This is good news. It needs to be done.Putting aside all talk of a referendum, any opposition to having the discussion is in itself opposed to democracy. Talking is always, without exception, worth doing.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the >traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it >has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in >to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their >advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us >all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the >traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it >has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in >to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their >advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us >all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
Putting aside all talk of a referendum, any opposition to having the discussion
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the >>traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it >>has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in >>to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their >>advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us >>all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
is in itself opposed to democracy. Talking is always, without exception, worth >doing.
So the folks who are opposed to the discussion are in need of education or >leadership.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the >traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it >has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in >to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their >advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us >all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
On 19 Jan 2024 07:06:14 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:So speaks a marxist. No changes to the treaty have been suggested - you are a liar.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the >>traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it >>has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in >>to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their >>advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us >>all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
There has already been considerable debate, but it is time for a
broader debate - sadly many people still appear to be ignorant of the
terms of the contract agreed by the British colonising power with the >indigenous people of New Zealand all those years ago. We can be
thankful that the public service is assisting with that discussion -
see for example discussion here: >https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/01/nationals-racism-breaches-te-tiriti.html
While the criticism of National should be perhaps more pointed towards
ACT and NZ First as well, it recognises that National were guilty of
allowing this repugnant proposal to be included in their coalition
agreement; it must be hugely embarrassing for them and Luxon in
particular, as it does indicate that they and Luxon in particular) was >probably not really acting in good faith - the early commentary was
that the agreement for a 1st reading was to give an opportunity for a >majority of MPs to be persuaded - that chance is now seen as
effectively nil, to the deserved embarrassment of Luxon. Instead he
has cast further doubt on the willingness of National to abide by the
terms of contracts, for that is the realty of proposals to change the
treaty without agreement from both sides - indeed the legislation
seeks unilateral change by the current majority in parliament.
The criticism of Labour for not condemning the proposed legislation is
also fair - it is important that on such a contentious issue voters
are able to assess the integrity of our politicians, and to have a
good debate on the principles of integrity of government and the
sanctity of contract.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 07:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
Putting aside all talk of a referendum, any opposition to having the >>discussion
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the >>>traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it >>>has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in >>>to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their >>>advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us >>>all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
is in itself opposed to democracy. Talking is always, without exception, >>worth
doing.
So the folks who are opposed to the discussion are in need of education or >>leadership.
On 19 Jan 2024 07:06:14 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the >>traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it >>has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in >>to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their >>advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us >>all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
There has already been considerable debate, but it is time for a
broader debate - sadly many people still appear to be ignorant of the
terms of the contract agreed by the British colonising power with the >indigenous people of New Zealand all those years ago. We can be
thankful that the public service is assisting with that discussion -
see for example discussion here: >https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/01/nationals-racism-breaches-te-tiriti.html
While the criticism of National should be perhaps more pointed towards
ACT and NZ First as well, it recognises that National were guilty of
allowing this repugnant proposal to be included in their coalition
agreement; it must be hugely embarrassing for them and Luxon in
particular, as it does indicate that they and Luxon in particular) was >probably not really acting in good faith - the early commentary was
that the agreement for a 1st reading was to give an opportunity for a >majority of MPs to be persuaded - that chance is now seen as
effectively nil, to the deserved embarrassment of Luxon. Instead he
has cast further doubt on the willingness of National to abide by the
terms of contracts, for that is the realty of proposals to change the
treaty without agreement from both sides - indeed the legislation
seeks unilateral change by the current majority in parliament.
The criticism of Labour for not condemning the proposed legislation is
also fair - it is important that on such a contentious issue voters
are able to assess the integrity of our politicians, and to have a
good debate on the principles of integrity of government and the
sanctity of contract.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 07:49:48 -0000 (UTC), TonySarcsam removed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
Putting aside all talk of a referendum, any opposition to having the >>>discussion
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the >>>>traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it
has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in >>>>to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their >>>>advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us >>>>all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
is in itself opposed to democracy. Talking is always, without exception, >>>worth
doing.
So the folks who are opposed to the discussion are in need of education or >>>leadership.
Rich80105 obviously agrees that the Maori interests who are opposed to >discussion should meet with all parties and talk. So far they have refused to >do so.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 21:05:25 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop changing the subject. This is not about a Hui. It is about Willie Jacson and his marxist mates refusing to discuss anything to do with the treaty. And you know it - be honest for once.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 07:49:48 -0000 (UTC), TonySarcsam removed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
Putting aside all talk of a referendum, any opposition to having the >>>>discussion
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the >>>>>traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that >>>>>it
has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in
to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their >>>>>advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us
all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
is in itself opposed to democracy. Talking is always, without exception, >>>>worth
doing.
So the folks who are opposed to the discussion are in need of education or >>>>leadership.
Rich80105 obviously agrees that the Maori interests who are opposed to >>discussion should meet with all parties and talk. So far they have refused to >>do so.
it was Luxon that refused to meet with Maori, but to be fair to him he
did send a junior minister. I am not aware of Maori refusing to
discuss or being opposed to discussion.
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:33:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>It is true, a contract signed by a company that then goes out of business is nearlt always no longer valid. None of those people exist, Queen Victoris is dead - your argument is fatuous.
wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:33:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:That is of course not true. A contract signed between two peoples (the >British Crown and Maori Chiefs) was intended to survive those who
On 19 Jan 2024 07:06:14 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the >>>>traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it
has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in >>>>to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their >>>>advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us >>>>all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
There has already been considerable debate, but it is time for a
broader debate - sadly many people still appear to be ignorant of the >>>terms of the contract agreed by the British colonising power with the >>>indigenous people of New Zealand all those years ago. We can be
thankful that the public service is assisting with that discussion -
see for example discussion here: >>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/01/nationals-racism-breaches-te-tiriti.html
While the criticism of National should be perhaps more pointed towards >>>ACT and NZ First as well, it recognises that National were guilty of >>>allowing this repugnant proposal to be included in their coalition >>>agreement; it must be hugely embarrassing for them and Luxon in >>>particular, as it does indicate that they and Luxon in particular) was >>>probably not really acting in good faith - the early commentary was
that the agreement for a 1st reading was to give an opportunity for a >>>majority of MPs to be persuaded - that chance is now seen as
effectively nil, to the deserved embarrassment of Luxon. Instead he
has cast further doubt on the willingness of National to abide by the >>>terms of contracts, for that is the realty of proposals to change the >>>treaty without agreement from both sides - indeed the legislation
seeks unilateral change by the current majority in parliament.
The criticism of Labour for not condemning the proposed legislation is >>>also fair - it is important that on such a contentious issue voters
are able to assess the integrity of our politicians, and to have a
good debate on the principles of integrity of government and the
sanctity of contract.
Yet again Rich you ignore a fact pointed out to you many times - that
all parties to the Treaty of Waitangi are no longer alive so there can
be no concept of 'sanctity of contract' in any respect.
signed - contracts with companies can for example still be valid when
th e person that validly signed no longer works for the company. A
lease agreement for example can still be valid should the property be
sold to another owner.
