Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
You saw it on Facebook it must be true.
On Thu, 01 May 2025 08:37:13 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>Rubbish, no such understanding has ever been shown.
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
You saw it on Facebook it must be true.
You can look up the Act referred to for yourself, and see how it was
wrongly ended subsequently, but it is evidence that England did
understand that Sovereignty of Maori had been recognised by the
English Crown.
I agree that you should be suspicious about any social
media, but the Act referred to is still able to be studied.
On Thu, 01 May 2025 08:37:13 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
You saw it on Facebook it must be true.
You can look up the Act referred to for yourself, and see how it was
wrongly ended subsequently, but it is evidence that England did
understand that Sovereignty of Maori had been recognised by the
English Crown. I agree that you should be suspicious about any social
media, but the Act referred to is still able to be studied.
On 2025-04-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 May 2025 08:37:13 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
You saw it on Facebook it must be true.
You can look up the Act referred to for yourself, and see how it was
wrongly ended subsequently, but it is evidence that England did
understand that Sovereignty of Maori had been recognised by the
English Crown. I agree that you should be suspicious about any social
media, but the Act referred to is still able to be studied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Constitution_Act_1852
Before going any further we need to agree that the New Zealand Constitution Act
1852, is about the UK Government granting self-government to the Colony
of New Zealand. It was the second such act, the New Zealand Constitution Act >1846 not having been fully implemented.
Note that the 1852 Act was rendered redundant by the Constitution Act 1986.
" An Act to reform the constitutional law of New Zealand, to bring together >into one enactment certain provisions of constitutional significance, and
to provide that the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 of the Parliament of >the United Kingdom shall cease to have effect as part of the law of New >Zealand"
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/DLM94204.html
On 30 Apr 2025 23:17:18 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 May 2025 08:37:13 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
You saw it on Facebook it must be true.
You can look up the Act referred to for yourself, and see how it was
wrongly ended subsequently, but it is evidence that England did
understand that Sovereignty of Maori had been recognised by the
English Crown. I agree that you should be suspicious about any social
media, but the Act referred to is still able to be studied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Constitution_Act_1852
Before going any further we need to agree that the New Zealand Constitution >>Act
1852, is about the UK Government granting self-government to the Colony
of New Zealand. It was the second such act, the New Zealand Constitution Act >>1846 not having been fully implemented.
Note that the 1852 Act was rendered redundant by the Constitution Act 1986. >>
" An Act to reform the constitutional law of New Zealand, to bring together >>into one enactment certain provisions of constitutional significance, and >>to provide that the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 of the Parliament of >>the United Kingdom shall cease to have effect as part of the law of New >>Zealand"
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/DLM94204.html
The 1852 ACT is available here: >https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/webarchive/20210104000423/http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-GovCons-t1-body-d1-d1.html
and clauses 71 to 73 are relevant to this discussion.
By 1986, the Waitangi Tribunal had been set up for a number of years,
and undertook much of the work in ensuring that the Treaty is
understood and complied with - it is possible that this is the reason
the 1986 ACT did not include those provisions, but the Facebook
reference does show that they were understood back in 1852, and those >sentiments and obligations should now be understood in the context of
Treaty of Waitangi investigations and settlements, as well as
understanding by current New Zealanders.
4RegencyNice and clear, so far -
(1)Where, under the law of the United Kingdom, the royal functions are
being performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by a
Regent, the royal functions of the Sovereign in right of New Zealand
shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by that
Regent.
(2)Nothing in subsection (1) limits, in relation to any power of the >Sovereign in right of New Zealand, the authority of the
Governor-General to exercise that power.
Compare: 1983 No 20 s 4
5Demise of the Crown
(1)The death of the Sovereign shall have the effect of transferring
all the functions, duties, powers, authorities, rights, privileges,
and dignities belonging to the Crown to the Sovereign's successor, as >determined in accordance with the enactment of the Parliament of
England instituted The Act of Settlement (12 & 13 Will 3, c 2) and any
other law relating to the succession to the Throne, but shall
otherwise have no effect in law for any purpose.
(2)Every reference to the Sovereign in any document or instrument in
force on or after the commencement of this Act shall, unless the
context otherwise requires, be deemed to include a reference to the >Sovereign's heirs and successors.
Compare: 1908 No 42
______________________________________________
I suspect we will be seeing
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 23:17:18 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Nice and clear, so far -
On 2025-04-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 May 2025 08:37:13 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
You saw it on Facebook it must be true.
You can look up the Act referred to for yourself, and see how it was
wrongly ended subsequently, but it is evidence that England did
understand that Sovereignty of Maori had been recognised by the
English Crown. I agree that you should be suspicious about any social
media, but the Act referred to is still able to be studied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Constitution_Act_1852
Before going any further we need to agree that the New Zealand Constitution >>>Act
1852, is about the UK Government granting self-government to the Colony >>>of New Zealand. It was the second such act, the New Zealand Constitution Act >>>1846 not having been fully implemented.
Note that the 1852 Act was rendered redundant by the Constitution Act 1986. >>>
" An Act to reform the constitutional law of New Zealand, to bring together >>>into one enactment certain provisions of constitutional significance, and >>>to provide that the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 of the Parliament of >>>the United Kingdom shall cease to have effect as part of the law of New >>>Zealand"
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/DLM94204.html
The 1852 ACT is available here: >>https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/webarchive/20210104000423/http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-GovCons-t1-body-d1-d1.html
and clauses 71 to 73 are relevant to this discussion.
By 1986, the Waitangi Tribunal had been set up for a number of years,
and undertook much of the work in ensuring that the Treaty is
understood and complied with - it is possible that this is the reason
the 1986 ACT did not include those provisions, but the Facebook
reference does show that they were understood back in 1852, and those >>sentiments and obligations should now be understood in the context of >>Treaty of Waitangi investigations and settlements, as well as
understanding by current New Zealanders.
4Regency
(1)Where, under the law of the United Kingdom, the royal functions are >>being performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by a
Regent, the royal functions of the Sovereign in right of New Zealand
shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by that >>Regent.
(2)Nothing in subsection (1) limits, in relation to any power of the >>Sovereign in right of New Zealand, the authority of the
Governor-General to exercise that power.
Compare: 1983 No 20 s 4
5Demise of the Crown
(1)The death of the Sovereign shall have the effect of transferring
all the functions, duties, powers, authorities, rights, privileges,
and dignities belonging to the Crown to the Sovereign's successor, as >>determined in accordance with the enactment of the Parliament of
England instituted The Act of Settlement (12 & 13 Will 3, c 2) and any >>other law relating to the succession to the Throne, but shall
otherwise have no effect in law for any purpose.
(2)Every reference to the Sovereign in any document or instrument in
force on or after the commencement of this Act shall, unless the
context otherwise requires, be deemed to include a reference to the >>Sovereign's heirs and successors.
Compare: 1908 No 42
______________________________________________
I suspect we will be seeing
Nothing there that indicates that Maori did not cede sovereignty, and indeed we
know they did.
On Thu, 1 May 2025 01:38:18 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo they did not, where are the words that say that? Not in your link that's for sure.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 23:17:18 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Nice and clear, so far -
On 2025-04-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The 1852 ACT is available here: >>>https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/webarchive/20210104000423/http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-GovCons-t1-body-d1-d1.html
On Thu, 01 May 2025 08:37:13 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
You saw it on Facebook it must be true.
You can look up the Act referred to for yourself, and see how it was >>>>> wrongly ended subsequently, but it is evidence that England did
understand that Sovereignty of Maori had been recognised by the
English Crown. I agree that you should be suspicious about any social >>>>> media, but the Act referred to is still able to be studied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Constitution_Act_1852
Before going any further we need to agree that the New Zealand Constitution >>>>Act
1852, is about the UK Government granting self-government to the Colony >>>>of New Zealand. It was the second such act, the New Zealand Constitution >>>>Act
1846 not having been fully implemented.
Note that the 1852 Act was rendered redundant by the Constitution Act 1986. >>>>
" An Act to reform the constitutional law of New Zealand, to bring together >>>>into one enactment certain provisions of constitutional significance, and >>>>to provide that the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 of the Parliament of >>>>the United Kingdom shall cease to have effect as part of the law of New >>>>Zealand"
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/DLM94204.html >>>
and clauses 71 to 73 are relevant to this discussion.
By 1986, the Waitangi Tribunal had been set up for a number of years,
and undertook much of the work in ensuring that the Treaty is
understood and complied with - it is possible that this is the reason
the 1986 ACT did not include those provisions, but the Facebook
reference does show that they were understood back in 1852, and those >>>sentiments and obligations should now be understood in the context of >>>Treaty of Waitangi investigations and settlements, as well as >>>understanding by current New Zealanders.
4Regency
(1)Where, under the law of the United Kingdom, the royal functions are >>>being performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by a
Regent, the royal functions of the Sovereign in right of New Zealand >>>shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by that >>>Regent.
(2)Nothing in subsection (1) limits, in relation to any power of the >>>Sovereign in right of New Zealand, the authority of the
Governor-General to exercise that power.
