Post by Kiwi Frontline on Nov 7, 2023 9:23:29 GMT 12
A R writes > DAME ANNE SALMOND THE HISTORY TWISTER
‘Why a referendum on Te Tiriti will backfire’ writes Dame Anne Salmond, Newsroom, 2 November 2023 > www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/dame-anne-salmond-on-treaty-referendum
Let’s untangle the Dame’s duplicitous piece of work.
THE ‘OFFICIAL TREATY’ VERSION
Dame Anne correctly says that “the English text was read out at Waitangi”, the translated Maori version (Te Tiriti) was also read out and the latter was duly signed.
But that particular ‘English text’ is NOT the ‘official version/text’ of the Treaty of Waitangi’ as Salmond slyly infers throughout her article.
The ‘Official EnglishTreaty’ (1975 Act) is the discarded Busby draft (Feb 3rd 1840) that Hobson’s secretary James Stuart Freeman sent to New South Wales governor Sir George Gipps (Feb 8th 1840).
The English draft that was read out at Waitangi on Feb 5th is widely believed to be the Littlewood Treaty – (a draft because it was unsigned).
Littlewood draft/document was found in South Auckland February 27th 1989. This text is either the original draft or a copy of the original February 4, 1840 draft and is in Busby's handwriting. The paper this draft was written on was manufactured prior to the treaty signing and had a W. Tucker 1833 watermark on it.
See here for Timeline > sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/tow-simplified
There are just three words and a date in this Littlewood text that differ from the Maori language text that was signed by 473 chiefs.
39 Chiefs signed the ‘Official English Treaty’ text (Not the Littlewood) at Port Waikato and Manukau Heads as an overflow because no Maori texts were available at that time
CONTRA PROFERENTEM
Like many of her treaty twisting travellers the Dame then plays the Contra Proferentem card.
"contra proferentem", a self-serving argument used by treatyists, is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.
The unfortunate reality for treatyists is that there is no ambiguity in Te Tiriti.
The only ambiguity is that introduced by 1980s re-interpretations.
So if the "contra proferentem" doctrine is used on those 1980s interpretations, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording, which would be in those cases, against the interpretations provided by Hugh Kawharu and the Waitangi Tribunal.
PARTNERSHIP
Dame Anne Salmond: “The 1987 Lands Case, in which the judges of the Court of Appeal described Te Tiriti as a ‘partnership between two races,’ or between ‘Maori and Pakeha’ or ‘the Crown and the Maori race.” - Here the truth is twisted again as the President of the Court, Cooke J., held that “the Treaty created an enduring relationship of a fiduciary nature ‘AKIN’ to a partnership.
********************0
‘It is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with any of it's subjects’ - Article 3 of the treaty gave to Maori the rights of British subjects, which put signatories under political control of the Queen, hence no partnership.
CEDING SOVEREIGNTY
The good lady then goes on to say “Nor was it a cession of sovereignty, although it did give the right to govern.”
The fact is that Article 1 in both English texts clearly state the ceding of sovereignty.
Lord Normanby’s brief to Hobson stipulated that transfer of sovereignty was the primary intention of the British for the treaty.
William Colenso’s report of the signing of the Treaty: January 30th 1840, Two Proclamations were also issued by the Governor - the first stating that he had been appointed Lieutenant-Governor over any territory which is or may be acquired in ‘sovereignty’ by Her Majesty within the Islands of New Zealand,
As Dame Anne says “When the Treaty of Waitangi was signed at Waitangi in 1840 and elsewhere around the country, it was the Māori text [Te Tiriti] that was discussed and signed almost everywhere” - The chief’s speeches at these discussions acknowledge that they clearly understood what the commitment entailed and that was full control of New Zealand.
This was later reaffirmed by the chiefs speeches who gathered at the Kohimarama conference in July 1860.
Sir Apirana Ngata’s recorded speech at the 1940 Treaty of Waitangi Centennial is yet another example.
‘Let me say one thing, throughout the treaty, Maori handed over the mana and sovereignty of New Zealand to Queen Victoria and her descendants forever.....
PROMISES DISHONOURED
The Dame claims that: “that almost as soon as they were made, those promises [in the treaty] were radically dishonoured.
She does not state in what way the ‘promises’ were dishonoured? However it was Maori who breached the treaty on several occasions. Hone Heke the first to sign the treaty, and the first to breach the treaty when he cut down the flagstaff. The Kingitanga movement (1858) was another treaty breach by Maori.
DIVIDING THE NATION
Rounding up the Dame says “It would be unjust and divisive, inciting extreme views in all directions and fostering misinformation, anger and ill-will.
Rather, this should be a mana-enhancing exercise that strengthens rather than divides the nation....”
A patriotic NZer (C.R) writes > It is those "Maori" who, in their complete lack of ethical individualism, are unable to transcend tribal mentality who are the "dividers".
Tribal consciousness even divides those of the same race into warring tribes / clans / factions.
Us Pakehas have simply been cast by these regressives as the enemy "tribe".
