Post by Kiwi Frontline on Sept 18, 2016 8:59:56 GMT 12
Dear Editor (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 13/2/16)
Peter Dey (letters 13/2/16) seems confused? It was Maori rebels who did not honour the treaty by taking up treasonous arms against the legal sovereignty of the Queen, however I won't hold my breath waiting for redress.
Further "Principles" and "Partnership" have nothing whatsoever to do with the Treaty of Waitangi 1840, and everything to do with what we might call the Treaty of Wellington (aka the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986) in which Geoffrey Palmer deliberately opened the door to his judicial activist mates,..This is the point of entry to our national discourse for all the Maori grievance industry baloney.
GEOFF PARKER
Whangarei
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 12/2/16)
There are many false treaty claims and Peter Dey (BOP Times 12/2/16) is one who makes them. There is one Treaty of Waitangi, in Maori, signed at Waitangi on 6th February 1840. By it the chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Queen and all Maoris, including slaves of other Maoris, became fully-entitled British subjects - a magnificent gift - and that is all. The so-called "Treaty in English" is a bogus document concocted by Hobson's secretary, Freeman, after the event and legislating that it is "official" is like legislating that lead is gold.
Dey's claim that "Twisting the Treaty" has been "totally discredited" is a straight lie. As one of the authors, I challenge him to back up his false claim. If anything in it is actually incorrect we will correct it but there won't be much. In the other hand, what Claudia Orange writes is full of incorrect statements and false assumptions, some of them being stated in "Twisting the Treaty", pages 295-301. New Zealanders who want to be well-informed should read it.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
The Editor (Sent to the Rotorua Daily Post 9/2/16)
Legal Fictions & So Forth
Perhaps Jonathan Temm QC, a past President of the NZ Law Society has a point when he says democracy is elastic and in my view, it is probably a nebulous thing too.
Mr Temm sees fit to take to task the Rotorua Democracy Group for daring to suggest they want a return to democracy. Now that's cute, isn't it! Mr Temm then proceeds to illustrate elasticity by lauding the Te Arawa/Rotorua Lakes District Council deal as demonstrating real democracy.Well the only reason for this dodgy deal was that when it became obvious to Council hierarchy it would not get racially based Maori Ward seats approved without facing a citizens referendum that would probably reject this try on by 80% --which represents democratic voting. The pro-Maori Ward people then surreptiously worked their way around what they saw as 'the public nuisance' and came up with the Arawa stratagem to avoid the irrelevant majority. Subsequently 2839 Arawa uri (descendants) being only 25% of eligible voters elected 14 tribal representatives !!!!
So that, is the background to Mr Temm’s shining example of democracy at work. He is living in fantasyland if he supports that scam and it reflects very poorly on his ability to cut to the chase.
R P
Tauranga
Dear Editor (Sent to the Northern Advocate 5/2/16)
Fact checking required on treaty utterances
Media law holds that any individual has the right to express his opinion provided that the opinion is honestly held and the speaker has got his basic facts right.
Tim Howard falls short with his facts in his piece IT’S WE WHO OWE MAORI TRUE RESPECT
Firstly, treaty settlements are not capped at $1-billion. The National Party government of the 1990s promoted a “fiscal envelope” cap of $1-billion but was howled down by claimants and did not proceed.
A check with the Office of Treaty Settlements would confirm that the total amount of financial redress paid to June 30, 2015, was $3.1-billion, and the payments continue.
Secondly, the only evidence that Te Wakaminenga was an annual meeting of chiefs from 1807 to discuss engagement with the world is the 21st century utterances about the 19th century world.
Te Wakaminenga refers to a single meeting on October 28, 1835, when British Resident James Busby gained the signatures of 39 chiefs on a “Declaration of Independence”. That so-called “confederation of chiefs” never subsequently met.
Thirdly, the 21st century claim that Ngapuhi never ceded sovereignty is contradicted by the text of the treaty signed by 45 chiefs at Waitangi on February 6, 1840, and by the utterances by those and other chiefs on the day before.
“Tangata tiriti” or “non-Maori” like Tim Howard are entitled to their opinions but they should get their basic facts right.