Compare: 1983 No 20 s 4
5Demise of the Crown
(1)The death of the Sovereign shall have the effect of transferring
all the functions, duties, powers, authorities, rights, privileges,
and dignities belonging to the Crown to the Sovereign's successor, as >>>determined in accordance with the enactment of the Parliament of
England instituted The Act of Settlement (12 & 13 Will 3, c 2) and any >>>other law relating to the succession to the Throne, but shall
otherwise have no effect in law for any purpose.
(2)Every reference to the Sovereign in any document or instrument in >>>force on or after the commencement of this Act shall, unless the
context otherwise requires, be deemed to include a reference to the >>>Sovereign's heirs and successors.
Compare: 1908 No 42
______________________________________________
I suspect we will be seeing
Nothing there that indicates that Maori did not cede sovereignty, and indeed >>we
know they did.
Apparently nothing was clear to you, Tony - you give every indication
of not having read any of the message. The British Government
confirmed that Maori had not ceded sovereignty
- nothing aboutI didn't mention statements from Maori, what are you on?
statements from Maori.
You could not have been more wrong if you had tried - but then youNo, what I wrote is correct. There is nothing in that link that suggests that Maori did not cede sovereignty. You have wasted your time with a childish attempted distraction, but hey that is not unusual is it?
appear to have understood nothing - or perhaps just had not bothered
reading.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I gave you the references above - Clauses 71 and 73, but because you
On Thu, 1 May 2025 01:38:18 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo they did not, where are the words that say that? Not in your link that's for
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 23:17:18 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Nice and clear, so far -
On 2025-04-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The 1852 ACT is available here: >>>>https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/webarchive/20210104000423/http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-GovCons-t1-body-d1-d1.html
On Thu, 01 May 2025 08:37:13 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
You saw it on Facebook it must be true.
You can look up the Act referred to for yourself, and see how it was >>>>>> wrongly ended subsequently, but it is evidence that England did
understand that Sovereignty of Maori had been recognised by the
English Crown. I agree that you should be suspicious about any social >>>>>> media, but the Act referred to is still able to be studied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Constitution_Act_1852
Before going any further we need to agree that the New Zealand Constitution
Act
1852, is about the UK Government granting self-government to the Colony >>>>>of New Zealand. It was the second such act, the New Zealand Constitution >>>>>Act
1846 not having been fully implemented.
Note that the 1852 Act was rendered redundant by the Constitution Act 1986.
" An Act to reform the constitutional law of New Zealand, to bring together
into one enactment certain provisions of constitutional significance, and >>>>>to provide that the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 of the Parliament of >>>>>the United Kingdom shall cease to have effect as part of the law of New >>>>>Zealand"
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/DLM94204.html >>>>
and clauses 71 to 73 are relevant to this discussion.
By 1986, the Waitangi Tribunal had been set up for a number of years, >>>>and undertook much of the work in ensuring that the Treaty is >>>>understood and complied with - it is possible that this is the reason >>>>the 1986 ACT did not include those provisions, but the Facebook >>>>reference does show that they were understood back in 1852, and those >>>>sentiments and obligations should now be understood in the context of >>>>Treaty of Waitangi investigations and settlements, as well as >>>>understanding by current New Zealanders.
4Regency
(1)Where, under the law of the United Kingdom, the royal functions are >>>>being performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by a
Regent, the royal functions of the Sovereign in right of New Zealand >>>>shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by that >>>>Regent.
(2)Nothing in subsection (1) limits, in relation to any power of the >>>>Sovereign in right of New Zealand, the authority of the >>>>Governor-General to exercise that power.
Compare: 1983 No 20 s 4
5Demise of the Crown
(1)The death of the Sovereign shall have the effect of transferring
all the functions, duties, powers, authorities, rights, privileges,
and dignities belonging to the Crown to the Sovereign's successor, as >>>>determined in accordance with the enactment of the Parliament of >>>>England instituted The Act of Settlement (12 & 13 Will 3, c 2) and any >>>>other law relating to the succession to the Throne, but shall
otherwise have no effect in law for any purpose.
(2)Every reference to the Sovereign in any document or instrument in >>>>force on or after the commencement of this Act shall, unless the >>>>context otherwise requires, be deemed to include a reference to the >>>>Sovereign's heirs and successors.
Compare: 1908 No 42
______________________________________________
I suspect we will be seeing
Nothing there that indicates that Maori did not cede sovereignty, and indeed >>>we
know they did.
Apparently nothing was clear to you, Tony - you give every indication
of not having read any of the message. The British Government
confirmed that Maori had not ceded sovereignty
sure.
- nothing aboutI didn't mention statements from Maori, what are you on?
statements from Maori.
No, what I wrote is correct. There is nothing in that link that suggests that >Maori did not cede sovereignty. You have wasted your time with a childish >attempted distraction, but hey that is not unusual is it?
You could not have been more wrong if you had tried - but then you
appear to have understood nothing - or perhaps just had not bothered >>reading.
I read it and explained to you that it was nothing to do with ceding >sovereignty, you need a lot more education obviously. I suggest that you seek >it.
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
On Thu, 1 May 2025 07:09:53 -0000 (UTC), TonyI think you might actually be insane. That reference does not even suggest that Maori did not cede sovereignty, not even close.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I gave you the references above - Clauses 71 and 73, but because you >apparently cannot follow simple directions, here they are for you:
On Thu, 1 May 2025 01:38:18 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo they did not, where are the words that say that? Not in your link that's >>for
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 23:17:18 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Nice and clear, so far -
On 2025-04-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The 1852 ACT is available here: >>>>>https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/webarchive/20210104000423/http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-GovCons-t1-body-d1-d1.html
On Thu, 01 May 2025 08:37:13 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
You saw it on Facebook it must be true.
You can look up the Act referred to for yourself, and see how it was >>>>>>> wrongly ended subsequently, but it is evidence that England did
understand that Sovereignty of Maori had been recognised by the
English Crown. I agree that you should be suspicious about any social >>>>>>> media, but the Act referred to is still able to be studied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Constitution_Act_1852
Before going any further we need to agree that the New Zealand >>>>>>Constitution
Act
1852, is about the UK Government granting self-government to the Colony >>>>>>of New Zealand. It was the second such act, the New Zealand Constitution >>>>>>Act
1846 not having been fully implemented.
Note that the 1852 Act was rendered redundant by the Constitution Act >>>>>>1986.
" An Act to reform the constitutional law of New Zealand, to bring >>>>>>together
into one enactment certain provisions of constitutional significance, and >>>>>>to provide that the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 of the Parliament >>>>>>of
the United Kingdom shall cease to have effect as part of the law of New >>>>>>Zealand"
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/DLM94204.html >>>>>
and clauses 71 to 73 are relevant to this discussion.
By 1986, the Waitangi Tribunal had been set up for a number of years, >>>>>and undertook much of the work in ensuring that the Treaty is >>>>>understood and complied with - it is possible that this is the reason >>>>>the 1986 ACT did not include those provisions, but the Facebook >>>>>reference does show that they were understood back in 1852, and those >>>>>sentiments and obligations should now be understood in the context of >>>>>Treaty of Waitangi investigations and settlements, as well as >>>>>understanding by current New Zealanders.
4Regency
(1)Where, under the law of the United Kingdom, the royal functions are >>>>>being performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by a >>>>>Regent, the royal functions of the Sovereign in right of New Zealand >>>>>shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by that >>>>>Regent.
(2)Nothing in subsection (1) limits, in relation to any power of the >>>>>Sovereign in right of New Zealand, the authority of the >>>>>Governor-General to exercise that power.
Compare: 1983 No 20 s 4
5Demise of the Crown
(1)The death of the Sovereign shall have the effect of transferring >>>>>all the functions, duties, powers, authorities, rights, privileges, >>>>>and dignities belonging to the Crown to the Sovereign's successor, as >>>>>determined in accordance with the enactment of the Parliament of >>>>>England instituted The Act of Settlement (12 & 13 Will 3, c 2) and any >>>>>other law relating to the succession to the Throne, but shall >>>>>otherwise have no effect in law for any purpose.
(2)Every reference to the Sovereign in any document or instrument in >>>>>force on or after the commencement of this Act shall, unless the >>>>>context otherwise requires, be deemed to include a reference to the >>>>>Sovereign's heirs and successors.
Compare: 1908 No 42
______________________________________________
I suspect we will be seeing
Nothing there that indicates that Maori did not cede sovereignty, and >>>>indeed
we
know they did.
Apparently nothing was clear to you, Tony - you give every indication
of not having read any of the message. The British Government
confirmed that Maori had not ceded sovereignty
sure.
71. {Her Majesty may cause Laws of Aboriginal Native Inhabitants to be >maintained.}
And Whereas it may be expedient that the laws, customs, and usages of
the aboriginal or native inhabitants of New Zealand, so far as they
are not repugnant to the general principles of humanity, should for
the present be maintained for the government of themselves, in all
their relations to and dealings with each other, and that particular >districts should be set apart within which such laws, customs, or
usages should be so observed:
It shall be lawful for her Majesty, by any Letters Patent to be issued
under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, from time to time to make >provision for the purposes aforesaid, any repugnancy of any such
native laws, customs, or usages to the law of England, or to any law, >statute, or usage in force in New Zealand, or in any part thereof, in
anywise notwithstanding.