A waste of time and money in debating a founding document? What planet are you on? It is never a waste. It cannot be by definition. You are scared of what might be revealed.I agree that there is no reason to fear what this coalition government
There is no reason to fear what the Government is doing. They have >>committed to introduce an Bill which will attempt to define Treaty >>principles as they should apply today. There are clearly many people
who fear what the consequences might be so they want this Bill
stopped, despite the fact that it has not been introduced yet and has
not gone through the Select Committee consultation process that will
ensue. There is a commitment from the current Government that it will
not progress further (at least through the current Parliamentary
term). The Bill will include provision for a binding referendum.
is proposing - the largest party in that coalition has stated that it
will no get past the first reading. It is however a waste of time and
money, and has clearly fooled some people as to the nature of the
agreement, and upset many who understand the betrayal that such
legislation would be to the descendants of those who signed it in good
faith - especially with the knowledge that there was little faith >demonstrated by the representatives of the Crown for so many years.
Garbage - not worth responding to.
What is the harm in having this debate? Are those that oppose this
Bill so lacking in their confidence to win the debate and referendum
that they must stop the Bill?
No problem with the debate, but it was clearly just a ''negotiating
tactic by National who deserve the contempt of New Zealanders for not >stopping the crazy proposal from ACT when it was first presented, and
saving us huge amounts of money with fruitless discussion on a
proposal that we can be grateful appears to have no hope of success.
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:33:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>That is of course not true. A contract signed between two peoples (the
wrote:
On 19 Jan 2024 07:06:14 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the >>>traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it >>>has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in >>>to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their >>>advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us >>>all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
There has already been considerable debate, but it is time for a
broader debate - sadly many people still appear to be ignorant of the
terms of the contract agreed by the British colonising power with the >>indigenous people of New Zealand all those years ago. We can be
thankful that the public service is assisting with that discussion -
see for example discussion here: >>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/01/nationals-racism-breaches-te-tiriti.html
While the criticism of National should be perhaps more pointed towards
ACT and NZ First as well, it recognises that National were guilty of >>allowing this repugnant proposal to be included in their coalition >>agreement; it must be hugely embarrassing for them and Luxon in
particular, as it does indicate that they and Luxon in particular) was >>probably not really acting in good faith - the early commentary was
that the agreement for a 1st reading was to give an opportunity for a >>majority of MPs to be persuaded - that chance is now seen as
effectively nil, to the deserved embarrassment of Luxon. Instead he
has cast further doubt on the willingness of National to abide by the
terms of contracts, for that is the realty of proposals to change the >>treaty without agreement from both sides - indeed the legislation
seeks unilateral change by the current majority in parliament.
The criticism of Labour for not condemning the proposed legislation is
also fair - it is important that on such a contentious issue voters
are able to assess the integrity of our politicians, and to have a
good debate on the principles of integrity of government and the
sanctity of contract.
Yet again Rich you ignore a fact pointed out to you many times - that
all parties to the Treaty of Waitangi are no longer alive so there can
be no concept of 'sanctity of contract' in any respect.
There is no reason to fear what the Government is doing. They haveI agree that there is no reason to fear what this coalition government
committed to introduce an Bill which will attempt to define Treaty
principles as they should apply today. There are clearly many people
who fear what the consequences might be so they want this Bill
stopped, despite the fact that it has not been introduced yet and has
not gone through the Select Committee consultation process that will
ensue. There is a commitment from the current Government that it will
not progress further (at least through the current Parliamentary
term). The Bill will include provision for a binding referendum.
What is the harm in having this debate? Are those that oppose this
Bill so lacking in their confidence to win the debate and referendum
that they must stop the Bill?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:33:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:It is true, a contract signed by a company that then goes out of business is >nearlt always no longer valid. None of those people exist, Queen Victoris is >dead - your argument is fatuous.
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:33:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:That is of course not true. A contract signed between two peoples (the >>British Crown and Maori Chiefs) was intended to survive those who
On 19 Jan 2024 07:06:14 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the >>>>>traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it
has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in
to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their >>>>>advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us
all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
There has already been considerable debate, but it is time for a >>>>broader debate - sadly many people still appear to be ignorant of the >>>>terms of the contract agreed by the British colonising power with the >>>>indigenous people of New Zealand all those years ago. We can be >>>>thankful that the public service is assisting with that discussion - >>>>see for example discussion here: >>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/01/nationals-racism-breaches-te-tiriti.html
While the criticism of National should be perhaps more pointed towards >>>>ACT and NZ First as well, it recognises that National were guilty of >>>>allowing this repugnant proposal to be included in their coalition >>>>agreement; it must be hugely embarrassing for them and Luxon in >>>>particular, as it does indicate that they and Luxon in particular) was >>>>probably not really acting in good faith - the early commentary was >>>>that the agreement for a 1st reading was to give an opportunity for a >>>>majority of MPs to be persuaded - that chance is now seen as >>>>effectively nil, to the deserved embarrassment of Luxon. Instead he
has cast further doubt on the willingness of National to abide by the >>>>terms of contracts, for that is the realty of proposals to change the >>>>treaty without agreement from both sides - indeed the legislation
seeks unilateral change by the current majority in parliament.
The criticism of Labour for not condemning the proposed legislation is >>>>also fair - it is important that on such a contentious issue voters
are able to assess the integrity of our politicians, and to have a
good debate on the principles of integrity of government and the >>>>sanctity of contract.
Yet again Rich you ignore a fact pointed out to you many times - that
all parties to the Treaty of Waitangi are no longer alive so there can
be no concept of 'sanctity of contract' in any respect.
signed - contracts with companies can for example still be valid when
th e person that validly signed no longer works for the company. A
lease agreement for example can still be valid should the property be
sold to another owner.
Your inability to find any rational reason for Luxon agreeing to suchA waste of time and money in debating a founding document? What planet are you >on? It is never a waste. It cannot be by definition. You are scared of what >might be revealed.I agree that there is no reason to fear what this coalition government
There is no reason to fear what the Government is doing. They have >>>committed to introduce an Bill which will attempt to define Treaty >>>principles as they should apply today. There are clearly many people
who fear what the consequences might be so they want this Bill
stopped, despite the fact that it has not been introduced yet and has
not gone through the Select Committee consultation process that will >>>ensue. There is a commitment from the current Government that it will >>>not progress further (at least through the current Parliamentary
term). The Bill will include provision for a binding referendum.
is proposing - the largest party in that coalition has stated that it
will no get past the first reading. It is however a waste of time and >>money, and has clearly fooled some people as to the nature of the >>agreement, and upset many who understand the betrayal that such
legislation would be to the descendants of those who signed it in good >>faith - especially with the knowledge that there was little faith >>demonstrated by the representatives of the Crown for so many years.
Garbage - not worth responding to.
What is the harm in having this debate? Are those that oppose this
Bill so lacking in their confidence to win the debate and referendum
that they must stop the Bill?
