Comments on: Sovereignty and The Treaty of Waitangi

By: liza

liza — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:01:21 +0000

you people need to get your facts straight the true context is in maori and the maori back than didnt understand the many english words of what was interpretated in the treaty written in english was misinterpretated their for it is a nully i dont see what the problem is, our chiefs had put things in place for all peoples that may live in nz, but mainly its about greed since colonization you pakeha and your pakeha governments are the cause of all the things that are happening today which will soon all come to an end and our freedom to live as free people will end in slavery and thanks to yous our children dont have a future your laws since the 1840 and the 1902 flag are corrupt ,people will be begging and so will you and your families also its happening now and your worried about what the treaty means wake up and look around you check out prison planet.com by alex jones idiots

By: JOHN RU ALMOND

JOHN RU ALMOND — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 06:51:46 +0000

to whom it may concern

god save the queen fo she is my protector.

“ignorance of the law is no excuse for any offence committed”,
all lies are discoverable and a known trap can be avoided,
“every deed, whether or not affecting property, shall be signed by the party to be bound thereby”, PROPERTY LAW ACT, 1952, s4.
the law is factual, impersonal and objective,
designed to provide remedy, solution and answers to any question, dispute or claim,
do the due dilligence and seek out the accurate truth and it shall set you free (even from fear of the unknown).

riddle me this, which PERSON ‘owns’ your PERSON?

john ru

By: Dayna Timy

Dayna Timy — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:53:13 +0000

hi, well im a high school student at 7th form and im on the internet trying to complete my history assignment due tomorrow and this question im mixed up on. List the views of at least 3 historiand surrounding the Maori/Pakeha interpretations of the treaty of waitangi. any help out there? im so cinfused i find this site very interesting and very helpful.

By: hira hemi boyle

hira hemi boyle — Wed, 19 May 2010 08:55:32 +0000

whoa taiho, um in ur talk of article 2 ,it appear as if the poor old crown was duped by the crafty brown buggers,,,where is your head at.the document signed by 500 of the chiefs with the crown was the maori version ,you must be aware a paltry 39 signed the english version,are you aware,no bad feelings but we are living in 2010 ,you fella’s look young enuf to be aware ,it saddens me to think that sophisticated aucklanders hav somehow been caught in almost a timewarp,or mayb im mistaken and the photo of the two youngish people at the top is really old and you are nearer 100 yrs old.happy century old timers

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 15 May 2010 01:01:12 +0000

“…when will the taking and talking stop and the Armed rebellion start!”

Scary stuff! I hope this is just some angst ridden teenager getting out his frustration…

By: Eriha atane

Eriha atane — Fri, 14 May 2010 23:35:05 +0000

With the argument(s) raging, the Māori loosing and the lands are still being taken, when will the taking and talking stop and the Armed rebellion start! Look! The Pākehā wrote the Damn Treaty with no intent to honor any wit but to take till the indeginous of this land are iether fully, fully blended into the ākehā life forms (literally), or we eventually come a whisper in the pages of books nobody wants to read. Now tell me where we stand with Māori backs up against the wall in a small matchbox? SOMETHING HAS GOT TO GIVE!

By: dave

dave — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:06:40 +0000

What you are doing, I think, with your Ceasar point, is using kawanatanga and inserting it into the English version which has a different meaning to the Māori version.

You appear to be relying on Kawharu’s interpretation, particularly in Article I . The official English version uses sovereignty, Kawharu uses “ complete government” both are not the same as kawanatanga. The right to make laws was ceded but mana and sovereignty weren’t.

Likewise Article II is not about unqualified sovereignty, but undisturbed possession

I prefer the official English version in Article III that states “rights and privileges, not “ duties” because it appears closer to what was intended. Of course, from the perspective of indigeneity, some (not necessarily me) will maintain that Article III is breached as Māori individuals do not have equality of outcome..

I`d also add that by signing the Treaty, tribes gave way on any plans for a nation that would have been based exclusively on Māori law, and Māori administration of that law as per the Declarartion of Independence, but of course this does not mean sovereignty was ceded in 1840, either
.-= My last blog-post .. =-.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:32:26 +0000

Dave, like I said I have heard the records show this, I have not verfied it hence my unwillingness to make a clear statement either way. Though I note that Sir Hugh Kawharu refers to what was said in speeches at Waitangi in the footnotes of his translation. “Kawanatanga means "governership. Pilate was governor of Judea. “ Yes, but people fail to see the implication of this, it suggests that Article I allows the queen to set up a governor over NZ in a manner analogous to the way Ceaser set up a governor over Judea and that entails a ceding of sovereignty. mana is closer to in meaning to tino rangitiratanga than kawanatanga. Mana actually personalises tino rangitiratanga, and was the word used in the 1835 Declaration of Independance( if I recall correctly). Sure tino rangitiratanga, is used in the declaration, the problem is in the Treaty, article one states “The Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.” So article I would be ceding sovereignty over all their lands, and article II would be the crown promising to respect and protect the Chiefs unqualified sovereignty over the very same lands. It’s hard to understand how a reasonable person would agree to a fairly obvious contradiction like this. Article III moreover would state For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England. This suggests that Maori have the same duties of citizenship as the people of England and one duty is English citizens have is to obey the sovereignty of the crown. So again there would appear to be a contradiction. .-= My last blog-post ..Freedom, Science and Christianity: A Response to James Valliant Part I =-.

By: dave

dave — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:20:56 +0000

Matt, from the Maori perspective, the treaty cannot promise Maori sovereignty for reasons outlined.

If you have heard that the records of the debate amongst Maori chiefs prior to the signing suggest they did understand themselves to be ceding sovereignty, I’d be keen to see that, because I don’t think they exist.

Kawanatanga means “governership. Pilate was governor of Judea. Finally, the word mana is closer to in meaning to tino rangitiratanga( Article II) than kawanatanga( article I). Mana actually personalises tino rangitiratanga, and was the word used in the 1835 Declaration of Independance( if I recall correctly).
.-= My last blog-post .. The PM and GST

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:55:45 +0000

Dave, if what you say is true then article two cannot promise maori soverignty as article two does not use the word mana either it uses the word “tino rangatiratanga”

But I am not sure what you say is correct Kawanatanga was after all the word used in the Maori bible for the position of Pontius Pilate and it was missionaries who had spent years teaching the bible stories to Maori who translated the treaty. It would be difficult to maintain ( as some defenders of Maori sovereignty try to) that Rome did not have sovereignty over Israel.

Second, though I have not checked the sources yet, I have heard that the records of the debate amongst Maori chiefs prior to the signing suggest they did understand themselves to be ceeding sovereignty, but this is something I have yet to check
.-= My last blog-post ..Guest Post: Tim Wikiriwhi Reviews The Great Waitangi Debate (Uncut) =-.