73 {Saving as to the lands of Aboriginal Native Tribes.} It shall not
be lawful for any person other than her Majesty, her heirs or
successors, to purchase, or in anywise acquire or accept, from the
aboriginal natives, land of or belonging to, or used or occupied by
them in common as tribes or communities, or to accept any release or >extinguishment of the rights of such aboriginal natives in any such
land as aforesaid; and no conveyance or transfer, or agreement for the >conveyance or transfer of any such land, either in perpetuity or for
any term or period, either absolutely or conditionally, and either in >property, or by way of lease or occupancy, and no such release or >extinguishment, as aforesaid, shall be of any validity or effect,
unless the same be made to, or entered into with, and accepted by, her >Majesty, her heirs or successors: Provided Always, That it shall be
lawful for her Majesty, her heirs and successors, by instructions
under the Signet and Royal Sign Manual, or signified through one of
her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, to delegate her powers
of accepting such conveyances or agreements, releases or
relinquishments, to the Governor of New Zealand, or the Superintendent
of any province within the limits of such province, and to prescribe
or regulate the terms on which such conveyances or agreements,
releases, or extinguishments, shall be accepted.
See above. Maori ceded sovereignty and you have not shown otherwise.- nothing aboutI didn't mention statements from Maori, what are you on?
statements from Maori.
No, what I wrote is correct. There is nothing in that link that suggests that >>Maori did not cede sovereignty. You have wasted your time with a childish >>attempted distraction, but hey that is not unusual is it?
You could not have been more wrong if you had tried - but then you
appear to have understood nothing - or perhaps just had not bothered >>>reading.
I read it and explained to you that it was nothing to do with ceding >>sovereignty, you need a lot more education obviously. I suggest that you seek >>it.
Hopefully the text above assists your understanding . . .
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty. That was necessary to establish equality under the law. You can't have one country with two governments.
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense?
What purpose does it serve?
Bill.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion?
wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
That was necessary to establish equality under the law.Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not
You can't have one country with twoAnd nobody is suggesting that we should
governments.
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense?I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to
Bill.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What part of "the government of themselves, in all their relations to
On Thu, 1 May 2025 07:09:53 -0000 (UTC), TonyI think you might actually be insane. That reference does not even suggest that
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I gave you the references above - Clauses 71 and 73, but because you >>apparently cannot follow simple directions, here they are for you:
On Thu, 1 May 2025 01:38:18 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo they did not, where are the words that say that? Not in your link that's >>>for
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 23:17:18 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Nice and clear, so far -
On 2025-04-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 May 2025 08:37:13 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
You saw it on Facebook it must be true.
You can look up the Act referred to for yourself, and see how it was >>>>>>>> wrongly ended subsequently, but it is evidence that England did >>>>>>>> understand that Sovereignty of Maori had been recognised by the >>>>>>>> English Crown. I agree that you should be suspicious about any social >>>>>>>> media, but the Act referred to is still able to be studied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Constitution_Act_1852
Before going any further we need to agree that the New Zealand >>>>>>>Constitution
Act
1852, is about the UK Government granting self-government to the Colony >>>>>>>of New Zealand. It was the second such act, the New Zealand Constitution >>>>>>>Act
1846 not having been fully implemented.
Note that the 1852 Act was rendered redundant by the Constitution Act >>>>>>>1986.
" An Act to reform the constitutional law of New Zealand, to bring >>>>>>>together
into one enactment certain provisions of constitutional significance, and
to provide that the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 of the Parliament >>>>>>>of
the United Kingdom shall cease to have effect as part of the law of New >>>>>>>Zealand"
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/DLM94204.html
The 1852 ACT is available here: >>>>>>https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/webarchive/20210104000423/http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-GovCons-t1-body-d1-d1.html
and clauses 71 to 73 are relevant to this discussion.
By 1986, the Waitangi Tribunal had been set up for a number of years, >>>>>>and undertook much of the work in ensuring that the Treaty is >>>>>>understood and complied with - it is possible that this is the reason >>>>>>the 1986 ACT did not include those provisions, but the Facebook >>>>>>reference does show that they were understood back in 1852, and those >>>>>>sentiments and obligations should now be understood in the context of >>>>>>Treaty of Waitangi investigations and settlements, as well as >>>>>>understanding by current New Zealanders.
4Regency
(1)Where, under the law of the United Kingdom, the royal functions are >>>>>>being performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by a >>>>>>Regent, the royal functions of the Sovereign in right of New Zealand >>>>>>shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by that >>>>>>Regent.
(2)Nothing in subsection (1) limits, in relation to any power of the >>>>>>Sovereign in right of New Zealand, the authority of the >>>>>>Governor-General to exercise that power.
Compare: 1983 No 20 s 4
5Demise of the Crown
(1)The death of the Sovereign shall have the effect of transferring >>>>>>all the functions, duties, powers, authorities, rights, privileges, >>>>>>and dignities belonging to the Crown to the Sovereign's successor, as >>>>>>determined in accordance with the enactment of the Parliament of >>>>>>England instituted The Act of Settlement (12 & 13 Will 3, c 2) and any >>>>>>other law relating to the succession to the Throne, but shall >>>>>>otherwise have no effect in law for any purpose.
(2)Every reference to the Sovereign in any document or instrument in >>>>>>force on or after the commencement of this Act shall, unless the >>>>>>context otherwise requires, be deemed to include a reference to the >>>>>>Sovereign's heirs and successors.
Compare: 1908 No 42
______________________________________________
I suspect we will be seeing
Nothing there that indicates that Maori did not cede sovereignty, and >>>>>indeed
we
know they did.
Apparently nothing was clear to you, Tony - you give every indication >>>>of not having read any of the message. The British Government
confirmed that Maori had not ceded sovereignty
sure.
71. {Her Majesty may cause Laws of Aboriginal Native Inhabitants to be >>maintained.}
And Whereas it may be expedient that the laws, customs, and usages of
the aboriginal or native inhabitants of New Zealand, so far as they
are not repugnant to the general principles of humanity, should for
the present be maintained for the government of themselves, in all
their relations to and dealings with each other, and that particular >>districts should be set apart within which such laws, customs, or
usages should be so observed:
It shall be lawful for her Majesty, by any Letters Patent to be issued >>under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, from time to time to make >>provision for the purposes aforesaid, any repugnancy of any such
native laws, customs, or usages to the law of England, or to any law, >>statute, or usage in force in New Zealand, or in any part thereof, in >>anywise notwithstanding.
73 {Saving as to the lands of Aboriginal Native Tribes.} It shall not
be lawful for any person other than her Majesty, her heirs or
successors, to purchase, or in anywise acquire or accept, from the >>aboriginal natives, land of or belonging to, or used or occupied by
them in common as tribes or communities, or to accept any release or >>extinguishment of the rights of such aboriginal natives in any such
land as aforesaid; and no conveyance or transfer, or agreement for the >>conveyance or transfer of any such land, either in perpetuity or for
any term or period, either absolutely or conditionally, and either in >>property, or by way of lease or occupancy, and no such release or >>extinguishment, as aforesaid, shall be of any validity or effect,
unless the same be made to, or entered into with, and accepted by, her >>Majesty, her heirs or successors: Provided Always, That it shall be
lawful for her Majesty, her heirs and successors, by instructions
under the Signet and Royal Sign Manual, or signified through one of
her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, to delegate her powers
of accepting such conveyances or agreements, releases or
relinquishments, to the Governor of New Zealand, or the Superintendent
of any province within the limits of such province, and to prescribe
or regulate the terms on which such conveyances or agreements,
releases, or extinguishments, shall be accepted.
Maori did not cede sovereignty, not even close.
Maybe you really should learn the Enbglish language for once.
See above. Maori ceded sovereignty and you have not shown otherwise.
- nothing aboutI didn't mention statements from Maori, what are you on?
statements from Maori.
No, what I wrote is correct. There is nothing in that link that suggests that
You could not have been more wrong if you had tried - but then you >>>>appear to have understood nothing - or perhaps just had not bothered >>>>reading.
Maori did not cede sovereignty. You have wasted your time with a childish >>>attempted distraction, but hey that is not unusual is it?
I read it and explained to you that it was nothing to do with ceding >>>sovereignty, you need a lot more education obviously. I suggest that you seek
it.
Hopefully the text above assists your understanding . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your ignorance does not surprise me - the words may be different, but
On Thu, 1 May 2025 19:51:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyI understand it far better than you do, obviously (but that is not difficult is
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What part of "the government of themselves, in all their relations to
On Thu, 1 May 2025 07:09:53 -0000 (UTC), TonyI think you might actually be insane. That reference does not even suggest >>>that
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I gave you the references above - Clauses 71 and 73, but because you >>>>apparently cannot follow simple directions, here they are for you:
On Thu, 1 May 2025 01:38:18 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No they did not, where are the words that say that? Not in your link that's
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 23:17:18 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>Nice and clear, so far -
On 2025-04-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 May 2025 08:37:13 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Before going any further we need to agree that the New Zealand >>>>>>>>>Constitution
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
You saw it on Facebook it must be true.