No problem with the debate, but it was clearly just a ''negotiating
tactic" by National who deserve the contempt of New Zealanders for not >>stopping the crazy proposal from ACT when it was first presented, and >>saving us huge amounts of money with fruitless discussion on a
proposal that we can be grateful appears to have no hope of success.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 23:04:54 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 21:05:25 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop changing the subject. This is not about a Hui. It is about Willie Jacson >>and his marxist mates refusing to discuss anything to do with the treaty. And >>you know it - be honest for once.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 07:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Sarcsam removed.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
Putting aside all talk of a referendum, any opposition to having the >>>>>>discussion
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand >>>>>>>the
traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that >>>>>>>that
it
has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance >>>>>>>in
to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to >>>>>>>their
advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let >>>>>>>us
all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
is in itself opposed to democracy. Talking is always, without exception, >>>>>>worth
doing.
So the folks who are opposed to the discussion are in need of education >>>>>>or
leadership.
Rich80105 obviously agrees that the Maori interests who are opposed to >>>>discussion should meet with all parties and talk. So far they have refused >>>>to
do so.
it was Luxon that refused to meet with Maori, but to be fair to him he >>>did send a junior minister. I am not aware of Maori refusing to
discuss or being opposed to discussion.
I don't know where you got that idea - Maori want it to be discussed,Go away and address the issue for the first time = your political garbage is getting tiresome.
and in particular they want the reality of what it says to be better >understood. Clearly ACT do not understand the commitments made as a
result of the Treaty, and want to legislate changes without widespread >discussion, or even complying with the Treaty in its current form.
National just want Luxon's mistake to go away (and some are
embarrassed that Luxon pretended that this is not a political issue so
would not attend a meeting with Maori, and NZ First are sitting on the
fence.
Read both the stuff url above and this: >https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/01/19/leaked-ministry-doc-warns-bill-could-break-spirit-and-text-of-treaty/
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 23:09:43 -0000 (UTC), TonyVictoria is and her signature (by Royal Proxy) was on the original.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:33:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:It is true, a contract signed by a company that then goes out of business is >>nearlt always no longer valid. None of those people exist, Queen Victoris is >>dead - your argument is fatuous.
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:33:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:That is of course not true. A contract signed between two peoples (the >>>British Crown and Maori Chiefs) was intended to survive those who
On 19 Jan 2024 07:06:14 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the
traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that >>>>>>it
has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance >>>>>>in
to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their
advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let >>>>>>us
all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
There has already been considerable debate, but it is time for a >>>>>broader debate - sadly many people still appear to be ignorant of the >>>>>terms of the contract agreed by the British colonising power with the >>>>>indigenous people of New Zealand all those years ago. We can be >>>>>thankful that the public service is assisting with that discussion - >>>>>see for example discussion here: >>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/01/nationals-racism-breaches-te-tiriti.html
While the criticism of National should be perhaps more pointed towards >>>>>ACT and NZ First as well, it recognises that National were guilty of >>>>>allowing this repugnant proposal to be included in their coalition >>>>>agreement; it must be hugely embarrassing for them and Luxon in >>>>>particular, as it does indicate that they and Luxon in particular) was >>>>>probably not really acting in good faith - the early commentary was >>>>>that the agreement for a 1st reading was to give an opportunity for a >>>>>majority of MPs to be persuaded - that chance is now seen as >>>>>effectively nil, to the deserved embarrassment of Luxon. Instead he >>>>>has cast further doubt on the willingness of National to abide by the >>>>>terms of contracts, for that is the realty of proposals to change the >>>>>treaty without agreement from both sides - indeed the legislation >>>>>seeks unilateral change by the current majority in parliament.
The criticism of Labour for not condemning the proposed legislation is >>>>>also fair - it is important that on such a contentious issue voters >>>>>are able to assess the integrity of our politicians, and to have a >>>>>good debate on the principles of integrity of government and the >>>>>sanctity of contract.
Yet again Rich you ignore a fact pointed out to you many times - that >>>>all parties to the Treaty of Waitangi are no longer alive so there can >>>>be no concept of 'sanctity of contract' in any respect.
signed - contracts with companies can for example still be valid when
th e person that validly signed no longer works for the company. A
lease agreement for example can still be valid should the property be >>>sold to another owner.
The Crown is not dead.
Google is your friend - try it sometime:If you trust Google then you are even more stupid than you hvae proven to date.
The ability of citizens to bring civil legal proceedings against theOff topic - entirely irrelevant.
Crown and its servants is an important part of New Zealand's
constitution, and is protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
1990. The Crown Proceedings Act 1950 is the principal statute that
governs the civil liability of the Crown.
and: >https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/our-work/crown-proceedings-act-1950/#:~:text=The%20ability%20of%20citizens%20to,civil%20liability%20of%20the%20Crown.You have added nothing and proven zero - as usual.
Enough?
Your inability to find any rational reason for Luxon agreeing to suchA waste of time and money in debating a founding document? What planet are >>youI agree that there is no reason to fear what this coalition government
There is no reason to fear what the Government is doing. They have >>>>committed to introduce an Bill which will attempt to define Treaty >>>>principles as they should apply today. There are clearly many people >>>>who fear what the consequences might be so they want this Bill
stopped, despite the fact that it has not been introduced yet and has >>>>not gone through the Select Committee consultation process that will >>>>ensue. There is a commitment from the current Government that it will >>>>not progress further (at least through the current Parliamentary
term). The Bill will include provision for a binding referendum.
is proposing - the largest party in that coalition has stated that it >>>will no get past the first reading. It is however a waste of time and >>>money, and has clearly fooled some people as to the nature of the >>>agreement, and upset many who understand the betrayal that such >>>legislation would be to the descendants of those who signed it in good >>>faith - especially with the knowledge that there was little faith >>>demonstrated by the representatives of the Crown for so many years.
on? It is never a waste. It cannot be by definition. You are scared of what >>might be revealed.
What is the harm in having this debate? Are those that oppose this >>>>Bill so lacking in their confidence to win the debate and referendum >>>>that they must stop the Bill?
No problem with the debate, but it was clearly just a ''negotiating >>>tactic" by National who deserve the contempt of New Zealanders for not >>>stopping the crazy proposal from ACT when it was first presented, and >>>saving us huge amounts of money with fruitless discussion on a
proposal that we can be grateful appears to have no hope of success. >>Garbage - not worth responding to.
a crazy proposal is clearly difficult for you; clearly he has been
told to get out of it with as little discussion as possible. National >promised ACT that they would allow it to be introduced to enable
sufficient MPs to be persuaded, to now deciding that no MP from
National will support it. Still Seymour probably didn't expect good
faith bargaining anyway . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 21:05:25 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop changing the subject. This is not about a Hui. It is about Willie Jacson >and his marxist mates refusing to discuss anything to do with the treaty. And >you know it - be honest for once.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 07:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Sarcsam removed.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
Putting aside all talk of a referendum, any opposition to having the >>>>>discussion
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the
traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that >>>>>>it
has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in
to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their
advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us
all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
is in itself opposed to democracy. Talking is always, without exception, >>>>>worth
doing.
