- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday, November 27, 2006

Maaaaaaari get too much (part 500)


A devastatingly frank analysis of the Crown bullying through Treaty claims today in the Herald by Chris Barton. It is refreshingly honest and a bit of an eye opener for some of our European NZ friends….

Politics crushes hopes for justice over Treaty grievances
It was billed as a showdown between the Crown and the Waitangi Tribunal - with the tribunal likely to be armed with blanks.

On the day of the judicial conference, there is a face-off, but it is between lawyers. It seems an unfair fight - about 45 for various Maori claimants versus just three for the Crown. But with the tribunal doing little more than watching from the sideline, it soon becomes clear who has the biggest guns - the Crown who stand staunch and repeatedly say "no".

This is a gathering where politics rather than justice in decision-making holds sway - a hui that exposes an underfunded, time-starved, over-stressed tribunal outplayed by the Crown at every turn.

The Crown says no, no and no again. Even the gallery of claimant lawyers - hardened to dealing with intractable Treaty issues - look stunned to hear the Crown's position stated so baldly.

21 Comments:

At 27/11/06 7:04 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know, the best way to solve the treaty issue is to educate people on Tikanga. Once people know what it actually entails, they'll know to what extent the Maoris were betrayed, and continue to be betrayed. Knowing how Tikanga works, there's no way in hell the claims against Maoris have any grounding. At least for me, that's how i came to understand the history and cultural understandings of both sides. It's ludicrous to be working within the framework of a western paradigm and then be dictating to Maoris just what exactly was agreed to.

-Anti-Flag.

 
At 28/11/06 12:39 am, Blogger Msth8d said...

much can be said on this one bomber, yet its the flint and stone that sparks off all the anti social "rednecks" that blog here

yet just one thing, this word the CROWN; which I think, it is used quite blindly, according to the government website the only Crown rep here is the govenor general and the westminster act, gave the NZ government rights to make there own laws, but does not say that these are the Crowns law.

Yes, I believe we are quite a hated race, why? what did we do? As this governments attemps to cut out the Tiriti o waitangi from Aotearoa, rangatira everywhere just stand and watch.

I guess they are happy with the crumbs that fall from the rich mans[govt]table.

 
At 30/11/06 1:40 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
Anti-flag I completly agree with your thoughts and I hear what msth8d has to say as well - I look at the way I used to mimic much of what some of our redneck friends have to say about Maori on this site before I educated myself on the issue, and my eyes we very much open to the unkind truths of our history, if more European NZers knew the history of this country they would recognise the injustice. It is no surprise that we haven't heard from the usual suspects on this site about this issue, because my guess would be that they are as surprised as anyone that the Crown are being so unjust in this issue. To aknowledge that, might start other questions, and who knows where that might lead?

 
At 1/12/06 12:23 pm, Anonymous Happy Chappy said...

Anti Flag or Bomber - can you direct me to a site which details how Tikanga works? Is there a collective 'wishlist' (for want of a better word) that Maori want in terms of reparations and governance? Is their a possibility that different Iwi want different things which could cause conflict and prevent a positive long term out come for all New Zealanders?

Thanks
HC

 
At 3/12/06 10:52 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's business, they were poor businessmen. end of story. end the continuous list of claims now or we will forever be paying out to maori to keep them happy..and the cycle will continue as they take take take. look at welfare..take take take.
australia don't seem to have a problem...
and if the european had never come (or any other civilised country)the maori would still be in huts and skirts and acting the same primitive lifestyle.

 
At 3/12/06 1:43 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We are the conquering people, since when did the winners have to pay out the defeated?...

 
At 4/12/06 8:44 am, Blogger Msth8d said...

I guess I could bounce on both anon's and kick old happy chappy in the jaw, in a fit of rage, yet what will be the point? can I help it that they are so ignorant?

I always miss the racial pokes and prods, always done in a way as to say, No were not red necked about anything. Yet I appreicate what you said bomber, yep I understand the ignorance of most, surrounding these things.

