal standing in international >>>>>>law
and, by itself, has no standing as part of New Zealand�s municipal law. >>>>>>The three Treaty clauses state:
� Article One � The chiefs cede all their rights and powers of >>>>>>sovereignty
(chiefly authority) to the Queen.
� Article Two � The Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs, tribes, >>>>>>and
ALL people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings, and >>>>>>all
their property.
� Article Three � The Queen�s government extends its protection to the >>>>>>people
of New Zealand and grants Maori the status of British subjects. >>>>>>(H/T David Round, page 62 in the book Twi$ting the Treaty)
So, what promises were inferred in those three clauses?
Article One: No promises.
Article Two: Promises the people of New Zealand (Maori included) the >>>>>>ownership
of their physical assets.
Article Three: Promises to protect all New Zealand citizens (British >>>>>>subjects).
Because Maori were granted the rights and privileges of British subjects >>>>>>in
Article Three and most tribes accepted that by signing the Treaty, Maori >>>>>>then
had responsibilities and obligations to abide by the law.
Note: The Colonial Office in England, shortly after the Treaty was >>>>>>signed,
declared that the Treaty applied to all Maori, including those tribes >>>>>>whose
chiefs had not signed.
When those who allege the Crown did not uphold its promises are >>>>>>challenged,
they often cite the same issues � land confiscations, suppression of >>>>>>language
and culture, systemic marginalisation and use the Waitangi Tribunal as >>>>>>validation.
Land Confiscations
Land confiscations were legal and targeted rebelling tribes. They >>>>>>occurred
after warnings and skirmishes � not before. The land was taken to help >>>>>>pay
for
the cost of the wars, discourage further uprising, and to settle >>>>>>Europeans
in
these areas as a buffer.
Here is what Sir Apirana Ngata said about the land confiscations: >>>>>>�The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England the >>>>>>sovereignty
and
authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that >>>>>>authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into >>>>>>operation, and land was taken in payment. This, in itself, is a Maori >>>>>>custom
�
revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded >>>>>>that
right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in >>>>>>the
light of the Treaty.�
Suppression Of Language And Culture
Maori language was banned only in schools, and this was at the request of >>>>>>Maori
elders and statesmen, who wanted children to learn English in order to >>>>>>participate in the changing society. Outside of schools, no laws were >>>>>>ever
passed to prohibit Maori from speaking their language. Maori adopted >>>>>>English
language and culture of their own volition.
Systemic Marginalisation
Did the Government pass laws that marginalised Maori? That is unclear � >>>>>>it
was
likely more of a societal issue. However, that marginalisation may well >>>>>>have
been preferable to pre-1840 marginalisation, where tribal warfare, >>>>>>slavery,
cannibalism, land confiscation, and infanticide were rampant. >>>>>>Waitangi Tribunal
The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 established the Waitangi Tribunal as a >>>>>>permanent commission of inquiry to examine any claim by Maori concerning >>>>>>laws,
regulations, or actions (or inactions) of the Crown that may have caused >>>>>>harm.
The Act also gave a small group of unelected Tribunal members exclusive >>>>>>authority to interpret the Treaty.
The Waitangi Tribunal is a racially stacked, pro-Maori lobby group. It is >>>>>>not
a
court authorised to make binding legal decisions � it can only make >>>>>>recommendations to the Government.
What some have said about this �venerable� body:
David Rankin (Ngapuhi elder): �The Tribunal makes up history as it goes >>>>>>along��
Brian Priestley, MBE: �It would be hard to imagine any public body less >>>>>>well-organised to get at the truth.�
Dr Michael Bassett (former Cabinet Minister and Waitangi Tribunal member >>>>>>for
10
years): �What you�ve been dealing with for the last 30 years are some >>>>>>very
inventive people stretching the wording of the Treaty so far it is >>>>>>falling
apart because of the games being played with it.�
Dr Bronwyn Byrnes: �The Tribunal�s reports increasingly champion or >>>>>>advocate
the Maori cause. Maori characters and stories are given more weight than >>>>>>Pakeha
ones.�
Other historians, including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave, and Bill >>>>>>Oliver,
have raised similar concerns.
It is mainly this questionable Waitangi Tribunal and Maori sovereigntists >>>>>>that
have judged that the Crown is guilty of breaking �promises� � The Crown >>>>>>is
innocent until proven guilty by a reputable, unbiased, totally >>>>>>independent
�Court�.
Who Really Broke The �treaty Promises�?
Noted historian John Robinson wrote: �The Crown, the several Governors, >>>>>>and
the
government never broke the Treaty of Waitangi. All actions taken were in >>>>>>accord
with the accession of sovereignty and the assertion of British law. A >>>>>>number
of
Maori chiefs, and their iwi, committed acts of treason and rebellion in >>>>>>contradiction of the Treaty.
These included:�
1. The mass murder of settlers by chiefs Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata >>>>>>at
Wairau in 1843.
2. Rebellion incited by the same chiefs in Wellington in 1846.
3. War waged by Hone Heke against the government in the north in 1845�46. >>>>>>4. Rebellion at Waitara by Wiremu Kingi over the sale of the Pekapeka >>>>>>block
in
1859.
5. The establishment of a rival Maori monarch, rebellion, and war >>>>>>beginning
in
1859.
It�s the old story: people in the past behaving in accordance with the >>>>>>norms
and mores of their own time and place, then being later condemned for not >>>>>>acting according to the norms and mores that came after them.
It is a naive and absolutist approach to history that obfuscates rather >>>>>>than
enlightens. �Barend Vlaardingerbroek

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: nz.politics

On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 03:03:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 07:57:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Also quite long but also worthwhile. It is good to see more people prepared
to
speak the truth.
by Geoff Parker

Yet another misleading reference to Sir Apirana Ngata, whose >>>>mis-understanding were based on what Pakeha wanted to believe while >>>>they were still taking land from Maori.

