Post by Kiwi Frontline on Nov 24, 2020 10:06:07 GMT 12
Northland Age 24/11/20
SOVEREIGNTY ZEALOTS
Triggered correspondent Caroline Pukeroa-McKinney seems to have a comprehension problem (letters 19th Nov), or just likes to fabricate stuff?. Bruce Moon did not say that the Treaty itself contained reference to Maori slaves – what he did correctly say is that the Article 3 wording “..... and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them” – meaning that the thousands of Maori slaves were freed by this clause.
Caroline references the Waitangi Tribunal to validate her argument, however citing the Waitangi Tribual as an unbiased authority on the Treaty is akin to citing the tobacco industry as an authority on smoking and health – the Tribunal promotes and creates Maori rights just as strenuously as the tobacco industry manufactures and promotes cigarettes.
One thing they have in common is that the outcomes are injurious to the health and well being of Kiwis.
And David Rankin a Ngaphui elder said “the Waitangi Tribunal makes up history as it goes along.....”
Brian Priestley MBE said about the Waitangi Tribunal > “It would be hard to imagine any public body less well-organised to get at the truth". (Investigate Magazine 2012)
Dr Michael Bassett a noted political historian, who was a member of the Waitangi Tribunal for 10yrs, observed “what you have been dealing with for the last 30years are some very inventive people stretching the wording of the Treaty so far it is falling apart because of the games that are being played with it.” (NBR March 2005)
As for Carolines’ inane assertion that maori ancestors “DID NOT CEDE SOVEREIGNTY”, she has clearly never read the assembled chiefs Waitangi speeches prior to their signing of the treaty confirming they clearly understood they were ceding their authority/sovereignty.
Former and the first Treaty Negotiations Minister and MP Doug Graham stated “Once the Treaty had been confirmed, sovereignty, as it is commonly understood, passed to Britain”
Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson said the Tribunal's finding did not change the fact the Crown has sovereignty in New Zealand. "There is no question that the Crown has sovereignty in New Zealand. This (Waitangi Tribunal) report doesn't change that fact." (NZHerald, 14 Nov, 2014)
Dr. Don Brash raises some telling points: - Moreover, with very rare exceptions, the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders with a Maori ancestor have accepted, acted and behaved as if sovereignty was ceded or gained in one form or another in 1840:
For example and as evidence of this conclusion these people have
* served in the Police and the Armed Forces;
* bought and sold assets, registering those transactions with Crown agencies
* paid rates income taxes and GST;
* been employed by the Crown as teachers, nurses, and bureaucrats;
* accepted unemployment benefits, New Zealand Superannuation and other benefits;
* accepted treatment in public hospitals and from highly subsidized doctors;
* been educated in public schools and universities;
* travelled overseas on New Zealand passports;
* accepted massive sums of money from Crown for so-called historical grievances.
Very strange behaviour if Maori haven’t accepted the sovereignty of the Crown.
No doubt these concrete facts and evidence will fly right over part-maori sovereignty zealots heads as no amount of proof will ever persuade them they are wrong.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
ILL INFORMED
Dear oh dear! What an ill-tempered and ill-informed letter from Ms Pukeroa-McKinney in your columns!(19/11/20).
Maori slaves? Yes, there were plenty. In January 1819, Ngapuhi were said to have brought back 2000 slaves including many chiefs from a raid to the East Coast. Since Article Third of the Treaty gave all Maoris (tangata maori, katoa o Nu Tirani) the rights and privileges of the people of England, it liberated those slaves – right? Slaves are people. Have you got that, Caroline?
Now since Article Second did no more than guarantee the right of possession of property to all the people of New Zealand (tangata katoa o Nu Tirani) it was at most confirmatory, actually redundant. Existing British subjects had those rights already and all Maoris got them by Article third. Can you work that out, Caroline?
And no, there were never “two Treaty versions”, only one, in the Ngapuhi dialect, signed by about forty chiefs at Waitangi on 6th February 1840 with about 500 more assenting to it subsequently. Any claim that we are “one Nation of Two Peoples, Maori and Tauiwi” is simply nonsense. We are one nation of people with diverse racial origins, often mixed. How about the McKinneys, Caroline?
As for the Waitangi Tribunal, may I inform Ms Pukeroa-McKinney and everybody else that it draws false conclusions in report after report. As the recorded words of the chiefs at Waitangi state, as the great meeting of chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860 affirmed unanimously, as Sir Apirana Ngata did likewise in 1922, the chiefs who signed the treaty ceded sovereignty completely and for ever to the Queen and they knew it.
No amount of noisy assertions by Ms Pukeora-McKinney or anybody else can alter that solid fact of history. Stating a lie ten thousand times does not make it true.
