Post by Kiwi Frontline on Dec 15, 2019 12:28:00 GMT 12
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northland Age 8/12/19)
The Maori Text which is the true Treaty says very clearly “All the people of New Zealand while the words for Forest and Fisheries are not in the Maori text and yet The Waitangi Tribunal is full of our country’s most fluent Maori speakers and they can’t even read the text properly.
The Government could end the confusion if they wished, but they would have to reverse almost every claim which involved forest and fisheries and immediately all claims for water, wind, radio waves, etc would be overturned as the word “Taonga” means “Property procured by the spear’ and not “treasure” as used by the Waitangi tribunal. But our governments won’t change it as it would destroy all the treaty claims both Labour and National are hell bent on deceiving the people.
IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northern Advocate 28/11/19)
GM Tinker's statement (25/11/19) that: 'His Royal Highness, in his speech, constantly referred to The Crown and Tangata Whenua as being "Treaty partners" is a gross perversion of the truth and all too typical of the many treaty-twisters in our midst. The Prince referred to a ‘partnership’ between two peoples (dubious enough in itself) but made no reference to ‘a Crown/Maori partnership’ in his speech at Waitangi.
The Prince also referred to Apirana Ngata 1940: “....treaty partners’ standing together...”. Yet in 1922 Ngata said - “If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”.
I challenge Mr Tinker to find the words ‘partner’ or ‘partnership’ in either Te Tiriti or Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 (the latter our true founding document).
The Treaty did not create a Crown/Maori partnership. Even in the big 1987 case, the Court of Appeal used the word partners interchangeably with the word parties, and spoke also of a relationship ‘AKIN to’ a partnership. In a later case even Cooke P made it quite plain that not even all real genuine partnerships ~ which this was not ~ are ones of equals. It is constitutionally impossible for a subject to be the partner of the Crown. The entire gist of the Treaty is of the recognition of the Crown’s sovereignty.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers/unpublished-letters
The Maori Text which is the true Treaty says very clearly “All the people of New Zealand while the words for Forest and Fisheries are not in the Maori text and yet The Waitangi Tribunal is full of our country’s most fluent Maori speakers and they can’t even read the text properly.
The Government could end the confusion if they wished, but they would have to reverse almost every claim which involved forest and fisheries and immediately all claims for water, wind, radio waves, etc would be overturned as the word “Taonga” means “Property procured by the spear’ and not “treasure” as used by the Waitangi tribunal. But our governments won’t change it as it would destroy all the treaty claims both Labour and National are hell bent on deceiving the people.
IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northern Advocate 28/11/19)
GM Tinker's statement (25/11/19) that: 'His Royal Highness, in his speech, constantly referred to The Crown and Tangata Whenua as being "Treaty partners" is a gross perversion of the truth and all too typical of the many treaty-twisters in our midst. The Prince referred to a ‘partnership’ between two peoples (dubious enough in itself) but made no reference to ‘a Crown/Maori partnership’ in his speech at Waitangi.
The Prince also referred to Apirana Ngata 1940: “....treaty partners’ standing together...”. Yet in 1922 Ngata said - “If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”.
I challenge Mr Tinker to find the words ‘partner’ or ‘partnership’ in either Te Tiriti or Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 (the latter our true founding document).
The Treaty did not create a Crown/Maori partnership. Even in the big 1987 case, the Court of Appeal used the word partners interchangeably with the word parties, and spoke also of a relationship ‘AKIN to’ a partnership. In a later case even Cooke P made it quite plain that not even all real genuine partnerships ~ which this was not ~ are ones of equals. It is constitutionally impossible for a subject to be the partner of the Crown. The entire gist of the Treaty is of the recognition of the Crown’s sovereignty.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers/unpublished-letters