Listen around 7:20; and Luxon is asked about Prebble reigning from the >Waitangi Tribunal, and replies that they need to talk about the roleWello, there you go deliberately misinterpreting what he said. No surprise of course.
of the Tribunal in a post-Treaty world.
So there he is, talking about ending a Treaty with the indigenous
people of New Zealand, while trying to negotiate a treaty with India
on trade. Why would anyone want to believe what he says?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/listen-live-christopher-luxon-speaks-to-mike-hosking-after-labour-overtake-nats-in-latest-poll/266V2SSJ25E75L7NOBSAHLAHCM/
Wello, there you go deliberately misinterpreting what he said. No surprise of >course.
Listen around 7:20; and Luxon is asked about Prebble reigning from the >>Waitangi Tribunal, and replies that they need to talk about the role
of the Tribunal in a post-Treaty world.
So there he is, talking about ending a Treaty with the indigenous
people of New Zealand, while trying to negotiate a treaty with India
on trade. Why would anyone want to believe what he says?
He was not speaking about ending the treaty you dumb boy.
So there he is, talking about ending a Treaty with the indigenous people
of New Zealand, while trying to negotiate a treaty with India on trade.
Why would anyone want to believe what he says?
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:30:22 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
So there he is, talking about ending a Treaty with the indigenous people
of New Zealand, while trying to negotiate a treaty with India on trade.
Why would anyone want to believe what he says?
Interesting you should mention that. Imagine if every trade deal
henceforth had to honour the principles of the India treaty, like it
became some founding document for all trade thereafter ...
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 23:35:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe world that existed the day after the treaty was signed. That is simple logic and English but you of course had to interpret it in an illogical and poiltically objectionable way - as usual.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/listen-live-christopher-luxon-speaks-to-mike-hosking-after-labour-overtake-nats-in-latest-poll/266V2SSJ25E75L7NOBSAHLAHCM/
Wello, there you go deliberately misinterpreting what he said. No surprise of >>course.
Listen around 7:20; and Luxon is asked about Prebble reigning from the >>>Waitangi Tribunal, and replies that they need to talk about the role
of the Tribunal in a post-Treaty world.
So there he is, talking about ending a Treaty with the indigenous
people of New Zealand, while trying to negotiate a treaty with India
on trade. Why would anyone want to believe what he says?
He was not speaking about ending the treaty you dumb boy.
So how do you interpret a "post-Treaty world"?
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 01:53:33 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:That is of course, a lie. You are making it up. As usual.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:30:22 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
So there he is, talking about ending a Treaty with the indigenous people >>> of New Zealand, while trying to negotiate a treaty with India on trade.
Why would anyone want to believe what he says?
Interesting you should mention that. Imagine if every trade deal
henceforth had to honour the principles of the India treaty, like it
became some founding document for all trade thereafter ...
That would certainly be ridiculous. Lawrence, and I certainly did not
suggest anything like that. Would you agree to a contract with a
government however that is apparently planning on doing away with an >agreement with some of their own country's citizens?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 23:35:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe world that existed the day after the treaty was signed. That is simple >logic and English but you of course had to interpret it in an illogical and >poiltically objectionable way - as usual.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/listen-live-christopher-luxon-speaks-to-mike-hosking-after-labour-overtake-nats-in-latest-poll/266V2SSJ25E75L7NOBSAHLAHCM/
Wello, there you go deliberately misinterpreting what he said. No surprise of
Listen around 7:20; and Luxon is asked about Prebble reigning from the >>>>Waitangi Tribunal, and replies that they need to talk about the role
of the Tribunal in a post-Treaty world.
So there he is, talking about ending a Treaty with the indigenous >>>>people of New Zealand, while trying to negotiate a treaty with India
on trade. Why would anyone want to believe what he says?
course.
He was not speaking about ending the treaty you dumb boy.
So how do you interpret a "post-Treaty world"?
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 05:11:34 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo that is a lie, he merely wants to have it discussed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 23:35:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe world that existed the day after the treaty was signed. That is simple >>logic and English but you of course had to interpret it in an illogical and >>poiltically objectionable way - as usual.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/listen-live-christopher-luxon-speaks-to-mike-hosking-after-labour-overtake-nats-in-latest-poll/266V2SSJ25E75L7NOBSAHLAHCM/
Wello, there you go deliberately misinterpreting what he said. No surprise >>>>of
Listen around 7:20; and Luxon is asked about Prebble reigning from the >>>>>Waitangi Tribunal, and replies that they need to talk about the role >>>>>of the Tribunal in a post-Treaty world.