Tribalism requires an enemy, and won't rest until it finds or invents one.
‘Why a referendum on Te Tiriti will backfire’ writes Dame Anne Salmond, Newsroom, 2 November 2023 > www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/dame-anne-salmond-on-treaty-referendum
Let’s untangle the Dame’s duplicitous piece of work.
THE ‘OFFICIAL TREATY’ VERSION
Dame Anne correctly says that “the English text was read out at Waitangi”, the translated Maori version (Te Tiriti) was also read out and the latter was duly signed.
But that particular ‘English text’ is NOT the ‘official version/text’ of the Treaty of Waitangi’ as Salmond slyly infers throughout her article.
The ‘Official EnglishTreaty’ (1975 Act) is the discarded Busby draft (Feb 3rd 1840) that Hobson’s secretary James Stuart Freeman sent to New South Wales governor Sir George Gipps (Feb 8th 1840).
The English draft that was read out at Waitangi on Feb 5th is widely believed to be the Littlewood Treaty – (a draft because it was unsigned).
Littlewood draft/document was found in South Auckland February 27th 1989. This text is either the original draft or a copy of the original February 4, 1840 draft and is in Busby's handwriting. The paper this draft was written on was manufactured prior to the treaty signing and had a W. Tucker 1833 watermark on it.
See here for Timeline > sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/tow-simplified
There are just three words and a date in this Littlewood text that differ from the Maori language text that was signed by 473 chiefs.
39 Chiefs signed the ‘Official English Treaty’ text (Not the Littlewood) at Port Waikato and Manukau Heads as an overflow because no Maori texts were available at that time
CONTRA PROFERENTEM
Like many of her treaty twisting travellers the Dame then plays the Contra Proferentem card.
"contra proferentem", a self-serving argument used by treatyists, is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.
The unfortunate reality for treatyists is that there is no ambiguity in Te Tiriti.
The only ambiguity is that introduced by 1980s re-interpretations.
So if the "contra proferentem" doctrine is used on those 1980s interpretations, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording, which would be in those cases, against the interpretations provided by Hugh Kawharu and the Waitangi Tribunal.
PARTNERSHIP
Dame Anne Salmond: “The 1987 Lands Case, in which the judges of the Court of Appeal described Te Tiriti as a ‘partnership between two races,’ or between ‘Maori and Pakeha’ or ‘the Crown and the Maori race.” - Here the truth is twisted again as the President of the Court, Cooke J., held that “the Treaty created an enduring relationship of a fiduciary nature ‘AKIN’ to a partnership.
********************0
‘It is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with any of it's subjects’ - Article 3 of the treaty gave to Maori the rights of British subjects, which put signatories under political control of the Queen, hence no partnership.
CEDING SOVEREIGNTY
The good lady then goes on to say “Nor was it a cession of sovereignty, although it did give the right to govern.”
The fact is that Article 1 in both English texts clearly state the ceding of sovereignty.
Lord Normanby’s brief to Hobson stipulated that transfer of sovereignty was the primary intention of the British for the treaty.
William Colenso’s report of the signing of the Treaty: January 30th 1840, Two Proclamations were also issued by the Governor - the first stating that he had been appointed Lieutenant-Governor over any territory which is or may be acquired in ‘sovereignty’ by Her Majesty within the Islands of New Zealand,
As Dame Anne says “When the Treaty of Waitangi was signed at Waitangi in 1840 and elsewhere around the country, it was the Māori text [Te Tiriti] that was discussed and signed almost everywhere” - The chief’s speeches at these discussions acknowledge that they clearly understood what the commitment entailed and that was full control of New Zealand.
This was later reaffirmed by the chiefs speeches who gathered at the Kohimarama conference in July 1860.
Sir Apirana Ngata’s recorded speech at the 1940 Treaty of Waitangi Centennial is yet another example.
‘Let me say one thing, throughout the treaty, Maori handed over the mana and sovereignty of New Zealand to Queen Victoria and her descendants forever.....
PROMISES DISHONOURED
The Dame claims that: “that almost as soon as they were made, those promises [in the treaty] were radically dishonoured.
She does not state in what way the ‘promises’ were dishonoured? However it was Maori who breached the treaty on several occasions. Hone Heke the first to sign the treaty, and the first to breach the treaty when he cut down the flagstaff. The Kingitanga movement (1858) was another treaty breach by Maori.
DIVIDING THE NATION
Rounding up the Dame says “It would be unjust and divisive, inciting extreme views in all directions and fostering misinformation, anger and ill-will.
Rather, this should be a mana-enhancing exercise that strengthens rather than divides the nation....”
A patriotic NZer (C.R) writes > It is those "Maori" who, in their complete lack of ethical individualism, are unable to transcend tribal mentality who are the "dividers".
Tribal consciousness even divides those of the same race into warring tribes / clans / factions.
Us Pakehas have simply been cast by these regressives as the enemy "tribe".
Tribalism requires an enemy, and won't rest until it finds or invents one.