|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 17, 2024 19:12:13 GMT 12
Personally I find your arrogance in calling the late King [..] wrong both rude and a tad fucking disrespectful. You do know the Maori king wasn't really for the Treaty Principles Bill dance right? In January he said about the Bill - and I quote: There’s no principles, the Treaty is written. That’s it.That's the most he really said about it in public. I would expect anyone to conclude from that that he wasn't a supporter ymmv. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Sept 17, 2024 19:19:42 GMT 12
This thread is highly amusing.
It appears Seymour has already achieved his primary goal, which is to simply have a conversation about the Treaty and it's place in our modern democracy.
Certain posters probably don't grasp the reality that by posting in this thread, they are inadvertently helping achieve Seymour's goal in that regard.
That aside, I think it's important not to forget the context of the Treaty Principles Bill, in that is has come about in direct response to Nania and Labour trying to shove co-governance of absolutely everything down our throats.
The key point with that was there was no conversation. Nania and Labour didn't even indicate co-governance as a possible policy. It was a massive bait and switch, primarily via the guise of 3 waters reform (which is still desperately needed by the way). Given that context, I am completely bemused at the anger and angst coming out of certain quarters of our society at the mere thought of having a conversation about it.
Although I'm fairly sure the most anger is coming from the tribal elite who have the most to loose, followed by the naïve and easily led.
It is very telling when reading the political tea-leaves that Luxon is already fully onboard with "needs not race" based healthcare and has been very thorough in killing off any and all of the co-governance initiatives. Cancelled the Maori Health authority and is moving quickly to re-set the marine and foreshore customary title claims. These demonstrate he is well aware of the wider constituency mood around raced based privilege.
Now, the other genius thing that is going on, is the select committee stage, or what ever you call it, is 6 months long. So while National and Winston First have said they wont support the bill after the first reading, there is 6 months to have "The Conversation". That gives 6 months for people to form proper opinions, to have respectful conversations about it, and 6 months for ACT to find some wiggle room to get National and Winston First onboard. I wouldn't underestimate ACT in this regard, given their track record with the End of Life Choice bill that everyone said they wouldn't support, right up until they did support it, and now it is law.
And that 6 months is a long time for the militants to hold out to reasoned conversation, the rights under the treaty are confirmed, but it is also confirmed that everyone is equal, and the govt has the right to govern. It is simple, coherent, and really hard to argue with. The point being that to counter that, the tribal elite are going to have to come out with an arguement as to why they are more important than anyone else. The same reasoning they were using for co-governance, but set out explicitly. Because of my race, I am more important than you...
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 17, 2024 19:46:11 GMT 12
This thread is highly amusing. It appears Seymour has already achieved his primary goal, which is to simply have a conversation about the Treaty and it's place in our modern democracy. Certain posters probably don't grasp the reality that by posting in this thread, they are inadvertently helping achieve Seymour's goal in that regard. That aside, I think it's important not to forget the context of the Treaty Principles Bill, in that is has come about in direct response to Nania and Labour trying to shove co-governance of absolutely everything down our throats. The key point with that was there was no conversation. Nania and Labour didn't even indicate co-governance as a possible policy. It was a massive bait and switch, primarily via the guise of 3 waters reform (which is still desperately needed by the way). Given that context, I am completely bemused at the anger and angst coming out of certain quarters of our society at the mere thought of having a conversation about it. Although I'm fairly sure the most anger is coming from the tribal elite who have the most to loose, followed by the naïve and easily led. It is very telling when reading the political tea-leaves that Luxon is already fully onboard with "needs not race" based healthcare and has been very thorough in killing off any and all of the co-governance initiatives. Cancelled the Maori Health authority and is moving quickly to re-set the marine and foreshore customary title claims. These demonstrate he is well aware of the wider constituency mood around raced based privilege. Now, the other genius thing that is going on, is the select committee stage, or what ever you call it, is 6 months long. So while National and Winston First have said they wont support the bill after the first reading, there is 6 months to have "The Conversation". That gives 6 months for people to form proper opinions, to have respectful conversations about it, and 6 months for ACT to find some wiggle room to get National and Winston First onboard. I wouldn't underestimate ACT in this regard, given their track record with the End of Life Choice bill that everyone said they wouldn't support, right up until they did support it, and now it is law. And that 6 months is a long time for the militants to hold out to reasoned conversation, the rights under the treaty are confirmed, but it is also confirmed that everyone is equal, and