But in answering your question happy chappy, Is there a collective 'wishlist' I guess the answer will be what was said from the beginning, which is;

1)Article II of the Te Tiriti O Waitangi, Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individual thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession;

*That was full exclusive and undisturbed possession not 10 - 15% like the fishing quoter is now

2)1852 NZ Constitution s:71 states; ‘provisions as to native laws and customs-and whereas it may be expedient that the laws, customs, and usages of the aboriginal or native inhabitants of New Zealand, so far as they are not repugnant to the general principles of humanity, should be for the present be maintained for the *government of themselves, and all their relations to and dealings with each other, and that particular districts should be set apart within such laws, customs, or usages should be so observed: It shall be lawful for her Majesty, by any letters patent to be issued under the great seal of the United Kingdom, from time to time to make provisions of the purposes aforesaid, any repugnancy of any such native laws, customs, or usages to the law of England, or to any law, statute, or usage in force in New Zealand, or any part thereof in anywise notwithstanding.[Pg715]

*government of themselves
Sorry but this Dr Brash concept of one law for all, wasn't even the Crown of Englands veiw.

But I just want to know; can anyone tell me how maori were brought under these laws, if the above was written in 1852, and the attemp to repeal in 1986, ( for through's that say it is repealed, just show me the royal accent or letters patent confirming it and I'll believe you) bomber would you know?

I haven't been in for a while, I had matters in the High Court concerning this very issue, I would like to share these with you I believe that the letter I have written by Governor Gore in 1858 to the Maori people, will be of some benefit to Tim's appeal.

[sorry for the spelling error I am in a rush]

 
At 4/12/06 9:28 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

msth8d...who have you got writing for you now? this most certainly is not the person previously posting under this name...the only words you could ever muster were profanity and threats of killing people. do us a favour and stop cutting and pasting from articles on the web. you're not articulate and you don't fool anybody.

 
At 5/12/06 3:42 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
What a bitter little wanker you are anon - msth8d is putting forward some ideas, and all you do is shit on him - why do you even bother posting crap like this if you aren't even going to bother putting up your own ideas - I see why msth8d lashes out sometimes. Grow up anon

 
At 6/12/06 11:18 am, Blogger Msth8d said...

yes anon, I guess colonist will call it education, you can write it off as "maaris get to much"

but which anon where you, the one that asked me Is there a collective 'wishlist' or this anon We are the conquering people, since when did the winners have to pay out the defeated?...

I return to you what the Crown of England said and this offends you lol
I guess the [NZ] crown is a differnt one then huh

 
At 6/12/06 3:12 pm, Anonymous Happy Chappy said...

Is there anymore feeble than tough guy posturing on the internet? You do yourself a disservice condoning this sort of crap Martin, is violence ok if you don’t agree with what other people think?

Msth8d wasn’t just “putting forward some ideas” he was also talking up violence, I really don’t care what an anonymous poster had to say, I was asking reasonable questions and this is the second time I’ve had a ridiculous over-reaction in return. For people wanting peace, tolerance, open minds, and understanding you lot don’t show much of it in return to someone who is trying to get an understanding of your opinions. Are you serious about making changes and getting a greater understanding or are you going to act like a bunch of petulant rent-a-crowd first year students, protesting anything at the drop of a hat just for the sake of it?

As for the less macho part of your response Msth8d, as I am sure you are aware not all tribes signed the Treaty so simply saying “honour the Treaty” doesn’t cut it. At the moment there is conflict between tribes as to who has claim to different parts of Auckland, clearly not all tribes want the same thing, hence my asking. If Pakeha’s ignorance of history is what fuels their fear of what justice for Maori, as you perceive it, means, then perhaps you could help dispel that fear by giving everyone an idea of what exactly it is that Maori want. “Government of themselves” – So what does this actually mean? A separate Maori Government? A completely separate set of laws? Some kind of Maori homeland? Help me out here, I genuinely want to understand, confusion and vague talk about justice will only breed resentment, surely we can do without that.