You can look up the Act referred to for yourself, and see how it was >>>>>>>>>> wrongly ended subsequently, but it is evidence that England did >>>>>>>>>> understand that Sovereignty of Maori had been recognised by the >>>>>>>>>> English Crown. I agree that you should be suspicious about any social
media, but the Act referred to is still able to be studied. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Constitution_Act_1852 >>>>>>>>>
Act
1852, is about the UK Government granting self-government to the Colony
of New Zealand. It was the second such act, the New Zealand >>>>>>>>>Constitution
Act
1846 not having been fully implemented.
Note that the 1852 Act was rendered redundant by the Constitution Act >>>>>>>>>1986.
" An Act to reform the constitutional law of New Zealand, to bring >>>>>>>>>together
into one enactment certain provisions of constitutional significance, >>>>>>>>>and
to provide that the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 of the Parliament
of
the United Kingdom shall cease to have effect as part of the law of New
Zealand"
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/DLM94204.html
The 1852 ACT is available here: >>>>>>>>https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/webarchive/20210104000423/http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-GovCons-t1-body-d1-d1.html
and clauses 71 to 73 are relevant to this discussion.
By 1986, the Waitangi Tribunal had been set up for a number of years, >>>>>>>>and undertook much of the work in ensuring that the Treaty is >>>>>>>>understood and complied with - it is possible that this is the reason >>>>>>>>the 1986 ACT did not include those provisions, but the Facebook >>>>>>>>reference does show that they were understood back in 1852, and those >>>>>>>>sentiments and obligations should now be understood in the context of >>>>>>>>Treaty of Waitangi investigations and settlements, as well as >>>>>>>>understanding by current New Zealanders.
4Regency
(1)Where, under the law of the United Kingdom, the royal functions are >>>>>>>>being performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by a >>>>>>>>Regent, the royal functions of the Sovereign in right of New Zealand >>>>>>>>shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by that >>>>>>>>Regent.
(2)Nothing in subsection (1) limits, in relation to any power of the >>>>>>>>Sovereign in right of New Zealand, the authority of the >>>>>>>>Governor-General to exercise that power.
Compare: 1983 No 20 s 4
5Demise of the Crown
(1)The death of the Sovereign shall have the effect of transferring >>>>>>>>all the functions, duties, powers, authorities, rights, privileges, >>>>>>>>and dignities belonging to the Crown to the Sovereign's successor, as >>>>>>>>determined in accordance with the enactment of the Parliament of >>>>>>>>England instituted The Act of Settlement (12 & 13 Will 3, c 2) and any >>>>>>>>other law relating to the succession to the Throne, but shall >>>>>>>>otherwise have no effect in law for any purpose.
(2)Every reference to the Sovereign in any document or instrument in >>>>>>>>force on or after the commencement of this Act shall, unless the >>>>>>>>context otherwise requires, be deemed to include a reference to the >>>>>>>>Sovereign's heirs and successors.
Compare: 1908 No 42 >>>>>>>>______________________________________________
I suspect we will be seeing
Nothing there that indicates that Maori did not cede sovereignty, and >>>>>>>indeed
we
know they did.
Apparently nothing was clear to you, Tony - you give every indication >>>>>>of not having read any of the message. The British Government >>>>>>confirmed that Maori had not ceded sovereignty
for
sure.
71. {Her Majesty may cause Laws of Aboriginal Native Inhabitants to be >>>>maintained.}
And Whereas it may be expedient that the laws, customs, and usages of >>>>the aboriginal or native inhabitants of New Zealand, so far as they
are not repugnant to the general principles of humanity, should for
the present be maintained for the government of themselves, in all >>>>their relations to and dealings with each other, and that particular >>>>districts should be set apart within which such laws, customs, or >>>>usages should be so observed:
It shall be lawful for her Majesty, by any Letters Patent to be issued >>>>under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, from time to time to make >>>>provision for the purposes aforesaid, any repugnancy of any such
native laws, customs, or usages to the law of England, or to any law, >>>>statute, or usage in force in New Zealand, or in any part thereof, in >>>>anywise notwithstanding.
73 {Saving as to the lands of Aboriginal Native Tribes.} It shall not >>>>be lawful for any person other than her Majesty, her heirs or >>>>successors, to purchase, or in anywise acquire or accept, from the >>>>aboriginal natives, land of or belonging to, or used or occupied by >>>>them in common as tribes or communities, or to accept any release or >>>>extinguishment of the rights of such aboriginal natives in any such >>>>land as aforesaid; and no conveyance or transfer, or agreement for the >>>>conveyance or transfer of any such land, either in perpetuity or for >>>>any term or period, either absolutely or conditionally, and either in >>>>property, or by way of lease or occupancy, and no such release or >>>>extinguishment, as aforesaid, shall be of any validity or effect, >>>>unless the same be made to, or entered into with, and accepted by, her >>>>Majesty, her heirs or successors: Provided Always, That it shall be >>>>lawful for her Majesty, her heirs and successors, by instructions
under the Signet and Royal Sign Manual, or signified through one of
her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, to delegate her powers
of accepting such conveyances or agreements, releases or >>>>relinquishments, to the Governor of New Zealand, or the Superintendent >>>>of any province within the limits of such province, and to prescribe
or regulate the terms on which such conveyances or agreements, >>>>releases, or extinguishments, shall be accepted.
Maori did not cede sovereignty, not even close.
Maybe you really should learn the Enbglish language for once.
See above. Maori ceded sovereignty and you have not shown otherwise.
- nothing aboutI didn't mention statements from Maori, what are you on?
statements from Maori.
No, what I wrote is correct. There is nothing in that link that suggests >>>>>that
You could not have been more wrong if you had tried - but then you >>>>>>appear to have understood nothing - or perhaps just had not bothered >>>>>>reading.
Maori did not cede sovereignty. You have wasted your time with a childish >>>>>attempted distraction, but hey that is not unusual is it?
I read it and explained to you that it was nothing to do with ceding >>>>>sovereignty, you need a lot more education obviously. I suggest that you >>>>>seek
it.
Hopefully the text above assists your understanding . . .
and dealings with each other, and that particular districts should be
set apart within which such laws, customs, or usages should be so >>observed:" do you not understand, Tony?
it?), It does not state that Maori did not cede sovereignty to the Queen. It >is also out of context (sneaky move by you). Government and sovereignty are not
the same thing. I recommend you talk to somebody who understands English and >has a better understanding of history and understands governance compared to >sovereignty, your understanding of all of those is seriously lacking.
Show me where sovereignty was ceded.Aah, so perhaps you do understand - you cannot find any statement
On Thu, 1 May 2025 19:51:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyI understand it far better than you do, obviously (but that is not difficult is it?), It does not state that Maori did not cede sovereignty to the Queen. It is also out of context (sneaky move by you). Government and sovereignty are not the same thing. I recommend you talk to somebody who understands English and has a better understanding of history and understands governance compared to sovereignty, your understanding of all of those is seriously lacking.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What part of "the government of themselves, in all their relations to
On Thu, 1 May 2025 07:09:53 -0000 (UTC), TonyI think you might actually be insane. That reference does not even suggest >>that
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I gave you the references above - Clauses 71 and 73, but because you >>>apparently cannot follow simple directions, here they are for you:
On Thu, 1 May 2025 01:38:18 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No they did not, where are the words that say that? Not in your link that's >>>>for
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 23:17:18 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Nice and clear, so far -
On 2025-04-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 May 2025 08:37:13 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Before going any further we need to agree that the New Zealand >>>>>>>>Constitution
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
You saw it on Facebook it must be true.
You can look up the Act referred to for yourself, and see how it was >>>>>>>>> wrongly ended subsequently, but it is evidence that England did >>>>>>>>> understand that Sovereignty of Maori had been recognised by the >>>>>>>>> English Crown. I agree that you should be suspicious about any social >>>>>>>>> media, but the Act referred to is still able to be studied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Constitution_Act_1852 >>>>>>>>
Act
1852, is about the UK Government granting self-government to the Colony >>>>>>>>of New Zealand. It was the second such act, the New Zealand >>>>>>>>Constitution
Act
1846 not having been fully implemented.
Note that the 1852 Act was rendered redundant by the Constitution Act >>>>>>>>1986.
" An Act to reform the constitutional law of New Zealand, to bring >>>>>>>>together
into one enactment certain provisions of constitutional significance, >>>>>>>>and
to provide that the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 of the Parliament >>>>>>>>of
the United Kingdom shall cease to have effect as part of the law of New >>>>>>>>Zealand"
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/DLM94204.html
The 1852 ACT is available here: >>>>>>>https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/webarchive/20210104000423/http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-GovCons-t1-body-d1-d1.html
and clauses 71 to 73 are relevant to this discussion.