You are a disgrace, Sir Apirata was not naive and infinitrely more >>>intelligent
than you. He was never misled and never dominated by non-Maori folk. You are >>>not fit to judge a man like that.

I have not claimed that he was misled, or commented on his
intelligence.

You maligned him. You are incapable of understaning how much you did that, it >was disgraceful..

Of course I did not. He knew what he was taught - it was not his fault
that the understanding of the Treaty at that time was wrong.

He was educated in an era in which it was accepted that
Maori had ceded sovereignty, and that "understanding" was only shown
to be false from about 1958

It is not and was not false - they ceded sovereignty and were pleased to do so.
Sir Apirana's intelligence and profound honesty eclipses yours to the point of >making you an absurd nonentity - just more evidence of that proven fact.

So show that proof . . .

, but more particularly in the 1970's, when
academic research demonstrated that the Maori version of the Treaty ,
which reflected as best we can tell the understanding of those Maori
Chiefs who signed) indicates clearly that they did not cede
sovereignty.

That is a lie, you have never shown it to be true.

You have been told this number of time, Tony - do catch
up.

Repeating that lie does not change the truth, time you stopped it but that >would mean you have nothing to post. https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/

https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/

https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/moana-jackson-there-is-no-word-in-te-reo-maori-for-cede/

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/sites/default/files/documents/All_about_the_Treaty.pdf

https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2022/11/02/the-myth-of-sovereignty.html

But you should not feel too ashamed of your ignorance, Tony - this
link is from quite a long time ago, but I suspect Luxon is under
pressure from his far-right backers (e.g. NZ Initiative, Hobsons
Pledge, NZ Taxpayers Union) and his handler David Seymour, to remain
ignorant . . . . . https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/526393/iwi-write-to-pm-demanding-recognition-maori-did-not-cede-sovereignty

It is clear that the government sees an advantage for itself in
reneging on the contract represented by the Treaty of Waitangi https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/563391/te-pati-maori-co-leader-debbie-ngarewa-packer-on-the-longest-suspension-in-parliament

It was written for the NZ
Centre for Political Research - yet another part of the far-right >>>>propaganda war being waged by the ACT Party

Act are not far right, there are no far right politicians in our parliament -
that is the lie you and other left wing fools use every time someone diagrees
with you - another shameful Rich habit.

Since you only ever listen to yourself you can assert any stupidity
you like, Tony. I have shown you evidence that they are at the extreme >>right but you of course cannot provide any evidence to the contrary .

You have never shown anything of the sort - I do not have to prove anything, >that is your job - and you have failed once morfe.

. .

and now a majority of
National Party MPs, with their MPs being given no guidance to reject >>>>such lies now that the befuddled Luxon is nominally in charge of the >>>>party - in reality he is a puppet to ACT and Atlas Network linked >>>>organisations such as the NZ Initiative who provide both ACT and >>>>National with advice . . .

Absolute bullshit.