I have explained all this before, on 17th March this year. She would do well to read that again.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
www.kiwifrontline.nz/media/letters-to-the-editor
SOVEREIGNTY ZEALOTS
Triggered correspondent Caroline Pukeroa-McKinney seems to have a comprehension problem (letters 19th Nov), or just likes to fabricate stuff?. Bruce Moon did not say that the Treaty itself contained reference to Maori slaves – what he did correctly say is that the Article 3 wording “..... and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them” – meaning that the thousands of Maori slaves were freed by this clause.
Caroline references the Waitangi Tribunal to validate her argument, however citing the Waitangi Tribual as an unbiased authority on the Treaty is akin to citing the tobacco industry as an authority on smoking and health – the Tribunal promotes and creates Maori rights just as strenuously as the tobacco industry manufactures and promotes cigarettes.
One thing they have in common is that the outcomes are injurious to the health and well being of Kiwis.
And David Rankin a Ngaphui elder said “the Waitangi Tribunal makes up history as it goes along.....”
Brian Priestley MBE said about the Waitangi Tribunal > “It would be hard to imagine any public body less well-organised to get at the truth". (Investigate Magazine 2012)
Dr Michael Bassett a noted political historian, who was a member of the Waitangi Tribunal for 10yrs, observed “what you have been dealing with for the last 30years are some very inventive people stretching the wording of the Treaty so far it is falling apart because of the games that are being played with it.” (NBR March 2005)
As for Carolines’ inane assertion that maori ancestors “DID NOT CEDE SOVEREIGNTY”, she has clearly never read the assembled chiefs Waitangi speeches prior to their signing of the treaty confirming they clearly understood they were ceding their authority/sovereignty.
Former and the first Treaty Negotiations Minister and MP Doug Graham stated “Once the Treaty had been confirmed, sovereignty, as it is commonly understood, passed to Britain”
Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson said the Tribunal's finding did not change the fact the Crown has sovereignty in New Zealand. "There is no question that the Crown has sovereignty in New Zealand. This (Waitangi Tribunal) report doesn't change that fact." (NZHerald, 14 Nov, 2014)
Dr. Don Brash raises some telling points: - Moreover, with very rare exceptions, the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders with a Maori ancestor have accepted, acted and behaved as if sovereignty was ceded or gained in one form or another in 1840:
For example and as evidence of this conclusion these people have
* served in the Police and the Armed Forces;
* bought and sold assets, registering those transactions with Crown agencies
* paid rates income taxes and GST;
* been employed by the Crown as teachers, nurses, and bureaucrats;
* accepted unemployment benefits, New Zealand Superannuation and other benefits;
* accepted treatment in public hospitals and from highly subsidized doctors;
* been educated in public schools and universities;
* travelled overseas on New Zealand passports;
* accepted massive sums of money from Crown for so-called historical grievances.
Very strange behaviour if Maori haven’t accepted the sovereignty of the Crown.
No doubt these concrete facts and evidence will fly right over part-maori sovereignty zealots heads as no amount of proof will ever persuade them they are wrong.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
ILL INFORMED
Dear oh dear! What an ill-tempered and ill-informed letter from Ms Pukeroa-McKinney in your columns!(19/11/20).
Maori slaves? Yes, there were plenty. In January 1819, Ngapuhi were said to have brought back 2000 slaves including many chiefs from a raid to the East Coast. Since Article Third of the Treaty gave all Maoris (tangata maori, katoa o Nu Tirani) the rights and privileges of the people of England, it liberated those slaves – right? Slaves are people. Have you got that, Caroline?
Now since Article Second did no more than guarantee the right of possession of property to all the people of New Zealand (tangata katoa o Nu Tirani) it was at most confirmatory, actually redundant. Existing British subjects had those rights already and all Maoris got them by Article third. Can you work that out, Caroline?
And no, there were never “two Treaty versions”, only one, in the Ngapuhi dialect, signed by about forty chiefs at Waitangi on 6th February 1840 with about 500 more assenting to it subsequently. Any claim that we are “one Nation of Two Peoples, Maori and Tauiwi” is simply nonsense. We are one nation of people with diverse racial origins, often mixed. How about the McKinneys, Caroline?
As for the Waitangi Tribunal, may I inform Ms Pukeroa-McKinney and everybody else that it draws false conclusions in report after report. As the recorded words of the chiefs at Waitangi state, as the great meeting of chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860 affirmed unanimously, as Sir Apirana Ngata did likewise in 1922, the chiefs who signed the treaty ceded sovereignty completely and for ever to the Queen and they knew it.
No amount of noisy assertions by Ms Pukeora-McKinney or anybody else can alter that solid fact of history. Stating a lie ten thousand times does not make it true.
I have explained all this before, on 17th March this year. She would do well to read that again.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
www.kiwifrontline.nz/media/letters-to-the-editor