By 1986, the Waitangi Tribunal had been set up for a number of years, >>>>>>>and undertook much of the work in ensuring that the Treaty is >>>>>>>understood and complied with - it is possible that this is the reason >>>>>>>the 1986 ACT did not include those provisions, but the Facebook >>>>>>>reference does show that they were understood back in 1852, and those >>>>>>>sentiments and obligations should now be understood in the context of >>>>>>>Treaty of Waitangi investigations and settlements, as well as >>>>>>>understanding by current New Zealanders.
4Regency
(1)Where, under the law of the United Kingdom, the royal functions are >>>>>>>being performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by a >>>>>>>Regent, the royal functions of the Sovereign in right of New Zealand >>>>>>>shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by that >>>>>>>Regent.
(2)Nothing in subsection (1) limits, in relation to any power of the >>>>>>>Sovereign in right of New Zealand, the authority of the >>>>>>>Governor-General to exercise that power.
Compare: 1983 No 20 s 4
5Demise of the Crown
(1)The death of the Sovereign shall have the effect of transferring >>>>>>>all the functions, duties, powers, authorities, rights, privileges, >>>>>>>and dignities belonging to the Crown to the Sovereign's successor, as >>>>>>>determined in accordance with the enactment of the Parliament of >>>>>>>England instituted The Act of Settlement (12 & 13 Will 3, c 2) and any >>>>>>>other law relating to the succession to the Throne, but shall >>>>>>>otherwise have no effect in law for any purpose.
(2)Every reference to the Sovereign in any document or instrument in >>>>>>>force on or after the commencement of this Act shall, unless the >>>>>>>context otherwise requires, be deemed to include a reference to the >>>>>>>Sovereign's heirs and successors.
Compare: 1908 No 42 >>>>>>>______________________________________________
I suspect we will be seeing
Nothing there that indicates that Maori did not cede sovereignty, and >>>>>>indeed
we
know they did.
Apparently nothing was clear to you, Tony - you give every indication >>>>>of not having read any of the message. The British Government >>>>>confirmed that Maori had not ceded sovereignty
sure.
71. {Her Majesty may cause Laws of Aboriginal Native Inhabitants to be >>>maintained.}
And Whereas it may be expedient that the laws, customs, and usages of
the aboriginal or native inhabitants of New Zealand, so far as they
are not repugnant to the general principles of humanity, should for
the present be maintained for the government of themselves, in all
their relations to and dealings with each other, and that particular >>>districts should be set apart within which such laws, customs, or
usages should be so observed:
It shall be lawful for her Majesty, by any Letters Patent to be issued >>>under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, from time to time to make >>>provision for the purposes aforesaid, any repugnancy of any such
native laws, customs, or usages to the law of England, or to any law, >>>statute, or usage in force in New Zealand, or in any part thereof, in >>>anywise notwithstanding.
73 {Saving as to the lands of Aboriginal Native Tribes.} It shall not
be lawful for any person other than her Majesty, her heirs or
successors, to purchase, or in anywise acquire or accept, from the >>>aboriginal natives, land of or belonging to, or used or occupied by
them in common as tribes or communities, or to accept any release or >>>extinguishment of the rights of such aboriginal natives in any such
land as aforesaid; and no conveyance or transfer, or agreement for the >>>conveyance or transfer of any such land, either in perpetuity or for
any term or period, either absolutely or conditionally, and either in >>>property, or by way of lease or occupancy, and no such release or >>>extinguishment, as aforesaid, shall be of any validity or effect,
unless the same be made to, or entered into with, and accepted by, her >>>Majesty, her heirs or successors: Provided Always, That it shall be >>>lawful for her Majesty, her heirs and successors, by instructions
under the Signet and Royal Sign Manual, or signified through one of
her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, to delegate her powers
of accepting such conveyances or agreements, releases or
relinquishments, to the Governor of New Zealand, or the Superintendent
of any province within the limits of such province, and to prescribe
or regulate the terms on which such conveyances or agreements,
releases, or extinguishments, shall be accepted.
Maori did not cede sovereignty, not even close.
Maybe you really should learn the Enbglish language for once.
See above. Maori ceded sovereignty and you have not shown otherwise.
- nothing aboutI didn't mention statements from Maori, what are you on?
statements from Maori.
No, what I wrote is correct. There is nothing in that link that suggests >>>>that
You could not have been more wrong if you had tried - but then you >>>>>appear to have understood nothing - or perhaps just had not bothered >>>>>reading.
Maori did not cede sovereignty. You have wasted your time with a childish >>>>attempted distraction, but hey that is not unusual is it?
I read it and explained to you that it was nothing to do with ceding >>>>sovereignty, you need a lot more education obviously. I suggest that you >>>>seek
it.
Hopefully the text above assists your understanding . . .
and dealings with each other, and that particular districts should be
set apart within which such laws, customs, or usages should be so
observed:" do you not understand, Tony?
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, we don't have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion?
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
Yeah right!That was necessary to establish equality under the law.Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not
sufficient.
You can't have one country with twoAnd nobody is suggesting that we should'
governments.
You have provided no fact.I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense?
otherwise?
Bullshit.What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to
honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National
Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . .
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talkThere is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever.
Bill.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony. Since ceding sovereignty
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, we don't >have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion?
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law.Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not
sufficient.
You can't have one country with twoAnd nobody is suggesting that we should'
governments.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, butYou have provided no fact.
I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense?
otherwise?
Bullshit.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to >>honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National
Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . .
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
Bill.
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:56:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour lack of education is clear. Get some English people to teach you juvenile logic for a start.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Your ignorance does not surprise me - the words may be different, but
On Thu, 1 May 2025 19:51:04 -0000 (UTC), TonyI understand it far better than you do, obviously (but that is not difficult >>is
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:and dealings with each other, and that particular districts should be
On Thu, 1 May 2025 07:09:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I think you might actually be insane. That reference does not even suggest >>>>that
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I gave you the references above - Clauses 71 and 73, but because you >>>>>apparently cannot follow simple directions, here they are for you:
On Thu, 1 May 2025 01:38:18 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No they did not, where are the words that say that? Not in your link >>>>>>that's
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2025 23:17:18 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>Nice and clear, so far -
On 2025-04-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 May 2025 08:37:13 +1200, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Before going any further we need to agree that the New Zealand >>>>>>>>>>Constitution
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
You saw it on Facebook it must be true.
You can look up the Act referred to for yourself, and see how it was
wrongly ended subsequently, but it is evidence that England did >>>>>>>>>>> understand that Sovereignty of Maori had been recognised by the >>>>>>>>>>> English Crown. I agree that you should be suspicious about any >>>>>>>>>>>social
media, but the Act referred to is still able to be studied. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Constitution_Act_1852 >>>>>>>>>>
Act
1852, is about the UK Government granting self-government to the >>>>>>>>>>Colony
of New Zealand. It was the second such act, the New Zealand >>>>>>>>>>Constitution
Act
1846 not having been fully implemented.
Note that the 1852 Act was rendered redundant by the Constitution Act >>>>>>>>>>1986.
" An Act to reform the constitutional law of New Zealand, to bring >>>>>>>>>>together
into one enactment certain provisions of constitutional significance, >>>>>>>>>>and
to provide that the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 of the >>>>>>>>>>Parliament
of
the United Kingdom shall cease to have effect as part of the law of >>>>>>>>>>New
Zealand"
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/DLM94204.html
The 1852 ACT is available here: >>>>>>>>>https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/webarchive/20210104000423/http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-GovCons-t1-body-d1-d1.html
and clauses 71 to 73 are relevant to this discussion.
By 1986, the Waitangi Tribunal had been set up for a number of years, >>>>>>>>>and undertook much of the work in ensuring that the Treaty is >>>>>>>>>understood and complied with - it is possible that this is the reason >>>>>>>>>the 1986 ACT did not include those provisions, but the Facebook >>>>>>>>>reference does show that they were understood back in 1852, and those >>>>>>>>>sentiments and obligations should now be understood in the context of >>>>>>>>>Treaty of Waitangi investigations and settlements, as well as >>>>>>>>>understanding by current New Zealanders.
4Regency
(1)Where, under the law of the United Kingdom, the royal functions are >>>>>>>>>being performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by a >>>>>>>>>Regent, the royal functions of the Sovereign in right of New Zealand >>>>>>>>>shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by that >>>>>>>>>Regent.
(2)Nothing in subsection (1) limits, in relation to any power of the >>>>>>>>>Sovereign in right of New Zealand, the authority of the >>>>>>>>>Governor-General to exercise that power.
Compare: 1983 No 20 s 4
5Demise of the Crown
(1)The death of the Sovereign shall have the effect of transferring >>>>>>>>>all the functions, duties, powers, authorities, rights, privileges, >>>>>>>>>and dignities belonging to the Crown to the Sovereign's successor, as >>>>>>>>>determined in accordance with the enactment of the Parliament of >>>>>>>>>England instituted The Act of Settlement (12 & 13 Will 3, c 2) and any >>>>>>>>>other law relating to the succession to the Throne, but shall >>>>>>>>>otherwise have no effect in law for any purpose.