THE CROWN, THE TREATY, THE PROMISES AND THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
At the centennial of the Treaty of Waitangi 1940 Sir Apirana said: �Let me >>>>>acknowledge first that, in the whole world I doubt whether any native race >>>>>has
been so well treated by a European people as the Maori�
Occasionally, it is alleged that the Government failed to uphold �Treaty >>>>>promises� in the nineteenth century. Here is my response to that allegation�
In 1840, New Zealand was a fledgling nation with two cultures at vastly >>>>>different stages of development coming together. This made the time >>>>>politically, financially, and socially difficult.
Following his arrival in the Bay of Islands in 1840, William Hobson, the >>>>>British Consul, issued a proclamation prohibiting private land purchases >>>>>from
Maori unless validated by a Crown commissioner. This was done to assert >>>>>control
over land transactions and address concerns about rampant sales and to >>>>>protect
Maori land sellers from unscrupulous buyers. Hobson also appointed land >>>>>commissioners to investigate all purchases made before the Treaty of >>>>>Waitangi
was signed. If a transaction was deemed unfair, the land was taken from the
European buyer and returned to the Maori seller�who, in many cases, later >>>>>sold
the land a second time. There appears to be no record that the European >>>>>buyer
was reimbursed.
Ngai Tahu is one example. They had sold much of the South Island before the
Treaty was signed, and the Treaty commitment to investigate pre-1840 sales >>>>>enabled chiefs to sell the land again�this occurred in ten deals over 20 >>>>>years
from 1844, for a total of �14,750.
Humans are a diverse lot. No government or political party can please >>>>>everyone;
there will always be someone or a group who is sidelined. However, since >>>>>1840,
many statutes have been passed with good intentions to help Maori adapt to >>>>>changing times.
For Instance:
� In 1867, voting rules were altered so that all Maori men holding land in >>>>>common (i.e., most of them) were enfranchised. The rules were not similarly
changed for settlers. For some years, therefore, virtually all Maori men >>>>>had
the vote, while most settlers did not�clearly, it was the settlers, not the
Maori, who were at a disadvantage!
� Sir Apirana Ngata said: �Maori landowners did not pay land rates until >>>>>1894.
After that, they only paid half the rates levied compared to their European
counterparts until 1910.� He also said: �It was only in the year 1893 that >>>>>Maori lands were taxed. It was a light tax�half of that payable by the >>>>>Pakeha.
However, only leasehold Maori lands were taxable. It was in the year 1917 >>>>>that
a heavier tax was levied on leased Maori land, equivalent to half the rate >>>>>of
taxation on European lands.�
? The Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 was intended to stop people using >>>>>traditional Maori healing practices which had a supernatural or spiritual >>>>>element. It grew out of concern over the practices of some self-appointed >>>>>tohunga who played on superstition often travelling from pa to pa claiming >>>>>to
cure all kinds of illness.
The influential Te Aute College Students� Association was particularly >>>>>critical, believing that tohunga might harm patients, and could hinder >>>>>Maori
progress. Tohunga also came under attack from the prominent Maori doctors >>>>>Maui
Pomare and Te Rangi Hiroa (Sir Peter Buck).
The Tohunga Suppression Act was presented by Maori MP James Carroll and >>>>>supported by the four Maori members of parliament. It was passed in 1907. >>>>>The Treaty
Although called a treaty, it is arguably not a true treaty, as Maori were >>>>>not
a
politically organised nation. It was a simple formal transfer of >>>>>sovereignty
document that had arguably served its purpose the moment it was signed�it >>>>>could
have been discarded thereafter. It has no legal standing in international >>>>>law
and, by itself, has no standing as part of New Zealand�s municipal law. >>>>>The three Treaty clauses state:
� Article One � The chiefs cede all their rights and powers of sovereignty >>>>>(chiefly authority) to the Queen.
� Article Two � The Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs, tribes, >>>>>and
ALL people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings, and all
their property.
� Article Three � The Queen�s government extends its protection to the >>>>>people
of New Zealand and grants Maori the status of British subjects.
(H/T David Round, page 62 in the book Twi$ting the Treaty)
So, what promises were inferred in those three clauses?
Article One: No promises.
Article Two: Promises the people of New Zealand (Maori included) the >>>>>ownership
of their physical assets.
Article Three: Promises to protect all New Zealand citizens (British >>>>>subjects).
Because Maori were granted the rights and privileges of British subjects in
Article Three and most tribes accepted that by signing the Treaty, Maori >>>>>then
had responsibilities and obligations to abide by the law.
Note: The Colonial Office in England, shortly after the Treaty was signed, >>>>>declared that the Treaty applied to all Maori, including those tribes whose
chiefs had not signed.
When those who allege the Crown did not uphold its promises are challenged,
they often cite the same issues � land confiscations, suppression of >>>>>language
and culture, systemic marginalisation and use the Waitangi Tribunal as >>>>>validation.
Land Confiscations
Land confiscations were legal and targeted rebelling tribes. They occurred >>>>>after warnings and skirmishes � not before. The land was taken to help pay >>>>>for
the cost of the wars, discourage further uprising, and to settle Europeans >>>>>in
these areas as a buffer.
Here is what Sir Apirana Ngata said about the land confiscations: >>>>>�The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty
and
authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that >>>>>authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into >>>>>operation, and land was taken in payment. This, in itself, is a Maori >>>>>custom
�
revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that >>>>>right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in >>>>>the
light of the Treaty.�
Suppression Of Language And Culture
Maori language was banned only in schools, and this was at the request of >>>>>Maori
elders and statesmen, who wanted children to learn English in order to >>>>>participate in the changing society. Outside of schools, no laws were ever >>>>>passed to prohibit Maori from speaking their language. Maori adopted >>>>>English
language and culture of their own volition.
Systemic Marginalisation
Did the Government pass laws that marginalised Maori? That is unclear � it >>>>>was
likely more of a societal issue. However, that marginalisation may well >>>>>have
been preferable to pre-1840 marginalisation, where tribal warfare, slavery,
cannibalism, land confiscation, and infanticide were rampant. >>>>>Waitangi Tribunal
The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 established the Waitangi Tribunal as a >>>>>permanent commission of inquiry to examine any claim by Maori concerning >>>>>laws,
regulations, or actions (or inactions) of the Crown that may have caused >>>>>harm.
The Act also gave a small group of unelected Tribunal members exclusive >>>>>authority to interpret the Treaty.
The Waitangi Tribunal is a racially stacked, pro-Maori lobby group. It is >>>>>not
a
court authorised to make binding legal decisions � it can only make >>>>>recommendations to the Government.
What some have said about this �venerable� body:
David Rankin (Ngapuhi elder): �The Tribunal makes up history as it goes >>>>>along��
Brian Priestley, MBE: �It would be hard to imagine any public body less >>>>>well-organised to get at the truth.�
Dr Michael Bassett (former Cabinet Minister and Waitangi Tribunal member >>>>>for
10
years): �What you�ve been dealing with for the last 30 years are some very >>>>>inventive people stretching the wording of the Treaty so far it is falling >>>>>apart because of the games being played with it.�
Dr Bronwyn Byrnes: �The Tribunal�s reports increasingly champion or >>>>>advocate
the Maori cause. Maori characters and stories are given more weight than >>>>>Pakeha
ones.�
Other historians, including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave, and Bill >>>>>Oliver,
have raised similar concerns.
It is mainly this questionable Waitangi Tribunal and Maori sovereigntists >>>>>that
have judged that the Crown is guilty of breaking �promises� � The Crown is >>>>>innocent until proven guilty by a reputable, unbiased, totally independent >>>>>�Court�.
Who Really Broke The �treaty Promises�?
Noted historian John Robinson wrote: �The Crown, the several Governors, and
the
government never broke the Treaty of Waitangi. All actions taken were in >>>>>accord
with the accession of sovereignty and the assertion of British law. A >>>>>number
of
Maori chiefs, and their iwi, committed acts of treason and rebellion in >>>>>contradiction of the Treaty.
These included:�
1. The mass murder of settlers by chiefs Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata at
Wairau in 1843.
2. Rebellion incited by the same chiefs in Wellington in 1846.
3. War waged by Hone Heke against the government in the north in 1845�46. >>>>>4. Rebellion at Waitara by Wiremu Kingi over the sale of the Pekapeka block
in
1859.
5. The establishment of a rival Maori monarch, rebellion, and war beginning
in
1859.
It�s the old story: people in the past behaving in accordance with the >>>>>norms
and mores of their own time and place, then being later condemned for not >>>>>acting according to the norms and mores that came after them.
It is a naive and absolutist approach to history that obfuscates rather >>>>>than
enlightens. �Barend Vlaardingerbroek