So there he is, talking about ending a Treaty with the indigenous >>>>>people of New Zealand, while trying to negotiate a treaty with India >>>>>on trade. Why would anyone want to believe what he says?
course.
He was not speaking about ending the treaty you dumb boy.
So how do you interpret a "post-Treaty world"?
You really think he was wanting to go back to 1840? That would be post
the Treaty signing; and in that time we have made considerable
advances under successive governments in working out how to both
honour and comply with the agreements made back when it was signed.
But that would be post-signing of the Treaty, not after the Treaty,
which is what most people would see as time "post-Treaty." In reality
it appears that Luxon is himself looking forward to the day when
Seymour's bill gets accepted, negating most of the provisions of the
Treaty.
The expression "post Treaty" would to most people mean "afterPrecisely, that is what I said and that is what he meant - it is now "after the treaty", it does not mean the treaty is no longer in place, it means the treaty was signed some time before today - gee you are a waste of space.
the Treaty".
It would explain why Luxon has been so weak on allowing a long select >committee period for the ACT Bill, and has only said that NationalThat is defamation, pure and simple.
will not vote for it moving to the next stage - in practice it appears >Luxon's personal view is that he would prefer the Treaty to disappear
. . .You are an offensive idiot.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/listen-live-christopher-luxon-speaks-to-mike-hosking-after-labour-overtake-nats-in-latest-poll/266V2SSJ25E75L7NOBSAHLAHCM/
Listen around 7:20; and Luxon is asked about Prebble reigning from the >Waitangi Tribunal, and replies that they need to talk about the role
of the Tribunal in a post-Treaty world.
So there he is, talking about ending a Treaty with the indigenous
people of New Zealand, while trying to negotiate a treaty with India
on trade. Why would anyone want to believe what he says?
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 01:53:33 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:30:22 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
So there he is, talking about ending a Treaty with the indigenous
people of New Zealand, while trying to negotiate a treaty with India
on trade. Why would anyone want to believe what he says?
Interesting you should mention that. Imagine if every trade deal
henceforth had to honour the principles of the India treaty, like it
became some founding document for all trade thereafter ...
That would certainly be ridiculous. Lawrence, and I certainly did not
suggest anything like that. Would you agree to a contract with a
government however that is apparently planning on doing away with an agreement with some of their own country's citizens?
It is not a constitution. It is a poorly worded and vague document that
was originally created to establish equality under the law.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 05:05:56 +1300, BR wrote:Why not? A lot of things are called different names by different
It is not a constitution. It is a poorly worded and vague document that
was originally created to establish equality under the law.
You can either call it a founding document or a treaty, but not both.
If you call it a treaty, then it doesnt apply to those who didnt signIt may do - as I understand it successive governments have in practice
it. (T?hoe being one group that comes to mind. And what about immigrants
who came from elsewhere than the former British Empire?)
If you call it a founding document, then it applies to all NewI agree with you that it does apply to all New Zealanders. The terms
Zealanders. And it doesnt matter whether somebody signed the English
version and somebody else signed the M?ori version and somebody else
signed neither, they must all still be subject to the same laws.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 16:55:36 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Of course - many of our laws apply to all New Zealanders even if some
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 01:53:33 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:30:22 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
So there he is, talking about ending a Treaty with the indigenous
people of New Zealand, while trying to negotiate a treaty with India
on trade. Why would anyone want to believe what he says?
Interesting you should mention that. Imagine if every trade deal >>>henceforth had to honour the principles of the India treaty, like it >>>became some founding document for all trade thereafter ...
That would certainly be ridiculous. Lawrence, and I certainly did not
suggest anything like that. Would you agree to a contract with a
government however that is apparently planning on doing away with an
agreement with some of their own country's citizens?
Should such a treaty/contract be enforceable on those who never agreed to
it?
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:52:33 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
You can either call it a “founding document” or a “treaty”, but not >> both.
Why not?
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:52:41 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:52:33 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
You can either call it a founding document or a treaty, but not
both.
Why not?
If you call it a treaty, then it doesnt apply to those who didnt
sign it. If you call it a founding document, then it applies to all
New Zealanders.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 19:43:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:We are fortunate that nobody is suggesting that we do that. Nobody at all.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 16:55:36 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Of course - many of our laws apply to all New Zealanders even if some
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 01:53:33 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:30:22 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
So there he is, talking about ending a Treaty with the indigenous
people of New Zealand, while trying to negotiate a treaty with India >>>>> on trade. Why would anyone want to believe what he says?
