Post by Kiwi Frontline on Feb 22, 2016 5:32:40 GMT 12
Wairarapa Times-Age 22/2/16
TREATY CLAIMS BADLY FLAWED
Gianina Schwaneke is entitled to her “Opinion” ( Times-Age, 16/2/16) but she should get her facts right before expressing them. Her “1935 [sic] Declaration of Independence” has not “long been considered one of New Zealand’s founding documents”. It was a worthless piece of paper dragged out of the past by today’s racists seeking political advantage from it.
The same sort of people also deny that by Article First of the Treaty of Waitangi, the chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Queen.
But at Waitangi the Treaty and Hobson’s final draft in English of February 4 were both read out next day and nobody claimed that what they said was different. The chiefs who spoke made it quite clear that they knew that by signing they would become subordinate to the Queen. They signed.
Schwaneke’s claim about Article Second grossly distorts the truth.
In 1840, “tino rangatiratanga” meant “ownership”, “taonga” meant “ordinary property” and, most importantly, its guarantees were made to all the people of New Zealand. Her statement that it granted Maori “full sovereignty over their taonga or treasures” is utter nonsense and the people of Wairarapa are fools if they believe it. At least my Wairarapa-born son-in-law does not do so.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
The New Zealand Herald 22/2/16 (Short and Sweet section)
ON WATER RIGHTS
Catherine Delahunty says the Freshwater Consultation Document failed to recognise the Treaty of Waitangi and had relegated iwi and hapu rights as a “right to have a say”. Surely tribal Maori would have a “right to a say” as New Zealanders rather than a breakaway entity?
GEOFF PARKER,
Kamo.
TREATY CLAIMS BADLY FLAWED
Gianina Schwaneke is entitled to her “Opinion” ( Times-Age, 16/2/16) but she should get her facts right before expressing them. Her “1935 [sic] Declaration of Independence” has not “long been considered one of New Zealand’s founding documents”. It was a worthless piece of paper dragged out of the past by today’s racists seeking political advantage from it.
The same sort of people also deny that by Article First of the Treaty of Waitangi, the chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Queen.
But at Waitangi the Treaty and Hobson’s final draft in English of February 4 were both read out next day and nobody claimed that what they said was different. The chiefs who spoke made it quite clear that they knew that by signing they would become subordinate to the Queen. They signed.
Schwaneke’s claim about Article Second grossly distorts the truth.
In 1840, “tino rangatiratanga” meant “ownership”, “taonga” meant “ordinary property” and, most importantly, its guarantees were made to all the people of New Zealand. Her statement that it granted Maori “full sovereignty over their taonga or treasures” is utter nonsense and the people of Wairarapa are fools if they believe it. At least my Wairarapa-born son-in-law does not do so.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
The New Zealand Herald 22/2/16 (Short and Sweet section)
ON WATER RIGHTS
Catherine Delahunty says the Freshwater Consultation Document failed to recognise the Treaty of Waitangi and had relegated iwi and hapu rights as a “right to have a say”. Surely tribal Maori would have a “right to a say” as New Zealanders rather than a breakaway entity?
GEOFF PARKER,
Kamo.