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: nz.politics

On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 04:46:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 03:03:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 07:57:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Also quite long but also worthwhile. It is good to see more people >>>>>>>prepared
to
speak the truth.
by Geoff Parker

Yet another misleading reference to Sir Apirana Ngata, whose >>>>>>mis-understanding were based on what Pakeha wanted to believe while >>>>>>they were still taking land from Maori.

You are a disgrace, Sir Apirata was not naive and infinitrely more >>>>>intelligent
than you. He was never misled and never dominated by non-Maori folk. You >>>>>are
not fit to judge a man like that.

I have not claimed that he was misled, or commented on his >>>>intelligence.

You maligned him. You are incapable of understaning how much you did that, it
was disgraceful..

Of course I did not.

Yes you certainly did, you need English lessons, or better still a lobotomy. >>He knew what he was taught - it was not his fault

that the understanding of the Treaty at that time was wrong.

It was not wronmg. That has never been shown to be the case.

He was educated in an era in which it was accepted that
Maori had ceded sovereignty, and that "understanding" was only shown
to be false from about 1958

It is not and was not false - they ceded sovereignty and were pleased to do >>>so.
Sir Apirana's intelligence and profound honesty eclipses yours to the point >>>of
making you an absurd nonentity - just more evidence of that proven fact. >>So show that proof . . .

No you cretin. You prove what you have posted, it is not my place to disprove >something you have failed to show,

, but more particularly in the 1970's, when
academic research demonstrated that the Maori version of the Treaty , >>>>which reflected as best we can tell the understanding of those Maori >>>>Chiefs who signed) indicates clearly that they did not cede >>>>sovereignty.

That is a lie, you have never shown it to be true.

You have been told this number of time, Tony - do catch
up.

Repeating that lie does not change the truth, time you stopped it but that >>>would mean you have nothing to post. >>https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/

https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/moana-jackson-there-is-no-word-in-te-reo-maori-for-cede/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/sites/default/files/documents/All_about_the_Treaty.pdf

https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2022/11/02/the-myth-of-sovereignty.html >None of that is proof. posting idiotic stuff like that shows that you are lost.

Abuse gone.

You can hide your head in your hands but it does not change anything,
Tony. And look I can copy the information you cannot answer again - it
is still there on nz.general - perhaps you did not know that . . .
And it is easy to copy :-

But you should not feel too ashamed of your ignorance, Tony - this
link is from quite a long time ago, but I suspect Luxon is under
pressure from his far-right backers (e.g. NZ Initiative, Hobsons
Pledge, NZ Taxpayers Union) and his handler David Seymour, to remain
ignorant . . . . . https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/526393/iwi-write-to-pm-demanding-recognition-maori-did-not-cede-sovereignty

It is clear that the government sees an advantage for itself in
reneging on the contract represented by the Treaty of Waitangi https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/563391/te-pati-maori-co-leader-debbie-ngarewa-packer-on-the-longest-suspension-in-parliament

It was written for the NZ

Centre for Political Research - yet another part of the far-right >>>>>>propaganda war being waged by the ACT Party

Act are not far right, there are no far right politicians in our parliament
-
that is the lie you and other left wing fools use every time someone >>>>>diagrees
with you - another shameful Rich habit.

Since you only ever listen to yourself you can assert any stupidity
you like, Tony. I have shown you evidence that they are at the extreme >>>>right but you of course cannot provide any evidence to the contrary . >>>You have never shown anything of the sort - I do not have to prove anything, >>>that is your job - and you have failed once morfe.
. .

and now a majority of
National Party MPs, with their MPs being given no guidance to reject >>>>>>such lies now that the befuddled Luxon is nominally in charge of the >>>>>>party - in reality he is a puppet to ACT and Atlas Network linked >>>>>>organisations such as the NZ Initiative who provide both ACT and >>>>>>National with advice . . .

Absolute bullshit.