So the folks who are opposed to the discussion are in need of education or >>>>>leadership.
Rich80105 obviously agrees that the Maori interests who are opposed to >>>discussion should meet with all parties and talk. So far they have refused to
do so.
it was Luxon that refused to meet with Maori, but to be fair to him he
did send a junior minister. I am not aware of Maori refusing to
discuss or being opposed to discussion.
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:33:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:33:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:That is of course not true. A contract signed between two peoples (the >British Crown and Maori Chiefs) was intended to survive those who
On 19 Jan 2024 07:06:14 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the >>>>traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it
has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in >>>>to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their >>>>advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us >>>>all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
There has already been considerable debate, but it is time for a
broader debate - sadly many people still appear to be ignorant of the >>>terms of the contract agreed by the British colonising power with the >>>indigenous people of New Zealand all those years ago. We can be
thankful that the public service is assisting with that discussion -
see for example discussion here: >>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/01/nationals-racism-breaches-te-tiriti.html
While the criticism of National should be perhaps more pointed towards >>>ACT and NZ First as well, it recognises that National were guilty of >>>allowing this repugnant proposal to be included in their coalition >>>agreement; it must be hugely embarrassing for them and Luxon in >>>particular, as it does indicate that they and Luxon in particular) was >>>probably not really acting in good faith - the early commentary was
that the agreement for a 1st reading was to give an opportunity for a >>>majority of MPs to be persuaded - that chance is now seen as
effectively nil, to the deserved embarrassment of Luxon. Instead he
has cast further doubt on the willingness of National to abide by the >>>terms of contracts, for that is the realty of proposals to change the >>>treaty without agreement from both sides - indeed the legislation
seeks unilateral change by the current majority in parliament.
The criticism of Labour for not condemning the proposed legislation is >>>also fair - it is important that on such a contentious issue voters
are able to assess the integrity of our politicians, and to have a
good debate on the principles of integrity of government and the
sanctity of contract.
Yet again Rich you ignore a fact pointed out to you many times - that
all parties to the Treaty of Waitangi are no longer alive so there can
be no concept of 'sanctity of contract' in any respect.
signed - contracts with companies can for example still be valid when
th e person that validly signed no longer works for the company. A
lease agreement for example can still be valid should the property be
sold to another owner.
I agree that there is no reason to fear what this coalition government
There is no reason to fear what the Government is doing. They have >>committed to introduce an Bill which will attempt to define Treaty >>principles as they should apply today. There are clearly many people
who fear what the consequences might be so they want this Bill
stopped, despite the fact that it has not been introduced yet and has
not gone through the Select Committee consultation process that will
ensue. There is a commitment from the current Government that it will
not progress further (at least through the current Parliamentary
term). The Bill will include provision for a binding referendum.
is proposing - the largest party in that coalition has stated that it
will no get past the first reading. It is however a waste of time and
money, and has clearly fooled some people as to the nature of the
agreement, and upset many who understand the betrayal that such
legislation would be to the descendants of those who signed it in good
faith - especially with the knowledge that there was little faith >demonstrated by the representatives of the Crown for so many years.
What is the harm in having this debate? Are those that oppose this
Bill so lacking in their confidence to win the debate and referendum
that they must stop the Bill?
No problem with the debate, but it was clearly just a ''negotiating
tactic by National who deserve the contempt of New Zealanders for not >stopping the crazy proposal from ACT when it was first presented, and
saving us huge amounts of money with fruitless discussion on a
proposal that we can be grateful appears to have no hope of success.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 23:09:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:33:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:It is true, a contract signed by a company that then goes out of business is >>nearlt always no longer valid. None of those people exist, Queen Victoris is >>dead - your argument is fatuous.
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:33:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:That is of course not true. A contract signed between two peoples (the >>>British Crown and Maori Chiefs) was intended to survive those who
On 19 Jan 2024 07:06:14 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the
traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it
has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in
to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their
advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us
all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
There has already been considerable debate, but it is time for a >>>>>broader debate - sadly many people still appear to be ignorant of the >>>>>terms of the contract agreed by the British colonising power with the >>>>>indigenous people of New Zealand all those years ago. We can be >>>>>thankful that the public service is assisting with that discussion - >>>>>see for example discussion here: >>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/01/nationals-racism-breaches-te-tiriti.html
While the criticism of National should be perhaps more pointed towards >>>>>ACT and NZ First as well, it recognises that National were guilty of >>>>>allowing this repugnant proposal to be included in their coalition >>>>>agreement; it must be hugely embarrassing for them and Luxon in >>>>>particular, as it does indicate that they and Luxon in particular) was >>>>>probably not really acting in good faith - the early commentary was >>>>>that the agreement for a 1st reading was to give an opportunity for a >>>>>majority of MPs to be persuaded - that chance is now seen as >>>>>effectively nil, to the deserved embarrassment of Luxon. Instead he >>>>>has cast further doubt on the willingness of National to abide by the >>>>>terms of contracts, for that is the realty of proposals to change the >>>>>treaty without agreement from both sides - indeed the legislation >>>>>seeks unilateral change by the current majority in parliament.
The criticism of Labour for not condemning the proposed legislation is >>>>>also fair - it is important that on such a contentious issue voters >>>>>are able to assess the integrity of our politicians, and to have a >>>>>good debate on the principles of integrity of government and the >>>>>sanctity of contract.
Yet again Rich you ignore a fact pointed out to you many times - that >>>>all parties to the Treaty of Waitangi are no longer alive so there can >>>>be no concept of 'sanctity of contract' in any respect.
signed - contracts with companies can for example still be valid when
th e person that validly signed no longer works for the company. A
lease agreement for example can still be valid should the property be >>>sold to another owner.
The Crown is not dead.
Google is your friend - try it sometime:
The ability of citizens to bring civil legal proceedings against the
Crown and its servants is an important part of New Zealand's
constitution, and is protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
1990. The Crown Proceedings Act 1950 is the principal statute that
governs the civil liability of the Crown.
and: >https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/our-work/crown-proceedings-act-1950/#:~:text=The%20ability%20of%20citizens%20to,civil%20liability%20of%20the%20Crown.
Enough?
Your inability to find any rational reason for Luxon agreeing to suchA waste of time and money in debating a founding document? What planet are youI agree that there is no reason to fear what this coalition government
There is no reason to fear what the Government is doing. They have >>>>committed to introduce an Bill which will attempt to define Treaty >>>>principles as they should apply today. There are clearly many people >>>>who fear what the consequences might be so they want this Bill
stopped, despite the fact that it has not been introduced yet and has >>>>not gone through the Select Committee consultation process that will >>>>ensue. There is a commitment from the current Government that it will >>>>not progress further (at least through the current Parliamentary
term). The Bill will include provision for a binding referendum.
is proposing - the largest party in that coalition has stated that it >>>will no get past the first reading. It is however a waste of time and >>>money, and has clearly fooled some people as to the nature of the >>>agreement, and upset many who understand the betrayal that such >>>legislation would be to the descendants of those who signed it in good >>>faith - especially with the knowledge that there was little faith >>>demonstrated by the representatives of the Crown for so many years.
on? It is never a waste. It cannot be by definition. You are scared of what >>might be revealed.
