Post by Kiwi Frontline on Sept 18, 2016 9:08:19 GMT 12
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 22/3/16)
Selective quoting, as indulged in by Tommy Wilson, ("Times", 21 March) is as bad as lying. If readers care to look at the Treaty of Waitangi they will find just above his "me o ratou taonga katoa" the words "tangata katoa o Nu Tirani", that is "all the people of New Zealand" and that does not mean just Maoris. Note also that the accepted Maori name of our country was "Nu Tirani" - "aotearoa" not worth a mention - and that "taonga" in 1840 meant simply "personal property" or "chattels". Using any latter-day meaning for it distorts the truth of the Treaty.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
Dear Editor (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 21/3/16)
Tommy Wilson in his column (March 21) again returns to his world of make believe. He claims "If we were to look at the second clause of the Treaty.......you will see the words”:
Me o ratau toanga katoa
Yes, so far so good, but his next three lines, well, they just aren't there.
Ka ora te whenua,
Ka ora te moana
Ka ora te tangata
As for his translation "The resources of the land, the rivers and harbours belong to our people to share". Even by a generous translation it does not mean this. Rivers and harbours are not mentioned, never mind the sharing bit in the Tommy's text.
When he shows his grandchildren the critical letters and comments that he thinks he will receive I hope that he mentions that research is the cornerstone of good journalism.
Tommy claims that he wants to see reconciliation but attempts to re-write or add new meanings to the Treaty do little for the reconciliation process.
R P
Welcome Bay
Dear Sir/Madam, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 21/3/16)
Tommy, BOP Times 21st March, your slip is showing. The 2nd Article does say ‘me o ratau toanga katoa’, translating approximately to ‘and of them/they possessions altogether . Nowhere in the 2nd Article, Te Tiriti o Waitangi does it mention ‘ka ora te whenua, moana or tangata’. Those words are taken from the Freeman elaborated ‘royal style’ composite which is the Official English Text.
In 1975 when the Treaty of Waitangi and subsequent Acts were devised and written into law using the now discredited English composite, it was known that Te Tiriti o Waitangi, signed by many Rangatira did not match in transcription, the Freeman composite.
In 1988 the subsequent true draft copy of Hobsons English text, known as the Littlewood draft was discovered in papers from a deceased estate. The deceased estate has an impeccable history back to Henry Littlewood, Solicitor in the 1840’s. The Littlewood draft was identified by Dr Phil Parkinson (hand writing expert) and written on paper with an 1833 watermark and confirmed by the Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr Lee, September 1992.
The result of 45 years of ‘institutionalised agendas’, has resulted in New Zealands history being bastardised to mean something other than the truth .
M J A
Pyes Pa
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Weekend Sun / Sunlive 16/3/16)
At the Freshwater Meeting in Tauranga on 15th March, representatives of Ngati Ranginui and Ngai Te Rangi both claimed that Maoris have rights to water beyond those of other citizens, which have been acknowledged by the courts and that it was not a race issue.
Well, no matter how often they say it, both they and the courts are wrong. By the Treaty of Waitangi, all Maoris became fully entitled British subjects with the same rights to water and other natural resources as other New Zealanders, no more and no less. Their claims to the contrary dishonour the Treaty and their denial that it is a race issue is false . Quite simply, they are racists demanding race-based political privileges.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
MPS' RACISM RANTS NEED CORRECTION (Sent to the Northland Age 15/3/16)
Labour MP Kelvin Davis fails to present any evidence to support his allegation of unfair treatment of Maori by Corrections staff.
The allegation, like the accusation of ‘‘unconscious bias’’ against Maori by police, is largely an untruth from the Maori Party that is treated as a fact after widespread repetition.
Maori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell raised the issue three years when he told Parliament that “for the 3495 theft apprehensions recorded as Caucasian there were 588 prosecutions; and for Maori, for the 5660 apprehensions recorded, 1173 resulted in prosecution.
The prosecution rates for non-Maori were 16.8 percent versus 20.7 percent for Maori, which did support Flavell’s argument, but only by a slender margin of 3.9 percent.
The data came from police statistics for 2011 and looks at prosecution vs total apprehension numbers for 10- to 16-year-olds.
However, with 5660 thefts by Maori recorded, compared with 3495 non-Maori, not only were there more thefts by Maori recorded, but there were proportionally many more since Maori only make up 16 percent of the population.
A question both MPs should answer – if an offender has more non-Maori ancestry than Maori, should he or she be classified as a Maori offender?
If offenders were reclassified on the basis that an offender required at least 51 percent Maori ancestry to be regarded as Maori, offending by Maori would pale into insignificance.
Then we would simply be having a debate about the high rate of youth offending without trying to claim that Police, Courts, and Corrections are picking on Maori.