the govt has the right to govern. It is simple, coherent, and really hard to argue with. The point being that to counter that, the tribal elite are going to have to come out with an arguement as to why they are more important than anyone else. The same reasoning they were using for co-governance, but set out explicitly. Because of my race, I am more important than you... The conversation absolutey needs to be had. We have a treaty - it's arguably NZ's most important founding document. It sets out very clearly that Maori rights need to be protected, that Maori need to participate in decisions, and that Maori and the crown are in a partnership. We already have the treaty - it is a legal document - asking the generally ignorant and white majority public what we should do with a 180 year old legal document upholding indigenous rights is something right out of a Simpsons episode!! |
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Sept 18, 2024 9:23:04 GMT 12
The conversation absolutey needs to be had. So the conversation needs to be had, but let me guess, it needs to be had by the right people? ie - the public should be excluded, because they're the wrong people. Would that assumption be correct? |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 18, 2024 13:21:51 GMT 12
The conversation absolutey needs to be had. So the conversation needs to be had, but let me guess, it needs to be had by the right people? ie - the public should be excluded, because they're the wrong people. Would that assumption be correct? The public should talk about it all they want, they should go to courses and learn about the treaty, they should talk about the injustices done to maori, they could even come up with solutions to right those wrongs. The treaty should be taught in school, primary schools should reinact the signing of the treaty and the rights it gave Maori. Higher education should teach the history of the treaty, and go into detail about how the Maori were marginalized. The first two years of high school, learning the history of the treaty and the injustice on Maori should be compulsory along with English and Maths. Maybe then in 30 years we would get some educated people. But right now the majority white uneducated public are not qualified to make decision's on a minority indigenous rights. I have to say it is definitely getting better - I hang out with a few 18yo and 20yo in my sailing circles and I am pleasantly surprised at how much they understand about Maori being marginalized. When I was 20 I had nfi - infact - my 20yo me opinion was - wtf can't Maori just get over it and we all move on, this treaty stuff is all such BS, get rid of it. It's taken me 40 more years to realize how fucked and racist my view was. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Sept 18, 2024 15:47:40 GMT 12
I'm constantly bemused at how people that think everyone should have equal rights under the law are somehow racist.
|
|
|
|
Post by chariot on Sept 18, 2024 16:52:42 GMT 12
Imagine if Europe was to carry on like NZ. Maybe they could go back to the Romans and ask for compensation for all the wrong doings and land grabs. The Germans and the French could have a right old squabble about who's land is who's. Maybe they could have another fight about who owns Strasbourg. After all, it sounds German.
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 18, 2024 21:08:39 GMT 12
I'm constantly bemused at how people that think everyone should have equal rights under the law are somehow racist. Calling people "racist" for advocating equal rights isn’t about hating equality, but about calling out when "equality" is used as a smokescreen to dismiss the unique responsibilities that the Crown has toward Māori under the Treaty. Ignoring this is not about being fair—it's about denying justice and ignoring the promises made. "Equal rights" without addressing past wrongs and current disparities isn’t equality—it's maintaining the status quo, where Māori are still dealing with the fallout of colonialism. |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 18, 2024 21:14:39 GMT 12
Imagine if Europe was to carry on like NZ. Maybe they could go back to the Romans and ask for compensation for all the wrong doings and land grabs. The Germans and the French could have a right old squabble about who's land is who's. Maybe they could have another fight about who owns Strasbourg. After all, it sounds German. The difference is that in New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi is a living, legally binding agreement from 1840 that still matters today. It’s not just about past wrongs—it's about promises that were broken and still affect Māori. In Europe, borders changed through wars and treaties over centuries, but there’s no equivalent modern treaty that was ignored for generations. So, comparing the two overlooks the fact that in New Zealand, it’s about fixing current issues, not digging up ancient history. If Europe were like New Zealand in this sense, there would be a binding treaty in place that recognized the rights of particular groups and acknowledged their sovereignty. The analogy falls apart when you consider that our modern legal system is still working through the breaches of the Treaty, which affected Māori disproportionately for generations. Here in New Zealand, it’s not about endless historical retribution; it’s about real-world issues like land, language, and political representation that continue to impact Māori communities today. |
|
|
|
Post by chariot on Sept 19, 2024 10:04:09 GMT 12
Are you trying to say that the treaty acknowledges Maori sovereignty. How can a modern legal system pass judgment on something drafted in 1840 when the principals have never been outlined. Those were different times. You shouldn't try and compare the two.