(2)Every reference to the Sovereign in any document or instrument in >>>>>>>>>force on or after the commencement of this Act shall, unless the >>>>>>>>>context otherwise requires, be deemed to include a reference to the >>>>>>>>>Sovereign's heirs and successors.
Compare: 1908 No 42 >>>>>>>>>______________________________________________
I suspect we will be seeing
Nothing there that indicates that Maori did not cede sovereignty, and >>>>>>>>indeed
we
know they did.
Apparently nothing was clear to you, Tony - you give every indication >>>>>>>of not having read any of the message. The British Government >>>>>>>confirmed that Maori had not ceded sovereignty
for
sure.
71. {Her Majesty may cause Laws of Aboriginal Native Inhabitants to be >>>>>maintained.}
And Whereas it may be expedient that the laws, customs, and usages of >>>>>the aboriginal or native inhabitants of New Zealand, so far as they >>>>>are not repugnant to the general principles of humanity, should for >>>>>the present be maintained for the government of themselves, in all >>>>>their relations to and dealings with each other, and that particular >>>>>districts should be set apart within which such laws, customs, or >>>>>usages should be so observed:
It shall be lawful for her Majesty, by any Letters Patent to be issued >>>>>under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, from time to time to make >>>>>provision for the purposes aforesaid, any repugnancy of any such >>>>>native laws, customs, or usages to the law of England, or to any law, >>>>>statute, or usage in force in New Zealand, or in any part thereof, in >>>>>anywise notwithstanding.
73 {Saving as to the lands of Aboriginal Native Tribes.} It shall not >>>>>be lawful for any person other than her Majesty, her heirs or >>>>>successors, to purchase, or in anywise acquire or accept, from the >>>>>aboriginal natives, land of or belonging to, or used or occupied by >>>>>them in common as tribes or communities, or to accept any release or >>>>>extinguishment of the rights of such aboriginal natives in any such >>>>>land as aforesaid; and no conveyance or transfer, or agreement for the >>>>>conveyance or transfer of any such land, either in perpetuity or for >>>>>any term or period, either absolutely or conditionally, and either in >>>>>property, or by way of lease or occupancy, and no such release or >>>>>extinguishment, as aforesaid, shall be of any validity or effect, >>>>>unless the same be made to, or entered into with, and accepted by, her >>>>>Majesty, her heirs or successors: Provided Always, That it shall be >>>>>lawful for her Majesty, her heirs and successors, by instructions >>>>>under the Signet and Royal Sign Manual, or signified through one of >>>>>her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, to delegate her powers >>>>>of accepting such conveyances or agreements, releases or >>>>>relinquishments, to the Governor of New Zealand, or the Superintendent >>>>>of any province within the limits of such province, and to prescribe >>>>>or regulate the terms on which such conveyances or agreements, >>>>>releases, or extinguishments, shall be accepted.
Maori did not cede sovereignty, not even close.
Maybe you really should learn the Enbglish language for once.
See above. Maori ceded sovereignty and you have not shown otherwise. >>>What part of "the government of themselves, in all their relations to
- nothing aboutI didn't mention statements from Maori, what are you on?
statements from Maori.
No, what I wrote is correct. There is nothing in that link that suggests >>>>>>that
You could not have been more wrong if you had tried - but then you >>>>>>>appear to have understood nothing - or perhaps just had not bothered >>>>>>>reading.
Maori did not cede sovereignty. You have wasted your time with a childish >>>>>>attempted distraction, but hey that is not unusual is it?
I read it and explained to you that it was nothing to do with ceding >>>>>>sovereignty, you need a lot more education obviously. I suggest that you >>>>>>seek
it.
Hopefully the text above assists your understanding . . .
set apart within which such laws, customs, or usages should be so >>>observed:" do you not understand, Tony?
it?), It does not state that Maori did not cede sovereignty to the Queen. It >>is also out of context (sneaky move by you). Government and sovereignty are >>not
the same thing. I recommend you talk to somebody who understands English and >>has a better understanding of history and understands governance compared to >>sovereignty, your understanding of all of those is seriously lacking.
the intent is the same.
Restating a lie does not make it true - "of course" it was ceded as intended by all present.Show me where sovereignty was ceded.Aah, so perhaps you do understand - you cannot find any statement
supporting that assertion in the Treaty that was signed by most of
those present (the version in the Maori language), because sovereignty
was of course not ceded.
Asking me to find evidence that does notThat is correct - evidence that sovereignty was not ceded does not exist - therefore it was ceded because the intention was that it should be ceded- It was - period. Well done, you nearly got there but fell at the last pathetic wimper.
exist
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyBut you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now you agree there is no such evidence.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, we don't >>have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion?
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
Since ceding sovereigntyOf course it was.
was clearly not intended by Maori
it does not appear in the versionSovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your constant lies are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed to sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't.
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in
English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the
person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves
as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined
that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative.
Of what? Pray tell.Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law.Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not
sufficient.
You can't have one country with twoAnd nobody is suggesting that we should'
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show yourYou were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic twerp.
evidence, Tony.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, butYou have provided no fact.
I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense?
otherwise?
Bullshit.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to >>>honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National >>>Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . .
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony.
Bill.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyBut you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now you agree
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, we don't
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion?
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably.
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. You cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie.
Since ceding sovereigntyOf course it was.
was clearly not intended by Maori
it does not appear in the versionSovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your constant lies are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed to sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't.
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in >>English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the >>person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves
as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined
that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative.
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law.Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>sufficient.
You can't have one country with twoAnd nobody is suggesting that we should'
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show yourYou were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic twerp.
evidence, Tony.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, butYou have provided no fact.
I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>otherwise?
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense?
Bullshit.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to >>>>honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National >>>>Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . .
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony.
Bill.
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I understand that is correct, they certainly did not have a nation.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyBut you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now you >>agree
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, we >>>>don't
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion?
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably.
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. You >>cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie.
Since ceding sovereigntyOf course it was.
was clearly not intended by Maori
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been said
that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were notThe Chiefs were a mixed lot of course, but some of them were very intelligent and worldly wise. those particular ones knew exactly waht they were signing up to - sovereignty. The rest followed the wise ones I suspect.
understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a rushed >job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up until >that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
it does not appear in the versionSovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your constant >>lies
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in >>>English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the >>>person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves
as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined >>>that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative.
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed to
sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't.
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law.Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>sufficient.
You can't have one country with twoAnd nobody is suggesting that we should'
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show yourYou were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic twerp. >>>
evidence, Tony.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, but >>>that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony.You have provided no fact.
I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>otherwise?
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense?
Bullshit.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to >>>>>honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National >>>>>Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . .
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
Bill.
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyBut you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now you agree
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, we don't
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion?
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably.
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. You cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie.
Since ceding sovereigntyOf course it was.
was clearly not intended by Maori
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been said
that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were not
understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a rushed >job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up until >that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
it does not appear in the versionSovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your constant lies
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in >>>English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the >>>person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves
as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined >>>that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative.
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed to
sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't.
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law.Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>sufficient.
You can't have one country with twoAnd nobody is suggesting that we should'
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show yourYou were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic twerp. >>>
evidence, Tony.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, but >>>that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony.You have provided no fact.
I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>otherwise?
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense?
Bullshit.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to >>>>>honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National >>>>>Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . .
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
Bill.
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Nonsense, there is no historical analysis that supports that.
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyBut you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now you >>>agree
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, we >>>>>don't
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion?
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably.
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. You >>>cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie.
Since ceding sovereigntyOf course it was.
was clearly not intended by Maori
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been said >>that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were not >>understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a rushed >>job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up until >>that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
At the time the British had firepower, but they were losing too many
Pakeha to Maori in various conflicts, and it was also becoming clear
that many Pakeha had taken advantage of 'misunderstandings' to cheat
Maori from lands. The number of Maori greatly exceeded that of
European settlers; it was important that conflict be brought to an
end. The Treaty signed by Maori did not mention Sovereignty. In effect
Maori were saying that they wanted to retain their lands and manage
their people as they had to that time, and for the Queen, through the >Governor, to manage the Pakeha so that all could live in harmony.
More nonsense. They made an agreement to be subservient to the Queen. That is ceding sovereignty.
it does not appear in the versionSovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your constant >>>lies
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in >>>>English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the >>>>person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves >>>>as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined >>>>that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative.
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed to
sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't.
Sovereignty was a word that did not appear in the Treaty signed by the >Chiefs. They cannot have agreed to something that was not in the
document.
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law.Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>>sufficient.
You can't have one country with twoAnd nobody is suggesting that we should'
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show yourYou were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic twerp. >>>>
evidence, Tony.
You have provided no fact.
I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>>otherwise?
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense?
Bullshit.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to >>>>>>honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National >>>>>>Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . .
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever. >>>>I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, but >>>>that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
Bill.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Nonsense, there is no historical analysis that supports that.
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now you >>>>agree
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, we >>>>>>don't
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion?
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably.
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. You >>>>cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie.
