Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we shouldn't be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant numbers of Chinese and Indian citizensnot to forget Pacific Islanders as well as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance?
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 14:20:09 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>That is correct.
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on >>>co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we shouldn't
be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant >>>numbers of Chinese and Indian citizens not to forget Pacific Islanders as well
as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance?
It would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue so >>nothing involving other races is considered.
All other races are included in the non-Maori side of the Treaty, but
are accurately represented in parliament, which is where sovereignity
rests - it includes all New Zealanders. They therefore are represented
in co-governance arrangements to the same extent that each of us are.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowesnot to forget Pacific Islanders as well as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance?
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we shouldn't be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant numbers of Chinese and Indian citizens
It would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue so
nothing involving other races is considered.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowescitizens not to forget Pacific Islanders as well as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance?
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we shouldn't be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant numbers of Chinese and Indian
It would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue so nothing involving other races is considered.
--Wouldn't that depend on which version of the Treaty you decide to use? ;)
Crash McBash
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 2:20:11?PM UTC+13, Crash wrote:citizens not to forget Pacific Islanders as well as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance?
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we shouldn't be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant numbers of Chinese and Indian
It would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue soWouldn't that depend on which version of the Treaty you decide to use? ;)
nothing involving other races is considered.
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 14:20:09 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:That is correct.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on >>>>co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we shouldn't
be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant >>>>numbers of Chinese and Indian citizens not to forget Pacific Islanders as well
as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance?
It would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue so >>>nothing involving other races is considered.
All other races are included in the non-Maori side of the Treaty, but
are accurately represented in parliament, which is where sovereignity
rests - it includes all New Zealanders. They therefore are represented
in co-governance arrangements to the same extent that each of us are.
Maori (17% of the population) get 50% of the vote.
The rest of us (83% of the population also get 50%.
I ask you, what could be more fair?
Not 1 vote one elligible voter of course, no that would be so unfair in your >personal utopia.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 19:56:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowescitizens not to forget Pacific Islanders as well as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance?
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 2:20:11?PM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we shouldn't be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant numbers of Chinese and Indian
However they're both different Rich! One is a new treaty created by some dumb bastard that was tasked with translating the english version! Instead the wanker wrote a brand new treaty that bears bugger all resemblance to the original version and no liesIt would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue soWouldn't that depend on which version of the Treaty you decide to use? ;) No.
nothing involving other races is considered.
--
Crash McBash
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:34:24 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere are no co-governance arrangements that National have put together - your tedious lies about that are well proven.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 14:20:09 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:That is correct.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on >>>>>co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we >>>>>shouldn't
be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant >>>>>numbers of Chinese and Indian citizens not to forget Pacific Islanders as >>>>>well
as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance?
It would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue so >>>>nothing involving other races is considered.
All other races are included in the non-Maori side of the Treaty, but
are accurately represented in parliament, which is where sovereignity >>>rests - it includes all New Zealanders. They therefore are represented
in co-governance arrangements to the same extent that each of us are.
Maori (17% of the population) get 50% of the vote.
The rest of us (83% of the population also get 50%.
I ask you, what could be more fair?
Not 1 vote one elligible voter of course, no that would be so unfair in your >>personal utopia.
Hard to interpret what you mean by votes - our national and local
elections do not disciminate except for the existence of Maori Seats
in parliament; which has been the case for more time than any of us
have been alive. I suspect many water projects will work on all
involved seeking a high level of consensus - I understand that is how
the co-governance arrangements put together under both Labour and
under National operate.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:34:24 -0000 (UTC), TonySorry Rich but the only consensus for three waters is Mahuta and Jackson! 3 waters has never been discussed outside of those two!
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Hard to interpret what you mean by votes - our national and local
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 14:20:09 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Maori (17% of the population) get 50% of the vote.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on >>>>co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we shouldn't
be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant >>>>numbers of Chinese and Indian citizens not to forget Pacific Islanders as well
as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance?
It would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue so >>>nothing involving other races is considered.