What is the harm in having this debate? Are those that oppose this >>>>Bill so lacking in their confidence to win the debate and referendum >>>>that they must stop the Bill?
No problem with the debate, but it was clearly just a ''negotiating >>>tactic" by National who deserve the contempt of New Zealanders for not >>>stopping the crazy proposal from ACT when it was first presented, and >>>saving us huge amounts of money with fruitless discussion on a
proposal that we can be grateful appears to have no hope of success. >>Garbage - not worth responding to.
a crazy proposal is clearly difficult for you; clearly he has been
told to get out of it with as little discussion as possible. National >promised ACT that they would allow it to be introduced to enable
sufficient MPs to be persuaded, to now deciding that no MP from
National will support it. Still Seymour probably didn't expect good
faith bargaining anyway . . .
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 14:26:07 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 23:09:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:33:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:It is true, a contract signed by a company that then goes out of business is >>>nearlt always no longer valid. None of those people exist, Queen Victoris is >>>dead - your argument is fatuous.
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:33:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:That is of course not true. A contract signed between two peoples (the >>>>British Crown and Maori Chiefs) was intended to survive those who >>>>signed - contracts with companies can for example still be valid when >>>>th e person that validly signed no longer works for the company. A >>>>lease agreement for example can still be valid should the property be >>>>sold to another owner.
On 19 Jan 2024 07:06:14 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand >>>>>>>the
traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that >>>>>>>that it
has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance >>>>>>>in
to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to >>>>>>>their
advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let >>>>>>>us
all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
There has already been considerable debate, but it is time for a >>>>>>broader debate - sadly many people still appear to be ignorant of the >>>>>>terms of the contract agreed by the British colonising power with the >>>>>>indigenous people of New Zealand all those years ago. We can be >>>>>>thankful that the public service is assisting with that discussion - >>>>>>see for example discussion here: >>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/01/nationals-racism-breaches-te-tiriti.html
While the criticism of National should be perhaps more pointed towards >>>>>>ACT and NZ First as well, it recognises that National were guilty of >>>>>>allowing this repugnant proposal to be included in their coalition >>>>>>agreement; it must be hugely embarrassing for them and Luxon in >>>>>>particular, as it does indicate that they and Luxon in particular) was >>>>>>probably not really acting in good faith - the early commentary was >>>>>>that the agreement for a 1st reading was to give an opportunity for a >>>>>>majority of MPs to be persuaded - that chance is now seen as >>>>>>effectively nil, to the deserved embarrassment of Luxon. Instead he >>>>>>has cast further doubt on the willingness of National to abide by the >>>>>>terms of contracts, for that is the realty of proposals to change the >>>>>>treaty without agreement from both sides - indeed the legislation >>>>>>seeks unilateral change by the current majority in parliament.
The criticism of Labour for not condemning the proposed legislation is >>>>>>also fair - it is important that on such a contentious issue voters >>>>>>are able to assess the integrity of our politicians, and to have a >>>>>>good debate on the principles of integrity of government and the >>>>>>sanctity of contract.
Yet again Rich you ignore a fact pointed out to you many times - that >>>>>all parties to the Treaty of Waitangi are no longer alive so there can >>>>>be no concept of 'sanctity of contract' in any respect.
The Crown is not dead.
Google is your friend - try it sometime:
The ability of citizens to bring civil legal proceedings against the
Crown and its servants is an important part of New Zealand's
constitution, and is protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
1990. The Crown Proceedings Act 1950 is the principal statute that
governs the civil liability of the Crown.
and: >>https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/our-work/crown-proceedings-act-1950/#:~:text=The%20ability%20of%20citizens%20to,civil%20liability%20of%20the%20Crown.
Enough?
Your inability to find any rational reason for Luxon agreeing to suchA waste of time and money in debating a founding document? What planet are >>>youI agree that there is no reason to fear what this coalition government >>>>is proposing - the largest party in that coalition has stated that it >>>>will no get past the first reading. It is however a waste of time and >>>>money, and has clearly fooled some people as to the nature of the >>>>agreement, and upset many who understand the betrayal that such >>>>legislation would be to the descendants of those who signed it in good >>>>faith - especially with the knowledge that there was little faith >>>>demonstrated by the representatives of the Crown for so many years.
There is no reason to fear what the Government is doing. They have >>>>>committed to introduce an Bill which will attempt to define Treaty >>>>>principles as they should apply today. There are clearly many people >>>>>who fear what the consequences might be so they want this Bill >>>>>stopped, despite the fact that it has not been introduced yet and has >>>>>not gone through the Select Committee consultation process that will >>>>>ensue. There is a commitment from the current Government that it will >>>>>not progress further (at least through the current Parliamentary >>>>>term). The Bill will include provision for a binding referendum.
on? It is never a waste. It cannot be by definition. You are scared of what >>>might be revealed.
What is the harm in having this debate? Are those that oppose this >>>>>Bill so lacking in their confidence to win the debate and referendum >>>>>that they must stop the Bill?
No problem with the debate, but it was clearly just a ''negotiating >>>>tactic" by National who deserve the contempt of New Zealanders for not >>>>stopping the crazy proposal from ACT when it was first presented, and >>>>saving us huge amounts of money with fruitless discussion on a
proposal that we can be grateful appears to have no hope of success. >>>Garbage - not worth responding to.
a crazy proposal is clearly difficult for you; clearly he has been
told to get out of it with as little discussion as possible. National >>promised ACT that they would allow it to be introduced to enable
sufficient MPs to be persuaded, to now deciding that no MP from
National will support it. Still Seymour probably didn't expect good
faith bargaining anyway . . .
What a load of irrational rhetoric. Its all you have Rich.
The fact is that Act and National (with consent from NZF) agreed to
allow a bill to be introduced and sent to a select committee.
National's support from that point on is not committed but they may
well do so. Even if the Bill was to be passed, the result is no more
than a binding referendum.
Why do some Maori oppose this? It is an opportunity for them much
like anyone else, but it appears that they consider that this harmless
and non-binding ini9tiative needs to be stopped in its tracks.
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 09:58:32 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Ifb it is harmless then why not debate it since there are people who would like to have that discussion - or is that not allowed anymore in marxism philosophy?
wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 14:26:07 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:That was the initial agreement - since then Luxon has clearly received
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 23:09:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:33:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:It is true, a contract signed by a company that then goes out of business >>>>is
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:33:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:That is of course not true. A contract signed between two peoples (the >>>>>British Crown and Maori Chiefs) was intended to survive those who >>>>>signed - contracts with companies can for example still be valid when >>>>>th e person that validly signed no longer works for the company. A >>>>>lease agreement for example can still be valid should the property be >>>>>sold to another owner.
