Article published a couple of days ago, which offers a more academic
analysis of the Treaty of Waitangi ><https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/waitangi-day-2024-five-myths-and-misconceptions-that-confuse-the-treaty-of-waitangi-debate/NS5RHTNGBVC6RFOW23B3A5MSWI/>.
Note the concept of originalism (which also plagues interpretations
of their Constitution in the USA). The Brits had no intention to
govern M?ori or usurp M?ori sovereignty, and yet relationships
evolve over time. Particularly this part:
Finally, there is the argument that the Treaty supports the
democratic process. In fact, the Treaty ushered in a
non-representative regime in the colony. It was the 1852 New
Zealand Constitution Act that gave the country a democratic
government a statute that incidentally made no reference to the
Treatys provisions.
In other words, NZ is a democracy _in spite_ of the Treaty, not
because of it.
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 22:39:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'OliveiroYou pathetic liar, sovereignty was not guaranteed to Maori in the Treaty - sovereignty was ceded to the crown. It is actually time you read the document. There are three articles and one of them cedes sovereignty to the crown for all New Zealanders.
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Article published a couple of days ago, which offers a more academic >>analysis of the Treaty of Waitangi >><https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/waitangi-day-2024-five-myths-and-misconceptions-that-confuse-the-treaty-of-waitangi-debate/NS5RHTNGBVC6RFOW23B3A5MSWI/>.
Note the concept of originalism (which also plagues interpretations
of their Constitution in the USA). The Brits had no intention to
govern M?ori or usurp M?ori sovereignty, and yet relationships
evolve over time. Particularly this part:
Finally, there is the argument that the Treaty supports the
democratic process. In fact, the Treaty ushered in a
non-representative regime in the colony. It was the 1852 New
Zealand Constitution Act that gave the country a democratic
government a statute that incidentally made no reference to the
Treatys provisions.
In other words, NZ is a democracy _in spite_ of the Treaty, not
because of it.
The early voting system in New Zealand was not the level of democracy
we now have - it was based on property ownership, but as most Maori
owned land collectively, Section 71 of the New Zealand Constitution
Act 1852 allowed for the provision of self-governing Maori districts
as envisaged in the 1846 constitution. Maori saw this as
implementation of the tino rangatiratanga (sovereignty) guaranteed to
them under the Treaty of Waitangi. The 1860s saw war which influenced
debate about Maori representation - the 4 Maori seats in parliament
were introduced in 1867
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No, governance was ceded to the Crown, but not sovereignty.
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 22:39:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:You pathetic liar, sovereignty was not guaranteed to Maori in the Treaty - >sovereignty was ceded to the crown.
Article published a couple of days ago, which offers a more academic >>>analysis of the Treaty of Waitangi >>><https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/waitangi-day-2024-five-myths-and-misconceptions-that-confuse-the-treaty-of-waitangi-debate/NS5RHTNGBVC6RFOW23B3A5MSWI/>.
Note the concept of originalism (which also plagues interpretations
of their Constitution in the USA). The Brits had no intention to
govern M?ori or usurp M?ori sovereignty, and yet relationships
evolve over time. Particularly this part:
Finally, there is the argument that the Treaty supports the
democratic process. In fact, the Treaty ushered in a
non-representative regime in the colony. It was the 1852 New
Zealand Constitution Act that gave the country a democratic
government a statute that incidentally made no reference to the
Treatys provisions.
In other words, NZ is a democracy _in spite_ of the Treaty, not
because of it.
The early voting system in New Zealand was not the level of democracy
we now have - it was based on property ownership, but as most Maori
owned land collectively, Section 71 of the New Zealand Constitution
Act 1852 allowed for the provision of self-governing Maori districts
as envisaged in the 1846 constitution. Maori saw this as
implementation of the tino rangatiratanga (sovereignty) guaranteed to
them under the Treaty of Waitangi. The 1860s saw war which influenced >>debate about Maori representation - the 4 Maori seats in parliament
were introduced in 1867
It is actually time you read the document.No it does not - but by all means give the text in Ti Tiriti that you
There are three articles and one of them cedes sovereignty to the crown for >all New Zealanders.
On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 17:02:48 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
The 1860s saw war which influenced
debate about Maori representation - the 4 Maori seats in parliament
were introduced in 1867
They were introduced to limit M?ori representation, not enhance it.
The 1860s saw war which influenced
debate about Maori representation - the 4 Maori seats in parliament
were introduced in 1867
On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 05:45:59 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>Read the Treaty - Sir Apirana Ngata disagrees with you and compared to him you have zero credibility. You are lying.
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No, governance was ceded to the Crown, but not sovereignty.
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 22:39:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:You pathetic liar, sovereignty was not guaranteed to Maori in the Treaty - >>sovereignty was ceded to the crown.
Article published a couple of days ago, which offers a more academic >>>>analysis of the Treaty of Waitangi >>>><https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/waitangi-day-2024-five-myths-and-misconceptions-that-confuse-the-treaty-of-waitangi-debate/NS5RHTNGBVC6RFOW23B3A5MSWI/>.
Note the concept of originalism (which also plagues interpretations >>>>of their Constitution in the USA). The Brits had no intention to >>>>govern M?ori or usurp M?ori sovereignty, and yet relationships
evolve over time. Particularly this part:
Finally, there is the argument that the Treaty supports the
democratic process. In fact, the Treaty ushered in a
non-representative regime in the colony. It was the 1852 New
Zealand Constitution Act that gave the country a democratic
government a statute that incidentally made no reference to the
Treatys provisions.
In other words, NZ is a democracy _in spite_ of the Treaty, not
because of it.
The early voting system in New Zealand was not the level of democracy
we now have - it was based on property ownership, but as most Maori
owned land collectively, Section 71 of the New Zealand Constitution
Act 1852 allowed for the provision of self-governing Maori districts
as envisaged in the 1846 constitution. Maori saw this as
implementation of the tino rangatiratanga (sovereignty) guaranteed to >>>them under the Treaty of Waitangi. The 1860s saw war which influenced >>>debate about Maori representation - the 4 Maori seats in parliament
were introduced in 1867
Search for: "Which New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 allowed for the >establishment of Maori districts within which Maori law could operate"I prefer Sir Apirany to your dysfunctional lies.
See above - you are lying.It is actually time you read the document.No it does not - but by all means give the text in Ti Tiriti that you
There are three articles and one of them cedes sovereignty to the crown for >>all New Zealanders.
are relying on . . .
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 06:21:36 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 17:02:48 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
The 1860s saw war which influenced
debate about Maori representation - the 4 Maori seats in parliament
were introduced in 1867
They were introduced to limit M?ori representation, not enhance it.
That depends on your viewpoint - weren't there none previously?
No, governance was ceded to the Crown, but not sovereignty.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 107:03:21 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,478 |