So if the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi don't count, why are they in our legislation?
Printable View
Some very strong comments indeed. Just shows how divisive this stuff can easily become.
So our political leaders on all sides need to tread carefully.
We must not forget the decades of legal precedent though. The Principles of the TOW did not just get made up on the spot one day.
That was after a lot of work by the Privy Council, various NZ Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal.
A long and thorough process, which we cannot just dismiss out of hand.
And selective examples of Maori chiefs teaming up with the Brits to thump a neighbouring tribe (in your example, Waikato) is not what I would call proof of anything. A lot of these tribes were fighting before Europeans settled, and memories were long for past grievances. If Ngapuhi teamed up with the Brits to give Waikato a sort out, I would not cling to that as 'evidence' that Ngapuhi must have willingly and knowingle ceded sovereingty to The Crown.
I am pretty sure if you said that up North you probably would get scragged! :ohmy: (This last one is a bit of humour before anyone says I am advocating violence from 'radical Maori' living in Northland).
“There’s no principles; the treaty is written, that’s it.”
King Tuheitia, speaking at the national hui.
The King doesn't believe in the 'Principles' or 'Te Tiriti', he believes in 'the Treaty'.
And selective examples of Maori chiefs teaming up with the Brits to thump a neighbouring tribe (in your example, Waikato) is not what I would call proof of anything. A lot of these tribes were fighting before Europeans settled, and memories were long for past grievances. If Ngapuhi teamed up with the Brits to give Waikato a sort out, I would not cling to that as 'evidence' that Ngapuhi must have willingly and knowingle ceded soveireingty to The Crown.
A bit of cognitive dissonance now appearing? 'Selective example'? I gave a prime example relating to a tribe that made up approx 40% of the Maori population of New Zealand at the time.
-----
The Treaty of Waitangi struck a bargain between two parties: the Crown and Maori. Its promises of security, however, were followed from 1845 to 1872 by a series of volatile and bloody conflicts commonly known as the New Zealand Wars.
Many people today believe that these wars were fought solely between the Crown and Maori, when the reality is that Maori aligned with both sides — resulting in three participants with differing viewpoints. It is rarely recognised, for instance, that Te Wherowhero, later the first Maori King, was originally a strong supporter of the Crown; or that the numbers of Maori who aligned with the Crown or were neutral probably exceeded those who fought against it. Or that the frontline combat over the final two years was fought almost exclusively between opposing Maori forces.
I am referring to all of the Court assessments as well as the work done by the Waitangi Tribunal.
And just note that I am not trying to push any given political ideology, just trying to be more open to understanding the various perspectives (and more conscious these days that what I know and think I know is a small fraction of what is ultimately knowable).
Unless I am mistaken, by the time we got to 1987 there was almost 50 years of legal precedent set in determining which version of the treaty ultimately counts and what each article was interepreted to mean?
Or am I not correct about that?
What a day on this thread and there's still time for the evening rush hour. Phew.
I hope, though, there is one thing we can at least all agree on. I quote:
Quote:
New Zealand has never been more divided than today.
And it’s because the current government has the audacity to suggest all New Zealanders are equal.