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 19, 2024 14:56:30 GMT 12
Are you trying to say that the treaty acknowledges Maori sovereignty. How can a modern legal system pass judgment on something drafted in 1840 when the principals have never been outlined. Those were different times. You shouldn't try and compare the two. I will give you my opinion. The facts: 1. The Maori version of the treaty says that Maori will retain full control. 2. The English version of the treaty says that Maori will cede sovereignty. 3. Maori didn't sign the English version, they signed the Maori version. My opinion is that there is little doubt that the chiefs who signed the Treaty expected to enter into some kind of partnership and power sharing in the new system and in return receive protection. But they got fucked over when the Crown pretty much decided the treaty was null and void and took all their land, resources and treasures. The crown broke the promises made. As for applying it today, it's not about holding modern New Zealand to 1840 standards—it’s about honoring the promises made. The courts interpret it in a way that fits today’s context, trying to balance Maori rights with modern law. Sure, they were different times, but the core of it is the Crown promised to look after Maori interests. The Treaty is a foundation, not a relic, which is why it’s still relevant. I think everyone can agree that the treaties purpose was to protect Maori's rights in perpetuity? Do you agree? |
|
|
|
Post by chariot on Sept 19, 2024 15:55:34 GMT 12
Could you please explain what Maori rights are. This is the sticking point, as they appear to be of the understanding that they have more rights the everyone else in NZ. This exactly why we need the treaty principles bill.
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 19, 2024 17:05:12 GMT 12
Could you please explain what Maori rights are. This is the sticking point, as they appear to be of the understanding that they have more rights the everyone else in NZ. This exactly why we need the treaty principles bill. It’s about leveling the playing field, not giving an unfair advantage. Maori rights under the Treaty aim to address the unique challenges they face as a result of colonisation, just like disabled parking spots exist to make things fairer for those with mobility challenges. After the Treaty was signed, Maori lost large amounts of land, resources, and political power due to breaches by the Crown. This led to social and economic disparities that still affect many Maori communities today—like lower life expectancy, lower income, and less access to education. I am not against a Treaty Principles Bill, that's not what I have ever said, but what I am against is the proposed content that has been put forward that will form the basis of the Treaty Principles Bill. If ACT put forward some principles which actually honoured the original intent of the treaty while adapting for modern realities then maybe more members of the public would get behind it? As it stands I think that it is a dead duck walking and going back to my first post, a WOFTAM. Why didn't they come up with things which better reflect the rights inferred in the treaty, eg a/ working together in good faith between Maori and the Crown b/ safeguarding Maori culture, land, and resources c/ ensuring Maori have a voice in decisions affecting them d/ addressing inequalities and ensuring fair opportunities for Maori e/ recognizing Maori self-determination (Tino Rangatiratanga) over their own affairs ?? |
|
|
|
Post by dutyfree on Sept 19, 2024 19:09:28 GMT 12
a/ where is that not happening? good faith on what?
b/ no one is stopping that - it is called property rights. What obligation does the Crown have to safe guard any culture?
c/ They have equal rights like everyone else in a democracy. They are over represented in most democratic governance bodies including parliament.
d/ Why just Maori?
e/ what is stopping that? I dont see the Crown stepping in and removing their property rights?
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Sept 19, 2024 19:29:46 GMT 12
Well, we're two pages in to this thread, and I can see the same old arguements being rolled out:
1) Because, the treaty
2) Because, colinisation
Then, there is usually an overnote of 'inequality'.
None of this gives any compelling arguement why all people in NZ shouldn't be treated equally under the law.
Noting that the Treaty Principles seek to enshrine Maori's rights under the treaty, so point 1 is dealt with.
Point 2, because - colinisation. I thought the entire point of the the billions paid out in Treaty Settlements was to address these grievances? I am all for addressing grievances, but just the once, not again and again and again. So surely, the Treaty Settlement process addresses, because - colonisation?
So all we are left with is - inequality. This is an interesting one. I believe it is a good thing for inequality to be addressed. But I'm really keen to hear an arguement about how enshrining inequality in law, as in giving one group greater rights than anyone else, can lead to greater equality. It is just a tautology. Enshrining inequality can't lead to equality.
Something else I've been dead keen to have explained to me, is how giving control of all of our assets to Tribal Elite (via co-governance) would also help inequality. So far, many tribes, infact all accept Nga Puhui I think, have been handed billions of dollars, yet the people controlling those settlement payments have kept it for themselves and done absolutely zero to address inequality. The irony that this surely is what Tinorangitiratunga is? That is each tribe's self determination. They get billions in settlement, and are free to do with it what they want. I can't see how it's our problem they haven't used it to address inequality.
|
|