Interesting you should mention that. Imagine if every trade deal >>>>henceforth had to honour the principles of the India treaty, like it >>>>became some founding document for all trade thereafter ...
That would certainly be ridiculous. Lawrence, and I certainly did not
suggest anything like that. Would you agree to a contract with a
government however that is apparently planning on doing away with an
agreement with some of their own country's citizens?
Should such a treaty/contract be enforceable on those who never agreed to >>it?
people disagreed with that law when it was passed by Parliament, but I
doubt the Treaty of Waitangi has any relevance to a trade agreement
between our government and India. A bank may set different terms on a >mortgage agreement for one borrow than for other borrowers. Talking
about breaking an agreement with a large group of New Zealand citizens
may however not be helpful in trying to get agreement with a trade
deal with another country - we do not want New Zealand to have a
reputation for breaking formal agreements.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:44:07 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 19:43:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Should such a treaty/contract be enforceable on those who never agreed
to it?
Of course ...
Thats not how treaties/contracts work.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:19:07 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
If you call it a “treaty”, then it doesn’t apply to those who didn’t >> sign it. If you call it a “founding document”, then it applies to all
New Zealanders.
Those who signed were the Governor, on behalf of the Crown, and M[ā]ori Chiefs.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:19:46 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:44:07 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 19:43:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Should such a treaty/contract be enforceable on those who never
agreed to it?
Of course ...
That’s not how treaties/contracts work.
Treaties signed by our government, or by say the Prime Minister on
behalf of the government, are binding on our government.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 17:55:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:The one signed at Waitangi was in Maori, and signed by the largest
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:19:07 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
If you call it a treaty, then it doesnt apply to those who didnt
sign it. If you call it a founding document, then it applies to all
New Zealanders.
Those who signed were the Governor, on behalf of the Crown, and M[?]ori
Chiefs.
Only some M?ori chiefs. Remember they signed a different document from the >one the British Empire representatives did.
So which treaty was actually agreed to?That first one in the Maori language signed at Waitangi and elsewhere.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:12:53 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Yes, they were. The Treaty preserved their sovereignty; most
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:19:46 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:44:07 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 19:43:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Should such a treaty/contract be enforceable on those who never
agreed to it?
Of course ...
Thats not how treaties/contracts work.
Treaties signed by our government, or by say the Prime Minister on
behalf of the government, are binding on our government.
And on all parties that signed it, and nobody else. Did the M?ori tribes
of the time count as governments in their own right?
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 07:02:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:That is a lie, and you know it, as do all caring New Zealanders.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:12:53 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Yes, they were. The Treaty preserved their sovereignty; most
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:19:46 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:44:07 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 19:43:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Should such a treaty/contract be enforceable on those who never
agreed to it?
Of course ...
Thats not how treaties/contracts work.
Treaties signed by our government, or by say the Prime Minister on
behalf of the government, are binding on our government.
And on all parties that signed it, and nobody else. Did the M?ori tribes
of the time count as governments in their own right?
settlements have however related to confiscation of land . . .
The one signed at Waitangi was in Maori, and signed by the largest
group of Maori Chiefs, as well as by the Governor. All other versions
of the treaty were supposed to be direct copies or translations, but unfortunately some had changes that should not have been there.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 07:02:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:12:53 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
Treaties signed by our government, or by say the Prime Minister on
behalf of the government, are binding on our government.
And on all parties that signed it, and nobody else. Did the Māori tribes
of the time count as “governments” in their own right?
Yes, they were.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 07:02:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:That is a lie, and you know it, as do all caring New Zealanders.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:12:53 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Yes, they were. The Treaty preserved their sovereignty; most
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:19:46 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:44:07 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 19:43:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Should such a treaty/contract be enforceable on those who never
agreed to it?
Of course ...
Thats not how treaties/contracts work.
Treaties signed by our government, or by say the Prime Minister on
behalf of the government, are binding on our government.
And on all parties that signed it, and nobody else. Did the M?ori tribes >>>of the time count as governments in their own right?
settlements have however related to confiscation of land . . .
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:42:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 07:02:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:That is a lie, and you know it, as do all caring New Zealanders.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:12:53 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Yes, they were. The Treaty preserved their sovereignty; most
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:19:46 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:44:07 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 19:43:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Should such a treaty/contract be enforceable on those who never >>>>>>>> agreed to it?
Of course ...
Thats not how treaties/contracts work.