On 19 Jan 2024 07:06:14 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand >>>>>>>>the
traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that >>>>>>>>that it
has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it >>>>>>>>relevance in
to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to >>>>>>>>their
advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. >>>>>>>>Let us
all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
There has already been considerable debate, but it is time for a >>>>>>>broader debate - sadly many people still appear to be ignorant of the >>>>>>>terms of the contract agreed by the British colonising power with the >>>>>>>indigenous people of New Zealand all those years ago. We can be >>>>>>>thankful that the public service is assisting with that discussion - >>>>>>>see for example discussion here: >>>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/01/nationals-racism-breaches-te-tiriti.html
While the criticism of National should be perhaps more pointed towards >>>>>>>ACT and NZ First as well, it recognises that National were guilty of >>>>>>>allowing this repugnant proposal to be included in their coalition >>>>>>>agreement; it must be hugely embarrassing for them and Luxon in >>>>>>>particular, as it does indicate that they and Luxon in particular) was >>>>>>>probably not really acting in good faith - the early commentary was >>>>>>>that the agreement for a 1st reading was to give an opportunity for a >>>>>>>majority of MPs to be persuaded - that chance is now seen as >>>>>>>effectively nil, to the deserved embarrassment of Luxon. Instead he >>>>>>>has cast further doubt on the willingness of National to abide by the >>>>>>>terms of contracts, for that is the realty of proposals to change the >>>>>>>treaty without agreement from both sides - indeed the legislation >>>>>>>seeks unilateral change by the current majority in parliament.
The criticism of Labour for not condemning the proposed legislation is >>>>>>>also fair - it is important that on such a contentious issue voters >>>>>>>are able to assess the integrity of our politicians, and to have a >>>>>>>good debate on the principles of integrity of government and the >>>>>>>sanctity of contract.
Yet again Rich you ignore a fact pointed out to you many times - that >>>>>>all parties to the Treaty of Waitangi are no longer alive so there can >>>>>>be no concept of 'sanctity of contract' in any respect.
nearlt always no longer valid. None of those people exist, Queen Victoris >>>>is
dead - your argument is fatuous.
The Crown is not dead.
Google is your friend - try it sometime:
The ability of citizens to bring civil legal proceedings against the >>>Crown and its servants is an important part of New Zealand's >>>constitution, and is protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act >>>1990. The Crown Proceedings Act 1950 is the principal statute that >>>governs the civil liability of the Crown.
and: >>>https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/our-work/crown-proceedings-act-1950/#:~:text=The%20ability%20of%20citizens%20to,civil%20liability%20of%20the%20Crown.
Enough?
Your inability to find any rational reason for Luxon agreeing to suchA waste of time and money in debating a founding document? What planet are >>>>youI agree that there is no reason to fear what this coalition government >>>>>is proposing - the largest party in that coalition has stated that it >>>>>will no get past the first reading. It is however a waste of time and >>>>>money, and has clearly fooled some people as to the nature of the >>>>>agreement, and upset many who understand the betrayal that such >>>>>legislation would be to the descendants of those who signed it in good >>>>>faith - especially with the knowledge that there was little faith >>>>>demonstrated by the representatives of the Crown for so many years.
There is no reason to fear what the Government is doing. They have >>>>>>committed to introduce an Bill which will attempt to define Treaty >>>>>>principles as they should apply today. There are clearly many people >>>>>>who fear what the consequences might be so they want this Bill >>>>>>stopped, despite the fact that it has not been introduced yet and has >>>>>>not gone through the Select Committee consultation process that will >>>>>>ensue. There is a commitment from the current Government that it will >>>>>>not progress further (at least through the current Parliamentary >>>>>>term). The Bill will include provision for a binding referendum.
on? It is never a waste. It cannot be by definition. You are scared of what >>>>might be revealed.
What is the harm in having this debate? Are those that oppose this >>>>>>Bill so lacking in their confidence to win the debate and referendum >>>>>>that they must stop the Bill?
No problem with the debate, but it was clearly just a ''negotiating >>>>>tactic" by National who deserve the contempt of New Zealanders for not >>>>>stopping the crazy proposal from ACT when it was first presented, and >>>>>saving us huge amounts of money with fruitless discussion on a >>>>>proposal that we can be grateful appears to have no hope of success. >>>>Garbage - not worth responding to.
a crazy proposal is clearly difficult for you; clearly he has been
told to get out of it with as little discussion as possible. National >>>promised ACT that they would allow it to be introduced to enable >>>sufficient MPs to be persuaded, to now deciding that no MP from
National will support it. Still Seymour probably didn't expect good
faith bargaining anyway . . .
What a load of irrational rhetoric. Its all you have Rich.
The fact is that Act and National (with consent from NZF) agreed to
allow a bill to be introduced and sent to a select committee.
National's support from that point on is not committed but they may
well do so. Even if the Bill was to be passed, the result is no more
than a binding referendum.
some advice - he has guaranteed that the bill will not get past the
select Committee
Why do some Maori oppose this? It is an opportunity for them much
like anyone else, but it appears that they consider that this harmless
and non-binding ini9tiative needs to be stopped in its tracks.
What opportunity does it offer Maori? If it is harmless and
non-binding, what benefit is the proposed legislation to anyone?
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 09:58:32 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 14:26:07 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:That was the initial agreement - since then Luxon has clearly received
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 23:09:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:33:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:It is true, a contract signed by a company that then goes out of business is
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:33:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:That is of course not true. A contract signed between two peoples (the >>>>>British Crown and Maori Chiefs) was intended to survive those who >>>>>signed - contracts with companies can for example still be valid when >>>>>th e person that validly signed no longer works for the company. A >>>>>lease agreement for example can still be valid should the property be >>>>>sold to another owner.
On 19 Jan 2024 07:06:14 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the
traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it
has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in
to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their
advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us
all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
There has already been considerable debate, but it is time for a >>>>>>>broader debate - sadly many people still appear to be ignorant of the >>>>>>>terms of the contract agreed by the British colonising power with the >>>>>>>indigenous people of New Zealand all those years ago. We can be >>>>>>>thankful that the public service is assisting with that discussion - >>>>>>>see for example discussion here: >>>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/01/nationals-racism-breaches-te-tiriti.html
While the criticism of National should be perhaps more pointed towards >>>>>>>ACT and NZ First as well, it recognises that National were guilty of >>>>>>>allowing this repugnant proposal to be included in their coalition >>>>>>>agreement; it must be hugely embarrassing for them and Luxon in >>>>>>>particular, as it does indicate that they and Luxon in particular) was >>>>>>>probably not really acting in good faith - the early commentary was >>>>>>>that the agreement for a 1st reading was to give an opportunity for a >>>>>>>majority of MPs to be persuaded - that chance is now seen as >>>>>>>effectively nil, to the deserved embarrassment of Luxon. Instead he >>>>>>>has cast further doubt on the willingness of National to abide by the >>>>>>>terms of contracts, for that is the realty of proposals to change the >>>>>>>treaty without agreement from both sides - indeed the legislation >>>>>>>seeks unilateral change by the current majority in parliament.
The criticism of Labour for not condemning the proposed legislation is >>>>>>>also fair - it is important that on such a contentious issue voters >>>>>>>are able to assess the integrity of our politicians, and to have a >>>>>>>good debate on the principles of integrity of government and the >>>>>>>sanctity of contract.
