Post by Kiwi Frontline on Feb 25, 2021 11:05:03 GMT 12
Northland Age 25/2/21
ONLY THREE ARTICLES
Even pro-Maori historian Professor Paul Moon disagrees with Anahera Herbert-Graves (Why Te Tiriti trumps the Treaty, February 23) and states that Te Tiriti does not consist of four articles - “The suggestion that there is a "fourth article" of the Treaty, which promotes religious freedom, emerged in the 1990s, and still clings tenaciously to some people's views about the agreement.
The "fourth article" is easily debunked, however. Neither the Maori nor English text of the treaty contains this article. Also, there is no evidence from 1840 that anyone even considered the possibility of such an article existing. The exponents of the "fourth article" cite conversations held between Hobson and others at Waitangi as somehow constituting binding parts of the Treaty, But this is based on false reasoning and an impoverished understanding of international law.” - tinyurl.com/yd9qgkfh
There can be no confusion of what Article 1 says in either of Herbert-Graves’ English and/or Maori versions – The chiefs cede FULL sovereignty forever to the Queen. The chief’s speeches prior to signing confirm that they acknowledged this. - tinyurl.com/y5y5xkqv
Article 2 relates solely to property/possessions (tino rangitiratanga) and the selling of Maori land to the Queen’s agents. It has/had nothing to do with sovereignty/chieftainship which is simply a fabrication by modern day treaty twisters.
The treaty was signed in 1840, not now in 2021 when ‘taonga’ means anything our tribal ‘friends’ can get their hands on. In 1840 Hongi Hika defined ‘taonga’ as ‘property procured by a spear’ (purely physical - land, buildings, tools, weapons etc).
Herbert-Graves brings up ‘contra proferentem’ in her flawed arguments. "Contra proferentem" is a self-serving argument used by treatyists, it is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.
The unfortunate reality for treatyists is that there is no ambiguity in Te Tiriti (Original Maori Treaty of Waitangi).
The only ambiguity is that introduced by 1980s re-interpretations.
So if the "contra proferentem" doctrine is used on those 1980s interpretations, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording, which would be in those cases, against the interpretations provided by Hugh Kawharu and the Waitangi Tribunal.
The original true Treaty Of Waitangi (Maori language, that approx 500 chiefs signed) was a great race uniting document that gave ALL New Zealanders (not just Maori) equality, protection (law & order) and ownership of their lands/property - it is later translations and interpretations that have caused the racial issues in New Zealand today, the likes of Herbert-Graves should hang their head/s in shame.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
www.kiwifrontline.nz/media/letters-to-the-editor
ONLY THREE ARTICLES
Even pro-Maori historian Professor Paul Moon disagrees with Anahera Herbert-Graves (Why Te Tiriti trumps the Treaty, February 23) and states that Te Tiriti does not consist of four articles - “The suggestion that there is a "fourth article" of the Treaty, which promotes religious freedom, emerged in the 1990s, and still clings tenaciously to some people's views about the agreement.
The "fourth article" is easily debunked, however. Neither the Maori nor English text of the treaty contains this article. Also, there is no evidence from 1840 that anyone even considered the possibility of such an article existing. The exponents of the "fourth article" cite conversations held between Hobson and others at Waitangi as somehow constituting binding parts of the Treaty, But this is based on false reasoning and an impoverished understanding of international law.” - tinyurl.com/yd9qgkfh
There can be no confusion of what Article 1 says in either of Herbert-Graves’ English and/or Maori versions – The chiefs cede FULL sovereignty forever to the Queen. The chief’s speeches prior to signing confirm that they acknowledged this. - tinyurl.com/y5y5xkqv
Article 2 relates solely to property/possessions (tino rangitiratanga) and the selling of Maori land to the Queen’s agents. It has/had nothing to do with sovereignty/chieftainship which is simply a fabrication by modern day treaty twisters.
The treaty was signed in 1840, not now in 2021 when ‘taonga’ means anything our tribal ‘friends’ can get their hands on. In 1840 Hongi Hika defined ‘taonga’ as ‘property procured by a spear’ (purely physical - land, buildings, tools, weapons etc).
Herbert-Graves brings up ‘contra proferentem’ in her flawed arguments. "Contra proferentem" is a self-serving argument used by treatyists, it is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.
The unfortunate reality for treatyists is that there is no ambiguity in Te Tiriti (Original Maori Treaty of Waitangi).
The only ambiguity is that introduced by 1980s re-interpretations.
So if the "contra proferentem" doctrine is used on those 1980s interpretations, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording, which would be in those cases, against the interpretations provided by Hugh Kawharu and the Waitangi Tribunal.
The original true Treaty Of Waitangi (Maori language, that approx 500 chiefs signed) was a great race uniting document that gave ALL New Zealanders (not just Maori) equality, protection (law & order) and ownership of their lands/property - it is later translations and interpretations that have caused the racial issues in New Zealand today, the likes of Herbert-Graves should hang their head/s in shame.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
www.kiwifrontline.nz/media/letters-to-the-editor