Since ceding sovereigntyOf course it was.
was clearly not intended by Maori
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been said >>>that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were not >>>understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a rushed >>>job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up until >>>that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
At the time the British had firepower, but they were losing too many
Pakeha to Maori in various conflicts, and it was also becoming clear
that many Pakeha had taken advantage of 'misunderstandings' to cheat
Maori from lands. The number of Maori greatly exceeded that of
European settlers; it was important that conflict be brought to an
end. The Treaty signed by Maori did not mention Sovereignty. In effect >>Maori were saying that they wanted to retain their lands and manage
their people as they had to that time, and for the Queen, through the >>Governor, to manage the Pakeha so that all could live in harmony.
More nonsense. They made an agreement to be subservient to the Queen. That is >ceding sovereignty.
it does not appear in the versionSovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your constant >>>>lies
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in >>>>>English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the >>>>>person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves >>>>>as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined >>>>>that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative.
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed to >>>> sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't.
Sovereignty was a word that did not appear in the Treaty signed by the >>Chiefs. They cannot have agreed to something that was not in the
document.
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law.Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>>>sufficient.
You can't have one country with twoAnd nobody is suggesting that we should'
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show yourYou were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic twerp.
evidence, Tony.
You have provided no fact.
I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>>>otherwise?
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense?
Bullshit.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to >>>>>>>honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National >>>>>>>Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . .
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever. >>>>>I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, but >>>>>that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
Bill.
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
On Sat, 3 May 2025 20:57:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour self-analysis is certainly a welcome change. But you are not far right any more than I am.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More nonsense. They made an agreement to be subservient to the Queen. That is >>ceding sovereignty.
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now you >>>>>agree
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, we >>>>>>>don't
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion?
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably.
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. You >>>>>cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie.
Since ceding sovereigntyOf course it was.
was clearly not intended by Maori
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been said >>>>that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were not >>>>understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a rushed >>>>job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up until >>>>that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
At the time the British had firepower, but they were losing too many >>>Pakeha to Maori in various conflicts, and it was also becoming clear
that many Pakeha had taken advantage of 'misunderstandings' to cheat >>>Maori from lands. The number of Maori greatly exceeded that of
European settlers; it was important that conflict be brought to an
end. The Treaty signed by Maori did not mention Sovereignty. In effect >>>Maori were saying that they wanted to retain their lands and manage
their people as they had to that time, and for the Queen, through the >>>Governor, to manage the Pakeha so that all could live in harmony. >>Nonsense, there is no historical analysis that supports that.
Sovereignty was a word that did not appear in the Treaty signed by the >>>Chiefs. They cannot have agreed to something that was not in the >>>document.
it does not appear in the versionSovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your constant >>>>>lies
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in >>>>>>English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the >>>>>>person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves >>>>>>as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined >>>>>>that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative.
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed to >>>>> sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't. >>>
So says an uneducated bigoted racist twerp who offers no evidence for
his racist (and wrong) far-right views . . . .
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law. >>>>>>>>Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>>>>sufficient.And nobody is suggesting that we should'
You can't have one country with two
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show yourYou were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic >>>>>twerp.
evidence, Tony.
You have provided no fact.
I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>>>>otherwise?
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense?
Bullshit.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to >>>>>>>>honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National >>>>>>>>Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . .
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever. >>>>>>I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, but >>>>>>that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
Bill.
On Sat, 3 May 2025 20:57:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More nonsense. They made an agreement to be subservient to the Queen. That is >>ceding sovereignty.
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now you >>>>>agree
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, we >>>>>>>don't
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion?
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably.
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. You >>>>>cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie.
Since ceding sovereigntyOf course it was.
was clearly not intended by Maori
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been said >>>>that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were not >>>>understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a rushed >>>>job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up until >>>>that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
At the time the British had firepower, but they were losing too many >>>Pakeha to Maori in various conflicts, and it was also becoming clear
that many Pakeha had taken advantage of 'misunderstandings' to cheat >>>Maori from lands. The number of Maori greatly exceeded that of
European settlers; it was important that conflict be brought to an
end. The Treaty signed by Maori did not mention Sovereignty. In effect >>>Maori were saying that they wanted to retain their lands and manage
their people as they had to that time, and for the Queen, through the >>>Governor, to manage the Pakeha so that all could live in harmony. >>Nonsense, there is no historical analysis that supports that.
Sovereignty was a word that did not appear in the Treaty signed by the >>>Chiefs. They cannot have agreed to something that was not in the >>>document.
it does not appear in the versionSovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your constant >>>>>lies
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in >>>>>>English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the >>>>>>person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves >>>>>>as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined >>>>>>that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative.
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed to >>>>> sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't. >>>
So says an uneducated bigoted racist twerp who offers no evidence for
his racist (and wrong) far-right views . . . .
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law. >>>>>>>>Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>>>>sufficient.And nobody is suggesting that we should'
You can't have one country with two
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show yourYou were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic twerp.
evidence, Tony.
You have provided no fact.
I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>>>>otherwise?
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense?
Bullshit.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to >>>>>>>>honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National >>>>>>>>Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . .
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever. >>>>>>I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, but >>>>>>that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
Bill.
On Sun, 04 May 2025 09:51:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2025 20:57:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou logically lost the argument there Rich. Your basis of asserting
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More nonsense. They made an agreement to be subservient to the Queen. That is
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion? >>>>>>>>It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, we >>>>>>>>don't
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
agree
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. You >>>>>>cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie.
Since ceding sovereigntyOf course it was.
was clearly not intended by Maori
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been said >>>>>that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were not >>>>>understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a rushed >>>>>job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up until
that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
At the time the British had firepower, but they were losing too many >>>>Pakeha to Maori in various conflicts, and it was also becoming clear >>>>that many Pakeha had taken advantage of 'misunderstandings' to cheat >>>>Maori from lands. The number of Maori greatly exceeded that of
European settlers; it was important that conflict be brought to an
end. The Treaty signed by Maori did not mention Sovereignty. In effect >>>>Maori were saying that they wanted to retain their lands and manage >>>>their people as they had to that time, and for the Queen, through the >>>>Governor, to manage the Pakeha so that all could live in harmony. >>>Nonsense, there is no historical analysis that supports that.
Sovereignty was a word that did not appear in the Treaty signed by the >>>>Chiefs. They cannot have agreed to something that was not in the >>>>document.
it does not appear in the versionSovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your constant >>>>>>lies
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in >>>>>>>English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the >>>>>>>person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves >>>>>>>as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined >>>>>>>that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative.
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed to >>>>>> sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't. >>>>
ceding sovereignty.
So says an uneducated bigoted racist twerp who offers no evidence for
his racist (and wrong) far-right views . . . .
that Maori did not cede sovereignty by signing the Treaty was always
weak but by resorting to a personal attack like this clearly shows you
do not have what it takes to sustain your assertion.
At the time the Treaty was signed Maori greatly outnumbered non-Maori
in NZ (by 7 to 1 if I recall correctly an estimate from a historian),
but the trend for increased immigration from Australia and the UK was
well established. From the point of view of the (British) Crown, the
purpose of the Treaty was to avoid suppression of Maori by the usual
military means employed elsewhere in establishing what became the
British empire.
The intent of the Crown to have a ToW signed by Maori was purely to
ensure sovereignty was ceded. For the British this was a novel idea
because in every other country that became part of the empire the >assimilation of new countries by the British was purely by military
force and emigration. The same means were also used by France, Spain
and Portugal in various parts of the world.
While Maori Chiefs were asked to sign the ToW, the fact is there was
no concept of unity among Maori and certainly they would never have >understood the finer meaning of 'sovereignty'. This is a possible
reason why there is no mention of it - along with no Maori wording
that 'sovereignty' could be translated to.
However subsequent to the signing of the ToW the emerging forms of
government right up to full independence being granted (in 1947)
clearly indicated that sovereignty had been ceded by Maori.
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law. >>>>>>>>>Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>>>>>sufficient.And nobody is suggesting that we should'
You can't have one country with two
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show yourYou were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic twerp.
evidence, Tony.
You have provided no fact.
I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>>>>>otherwise?
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense?
Bullshit.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to >>>>>>>>>honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National >>>>>>>>>Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . .
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever. >>>>>>>I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, but >>>>>>>that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
Bill.
On Tue, 06 May 2025 15:21:52 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>No they are not, the entire reason for the treaty from the English point of view was to cede sovereignty and what that led to. That is obvious, From a Maori point of view they understood that, because they were and are not stupid. You are treating them as gullible, they were not.
wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2025 09:51:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2025 20:57:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou logically lost the argument there Rich. Your basis of asserting
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More nonsense. They made an agreement to be subservient to the Queen. That >>>>is
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now >>>>>>>you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>don't
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion? >>>>>>>>>It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, >>>>>>>>>we
wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably. >>>>>>>>I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
agree
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. You >>>>>>>cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie.