All other races are included in the non-Maori side of the Treaty, but >>are accurately represented in parliament, which is where sovereignity >>rests - it includes all New Zealanders. They therefore are represented >>in co-governance arrangements to the same extent that each of us are. >That is correct.
The rest of us (83% of the population also get 50%.
I ask you, what could be more fair?
Not 1 vote one elligible voter of course, no that would be so unfair in your
personal utopia.
elections do not disciminate except for the existence of Maori Seats
in parliament; which has been the case for more time than any of us
have been alive. I suspect many water projects will work on all
involved seeking a high level of consensus - I understand that is how
the co-governance arrangements put together under both Labour and
under National operate.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:34:24 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 14:20:09 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Maori (17% of the population) get 50% of the vote.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on >>>>>co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we >>>>>shouldn'tIt would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue so >>>>nothing involving other races is considered.
be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant
numbers of Chinese and Indian citizens not to forget Pacific Islanders as
well
as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance? >>>>
All other races are included in the non-Maori side of the Treaty, but >>>are accurately represented in parliament, which is where sovereignity >>>rests - it includes all New Zealanders. They therefore are represented >>>in co-governance arrangements to the same extent that each of us are. >>That is correct.
The rest of us (83% of the population also get 50%.
I ask you, what could be more fair?
Not 1 vote one elligible voter of course, no that would be so unfair in your
personal utopia.
Hard to interpret what you mean by votes - our national and local >elections do not disciminate except for the existence of Maori SeatsThere are no co-governance arrangements that National have put together - your
in parliament; which has been the case for more time than any of us
have been alive. I suspect many water projects will work on all
involved seeking a high level of consensus - I understand that is how
the co-governance arrangements put together under both Labour and
under National operate.
tedious lies about that are well proven.
Votes are very simple. Even you are entitled to cast them from time to time.
So the facts
Maori (17% of the population) get 50% of the vote.
The rest of us (83% of the population also get 50%.
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:15:10?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:citizens not to forget Pacific Islanders as well as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance?
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 19:56:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 2:20:11?PM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we shouldn't be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant numbers of Chinese and Indian
you tell will ever change those FACTS!!!However they're both different Rich! One is a new treaty created by some dumb bastard that was tasked with translating the english version! Instead the wanker wrote a brand new treaty that bears bugger all resemblance to the original version and no liesIt would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue soWouldn't that depend on which version of the Treaty you decide to use? ;) >> No.
nothing involving other races is considered.
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course there has been - John Key and Chris Finlayson were very
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:34:24 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere are no co-governance arrangements that National have put together - your >tedious lies about that are well proven.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 14:20:09 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:Maori (17% of the population) get 50% of the vote.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on >>>>>>co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we >>>>>>shouldn'tIt would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue so >>>>>nothing involving other races is considered.
be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant >>>>>>numbers of Chinese and Indian citizens not to forget Pacific Islanders as >>>>>>well
as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance? >>>>>
All other races are included in the non-Maori side of the Treaty, but >>>>are accurately represented in parliament, which is where sovereignity >>>>rests - it includes all New Zealanders. They therefore are represented >>>>in co-governance arrangements to the same extent that each of us are. >>>That is correct.
The rest of us (83% of the population also get 50%.
I ask you, what could be more fair?
Not 1 vote one elligible voter of course, no that would be so unfair in your >>>personal utopia.
Hard to interpret what you mean by votes - our national and local
elections do not disciminate except for the existence of Maori Seats
in parliament; which has been the case for more time than any of us
have been alive. I suspect many water projects will work on all
involved seeking a high level of consensus - I understand that is how
the co-governance arrangements put together under both Labour and
under National operate.
Votes are very simple. Even you are entitled to cast them from time to time.
So the facts
Maori (17% of the population) get 50% of the vote.
The rest of us (83% of the population also get 50%.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 04:48:12 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou're the one who needs to read up what consensus means Rich and not the meaning in your newspeak dictionary!
