Post by Kiwi Frontline on Dec 2, 2018 6:53:48 GMT 12
ALAN RICHARDS PULLS CLEMENTINE FRASER’S NONSENSE APART POINT BY POINT
This nonsense by Clementine Fraser (CF), I have made a lengthy attempt to refute her nonsense below. Her sort of false propaganda is what is used to transfer massive wealth and assets to to an opportunist group of people and is racially dividing our country today.
Clementine Fraser’s article here > tinyurl.com/ybgrhvps
Points of contention are numbered:
1) CF says > “I worked for the Waitangi Tribunal as a historian and a claims facilitator. “unquote
That explains her whole nonsense blog and really I should not need to go any further, but I will.
See what some say about this racially stacked and therefore biased Waitangi Tribunal > sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/waitangi-tribunal
More > The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 set up the Waitangi Tribunal as a permanent commission of inquiry to examine any claim by Maori over any law, regulation, or acts, omissions, policies, or practices of the Crown that may have given offence. It was an attempt to provide an avenue for Maori grievance and get Maori nationalist protest off the streets. The Act was passed a couple of days before the Maori Land March led by Dame Whina Cooper delivered a 60,000-signature petition to Prime Minister Bill Rowling.
The act also gave a handful of un-elected tribunal members the exclusive authority to interpret the treaty. The Act was the first legal recognition of the treaty. > sites.google.com/…/treat…/home/the-waitangi-tribunal
2) CF says > “It’s the only treaty I know of that deals with a presumed transfer of power rather than just land.“ unquote
Although named a treaty it is not a true treaty – it is simply a cessation agreement, with the chiefs ceding their individual sovereignty to the Queen. And nowhere does it mention transfer of land – in fact Article 2 guarantees ownership of land to ALL New Zealanders (occupied and in usage at the time).
David Round Canterbury law lecturer says > David Round (Law lecturer at Canterbury university) says the TOW has no legal standing in international law
In international law the TOW is nullity. It has no legal standing as a treaty in international law.
The reason is that treaties can be made only between states, and maori, not formed into an organised state but living in a much smaller and far less sophisticated societies (and indeed, ones in a constant state of flux, given the intensly war-torn nature of the times) were simply incapable of entering into such an agreement in 1840.....(Excerpt from ‘Twisting the Treaty’ page 83 by David Round - law lecturer Canterbury uni)
3) CF says > you can read the treaty here > nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-treaty/english-text “unquote
CF infers that the Maori version which approx 500 chiefs signed is the the legitimate treaty – THIS IS TRUE
But what this cunning little piece of works has done in the link above is point to the Busby discard / Freeman / Official English treaty that only 39 chiefs signed at Port Waikato/Manakau – she is inferring that the maori version translates to this version – IT DOES NOT.
The nearest translation to the true maori version with only 4 minor variations is the Littlewood Draft > sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/the-littlewood-treaty
Read a further 25 points here > sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/sundry
This nonsense by Clementine Fraser (CF), I have made a lengthy attempt to refute her nonsense below. Her sort of false propaganda is what is used to transfer massive wealth and assets to to an opportunist group of people and is racially dividing our country today.
Clementine Fraser’s article here > tinyurl.com/ybgrhvps
Points of contention are numbered:
1) CF says > “I worked for the Waitangi Tribunal as a historian and a claims facilitator. “unquote
That explains her whole nonsense blog and really I should not need to go any further, but I will.
See what some say about this racially stacked and therefore biased Waitangi Tribunal > sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/waitangi-tribunal
More > The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 set up the Waitangi Tribunal as a permanent commission of inquiry to examine any claim by Maori over any law, regulation, or acts, omissions, policies, or practices of the Crown that may have given offence. It was an attempt to provide an avenue for Maori grievance and get Maori nationalist protest off the streets. The Act was passed a couple of days before the Maori Land March led by Dame Whina Cooper delivered a 60,000-signature petition to Prime Minister Bill Rowling.
The act also gave a handful of un-elected tribunal members the exclusive authority to interpret the treaty. The Act was the first legal recognition of the treaty. > sites.google.com/…/treat…/home/the-waitangi-tribunal
2) CF says > “It’s the only treaty I know of that deals with a presumed transfer of power rather than just land.“ unquote
Although named a treaty it is not a true treaty – it is simply a cessation agreement, with the chiefs ceding their individual sovereignty to the Queen. And nowhere does it mention transfer of land – in fact Article 2 guarantees ownership of land to ALL New Zealanders (occupied and in usage at the time).
David Round Canterbury law lecturer says > David Round (Law lecturer at Canterbury university) says the TOW has no legal standing in international law
In international law the TOW is nullity. It has no legal standing as a treaty in international law.
The reason is that treaties can be made only between states, and maori, not formed into an organised state but living in a much smaller and far less sophisticated societies (and indeed, ones in a constant state of flux, given the intensly war-torn nature of the times) were simply incapable of entering into such an agreement in 1840.....(Excerpt from ‘Twisting the Treaty’ page 83 by David Round - law lecturer Canterbury uni)
3) CF says > you can read the treaty here > nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-treaty/english-text “unquote
CF infers that the Maori version which approx 500 chiefs signed is the the legitimate treaty – THIS IS TRUE
But what this cunning little piece of works has done in the link above is point to the Busby discard / Freeman / Official English treaty that only 39 chiefs signed at Port Waikato/Manakau – she is inferring that the maori version translates to this version – IT DOES NOT.
The nearest translation to the true maori version with only 4 minor variations is the Littlewood Draft > sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/the-littlewood-treaty
Read a further 25 points here > sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/sundry