MIKE BUTLER
Hastings
Selective quoting, as indulged in by Tommy Wilson, ("Times", 21 March) is as bad as lying. If readers care to look at the Treaty of Waitangi they will find just above his "me o ratou taonga katoa" the words "tangata katoa o Nu Tirani", that is "all the people of New Zealand" and that does not mean just Maoris. Note also that the accepted Maori name of our country was "Nu Tirani" - "aotearoa" not worth a mention - and that "taonga" in 1840 meant simply "personal property" or "chattels". Using any latter-day meaning for it distorts the truth of the Treaty.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
Dear Editor (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 21/3/16)
Tommy Wilson in his column (March 21) again returns to his world of make believe. He claims "If we were to look at the second clause of the Treaty.......you will see the words”:
Me o ratau toanga katoa
Yes, so far so good, but his next three lines, well, they just aren't there.
Ka ora te whenua,
Ka ora te moana
Ka ora te tangata
As for his translation "The resources of the land, the rivers and harbours belong to our people to share". Even by a generous translation it does not mean this. Rivers and harbours are not mentioned, never mind the sharing bit in the Tommy's text.
When he shows his grandchildren the critical letters and comments that he thinks he will receive I hope that he mentions that research is the cornerstone of good journalism.
Tommy claims that he wants to see reconciliation but attempts to re-write or add new meanings to the Treaty do little for the reconciliation process.
R P
Welcome Bay
Dear Sir/Madam, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 21/3/16)
Tommy, BOP Times 21st March, your slip is showing. The 2nd Article does say ‘me o ratau toanga katoa’, translating approximately to ‘and of them/they possessions altogether . Nowhere in the 2nd Article, Te Tiriti o Waitangi does it mention ‘ka ora te whenua, moana or tangata’. Those words are taken from the Freeman elaborated ‘royal style’ composite which is the Official English Text.
In 1975 when the Treaty of Waitangi and subsequent Acts were devised and written into law using the now discredited English composite, it was known that Te Tiriti o Waitangi, signed by many Rangatira did not match in transcription, the Freeman composite.
In 1988 the subsequent true draft copy of Hobsons English text, known as the Littlewood draft was discovered in papers from a deceased estate. The deceased estate has an impeccable history back to Henry Littlewood, Solicitor in the 1840’s. The Littlewood draft was identified by Dr Phil Parkinson (hand writing expert) and written on paper with an 1833 watermark and confirmed by the Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr Lee, September 1992.
The result of 45 years of ‘institutionalised agendas’, has resulted in New Zealands history being bastardised to mean something other than the truth .
M J A
Pyes Pa
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Weekend Sun / Sunlive 16/3/16)
At the Freshwater Meeting in Tauranga on 15th March, representatives of Ngati Ranginui and Ngai Te Rangi both claimed that Maoris have rights to water beyond those of other citizens, which have been acknowledged by the courts and that it was not a race issue.
Well, no matter how often they say it, both they and the courts are wrong. By the Treaty of Waitangi, all Maoris became fully entitled British subjects with the same rights to water and other natural resources as other New Zealanders, no more and no less. Their claims to the contrary dishonour the Treaty and their denial that it is a race issue is false . Quite simply, they are racists demanding race-based political privileges.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
MPS' RACISM RANTS NEED CORRECTION (Sent to the Northland Age 15/3/16)
Labour MP Kelvin Davis fails to present any evidence to support his allegation of unfair treatment of Maori by Corrections staff.
The allegation, like the accusation of ‘‘unconscious bias’’ against Maori by police, is largely an untruth from the Maori Party that is treated as a fact after widespread repetition.
Maori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell raised the issue three years when he told Parliament that “for the 3495 theft apprehensions recorded as Caucasian there were 588 prosecutions; and for Maori, for the 5660 apprehensions recorded, 1173 resulted in prosecution.
The prosecution rates for non-Maori were 16.8 percent versus 20.7 percent for Maori, which did support Flavell’s argument, but only by a slender margin of 3.9 percent.
The data came from police statistics for 2011 and looks at prosecution vs total apprehension numbers for 10- to 16-year-olds.
However, with 5660 thefts by Maori recorded, compared with 3495 non-Maori, not only were there more thefts by Maori recorded, but there were proportionally many more since Maori only make up 16 percent of the population.
A question both MPs should answer – if an offender has more non-Maori ancestry than Maori, should he or she be classified as a Maori offender?
If offenders were reclassified on the basis that an offender required at least 51 percent Maori ancestry to be regarded as Maori, offending by Maori would pale into insignificance.
Then we would simply be having a debate about the high rate of youth offending without trying to claim that Police, Courts, and Corrections are picking on Maori.
MIKE BUTLER
Hastings