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course there has been - John Key and Chris Finlayson were very
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:34:24 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere are no co-governance arrangements that National have put together - your
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 14:20:09 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:Maori (17% of the population) get 50% of the vote.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on >>>>>>co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we >>>>>>shouldn'tIt would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue so >>>>>nothing involving other races is considered.
be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant
numbers of Chinese and Indian citizens not to forget Pacific Islanders as
well
as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance? >>>>>
All other races are included in the non-Maori side of the Treaty, but >>>>are accurately represented in parliament, which is where sovereignity >>>>rests - it includes all New Zealanders. They therefore are represented >>>>in co-governance arrangements to the same extent that each of us are. >>>That is correct.
The rest of us (83% of the population also get 50%.
I ask you, what could be more fair?
Not 1 vote one elligible voter of course, no that would be so unfair in your
personal utopia.
Hard to interpret what you mean by votes - our national and local >>elections do not disciminate except for the existence of Maori Seats
in parliament; which has been the case for more time than any of us
have been alive. I suspect many water projects will work on all
involved seeking a high level of consensus - I understand that is how >>the co-governance arrangements put together under both Labour and
under National operate.
tedious lies about that are well proven.
proud of their achievement.
Votes are very simple. Even you are entitled to cast them from time to time.
So the facts
Maori (17% of the population) get 50% of the vote.Votes are not as effective as consensus - that concept may be foreign
The rest of us (83% of the population also get 50%.
to you, but look it up; you may benefit.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 20:39:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowescitizens not to forget Pacific Islanders as well as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance?
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:15:10?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 19:56:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 2:20:11?PM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we shouldn't be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant numbers of Chinese and Indian
lies you tell will ever change those FACTS!!!However they're both different Rich! One is a new treaty created by some dumb bastard that was tasked with translating the english version! Instead the wanker wrote a brand new treaty that bears bugger all resemblance to the original version and noNo.It would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue so >> >> nothing involving other races is considered.Wouldn't that depend on which version of the Treaty you decide to use? ;)
--
Crash McBash
Apart from your unwarranted abuse, I do not deny that a tranlation wasIt is NOT a translation Rich! It's a totally new treaty! What abuse are you lying about now Rich? Plus I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim the Maori Treaty is accepted by international law as well as NZ law!
made that you may wish had been written in some other way. Those Maori chiefs that signed did so on the basis of the Maori version - thtat is
the version that takes precedence. The two are not that different
usually, but they can be in special circumstances. You do not need to
like it, or agree with it, but the law is the law . . .
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 04:48:12 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo you keep telling that lie - and that lie becomes more amusing every time you tell it.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course there has been - John Key and Chris Finlayson were very
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:34:24 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere are no co-governance arrangements that National have put together - >>your
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 14:20:09 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:Maori (17% of the population) get 50% of the vote.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on >>>>>>>co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we >>>>>>>shouldn'tIt would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue so >>>>>>nothing involving other races is considered.
be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant >>>>>>>numbers of Chinese and Indian citizens not to forget Pacific Islanders >>>>>>>as
well
as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance? >>>>>>
All other races are included in the non-Maori side of the Treaty, but >>>>>are accurately represented in parliament, which is where sovereignity >>>>>rests - it includes all New Zealanders. They therefore are represented >>>>>in co-governance arrangements to the same extent that each of us are. >>>>That is correct.
The rest of us (83% of the population also get 50%.
I ask you, what could be more fair?
Not 1 vote one elligible voter of course, no that would be so unfair in >>>>your
personal utopia.
Hard to interpret what you mean by votes - our national and local >>>elections do not disciminate except for the existence of Maori Seats
in parliament; which has been the case for more time than any of us
have been alive. I suspect many water projects will work on all
involved seeking a high level of consensus - I understand that is how
the co-governance arrangements put together under both Labour and
under National operate.
tedious lies about that are well proven.
proud of their achievement.
You clearly don't understand the differenece but your abuse is noted.Votes are very simple. Even you are entitled to cast them from time to time. >>
So the facts
Maori (17% of the population) get 50% of the vote.
The rest of us (83% of the population also get 50%.