 
At 6/12/06 5:16 pm, Blogger bomber said...

...
Steady on Happy Chappy, theres no tough guy posturing here and the name is spelt with a y. I was angry at the way you - or Anon - attacked msth8d - and why is it that masth8d needs to explain the groundrules of post colonialism to you - shouldn't you know your own history?

 
At 6/12/06 5:41 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My apoligies for spelling your name incorrectly, it wasn't done on purpose.

If talking about kicking someone in the jaw for daring to ask a question isn't tough guy posturing then what is?

I never insulted Msth8ted, I'm only posting here as Happy Chappy.

"groundrules of post colonialism" I'm sorry, what are these rules?
I'm not asking for a history lesson, I have a pretty good understaning of NZ history. I am simply trying to get a better understanding of what Maori want, is that some how offensive and worthy of scorn?

Getting high and mighty because other people don't have the same grasp of the issues as you do doesn't exactly help bring understanding to the issue.

I think the point I made about different tribes wanting different things is quite valid, are we to pretend that this isn't an issue?

You said in one of your posts above that you used to mimic what some rednecks say before you educated yourself, I'd like to educate myself too, if you go back to the first post I made on this topic that is what I asked, theres no sneaky agender here: I really want to know more.

 
At 6/12/06 5:42 pm, Anonymous Happy Chappy said...

Opps, sorry that last one was from me
HC

 
At 6/12/06 11:15 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My ancestors signed Te Tiriti (maori text) and it had four Articles not three.

History shows that Hone Heke chopped down the flag pole at Waitangi because the British re-nagged on the Treaty.

Te Ture Whenua sits in the Maori Land Court but has no jurisdiction over Te Tiriti. Why? Te Ture Whenua was written 65 days after Te Tiriti and is a completely different text.

Arrogance is a virtue when others want to give abuse of teachings (ti kanga)and it starts with our own educated maori people whom allow this abuse to continue.

I dont believe in grievance payments but my family land was confiscated and we have been fighting the return of it since the late 1800's.

After all we are only the kaitiaki (caretaker) of the land (papatuanuku) and globalisation is humankind responsibility.

 
At 6/12/06 11:59 pm, Blogger Msth8d said...

Anon above, just a quick note, i to understand what your getting at, but this phase, Te Ture Whenua was written 65 days after Te Tiriti and is a completely different text. it could of been a typo but the te ture whenua was first pulished in 1993 not 65 days after the treay of waitangi.

 
At 7/12/06 1:11 am, Blogger Msth8d said...

Guys/Gals, when I said this I guess I could bounce on both anon's and kick old happy chappy in the jaw, in a fit of rage, I certainly was not trying to start a war, yet to give you both anon and chappy, understanding, that your comments you made prior to mine, then, I found offenive. But instead of going down the same road and saying shit like fuck you, you red neck cunts I sorta chose not too. I also thought I'd defuse the issue by saying but what is the point

I would say that it is ignorance but I could be wrong.

Now Happy, I certainly can't speak for all maoris, but this bit you said quoteas I am sure you are aware not all tribes signed the Treaty so simply saying “honour the Treaty” doesn’t cut it. I am sorry, I don't quite understand, because not all maori tribes didn't signed the treaty of waitangi, doesn't cut it. lol sorry I find that hard case, as I assume your Pakeha, the first Pakeha I have heard say that, so if it doesn't cut it then that will leave the Declaration of independence because you do realise theres 2 founding documents here, D.O.I was gazzetted in 1835 NSW sign by King William IV, a flag was given to te Maori people, some still fly that today.

But seriously what you said is wrong, the treaty of waitangi stands as does the 1834 Declaration of Independence, to confirmation of the treaty of waitangi, the Queen of England sent by letters patent, 21st of Feb 1879 gazzetted in [NZ]which said that no laws or bills are to be passed that breach the treaty of waitangi.

we can go at this all night, at least, I know I could, but what will it prove? I can't speak for all maori as to what they want, money clouds that vision for them. but for a start how about what was promised.

