Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jan 9, 2023 3:54:11 GMT 12
P H writes > FOUR CHALLENGES FOR ‘PARTNERSHIP’ BULLSHIT ARTISTS TO MEET.
I’ve never met a brown supremacist part-Maori or white liberal enabler who can meet even one:
(1) point to the Maori words for ‘partnership’ and ‘principles’ in Te Tiriti.
Not there (unless it was in the bit the rats ate).
(2) cite a primary source account containing the words of even a single chief who thought he was going into ‘partnership’ or some kind of co-governance arrangement with the Crown.
Everything the chiefs said on the lawn at Waitangi and elsewhere makes it clear they understood that their acceptance of Hobson would place him in ongoing authority over them, and that behind Hobson was Queen Victoria.
(3) explain why, for 147 years between 1840 and the 1987 Maori Council court case, in which five judges on the Court of Appeal combined a lamentable ignorance of NZ history with a willingness to ignore the Constitutional principle that they were appointed to apply the law not make it, to invent ‘partnership’ and ‘principles’ out of thin air, NOBODY was asserting the TOW was a co-governance arrangement.
Probably because it wasn’t.
(4) explain why the TOW on the one side refers to ‘Victoria the Queen of England’ and on the other to ‘the chiefs’ if it was intended to be an open-ended blueprint for a co-governance arrangement.
If this was to be the case we’d expect it to read: ‘Victoria the Queen of England HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS’ and ‘the chiefs THEIR HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS.’
The TOW was an agreement by which the Crown effectively digested and absorbed any sovereign authority that might have subsisted in the chiefs.
Thus, from the moment it was signed, the Treaty was analogous to a used table napkin after a meal.
I’ve never met a brown supremacist part-Maori or white liberal enabler who can meet even one:
(1) point to the Maori words for ‘partnership’ and ‘principles’ in Te Tiriti.
Not there (unless it was in the bit the rats ate).
(2) cite a primary source account containing the words of even a single chief who thought he was going into ‘partnership’ or some kind of co-governance arrangement with the Crown.
Everything the chiefs said on the lawn at Waitangi and elsewhere makes it clear they understood that their acceptance of Hobson would place him in ongoing authority over them, and that behind Hobson was Queen Victoria.
(3) explain why, for 147 years between 1840 and the 1987 Maori Council court case, in which five judges on the Court of Appeal combined a lamentable ignorance of NZ history with a willingness to ignore the Constitutional principle that they were appointed to apply the law not make it, to invent ‘partnership’ and ‘principles’ out of thin air, NOBODY was asserting the TOW was a co-governance arrangement.
Probably because it wasn’t.
(4) explain why the TOW on the one side refers to ‘Victoria the Queen of England’ and on the other to ‘the chiefs’ if it was intended to be an open-ended blueprint for a co-governance arrangement.
If this was to be the case we’d expect it to read: ‘Victoria the Queen of England HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS’ and ‘the chiefs THEIR HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS.’
The TOW was an agreement by which the Crown effectively digested and absorbed any sovereign authority that might have subsisted in the chiefs.
Thus, from the moment it was signed, the Treaty was analogous to a used table napkin after a meal.