Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jul 17, 2023 6:02:43 GMT 12
Peter Winsley: THE LEGALITY OF NEW ZEALAND’S GOVERNMENT, AND WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT THE DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY?
Claire Charters claims that the Doctrine of Discovery was the legal grounds by which the British claimed the South Island. They used Te Tiriti o Waitangi to justify their actions in the North Island. This raises the question; how did the Crown acquire sovereignty? Charters’ view is that the “only Doctrine in which you can apply would be the Doctrine of Discovery to, I guess, legalize that claim to sovereignty (sic). So yeah, that’s the basis,” she said.
However, the distinguished historian Professor Paul Moon shredded the Doctrine of Discovery thesis in a devastating critique. He described the claims about the Doctrine affecting New Zealand’s colonisation as being entirely fabricated. The ‘doctrine’ itself derives from a sentence contained in a Papal Bull issued in 1493 by Pope Alexander VI. Moon noted that even for Catholic nations in Europe, the 1493 Bull had carried little authority at the time, and by the eighteenth century was no longer adhered to at all.
There is no mention either directly or subliminally of the Doctrine of Discovery in any British Government document relating to New Zealand’s colonisation. In the years leading up to the 1840 Tiriti/Treaty, British colonial policy was developed on principles that conflict with the Doctrine of Discovery. This negates the argument that the Doctrine embedded itself in British colonial policy and influenced New Zealand’s colonisation.
Professor Moon observed that the “persistent assertion that the Doctrine of Discovery applied to New Zealand’s colonisation is falsifiable on numerous evidentiary bases and betrays among its advocates an extraordinarily uncritical and impoverished understanding of history… when branches of the state and academia seem unwilling to relinquish their fixation on this myth, the evasions of evidence in favour of ideology (however vapid) ought to be of concern.”
New Zealand has one of the world’s oldest continuously functioning democracies, however it is vulnerable to those driven by tribalistic or race-based ideology. Falsities are promoted by academic staff with influence over credulous young minds......
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/07/peter-winsley-legality-of-new-zealands.html
Claire Charters claims that the Doctrine of Discovery was the legal grounds by which the British claimed the South Island. They used Te Tiriti o Waitangi to justify their actions in the North Island. This raises the question; how did the Crown acquire sovereignty? Charters’ view is that the “only Doctrine in which you can apply would be the Doctrine of Discovery to, I guess, legalize that claim to sovereignty (sic). So yeah, that’s the basis,” she said.
However, the distinguished historian Professor Paul Moon shredded the Doctrine of Discovery thesis in a devastating critique. He described the claims about the Doctrine affecting New Zealand’s colonisation as being entirely fabricated. The ‘doctrine’ itself derives from a sentence contained in a Papal Bull issued in 1493 by Pope Alexander VI. Moon noted that even for Catholic nations in Europe, the 1493 Bull had carried little authority at the time, and by the eighteenth century was no longer adhered to at all.
There is no mention either directly or subliminally of the Doctrine of Discovery in any British Government document relating to New Zealand’s colonisation. In the years leading up to the 1840 Tiriti/Treaty, British colonial policy was developed on principles that conflict with the Doctrine of Discovery. This negates the argument that the Doctrine embedded itself in British colonial policy and influenced New Zealand’s colonisation.
Professor Moon observed that the “persistent assertion that the Doctrine of Discovery applied to New Zealand’s colonisation is falsifiable on numerous evidentiary bases and betrays among its advocates an extraordinarily uncritical and impoverished understanding of history… when branches of the state and academia seem unwilling to relinquish their fixation on this myth, the evasions of evidence in favour of ideology (however vapid) ought to be of concern.”
New Zealand has one of the world’s oldest continuously functioning democracies, however it is vulnerable to those driven by tribalistic or race-based ideology. Falsities are promoted by academic staff with influence over credulous young minds......
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/07/peter-winsley-legality-of-new-zealands.html