The right to govern our own affairs, 1852 [NZ] Constitution s.71 on {pg715}


*full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; It is my wish to govern over my own affairs and prove for my family, food, a house, clothes.

I know people will say one government, one law, we are all kiwis, blah blah blah..... but no I am not a kiwi, I am Iwi.

If I took your stuff from you Happy wont you want it back? then why can't we have our things back?

But Happy, can you answer me this, how did maori's come under this government and it's laws? you saw what the constitution said, so how did they come under this law?

 
At 8/12/06 8:16 am, Anonymous Happy Chappy said...

Firstly, Msth8d thank you for honestly answering my questions. I am still at a loss as to what you found offensive about my questions.

In answer to your question:
Article First-
The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty of their country.

This is obviously only for the tribes that signed the Treaty.

Where would I be able to see a copy of the New Zealand Constitution? I'd be interested in reading it.

 
At 8/12/06 5:27 pm, Blogger Msth8d said...

Thats a good one Happy chappy, the Declaration of Independence, said this in Article II All sovereign power and authority within the territories of the United Tribes of New Zealand is hereby declared to reside entirely and exclusively in the hereditary Chiefs and Heads of Tribes in their collective capacity, who also declare that they will not permit any legislative authority separate from ourselves in their collective capacity to exist, nor any function of Government to be exercised - within the said territories, unless by persons appointed by them, and acting under the authority of laws regularly enacted by them in Congress assembled.

35 in Total,hereditary Chief and Heads of Tribes that signed. The last chief to sign this document was Te Wherowhero Potatau [Maori King] in 1839

most say the same thing, you just did about the signing of the treaty, smaller tribes, that now claim not to of signed of that time, I can not say of whether they were Iwi or a hapu of a larger tribe, but whether these other tribes you speak of, it is beside the point, the tribes that signed this Treaty were the larger and held the majority of the land, Nga Puhi, Waikato, Ngati Porou, Tanui, Poneke etc etc; it is in my opinion that these smaller tribes that voice there opinion now, were under the cover of the dominate Iwi of that time. I guess I will offen many Maori, with that statement, but it was true for that era.

But the problem one faces over the treaty is the translation, The point you made about giving the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovereignty in the Maori version it reads ‘te kawanatanga katoa’.translated means; the government over their land. how that gives away Sovereignty baffles me.

But let us ponder on this for one minute, most say we gave up Sovereignty? in Article I of the Treaty, then why did the Queen of England say in Article II:Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New
Zealand and to the respective
families and individuals thereof
the full exclusive and undisturbed
possession of their Lands and
Estates Forests Fisheries and
other properties which they may
collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession;


why would someone say that, which has gained this so called Sovereignty? and give us this right?

Why would Westminster Parliament say in the 1852 [NZ] Constitution s.71; Maori can govern there own affairs, if we gave up, Sovereignty

Again on the 21st of February 1879; when the Queen of England gave instruction to the governor general in NZ, by letters patent; No laws or Bills shall be passed that breach the Treaty of Waitangi {gazzetted here, you can fine it in Auckland archives]

if we did give up Sovereignty, why do you think the Crown of England said these above?

But It is no mystery; that the colonial government that started here, did as they pleased; and continue to do so;

About the constitution, if your referring to the 1852 [NZ]Constitution you can find it at a library or I think witcouls sell them too, but i took a photo of my copy just for you.
http://img225.imageshack.us/my.php?image=zealandconstitutionactmi1.jpg

[thanks imageshack]

 
At 9/12/06 2:55 pm, Anonymous Happy Chappy said...

Much appreciated mate, will try and get myself a copy before Christmas for a little "light" holiday reading!

 
At 9/6/11 5:55 pm, Blogger sarah said...

yeah that b great 2 find out about Tikanga any ideas

 

Post a Comment

<< Home