THE CROWN, THE TREATY, THE PROMISES AND THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
At the centennial of the Treaty of Waitangi 1940 Sir Apirana said: �Let >>>>>>>me
acknowledge first that, in the whole world I doubt whether any native >>>>>>>race
has
been so well treated by a European people as the Maori� >>>>>>>Occasionally, it is alleged that the Government failed to uphold �Treaty >>>>>>>promises� in the nineteenth century. Here is my response to that >>>>>>>allegation�
In 1840, New Zealand was a fledgling nation with two cultures at vastly >>>>>>>different stages of development coming together. This made the time >>>>>>>politically, financially, and socially difficult.
Following his arrival in the Bay of Islands in 1840, William Hobson, the >>>>>>>British Consul, issued a proclamation prohibiting private land purchases >>>>>>>from
Maori unless validated by a Crown commissioner. This was done to assert >>>>>>>control
over land transactions and address concerns about rampant sales and to >>>>>>>protect
Maori land sellers from unscrupulous buyers. Hobson also appointed land >>>>>>>commissioners to investigate all purchases made before the Treaty of >>>>>>>Waitangi
was signed. If a transaction was deemed unfair, the land was taken from >>>>>>>the
European buyer and returned to the Maori seller�who, in many cases, later
sold
the land a second time. There appears to be no record that the European >>>>>>>buyer
was reimbursed.
Ngai Tahu is one example. They had sold much of the South Island before >>>>>>>the
Treaty was signed, and the Treaty commitment to investigate pre-1840 >>>>>>>sales
enabled chiefs to sell the land again�this occurred in ten deals over 20 >>>>>>>years
from 1844, for a total of �14,750.
Humans are a diverse lot. No government or political party can please >>>>>>>everyone;
there will always be someone or a group who is sidelined. However, since >>>>>>>1840,
many statutes have been passed with good intentions to help Maori adapt >>>>>>>to
changing times.
For Instance:
� In 1867, voting rules were altered so that all Maori men holding land >>>>>>>in
common (i.e., most of them) were enfranchised. The rules were not >>>>>>>similarly
changed for settlers. For some years, therefore, virtually all Maori men >>>>>>>had
the vote, while most settlers did not�clearly, it was the settlers, not >>>>>>>the
Maori, who were at a disadvantage!
� Sir Apirana Ngata said: �Maori landowners did not pay land rates until >>>>>>>1894.
After that, they only paid half the rates levied compared to their >>>>>>>European
counterparts until 1910.� He also said: �It was only in the year 1893 >>>>>>>that
Maori lands were taxed. It was a light tax�half of that payable by the >>>>>>>Pakeha.
However, only leasehold Maori lands were taxable. It was in the year 1917
that
a heavier tax was levied on leased Maori land, equivalent to half the >>>>>>>rate
of
taxation on European lands.�
? The Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 was intended to stop people using
traditional Maori healing practices which had a supernatural or spiritual
element. It grew out of concern over the practices of some self-appointed
tohunga who played on superstition often travelling from pa to pa >>>>>>>claiming
to
cure all kinds of illness.
The influential Te Aute College Students� Association was particularly >>>>>>>critical, believing that tohunga might harm patients, and could hinder >>>>>>>Maori
progress. Tohunga also came under attack from the prominent Maori doctors
Maui
Pomare and Te Rangi Hiroa (Sir Peter Buck).
The Tohunga Suppression Act was presented by Maori MP James Carroll and >>>>>>>supported by the four Maori members of parliament. It was passed in 1907.
The Treaty
Although called a treaty, it is arguably not a true treaty, as Maori were
not
a
politically organised nation. It was a simple formal transfer of >>>>>>>sovereignty
document that had arguably served its purpose the moment it was signed�it
could
have been discarded thereafter. It has no legal standing in international
law
and, by itself, has no standing as part of New Zealand�s municipal law. >>>>>>>The three Treaty clauses state:
� Article One � The chiefs cede all their rights and powers of >>>>>>>sovereignty
(chiefly authority) to the Queen.
� Article Two � The Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs, tribes, >>>>>>>and
ALL people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings, and >>>>>>>all
their property.
� Article Three � The Queen�s government extends its protection to the >>>>>>>people
of New Zealand and grants Maori the status of British subjects. >>>>>>>(H/T David Round, page 62 in the book Twi$ting the Treaty)
So, what promises were inferred in those three clauses?
Article One: No promises.
Article Two: Promises the people of New Zealand (Maori included) the >>>>>>>ownership
of their physical assets.
Article Three: Promises to protect all New Zealand citizens (British >>>>>>>subjects).
Because Maori were granted the rights and privileges of British subjects >>>>>>>in
Article Three and most tribes accepted that by signing the Treaty, Maori >>>>>>>then
had responsibilities and obligations to abide by the law.
Note: The Colonial Office in England, shortly after the Treaty was >>>>>>>signed,
declared that the Treaty applied to all Maori, including those tribes >>>>>>>whose
chiefs had not signed.
When those who allege the Crown did not uphold its promises are >>>>>>>challenged,
they often cite the same issues � land confiscations, suppression of >>>>>>>language
and culture, systemic marginalisation and use the Waitangi Tribunal as >>>>>>>validation.
Land Confiscations
Land confiscations were legal and targeted rebelling tribes. They >>>>>>>occurred
after warnings and skirmishes � not before. The land was taken to help >>>>>>>pay
for
the cost of the wars, discourage further uprising, and to settle >>>>>>>Europeans
in
these areas as a buffer.
Here is what Sir Apirana Ngata said about the land confiscations: >>>>>>>�The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England the >>>>>>>sovereignty
and
authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that >>>>>>>authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into >>>>>>>operation, and land was taken in payment. This, in itself, is a Maori >>>>>>>custom
�
revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded >>>>>>>that
right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in >>>>>>>the
light of the Treaty.�
Suppression Of Language And Culture
Maori language was banned only in schools, and this was at the request of
Maori
elders and statesmen, who wanted children to learn English in order to >>>>>>>participate in the changing society. Outside of schools, no laws were >>>>>>>ever
passed to prohibit Maori from speaking their language. Maori adopted >>>>>>>English
language and culture of their own volition.
Systemic Marginalisation
Did the Government pass laws that marginalised Maori? That is unclear � >>>>>>>it
was
likely more of a societal issue. However, that marginalisation may well >>>>>>>have
been preferable to pre-1840 marginalisation, where tribal warfare, >>>>>>>slavery,
cannibalism, land confiscation, and infanticide were rampant. >>>>>>>Waitangi Tribunal
The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 established the Waitangi Tribunal as a >>>>>>>permanent commission of inquiry to examine any claim by Maori concerning >>>>>>>laws,
regulations, or actions (or inactions) of the Crown that may have caused >>>>>>>harm.
The Act also gave a small group of unelected Tribunal members exclusive >>>>>>>authority to interpret the Treaty.
The Waitangi Tribunal is a racially stacked, pro-Maori lobby group. It is
not
a
court authorised to make binding legal decisions � it can only make >>>>>>>recommendations to the Government.
What some have said about this �venerable� body:
David Rankin (Ngapuhi elder): �The Tribunal makes up history as it goes >>>>>>>along��
Brian Priestley, MBE: �It would be hard to imagine any public body less >>>>>>>well-organised to get at the truth.�
Dr Michael Bassett (former Cabinet Minister and Waitangi Tribunal member >>>>>>>for
10
years): �What you�ve been dealing with for the last 30 years are some >>>>>>>very
inventive people stretching the wording of the Treaty so far it is >>>>>>>falling
apart because of the games being played with it.�
Dr Bronwyn Byrnes: �The Tribunal�s reports increasingly champion or >>>>>>>advocate
the Maori cause. Maori characters and stories are given more weight than >>>>>>>Pakeha
ones.�
Other historians, including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave, and Bill >>>>>>>Oliver,
have raised similar concerns.
It is mainly this questionable Waitangi Tribunal and Maori sovereigntists
that
have judged that the Crown is guilty of breaking �promises� � The Crown >>>>>>>is
innocent until proven guilty by a reputable, unbiased, totally >>>>>>>independent
�Court�.
Who Really Broke The �treaty Promises�?
Noted historian John Robinson wrote: �The Crown, the several Governors, >>>>>>>and
the
government never broke the Treaty of Waitangi. All actions taken were in >>>>>>>accord
with the accession of sovereignty and the assertion of British law. A >>>>>>>number
of
Maori chiefs, and their iwi, committed acts of treason and rebellion in >>>>>>>contradiction of the Treaty.
These included:�
1. The mass murder of settlers by chiefs Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata >>>>>>>at
Wairau in 1843.
2. Rebellion incited by the same chiefs in Wellington in 1846.
3. War waged by Hone Heke against the government in the north in 1845�46.
4. Rebellion at Waitara by Wiremu Kingi over the sale of the Pekapeka >>>>>>>block
in
1859.
5. The establishment of a rival Maori monarch, rebellion, and war >>>>>>>beginning
in
1859.
It�s the old story: people in the past behaving in accordance with the >>>>>>>norms
and mores of their own time and place, then being later condemned for not
acting according to the norms and mores that came after them.
It is a naive and absolutist approach to history that obfuscates rather >>>>>>>than
enlightens. �Barend Vlaardingerbroek