Treaties signed by our government, or by say the Prime Minister on
behalf of the government, are binding on our government.
And on all parties that signed it, and nobody else. Did the M?ori tribes >>>>of the time count as governments in their own right?
settlements have however related to confiscation of land . . .
See for example: >https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/No myth, fact. You and all others have failed to provide any evidence of tha false statement.
Abusive sarcasm gone. No evidence is ever provided by Rich on this subkject >but he has a bottomlee pit of sarcastic abuse.Off topic rant.
I suspect that Prebble was appointed to the Waitangi Tribunal to try
to get that body to make different decisions more in line with the
wishes of the far right, but he would have quickly found that the
Tribunal works on well-contested and justified legal principles and
facts developed over many disputed treaty claims, and that were he to
have succeeded in getting any judgements slanted towards the
misconceptions of groups like Hobsons Pledge, they would be thrown out
by the Supreme Court, at huge cost to those on the then losing side.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:you seem to think that deleting a post removes it forever - you are
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:42:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbuse gone, that is all Rich can do - abuse his betters.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 07:02:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:That is a lie, and you know it, as do all caring New Zealanders.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:12:53 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Yes, they were. The Treaty preserved their sovereignty; most >>>>settlements have however related to confiscation of land . . .
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:19:46 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:44:07 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 19:43:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Should such a treaty/contract be enforceable on those who never >>>>>>>>> agreed to it?
Of course ...
Thats not how treaties/contracts work.
Treaties signed by our government, or by say the Prime Minister on >>>>>> behalf of the government, are binding on our government.
And on all parties that signed it, and nobody else. Did the M?ori tribes >>>>>of the time count as governments in their own right?
Given in the article, and plenty of academic literature. You are just determined to be ignorant, Tony.See for example: >>https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/No myth, fact. You and all others have failed to provide any evidence of tha >false statement.
I accept your three word comment as being a demonstration that freeOff topic rant.
Abusive sarcasm gone. No evidence is ever provided by Rich on this subkject >>but he has a bottomlee pit of sarcastic abuse.
I suspect that Prebble was appointed to the Waitangi Tribunal to try
to get that body to make different decisions more in line with the
wishes of the far right, but he would have quickly found that the
Tribunal works on well-contested and justified legal principles and
facts developed over many disputed treaty claims, and that were he to
have succeeded in getting any judgements slanted towards the
misconceptions of groups like Hobsons Pledge, they would be thrown out
by the Supreme Court, at huge cost to those on the then losing side.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 23:38:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyDon't be such a child. I know excatly why I do it and will continue to do so. It has nothing to do with eternity. Get a grip and stop the abuse.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:you seem to think that deleting a post removes it forever - you are
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:42:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbuse gone, that is all Rich can do - abuse his betters.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 07:02:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:That is a lie, and you know it, as do all caring New Zealanders.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:12:53 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Yes, they were. The Treaty preserved their sovereignty; most >>>>>settlements have however related to confiscation of land . . .
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:19:46 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:44:07 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 19:43:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>>>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Should such a treaty/contract be enforceable on those who never >>>>>>>>>> agreed to it?
Of course ...
Thats not how treaties/contracts work.
Treaties signed by our government, or by say the Prime Minister on >>>>>>> behalf of the government, are binding on our government.
And on all parties that signed it, and nobody else. Did the M?ori tribes >>>>>>of the time count as governments in their own right?
like a child covering their ears and pretending not to hear a truth
that is unpalatable to you.
Not a single bit of evidence in the article and no other evidence ever has been provided by you.Given in the article, and plenty of academic literature.See for example: >>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/No myth, fact. You and all others have failed to provide any evidence of tha >>false statement.
Abuse gone. Do try to control your childish jealous abuse.Off topic rant.
Abusive sarcasm gone. No evidence is ever provided by Rich on this subkject >>>but he has a bottomlee pit of sarcastic abuse.
I suspect that Prebble was appointed to the Waitangi Tribunal to try
to get that body to make different decisions more in line with the
wishes of the far right, but he would have quickly found that the >>>Tribunal works on well-contested and justified legal principles and
facts developed over many disputed treaty claims, and that were he to >>>have succeeded in getting any judgements slanted towards the >>>misconceptions of groups like Hobsons Pledge, they would be thrown out
by the Supreme Court, at huge cost to those on the then losing side.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:41:41 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Agreed, which is why it is good news that nobody is suggesting that we do. (Referring to the Treaty of Waitangi of course.) Nobody is wanting to do that, and there is no evidence that anybody is.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:08:27 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 07:02:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:12:53 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
Treaties signed by our government, or by say the Prime Minister on
behalf of the government, are binding on our government.