Votes are not as effective as consensus - that concept may be foreign
to you, but look it up; you may benefit.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 04:48:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course there has been - John Key and Chris Finlayson were very
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:34:24 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere are no co-governance arrangements that National have put together - your
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 14:20:09 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:Maori (17% of the population) get 50% of the vote.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on >>>>>>>co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we >>>>>>>shouldn'tIt would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue so >>>>>>nothing involving other races is considered.
be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant >>>>>>>numbers of Chinese and Indian citizens not to forget Pacific Islanders as
well
as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance? >>>>>>
All other races are included in the non-Maori side of the Treaty, but >>>>>are accurately represented in parliament, which is where sovereignity >>>>>rests - it includes all New Zealanders. They therefore are represented >>>>>in co-governance arrangements to the same extent that each of us are. >>>>That is correct.
The rest of us (83% of the population also get 50%.
I ask you, what could be more fair?
Not 1 vote one elligible voter of course, no that would be so unfair in your
personal utopia.
Hard to interpret what you mean by votes - our national and local >>>elections do not disciminate except for the existence of Maori Seats
in parliament; which has been the case for more time than any of us
have been alive. I suspect many water projects will work on all
involved seeking a high level of consensus - I understand that is how
the co-governance arrangements put together under both Labour and
under National operate.
tedious lies about that are well proven.
proud of their achievement.
Votes are very simple. Even you are entitled to cast them from time to time. >>
So the facts
Maori (17% of the population) get 50% of the vote.
The rest of us (83% of the population also get 50%.
Votes are not as effective as consensus - that concept may be foreign
to you, but look it up; you may benefit.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 04:48:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course there has been - John Key and Chris Finlayson were very
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 03:34:24 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere are no co-governance arrangements that National have put together - your
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 14:20:09 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:Maori (17% of the population) get 50% of the vote.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on >>>>>>>co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we >>>>>>>shouldn'tIt would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue so >>>>>>nothing involving other races is considered.
be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant >>>>>>>numbers of Chinese and Indian citizens not to forget Pacific Islanders as
well
as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance? >>>>>>
All other races are included in the non-Maori side of the Treaty, but >>>>>are accurately represented in parliament, which is where sovereignity >>>>>rests - it includes all New Zealanders. They therefore are represented >>>>>in co-governance arrangements to the same extent that each of us are. >>>>That is correct.
The rest of us (83% of the population also get 50%.
I ask you, what could be more fair?
Not 1 vote one elligible voter of course, no that would be so unfair in your
personal utopia.
Hard to interpret what you mean by votes - our national and local >>>elections do not disciminate except for the existence of Maori Seats
in parliament; which has been the case for more time than any of us
have been alive. I suspect many water projects will work on all
involved seeking a high level of consensus - I understand that is how
the co-governance arrangements put together under both Labour and
under National operate.
tedious lies about that are well proven.
proud of their achievement.
Votes are very simple. Even you are entitled to cast them from time to time. >>
So the facts
Maori (17% of the population) get 50% of the vote.
The rest of us (83% of the population also get 50%.
Votes are not as effective as consensus - that concept may be foreign
to you, but look it up; you may benefit.
On 2023-02-27, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:citizens not to forget Pacific Islanders as well as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance?
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 20:39:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:15:10?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 19:56:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 2:20:11?PM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we shouldn't be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant numbers of Chinese and Indian
lies you tell will ever change those FACTS!!!However they're both different Rich! One is a new treaty created by some dumb bastard that was tasked with translating the english version! Instead the wanker wrote a brand new treaty that bears bugger all resemblance to the original version and noNo.It would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue so >>> >> nothing involving other races is considered.Wouldn't that depend on which version of the Treaty you decide to use? ;)
--
Crash McBash
Apart from your unwarranted abuse, I do not deny that a tranlation was made that you may wish had been written in some other way. Those Maori chiefs that signed did so on the basis of the Maori version - thtat isThe Treaty is not the law, it is part of our history, a founding document. In 1840 it was the British/colonisers decided a Treaty with the Maori would be a good way to bring peace and allow the country to move forward.
the version that takes precedence. The two are not that different
usually, but they can be in special circumstances. You do not need to
like it, or agree with it, but the law is the law . . .
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/history-of-parliament/first-sitting-1854Maori pushed for the Treaty Gordon. In fact John Heke who famously chopped down the flagpole several times was a strong advocate for it...