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: nz.politics

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 04:46:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 03:03:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 07:57:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Also quite long but also worthwhile. It is good to see more people >>>>>>>>prepared
to
speak the truth.
by Geoff Parker

Yet another misleading reference to Sir Apirana Ngata, whose >>>>>>>mis-understanding were based on what Pakeha wanted to believe while >>>>>>>they were still taking land from Maori.

You are a disgrace, Sir Apirata was not naive and infinitrely more >>>>>>intelligent
than you. He was never misled and never dominated by non-Maori folk. You >>>>>>are
not fit to judge a man like that.

I have not claimed that he was misled, or commented on his >>>>>intelligence.

You maligned him. You are incapable of understaning how much you did that, >>>>it
was disgraceful..

Of course I did not.

Yes you certainly did, you need English lessons, or better still a lobotomy. >>>He knew what he was taught - it was not his fault

that the understanding of the Treaty at that time was wrong.

It was not wronmg. That has never been shown to be the case.

He was educated in an era in which it was accepted that
Maori had ceded sovereignty, and that "understanding" was only shown >>>>>to be false from about 1958

It is not and was not false - they ceded sovereignty and were pleased to do >>>>so.
Sir Apirana's intelligence and profound honesty eclipses yours to the point >>>>of
making you an absurd nonentity - just more evidence of that proven fact. >>>So show that proof . . .

No you cretin. You prove what you have posted, it is not my place to disprove >>something you have failed to show,

, but more particularly in the 1970's, when
academic research demonstrated that the Maori version of the Treaty , >>>>>which reflected as best we can tell the understanding of those Maori >>>>>Chiefs who signed) indicates clearly that they did not cede >>>>>sovereignty.

That is a lie, you have never shown it to be true.

You have been told this number of time, Tony - do catch
up.

Repeating that lie does not change the truth, time you stopped it but that >>>>would mean you have nothing to post. >>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/

https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/moana-jackson-there-is-no-word-in-te-reo-maori-for-cede/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/sites/default/files/documents/All_about_the_Treaty.pdf
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2022/11/02/the-myth-of-sovereignty.html >>None of that is proof. posting idiotic stuff like that shows that you are >>lost.

Abuse gone.