And on all parties that signed it, and nobody else. Did the M?ori tribes >>>> of the time count as governments in their own right?
Yes, they were.
So the ones who didnt sign are not bound by it.
Where relevant, our government has committed to ensure that everyone
is bound by it. That does not mean that we are all directly affected,
but indirectly most New Zealanders do not like to have our country
seen as reneging on a formal Treaty or agreement.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your reading ability is clearly deficient - as it appears is your
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 23:38:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyDon't be such a child. I know excatly why I do it and will continue to do so. >It has nothing to do with eternity. Get a grip and stop the abuse.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:you seem to think that deleting a post removes it forever - you are
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:42:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Abuse gone, that is all Rich can do - abuse his betters.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 07:02:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:That is a lie, and you know it, as do all caring New Zealanders.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:12:53 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Yes, they were. The Treaty preserved their sovereignty; most >>>>>>settlements have however related to confiscation of land . . .
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:19:46 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:44:07 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 19:43:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>>>>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Should such a treaty/contract be enforceable on those who never >>>>>>>>>>> agreed to it?
Of course ...
Thats not how treaties/contracts work.
Treaties signed by our government, or by say the Prime Minister on >>>>>>>> behalf of the government, are binding on our government.
And on all parties that signed it, and nobody else. Did the M?ori tribes >>>>>>>of the time count as governments in their own right?
like a child covering their ears and pretending not to hear a truth
that is unpalatable to you.
Not a single bit of evidence in the article and no other evidence ever has been
Given in the article, and plenty of academic literature.See for example: >>>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/No myth, fact. You and all others have failed to provide any evidence of tha >>>false statement.
provided by you.
You are lying.You have not identified any statement from me that you claim is a lie.
Abuse goneYou have not shown any abuse.
Abuse gone. Do try to control your childish jealous abuse.Off topic rant.
Abusive sarcasm gone. No evidence is ever provided by Rich on this subkject >>>>but he has a bottomlee pit of sarcastic abuse.
I suspect that Prebble was appointed to the Waitangi Tribunal to try
to get that body to make different decisions more in line with the >>>>wishes of the far right, but he would have quickly found that the >>>>Tribunal works on well-contested and justified legal principles and >>>>facts developed over many disputed treaty claims, and that were he to >>>>have succeeded in getting any judgements slanted towards the >>>>misconceptions of groups like Hobsons Pledge, they would be thrown out >>>>by the Supreme Court, at huge cost to those on the then losing side.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:12:33 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
The one signed at Waitangi was in Maori, and signed by the largest
group of Maori Chiefs, as well as by the Governor. All other versions
of the treaty were supposed to be direct copies or translations, but
unfortunately some had changes that should not have been there.
Nevertheless, those different versions were what the respective
signatories agreed to.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:08:27 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 07:02:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:12:53 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
Treaties signed by our government, or by say the Prime Minister on
behalf of the government, are binding on our government.
And on all parties that signed it, and nobody else. Did the M?ori tribes >>> of the time count as governments in their own right?
Yes, they were.
So the ones who didnt sign are not bound by it.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:50:06 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbuse gone
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 23:38:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyDon't be such a child. I know excatly why I do it and will continue to do so. >>It has nothing to do with eternity. Get a grip and stop the abuse.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:you seem to think that deleting a post removes it forever - you are
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:42:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Abuse gone, that is all Rich can do - abuse his betters.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 07:02:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:12:53 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Yes, they were. The Treaty preserved their sovereignty; most >>>>>>>settlements have however related to confiscation of land . . . >>>>>>That is a lie, and you know it, as do all caring New Zealanders.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:19:46 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>>>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:44:07 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 19:43:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>>>>>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Should such a treaty/contract be enforceable on those who never >>>>>>>>>>>> agreed to it?
Of course ...
Thats not how treaties/contracts work.
Treaties signed by our government, or by say the Prime Minister on >>>>>>>>> behalf of the government, are binding on our government.
And on all parties that signed it, and nobody else. Did the M?ori >>>>>>>>tribes
of the time count as governments in their own right?
like a child covering their ears and pretending not to hear a truth
that is unpalatable to you.