Yet again Rich you ignore a fact pointed out to you many times - that >>>>>>all parties to the Treaty of Waitangi are no longer alive so there can >>>>>>be no concept of 'sanctity of contract' in any respect.
nearlt always no longer valid. None of those people exist, Queen Victoris is
dead - your argument is fatuous.
The Crown is not dead.
Google is your friend - try it sometime:
The ability of citizens to bring civil legal proceedings against the >>>Crown and its servants is an important part of New Zealand's >>>constitution, and is protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act >>>1990. The Crown Proceedings Act 1950 is the principal statute that >>>governs the civil liability of the Crown.
and: >>>https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/our-work/crown-proceedings-act-1950/#:~:text=The%20ability%20of%20citizens%20to,civil%20liability%20of%20the%20Crown.
Enough?
Your inability to find any rational reason for Luxon agreeing to suchA waste of time and money in debating a founding document? What planet are youI agree that there is no reason to fear what this coalition government >>>>>is proposing - the largest party in that coalition has stated that it >>>>>will no get past the first reading. It is however a waste of time and >>>>>money, and has clearly fooled some people as to the nature of the >>>>>agreement, and upset many who understand the betrayal that such >>>>>legislation would be to the descendants of those who signed it in good >>>>>faith - especially with the knowledge that there was little faith >>>>>demonstrated by the representatives of the Crown for so many years.
There is no reason to fear what the Government is doing. They have >>>>>>committed to introduce an Bill which will attempt to define Treaty >>>>>>principles as they should apply today. There are clearly many people >>>>>>who fear what the consequences might be so they want this Bill >>>>>>stopped, despite the fact that it has not been introduced yet and has >>>>>>not gone through the Select Committee consultation process that will >>>>>>ensue. There is a commitment from the current Government that it will >>>>>>not progress further (at least through the current Parliamentary >>>>>>term). The Bill will include provision for a binding referendum.
on? It is never a waste. It cannot be by definition. You are scared of what >>>>might be revealed.
What is the harm in having this debate? Are those that oppose this >>>>>>Bill so lacking in their confidence to win the debate and referendum >>>>>>that they must stop the Bill?
No problem with the debate, but it was clearly just a ''negotiating >>>>>tactic" by National who deserve the contempt of New Zealanders for not >>>>>stopping the crazy proposal from ACT when it was first presented, and >>>>>saving us huge amounts of money with fruitless discussion on a >>>>>proposal that we can be grateful appears to have no hope of success. >>>>Garbage - not worth responding to.
a crazy proposal is clearly difficult for you; clearly he has been
told to get out of it with as little discussion as possible. National >>>promised ACT that they would allow it to be introduced to enable >>>sufficient MPs to be persuaded, to now deciding that no MP from
National will support it. Still Seymour probably didn't expect good
faith bargaining anyway . . .
What a load of irrational rhetoric. Its all you have Rich.
The fact is that Act and National (with consent from NZF) agreed to
allow a bill to be introduced and sent to a select committee.
National's support from that point on is not committed but they may
well do so. Even if the Bill was to be passed, the result is no more
than a binding referendum.
some advice - he has guaranteed that the bill will not get past the
select Committee
Why do some Maori oppose this? It is an opportunity for them much
like anyone else, but it appears that they consider that this harmless
and non-binding ini9tiative needs to be stopped in its tracks.
What opportunity does it offer Maori?
If it is harmless and
non-binding, what benefit is the proposed legislation to anyone?
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 14:26:07 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>That was the initial agreement - since then Luxon has clearly received
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 23:09:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:33:02 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:It is true, a contract signed by a company that then goes out of business is >>>nearlt always no longer valid. None of those people exist, Queen Victoris is >>>dead - your argument is fatuous.
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:33:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:That is of course not true. A contract signed between two peoples (the >>>>British Crown and Maori Chiefs) was intended to survive those who >>>>signed - contracts with companies can for example still be valid when >>>>th e person that validly signed no longer works for the company. A >>>>lease agreement for example can still be valid should the property be >>>>sold to another owner.
On 19 Jan 2024 07:06:14 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the
traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it
has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in
to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their
advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us
all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
There has already been considerable debate, but it is time for a >>>>>>broader debate - sadly many people still appear to be ignorant of the >>>>>>terms of the contract agreed by the British colonising power with the >>>>>>indigenous people of New Zealand all those years ago. We can be >>>>>>thankful that the public service is assisting with that discussion - >>>>>>see for example discussion here: >>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/01/nationals-racism-breaches-te-tiriti.html
While the criticism of National should be perhaps more pointed towards >>>>>>ACT and NZ First as well, it recognises that National were guilty of >>>>>>allowing this repugnant proposal to be included in their coalition >>>>>>agreement; it must be hugely embarrassing for them and Luxon in >>>>>>particular, as it does indicate that they and Luxon in particular) was >>>>>>probably not really acting in good faith - the early commentary was >>>>>>that the agreement for a 1st reading was to give an opportunity for a >>>>>>majority of MPs to be persuaded - that chance is now seen as >>>>>>effectively nil, to the deserved embarrassment of Luxon. Instead he >>>>>>has cast further doubt on the willingness of National to abide by the >>>>>>terms of contracts, for that is the realty of proposals to change the >>>>>>treaty without agreement from both sides - indeed the legislation >>>>>>seeks unilateral change by the current majority in parliament.
The criticism of Labour for not condemning the proposed legislation is >>>>>>also fair - it is important that on such a contentious issue voters >>>>>>are able to assess the integrity of our politicians, and to have a >>>>>>good debate on the principles of integrity of government and the >>>>>>sanctity of contract.
Yet again Rich you ignore a fact pointed out to you many times - that >>>>>all parties to the Treaty of Waitangi are no longer alive so there can >>>>>be no concept of 'sanctity of contract' in any respect.
The Crown is not dead.
Google is your friend - try it sometime:
The ability of citizens to bring civil legal proceedings against the
Crown and its servants is an important part of New Zealand's
constitution, and is protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
1990. The Crown Proceedings Act 1950 is the principal statute that
governs the civil liability of the Crown.
and: >>https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/our-work/crown-proceedings-act-1950/#:~:text=The%20ability%20of%20citizens%20to,civil%20liability%20of%20the%20Crown.
Enough?
Your inability to find any rational reason for Luxon agreeing to suchA waste of time and money in debating a founding document? What planet are youI agree that there is no reason to fear what this coalition government >>>>is proposing - the largest party in that coalition has stated that it >>>>will no get past the first reading. It is however a waste of time and >>>>money, and has clearly fooled some people as to the nature of the >>>>agreement, and upset many who understand the betrayal that such >>>>legislation would be to the descendants of those who signed it in good >>>>faith - especially with the knowledge that there was little faith >>>>demonstrated by the representatives of the Crown for so many years.