It was written for the NZ

Centre for Political Research - yet another part of the far-right >>>>>>>propaganda war being waged by the ACT Party

Act are not far right, there are no far right politicians in our >>>>>>parliament
-
that is the lie you and other left wing fools use every time someone >>>>>>diagrees
with you - another shameful Rich habit.

Since you only ever listen to yourself you can assert any stupidity >>>>>you like, Tony. I have shown you evidence that they are at the extreme >>>>>right but you of course cannot provide any evidence to the contrary . >>>>You have never shown anything of the sort - I do not have to prove >>>>anything,

that is your job - and you have failed once morfe.

. .

and now a majority of
National Party MPs, with their MPs being given no guidance to reject >>>>>>>such lies now that the befuddled Luxon is nominally in charge of the >>>>>>>party - in reality he is a puppet to ACT and Atlas Network linked >>>>>>>organisations such as the NZ Initiative who provide both ACT and >>>>>>>National with advice . . .

Absolute bullshit.

THE CROWN, THE TREATY, THE PROMISES AND THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL >>>>>>>>At the centennial of the Treaty of Waitangi 1940 Sir Apirana said: �Let >>>>>>>>me
acknowledge first that, in the whole world I doubt whether any native >>>>>>>>race
has
been so well treated by a European people as the Maori� >>>>>>>>Occasionally, it is alleged that the Government failed to uphold >>>>>>>>�Treaty
promises� in the nineteenth century. Here is my response to that >>>>>>>>allegation�
In 1840, New Zealand was a fledgling nation with two cultures at vastly >>>>>>>>different stages of development coming together. This made the time >>>>>>>>politically, financially, and socially difficult.
Following his arrival in the Bay of Islands in 1840, William Hobson, >>>>>>>>the
British Consul, issued a proclamation prohibiting private land >>>>>>>>purchases
from
Maori unless validated by a Crown commissioner. This was done to assert >>>>>>>>control
over land transactions and address concerns about rampant sales and to >>>>>>>>protect
Maori land sellers from unscrupulous buyers. Hobson also appointed land >>>>>>>>commissioners to investigate all purchases made before the Treaty of >>>>>>>>Waitangi
was signed. If a transaction was deemed unfair, the land was taken from >>>>>>>>the
European buyer and returned to the Maori seller�who, in many cases, >>>>>>>>later
sold
the land a second time. There appears to be no record that the European >>>>>>>>buyer
was reimbursed.
Ngai Tahu is one example. They had sold much of the South Island before >>>>>>>>the
Treaty was signed, and the Treaty commitment to investigate pre-1840 >>>>>>>>sales
enabled chiefs to sell the land again�this occurred in ten deals over >>>>>>>>20
years
from 1844, for a total of �14,750.
Humans are a diverse lot. No government or political party can please >>>>>>>>everyone;
there will always be someone or a group who is sidelined. However, >>>>>>>>since
1840,
many statutes have been passed with good intentions to help Maori adapt >>>>>>>>to
changing times.
For Instance:
� In 1867, voting rules were altered so that all Maori men holding land >>>>>>>>in
common (i.e., most of them) were enfranchised. The rules were not >>>>>>>>similarly
changed for settlers. For some years, therefore, virtually all Maori >>>>>>>>men
had
the vote, while most settlers did not�clearly, it was the settlers, not >>>>>>>>the
Maori, who were at a disadvantage!
� Sir Apirana Ngata said: �Maori landowners did not pay land rates >>>>>>>>until
1894.
After that, they only paid half the rates levied compared to their >>>>>>>>European
counterparts until 1910.� He also said: �It was only in the year 1893 >>>>>>>>that
Maori lands were taxed. It was a light tax�half of that payable by the >>>>>>>>Pakeha.
However, only leasehold Maori lands were taxable. It was in the year >>>>>>>>1917
that
a heavier tax was levied on leased Maori land, equivalent to half the >>>>>>>>rate
of
taxation on European lands.�
? The Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 was intended to stop people using
traditional Maori healing practices which had a supernatural or >>>>>>>>spiritual
element. It grew out of concern over the practices of some >>>>>>>>self-appointed
tohunga who played on superstition often travelling from pa to pa >>>>>>>>claiming
to
cure all kinds of illness.
The influential Te Aute College Students� Association was particularly >>>>>>>>critical, believing that tohunga might harm patients, and could hinder >>>>>>>>Maori
progress. Tohunga also came under attack from the prominent Maori >>>>>>>>doctors
Maui
Pomare and Te Rangi Hiroa (Sir Peter Buck).
The Tohunga Suppression Act was presented by Maori MP James Carroll and >>>>>>>>supported by the four Maori members of parliament. It was passed in >>>>>>>>1907.
The Treaty
Although called a treaty, it is arguably not a true treaty, as Maori >>>>>>>>were
not
a
politically organised nation. It was a simple formal transfer of >>>>>>>>sovereignty
document that had arguably served its purpose the moment it was >>>>>>>>signed�it
could
have been discarded thereafter. It has no legal standing in >>>>>>>>international
law
and, by itself, has no standing as part of New Zealand�s municipal law. >>>>>>>>The three Treaty clauses state:
� Article One � The chiefs cede all their rights and powers of >>>>>>>>sovereignty
(chiefly authority) to the Queen.
� Article Two � The Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs, >>>>>>>>tribes,
and
ALL people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings, and >>>>>>>>all
their property.
� Article Three � The Queen�s government extends its protection to the >>>>>>>>people
