Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jun 4, 2022 5:26:48 GMT 12
FAIRY TALES FOR THE GULLIBLE – Anthony Willy.
This article comes with a health warning for anti-democracy activists. For mindless academics parental guidance is recommended.
On the Wednesday the 13 April 2022 the political commentator Audrey Young wrote an article for the New Zealand Herald about co- governance and a “partnership” between those with some Maori genes and the remainder of New Zealanders. The writer concludes that such a unique constitutional arrangement results from the decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in New Zealand Maori Council [1987] 1 NZLR 641. Similarly in a series of three articles Dame Anne Salmond concludes that the case does amount to those who signed the Treaty becoming “partners” while perceptively concluding:
The Lands judgment is unhelpful. By defining the Treaty as a partnership between the Crown and the Maori race ; it assumes that the rest of the population can be fairly excluded from discussions of Treaty matters. This is highly undemocratic and more likely to inflame than to heal racist sentiment.
Notwithstanding such a sensible caution most maori radicals and less perceptive academics (shamefully including lawyers who should know better) espouse the “partnership” notion.
It is clear from the growing body of writing and commentary that very few of the authors have read the judgment or understand the jurisprudence at the heart of judgment writing, what it is that comprises a judgment of a court. Given the widespread ignorance which surrounds what has become holy writ to the maori radicals it is timely to examine what the case does and does not decide. In doing so it is necessary to say something about the judges who made up the Court, the counsel who argued the case, the issues which the plaintiff put before the Court and what it is the case actually decides.....
www.nzcpr.com/fairy-tales-for-the-gullible/
This article comes with a health warning for anti-democracy activists. For mindless academics parental guidance is recommended.
On the Wednesday the 13 April 2022 the political commentator Audrey Young wrote an article for the New Zealand Herald about co- governance and a “partnership” between those with some Maori genes and the remainder of New Zealanders. The writer concludes that such a unique constitutional arrangement results from the decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in New Zealand Maori Council [1987] 1 NZLR 641. Similarly in a series of three articles Dame Anne Salmond concludes that the case does amount to those who signed the Treaty becoming “partners” while perceptively concluding:
The Lands judgment is unhelpful. By defining the Treaty as a partnership between the Crown and the Maori race ; it assumes that the rest of the population can be fairly excluded from discussions of Treaty matters. This is highly undemocratic and more likely to inflame than to heal racist sentiment.
Notwithstanding such a sensible caution most maori radicals and less perceptive academics (shamefully including lawyers who should know better) espouse the “partnership” notion.
It is clear from the growing body of writing and commentary that very few of the authors have read the judgment or understand the jurisprudence at the heart of judgment writing, what it is that comprises a judgment of a court. Given the widespread ignorance which surrounds what has become holy writ to the maori radicals it is timely to examine what the case does and does not decide. In doing so it is necessary to say something about the judges who made up the Court, the counsel who argued the case, the issues which the plaintiff put before the Court and what it is the case actually decides.....
www.nzcpr.com/fairy-tales-for-the-gullible/