See the House of Represntives did not start setting until 24 May 1854, some what after the signing of the Treaty.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 20:39:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowescitizens not to forget Pacific Islanders as well as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance?
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:15:10?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 19:56:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 2:20:11?PM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we shouldn't be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant numbers of Chinese and Indian
lies you tell will ever change those FACTS!!!However they're both different Rich! One is a new treaty created by some dumb bastard that was tasked with translating the english version! Instead the wanker wrote a brand new treaty that bears bugger all resemblance to the original version and noIt would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue so >>> >> nothing involving other races is considered.Wouldn't that depend on which version of the Treaty you decide to use? ;) >>> No.
--
Crash McBash
Apart from your unwarranted abuse, I do not deny that a tranlation was
made that you may wish had been written in some other way. Those Maori
chiefs that signed did so on the basis of the Maori version - thtat is
the version that takes precedence. The two are not that different
usually, but they can be in special circumstances. You do not need to
like it, or agree with it, but the law is the law . . .
On 2023-02-27, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:citizens not to forget Pacific Islanders as well as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance?
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 20:39:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:15:10?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 19:56:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 2:20:11?PM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we shouldn't be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant numbers of Chinese and Indian
lies you tell will ever change those FACTS!!!However they're both different Rich! One is a new treaty created by some dumb bastard that was tasked with translating the english version! Instead the wanker wrote a brand new treaty that bears bugger all resemblance to the original version and noIt would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue so >>>> >> nothing involving other races is considered.Wouldn't that depend on which version of the Treaty you decide to use? ;) >>>> No.
--
Crash McBash
Apart from your unwarranted abuse, I do not deny that a tranlation was
made that you may wish had been written in some other way. Those Maori
chiefs that signed did so on the basis of the Maori version - thtat is
the version that takes precedence. The two are not that different
usually, but they can be in special circumstances. You do not need to
like it, or agree with it, but the law is the law . . .
The Treaty is not the law, it is part of our history, a founding document.
In 1840 it was the British/colonisers decided a Treaty with the Maori would >be a good way to bring peace and allow the country to move forward.
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/history-of-parliament/first-sitting-1854
See the House of Represntives did not start setting until 24 May 1854, some >what after the signing of the Treaty.
On 28 Feb 2023 07:30:32 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:citizens not to forget Pacific Islanders as well as other asians. Shouldn't they all be represented in co-governance?
On 2023-02-27, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 20:39:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:15:10?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 19:56:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 2:20:11?PM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:39:11 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Now don't get ya tits in a tangle folk. Just a few thoughts on co-governance. Surely if we are going to have true co-governance we shouldn't be stopping at just Maori and Pakeha. After all we also have significant numbers of Chinese and Indian
lies you tell will ever change those FACTS!!!However they're both different Rich! One is a new treaty created by some dumb bastard that was tasked with translating the english version! Instead the wanker wrote a brand new treaty that bears bugger all resemblance to the original version and noNo.It would logically - but this is a Treaty of Waitangi rights issue soWouldn't that depend on which version of the Treaty you decide to use? ;)
nothing involving other races is considered.
--
Crash McBash
Apart from your unwarranted abuse, I do not deny that a tranlation was
made that you may wish had been written in some other way. Those Maori
chiefs that signed did so on the basis of the Maori version - thtat is
the version that takes precedence. The two are not that different
usually, but they can be in special circumstances. You do not need to
like it, or agree with it, but the law is the law . . .
The Treaty is not the law, it is part of our history, a founding document. >In 1840 it was the British/colonisers decided a Treaty with the Maori would >be a good way to bring peace and allow the country to move forward.
Which act was that Rich? cite needed if you don't want us to believe it's just another of your constant lies...https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/history-of-parliament/first-sitting-1854
See the House of Represntives did not start setting until 24 May 1854, some >what after the signing of the Treaty.Indeed - it was an Act of Parliament that gave the Treaty some teeth,
and the ability for court cases to be taken arising from breaches to
the Treaty - and that was quite some time after 1854!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 107:21:11 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,491 |