of New Zealand and grants Maori the status of British subjects. >>>>>>>>(H/T David Round, page 62 in the book Twi$ting the Treaty)
So, what promises were inferred in those three clauses?
Article One: No promises.
Article Two: Promises the people of New Zealand (Maori included) the >>>>>>>>ownership
of their physical assets.
Article Three: Promises to protect all New Zealand citizens (British >>>>>>>>subjects).
Because Maori were granted the rights and privileges of British >>>>>>>>subjects
in
Article Three and most tribes accepted that by signing the Treaty, >>>>>>>>Maori
then
had responsibilities and obligations to abide by the law.
Note: The Colonial Office in England, shortly after the Treaty was >>>>>>>>signed,
declared that the Treaty applied to all Maori, including those tribes >>>>>>>>whose
chiefs had not signed.
When those who allege the Crown did not uphold its promises are >>>>>>>>challenged,
they often cite the same issues � land confiscations, suppression of >>>>>>>>language
and culture, systemic marginalisation and use the Waitangi Tribunal as >>>>>>>>validation.
Land Confiscations
Land confiscations were legal and targeted rebelling tribes. They >>>>>>>>occurred
after warnings and skirmishes � not before. The land was taken to help >>>>>>>>pay
for
the cost of the wars, discourage further uprising, and to settle >>>>>>>>Europeans
in
these areas as a buffer.
Here is what Sir Apirana Ngata said about the land confiscations: >>>>>>>>�The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England the >>>>>>>>sovereignty
and
authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that >>>>>>>>authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into >>>>>>>>operation, and land was taken in payment. This, in itself, is a Maori >>>>>>>>custom
�
revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded >>>>>>>>that
right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to >>>>>>>>in
the
light of the Treaty.�
Suppression Of Language And Culture
Maori language was banned only in schools, and this was at the request >>>>>>>>of
Maori
elders and statesmen, who wanted children to learn English in order to >>>>>>>>participate in the changing society. Outside of schools, no laws were >>>>>>>>ever
passed to prohibit Maori from speaking their language. Maori adopted >>>>>>>>English
language and culture of their own volition.
Systemic Marginalisation
Did the Government pass laws that marginalised Maori? That is unclear � >>>>>>>>it
was
likely more of a societal issue. However, that marginalisation may well >>>>>>>>have
been preferable to pre-1840 marginalisation, where tribal warfare, >>>>>>>>slavery,
cannibalism, land confiscation, and infanticide were rampant. >>>>>>>>Waitangi Tribunal
The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 established the Waitangi Tribunal as a >>>>>>>>permanent commission of inquiry to examine any claim by Maori >>>>>>>>concerning
laws,
regulations, or actions (or inactions) of the Crown that may have >>>>>>>>caused
harm.
The Act also gave a small group of unelected Tribunal members exclusive >>>>>>>>authority to interpret the Treaty.
The Waitangi Tribunal is a racially stacked, pro-Maori lobby group. It >>>>>>>>is
not
a
court authorised to make binding legal decisions � it can only make >>>>>>>>recommendations to the Government.
What some have said about this �venerable� body:
David Rankin (Ngapuhi elder): �The Tribunal makes up history as it goes >>>>>>>>along��
Brian Priestley, MBE: �It would be hard to imagine any public body less >>>>>>>>well-organised to get at the truth.�
Dr Michael Bassett (former Cabinet Minister and Waitangi Tribunal >>>>>>>>member
for
10
years): �What you�ve been dealing with for the last 30 years are some >>>>>>>>very
inventive people stretching the wording of the Treaty so far it is >>>>>>>>falling
apart because of the games being played with it.�
Dr Bronwyn Byrnes: �The Tribunal�s reports increasingly champion or >>>>>>>>advocate
the Maori cause. Maori characters and stories are given more weight >>>>>>>>than
Pakeha
ones.�
Other historians, including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave, and Bill >>>>>>>>Oliver,
have raised similar concerns.
It is mainly this questionable Waitangi Tribunal and Maori >>>>>>>>sovereigntists
that
have judged that the Crown is guilty of breaking �promises� � The Crown >>>>>>>>is
innocent until proven guilty by a reputable, unbiased, totally >>>>>>>>independent
�Court�.
Who Really Broke The �treaty Promises�?
Noted historian John Robinson wrote: �The Crown, the several Governors, >>>>>>>>and
the
government never broke the Treaty of Waitangi. All actions taken were >>>>>>>>in
accord
with the accession of sovereignty and the assertion of British law. A >>>>>>>>number
of
Maori chiefs, and their iwi, committed acts of treason and rebellion in >>>>>>>>contradiction of the Treaty.
These included:�
1. The mass murder of settlers by chiefs Te Rauparaha and Te >>>>>>>>Rangihaeata
at
Wairau in 1843.
2. Rebellion incited by the same chiefs in Wellington in 1846. >>>>>>>>3. War waged by Hone Heke against the government in the north in >>>>>>>>1845�46.
4. Rebellion at Waitara by Wiremu Kingi over the sale of the Pekapeka >>>>>>>>block
in
1859.
5. The establishment of a rival Maori monarch, rebellion, and war >>>>>>>>beginning
in
1859.
It�s the old story: people in the past behaving in accordance with the >>>>>>>>norms
and mores of their own time and place, then being later condemned for >>>>>>>>not
acting according to the norms and mores that came after them. >>>>>>>>It is a naive and absolutist approach to history that obfuscates rather >>>>>>>>than
enlightens. �Barend Vlaardingerbroek

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)