MIKE BUTLER
Hastings
Peter Dey (letters 13/2/16) seems confused? It was Maori rebels who did not honour the treaty by taking up treasonous arms against the legal sovereignty of the Queen, however I won't hold my breath waiting for redress.
Further "Principles" and "Partnership" have nothing whatsoever to do with the Treaty of Waitangi 1840, and everything to do with what we might call the Treaty of Wellington (aka the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986) in which Geoffrey Palmer deliberately opened the door to his judicial activist mates,..This is the point of entry to our national discourse for all the Maori grievance industry baloney.
GEOFF PARKER
Whangarei
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 12/2/16)
There are many false treaty claims and Peter Dey (BOP Times 12/2/16) is one who makes them. There is one Treaty of Waitangi, in Maori, signed at Waitangi on 6th February 1840. By it the chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Queen and all Maoris, including slaves of other Maoris, became fully-entitled British subjects - a magnificent gift - and that is all. The so-called "Treaty in English" is a bogus document concocted by Hobson's secretary, Freeman, after the event and legislating that it is "official" is like legislating that lead is gold.
Dey's claim that "Twisting the Treaty" has been "totally discredited" is a straight lie. As one of the authors, I challenge him to back up his false claim. If anything in it is actually incorrect we will correct it but there won't be much. In the other hand, what Claudia Orange writes is full of incorrect statements and false assumptions, some of them being stated in "Twisting the Treaty", pages 295-301. New Zealanders who want to be well-informed should read it.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
The Editor (Sent to the Rotorua Daily Post 9/2/16)
Legal Fictions & So Forth
Perhaps Jonathan Temm QC, a past President of the NZ Law Society has a point when he says democracy is elastic and in my view, it is probably a nebulous thing too.
Mr Temm sees fit to take to task the Rotorua Democracy Group for daring to suggest they want a return to democracy. Now that's cute, isn't it! Mr Temm then proceeds to illustrate elasticity by lauding the Te Arawa/Rotorua Lakes District Council deal as demonstrating real democracy.Well the only reason for this dodgy deal was that when it became obvious to Council hierarchy it would not get racially based Maori Ward seats approved without facing a citizens referendum that would probably reject this try on by 80% --which represents democratic voting. The pro-Maori Ward people then surreptiously worked their way around what they saw as 'the public nuisance' and came up with the Arawa stratagem to avoid the irrelevant majority. Subsequently 2839 Arawa uri (descendants) being only 25% of eligible voters elected 14 tribal representatives !!!!
So that, is the background to Mr Temm’s shining example of democracy at work. He is living in fantasyland if he supports that scam and it reflects very poorly on his ability to cut to the chase.
R P
Tauranga
Dear Editor (Sent to the Northern Advocate 5/2/16)
Fact checking required on treaty utterances
Media law holds that any individual has the right to express his opinion provided that the opinion is honestly held and the speaker has got his basic facts right.
Tim Howard falls short with his facts in his piece IT’S WE WHO OWE MAORI TRUE RESPECT
Firstly, treaty settlements are not capped at $1-billion. The National Party government of the 1990s promoted a “fiscal envelope” cap of $1-billion but was howled down by claimants and did not proceed.
A check with the Office of Treaty Settlements would confirm that the total amount of financial redress paid to June 30, 2015, was $3.1-billion, and the payments continue.
Secondly, the only evidence that Te Wakaminenga was an annual meeting of chiefs from 1807 to discuss engagement with the world is the 21st century utterances about the 19th century world.
Te Wakaminenga refers to a single meeting on October 28, 1835, when British Resident James Busby gained the signatures of 39 chiefs on a “Declaration of Independence”. That so-called “confederation of chiefs” never subsequently met.
Thirdly, the 21st century claim that Ngapuhi never ceded sovereignty is contradicted by the text of the treaty signed by 45 chiefs at Waitangi on February 6, 1840, and by the utterances by those and other chiefs on the day before.
“Tangata tiriti” or “non-Maori” like Tim Howard are entitled to their opinions but they should get their basic facts right.
MIKE BUTLER
Hastings