There is no reason to fear what the Government is doing. They have >>>>>committed to introduce an Bill which will attempt to define Treaty >>>>>principles as they should apply today. There are clearly many people >>>>>who fear what the consequences might be so they want this Bill >>>>>stopped, despite the fact that it has not been introduced yet and has >>>>>not gone through the Select Committee consultation process that will >>>>>ensue. There is a commitment from the current Government that it will >>>>>not progress further (at least through the current Parliamentary >>>>>term). The Bill will include provision for a binding referendum.
on? It is never a waste. It cannot be by definition. You are scared of what >>>might be revealed.
What is the harm in having this debate? Are those that oppose this >>>>>Bill so lacking in their confidence to win the debate and referendum >>>>>that they must stop the Bill?
No problem with the debate, but it was clearly just a ''negotiating >>>>tactic" by National who deserve the contempt of New Zealanders for not >>>>stopping the crazy proposal from ACT when it was first presented, and >>>>saving us huge amounts of money with fruitless discussion on a
proposal that we can be grateful appears to have no hope of success. >>>Garbage - not worth responding to.
a crazy proposal is clearly difficult for you; clearly he has been
told to get out of it with as little discussion as possible. National >>promised ACT that they would allow it to be introduced to enable
sufficient MPs to be persuaded, to now deciding that no MP from
National will support it. Still Seymour probably didn't expect good
faith bargaining anyway . . .
What a load of irrational rhetoric. Its all you have Rich.
The fact is that Act and National (with consent from NZF) agreed to
allow a bill to be introduced and sent to a select committee.
National's support from that point on is not committed but they may
well do so. Even if the Bill was to be passed, the result is no more
than a binding referendum.
Why do some Maori oppose this? It is an opportunity for them much
like anyone else, but it appears that they consider that this harmless
and non-binding ini9tiative needs to be stopped in its tracks.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 23:04:54 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 21:05:25 -0000 (UTC), TonyStop changing the subject. This is not about a Hui. It is about Willie Jacson >>and his marxist mates refusing to discuss anything to do with the treaty. And >>you know it - be honest for once.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 07:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Sarcsam removed.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
Putting aside all talk of a referendum, any opposition to having the >>>>>>discussion
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the
traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that
it
has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in
to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their
advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us
all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
is in itself opposed to democracy. Talking is always, without exception, >>>>>>worth
doing.
So the folks who are opposed to the discussion are in need of education or
leadership.
Rich80105 obviously agrees that the Maori interests who are opposed to >>>>discussion should meet with all parties and talk. So far they have refused to
do so.
it was Luxon that refused to meet with Maori, but to be fair to him he >>>did send a junior minister. I am not aware of Maori refusing to
discuss or being opposed to discussion.
I don't know where you got that idea - Maori want it to be discussed,The Maori only want it discussed if it favors them anything else
and in particular they want the reality of what it says to be better >understood. Clearly ACT do not understand the commitments made as a
result of the Treaty, and want to legislate changes without widespread >discussion, or even complying with the Treaty in its current form.
National just want Luxon's mistake to go away (and some are
embarrassed that Luxon pretended that this is not a political issue so
would not attend a meeting with Maori, and NZ First are sitting on the
fence.
Read both the stuff url above and this: >https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/01/19/leaked-ministry-doc-warns-bill-could-break-spirit-and-text-of-treaty/
... Seymour, Peters and Luxon are I am sure getting the
message that this is not the "leadership" that is expected from them as coalition leaders ...
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:25:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
A contract signed between two peoples (the British Crown and Maori
Chiefs) ...
It was rather more than two peoples. Each tribe (and subtribe?) chose to
sign it or not. Some did, some didnt.
Can a contract apply to those who didnt sign it?
A contract signed between two peoples (the British Crown and Maori
Chiefs) ...
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Can a contract apply to those who didn’t sign it?
Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves and others; and for their descendants. Hence the plural - "peoples" as in
Maori and English (now Maori and the NZ Government, as embodied in "the Crown"). Yes some did not sign; and yes the Treaty provisions have not
always been abided by from either side.
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:53:40 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Yes.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Can a contract apply to those who didnt sign it?
Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves and
others; and for their descendants. Hence the plural - "peoples" as in
Maori and English (now Maori and the NZ Government, as embodied in "the
Crown"). Yes some did not sign; and yes the Treaty provisions have not
always been abided by from either side.
Is that a yes or a no?
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:25:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
A contract signed between two peoples (the British Crown and Maori
Chiefs) ...
It was rather more than two peoples. Each tribe (and subtribe?) chose to >>sign it or not. Some did, some didnt.
Can a contract apply to those who didnt sign it?
Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves
and others; and for their descendants. Hence the plural - "peoples" as
in Maori and English (now Maori and the NZ Government, as embodied in
"the Crown"). Yes some did not sign; and yes the Treaty provisions
have not always been abided by from either side.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:09:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:53:40 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Can a contract apply to those who didn’t sign it?
Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves
and others ...
Is that a yes or a no?
Yes.
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:15:11 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:I await an answer with less than bated breath.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:09:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:53:40 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Can a contract apply to those who didn’t sign it?
Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves
and others ...
Is that a yes or a no?
Yes.
Did those Māori who signed it, do so on behalf of those Māori who didn’t? An intelligent question - well done.
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:15:11 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:09:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:53:40 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Can a contract apply to those who didnt sign it?
Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves
and others ...
Is that a yes or a no?
Yes.
Did those M?ori who signed it, do so on behalf of those M?ori who didnt?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:15:11 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:I await an answer with less than bated breath.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:09:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:53:40 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Can a contract apply to those who didn’t sign it?
Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves
and others ...
Is that a yes or a no?
Yes.
Did those M?ori who signed it, do so on behalf of those M?ori who didn’t? >An intelligent question - well done.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 06:20:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyMore gobbledygook.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:15:11 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:An intelligent question - well done.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:09:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:53:40 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Can a contract apply to those who didn’t sign it?
Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves >>>>>> and others ...
Is that a yes or a no?
Yes.
Did those M?ori who signed it, do so on behalf of those M?ori who didn’t?
I await an answer with less than bated breath.
Oh you poor young lad, waiting with less than bated breath for all
that time! Still you appear to have survived such lack of oxygen
frequently in the past; it comes through in your writing from time to
time . . .
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 05:45:46 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:gobbledygook.
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:15:11 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:09:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:53:40 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Can a contract apply to those who didnt sign it?
Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves
and others ...
Is that a yes or a no?
Yes.
Did those M?ori who signed it, do so on behalf of those M?ori who didnt?
Since all that signed were signing on behalf of others as well, then >certainly all who signed did so on behalf of others, but equally
clearly there were some tribes who did not sign - so nobody signed on
behalf of members of some tribes. Does that make sense to you?
... so nobody signed on behalf of members of some tribes.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 23:34:22 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
... so nobody signed on behalf of members of some tribes.
Does the Treaty apply to those who didnt sign?
“The Colonial Office in England later declared that the Treaty applied
to Maori tribes whose chiefs had not signed.”
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 430 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 124:59:45 |
| Calls: | 9,060 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,398 |
| Messages: | 6,017,441 |
| Posted today: | 1 |