Not a single bit of evidence in the article and no other evidence ever has >>been
Given in the article, and plenty of academic literature.See for example: >>>>>https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/No myth, fact. You and all others have failed to provide any evidence of >>>>tha
false statement.
provided by you.
see parts two and three of that
article: >https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/04/why-we-are-debating-the-principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi/
and
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/05/te-tiriti-should-inspire-hope-not-fear/ Neither prove your point. Period.
and on related current issues: >https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/03/03/a-shameful-new-low-on-te-tiriti-o-waitangi/ Off topic.
Indeed I have above.You are lying.You have not identified any statement from me that you claim is a lie.
Your abuse is self-evident. I don't need to show it when you already have done so.Abuse goneYou have not shown any abuse.
Abuse gone. Do try to control your childish jealous abuse.
Abusive sarcasm gone. No evidence is ever provided by Rich on this >>>>>subkject
but he has a bottomlee pit of sarcastic abuse.
I suspect that Prebble was appointed to the Waitangi Tribunal to try >>>>>to get that body to make different decisions more in line with the >>>>>wishes of the far right, but he would have quickly found that the >>>>>Tribunal works on well-contested and justified legal principles and >>>>>facts developed over many disputed treaty claims, and that were he to >>>>>have succeeded in getting any judgements slanted towards the >>>>>misconceptions of groups like Hobsons Pledge, they would be thrown out >>>>>by the Supreme Court, at huge cost to those on the then losing side. >>>>Off topic rant.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:43:02 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:12:33 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
The one signed at Waitangi was in Maori, and signed by the largest
group of Maori Chiefs, as well as by the Governor. All other versions
of the treaty were supposed to be direct copies or translations, but
unfortunately some had changes that should not have been there.
Nevertheless, those different versions were what the respective
signatories agreed to.
All parties agreed that the original version signed by the largest group
of chiefs is the version that shall be binding on the Crown. That
agreement was made some time ago through an Act of Parliament,
with the agreement of representatives of all those party to the Treaty.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:41:41 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
So the ones who didn’t sign are not bound by it.
Where relevant, our government has committed to ensure that everyone is
bound by it.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 13:16:10 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:43:02 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:12:33 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
The one signed at Waitangi was in Maori, and signed by the largest
group of Maori Chiefs, as well as by the Governor. All other versions
of the treaty were supposed to be direct copies or translations, but
unfortunately some had changes that should not have been there.
Nevertheless, those different versions were what the respective
signatories agreed to.
All parties agreed that the original version signed by the largest group
of chiefs is the version that shall be binding on the Crown. That
agreement was made some time ago through an Act of Parliament,
with the agreement of representatives of all those party to the Treaty.
But they werent actually party to the Treaty to begin with, they only
made themselves so by that Act of Parliament. Bit of circular reasoning in >action, eh wot?
Can you really pass a law to say that somebody had signed something thatWhat law are you talking about? I am not aware of any such law.
they didnt?
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 13:13:39 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:41:41 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
So the ones who didnt sign are not bound by it.
Where relevant, our government has committed to ensure that everyone is
bound by it.
And at that point, it ceases to be a treaty, and becomes a founding >document.
But which version does the law say is the definitive one?
The Treaty was binding on the Crown and on Maori without any time limit.
Regarding laws, I have never signed a law, but I accept that I can be
held accountable for compliance with those laws , even though I did not
sign acceptance of them.
Recognising the Treaty in law ...
Can you really pass a law to say that somebody had signed something that >>they didn’t?
What law are you talking about?
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 13:25:20 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Yes, but the laws relate to administration and determinations on
The Treaty was binding on the Crown and on Maori without any time limit.
There was no version that was binding on all parties, because there was no >version that all parties had signed.
Regarding laws, I have never signed a law, but I accept that I can be
held accountable for compliance with those laws , even though I did not
sign acceptance of them.
Those laws are not called treaties, they are called laws.
It was, but there were not established processes, and provision forRecognising the Treaty in law ...
If it was a valid treaty, it would already be binding on all parties >concerned, there would be no need for a special law to be passed, just for >that treaty.
And if you are going to pass a special law just for this document,Why not - the laws did not replace the Treaty, merely facilitated determinations in accordance wit the Treaty
regardless of who did or did not sign it, then you cannot call that
document a treaty any more.
I said that I have not signed any laws but there are many that doCan you really pass a law to say that somebody had signed something that >>>they didnt?
What law are you talking about?
Didnt you just mention something about recognizing the Treaty in law?
That law.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 32:25:02 |
| Calls: | 9,798 |
| Calls today: | 17 |
| Files: | 13,751 |
| Messages: | 6,189,000 |