Since ceding sovereigntyOf course it was.
was clearly not intended by Maori
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been said >>>>>>that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were not >>>>>>understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a rushed
job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up >>>>>>until
that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
At the time the British had firepower, but they were losing too many >>>>>Pakeha to Maori in various conflicts, and it was also becoming clear >>>>>that many Pakeha had taken advantage of 'misunderstandings' to cheat >>>>>Maori from lands. The number of Maori greatly exceeded that of >>>>>European settlers; it was important that conflict be brought to an >>>>>end. The Treaty signed by Maori did not mention Sovereignty. In effect >>>>>Maori were saying that they wanted to retain their lands and manage >>>>>their people as they had to that time, and for the Queen, through the >>>>>Governor, to manage the Pakeha so that all could live in harmony. >>>>Nonsense, there is no historical analysis that supports that.
Sovereignty was a word that did not appear in the Treaty signed by the >>>>>Chiefs. They cannot have agreed to something that was not in the >>>>>document.
it does not appear in the versionSovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your >>>>>>>constant
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in >>>>>>>>English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the >>>>>>>>person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves >>>>>>>>as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined >>>>>>>>that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative.
lies
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed to >>>>>>> sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't. >>>>>
ceding sovereignty.
So says an uneducated bigoted racist twerp who offers no evidence for
his racist (and wrong) far-right views . . . .
that Maori did not cede sovereignty by signing the Treaty was always
weak but by resorting to a personal attack like this clearly shows you
do not have what it takes to sustain your assertion.
At the time the Treaty was signed Maori greatly outnumbered non-Maori
in NZ (by 7 to 1 if I recall correctly an estimate from a historian),
but the trend for increased immigration from Australia and the UK was
well established. From the point of view of the (British) Crown, the >>purpose of the Treaty was to avoid suppression of Maori by the usual >>military means employed elsewhere in establishing what became the
British empire.
The intent of the Crown to have a ToW signed by Maori was purely to
ensure sovereignty was ceded. For the British this was a novel idea >>because in every other country that became part of the empire the >>assimilation of new countries by the British was purely by military
force and emigration. The same means were also used by France, Spain
and Portugal in various parts of the world.
While Maori Chiefs were asked to sign the ToW, the fact is there was
no concept of unity among Maori and certainly they would never have >>understood the finer meaning of 'sovereignty'. This is a possible
reason why there is no mention of it - along with no Maori wording
that 'sovereignty' could be translated to.
However subsequent to the signing of the ToW the emerging forms of >>government right up to full independence being granted (in 1947)
clearly indicated that sovereignty had been ceded by Maori.
I have given a number of links to determinations from academics and
lawyers that sovereignty was _not_ ceded. At least some of Maori would
have been aware of the difference between what they agreed to and full >control of both Pakeha and Maori from the British, but the documents
are clear.
I agree that Pakeha effectively ignored the provisions of the TreatyThere is no misinterpretation,.you continue to assume you are right with no evidence - still no evidence.
for their own advantage, with many examples of 'sales' being based on >"misunderstandings" - with the evidence such that redress was
ultimately ordered following Court judgments. There also arose a
presumption among many Pakeha, including lawyers and law schools, that >accepted this misinterpretation of the Treaty.
At the time the Treaty was signed you are correct that MaoriSo now you are saying Maori were forced to sign at gunpoint, that is an outrageous lie and one that I have never heard before so you are making it up.
population was greater than that of Pakeha - but there was also a
significant difference in armaments - Pakeha had more guns than Maori
which outweighed greater local knowledge by Maori.
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law. >>>>>>>>>>Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>>>>>>sufficient.And nobody is suggesting that we should'
You can't have one country with two
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show your
evidence, Tony.
You have provided no fact.
I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>>>>>>otherwise?
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense?
Bullshit.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to >>>>>>>>>>honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National >>>>>>>>>>Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . .
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever. >>>>>>>>I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, but >>>>>>>>that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony. >>>>>>> You were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic >>>>>>>twerp.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>>>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
Bill.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I agree that some of the representatives of the Crown would have
On Tue, 06 May 2025 15:21:52 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:No they are not, the entire reason for the treaty from the English point of >view was to cede sovereignty and what that led to. That is obvious, From a >Maori point of view they understood that, because they were and are not stupid.
On Sun, 04 May 2025 09:51:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2025 20:57:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou logically lost the argument there Rich. Your basis of asserting
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More nonsense. They made an agreement to be subservient to the Queen. That >>>>>is
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now >>>>>>>>you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>don't
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion? >>>>>>>>>>It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, >>>>>>>>>>we
wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably. >>>>>>>>>I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
agree
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. You
cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie. >>>>>>>>>Since ceding sovereignty
was clearly not intended by MaoriOf course it was.
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been said >>>>>>>that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were not >>>>>>>understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a rushed
job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up >>>>>>>until
that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
At the time the British had firepower, but they were losing too many >>>>>>Pakeha to Maori in various conflicts, and it was also becoming clear >>>>>>that many Pakeha had taken advantage of 'misunderstandings' to cheat >>>>>>Maori from lands. The number of Maori greatly exceeded that of >>>>>>European settlers; it was important that conflict be brought to an >>>>>>end. The Treaty signed by Maori did not mention Sovereignty. In effect >>>>>>Maori were saying that they wanted to retain their lands and manage >>>>>>their people as they had to that time, and for the Queen, through the >>>>>>Governor, to manage the Pakeha so that all could live in harmony. >>>>>Nonsense, there is no historical analysis that supports that.
Sovereignty was a word that did not appear in the Treaty signed by the >>>>>>Chiefs. They cannot have agreed to something that was not in the >>>>>>document.
it does not appear in the versionlies
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in >>>>>>>>>English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the >>>>>>>>>person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves >>>>>>>>>as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined >>>>>>>>>that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative. >>>>>>>> Sovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your >>>>>>>>constant
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed to >>>>>>>> sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't. >>>>>>
ceding sovereignty.
So says an uneducated bigoted racist twerp who offers no evidence for >>>>his racist (and wrong) far-right views . . . .
that Maori did not cede sovereignty by signing the Treaty was always
weak but by resorting to a personal attack like this clearly shows you
do not have what it takes to sustain your assertion.
At the time the Treaty was signed Maori greatly outnumbered non-Maori
in NZ (by 7 to 1 if I recall correctly an estimate from a historian),
but the trend for increased immigration from Australia and the UK was >>>well established. From the point of view of the (British) Crown, the >>>purpose of the Treaty was to avoid suppression of Maori by the usual >>>military means employed elsewhere in establishing what became the
British empire.
The intent of the Crown to have a ToW signed by Maori was purely to >>>ensure sovereignty was ceded. For the British this was a novel idea >>>because in every other country that became part of the empire the >>>assimilation of new countries by the British was purely by military
force and emigration. The same means were also used by France, Spain
and Portugal in various parts of the world.
While Maori Chiefs were asked to sign the ToW, the fact is there was
no concept of unity among Maori and certainly they would never have >>>understood the finer meaning of 'sovereignty'. This is a possible
reason why there is no mention of it - along with no Maori wording
that 'sovereignty' could be translated to.
However subsequent to the signing of the ToW the emerging forms of >>>government right up to full independence being granted (in 1947)
clearly indicated that sovereignty had been ceded by Maori.
I have given a number of links to determinations from academics and
lawyers that sovereignty was _not_ ceded. At least some of Maori would
have been aware of the difference between what they agreed to and full >>control of both Pakeha and Maori from the British, but the documents
are clear.
You are treating them as gullible, they were not.
I have posted a number of url's giving just that evidence - whatThere is no misinterpretation,.you continue to assume you are right with no >evidence - still no evidence.
I agree that Pakeha effectively ignored the provisions of the Treaty
for their own advantage, with many examples of 'sales' being based on >>"misunderstandings" - with the evidence such that redress was
ultimately ordered following Court judgments. There also arose a >>presumption among many Pakeha, including lawyers and law schools, that >>accepted this misinterpretation of the Treaty.
the warring conflicts between settlers and soldiers against Maori.So now you are saying Maori were forced to sign at gunpoint, that is an >outrageous lie and one that I have never heard before so you are making it up. I did not say that at all - I was referring to the sad realities of
At the time the Treaty was signed you are correct that Maori
population was greater than that of Pakeha - but there was also a >>significant difference in armaments - Pakeha had more guns than Maori
which outweighed greater local knowledge by Maori.
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law. >>>>>>>>>>>Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>>>>>>>sufficient.And nobody is suggesting that we should'
You can't have one country with two
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show your
evidence, Tony.
You have provided no fact.
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense? >>>>>>>>>>>I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>>>>>>>otherwise?
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, but >>>>>>>>>that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony. >>>>>>>> You were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic >>>>>>>>twerp.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to
honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National >>>>>>>>>>>Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . . >>>>>>>>>>Bullshit.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>>>>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
Bill.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Answered in response to previous post - perhaps you accidentally sent
On Tue, 06 May 2025 15:21:52 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:No they are not, the entire reason for the treaty from the English point of >view was to cede sovereignty and what that led to. That is obvious, From a >Maori point of view they understood that, because they were and are not stupid.
On Sun, 04 May 2025 09:51:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2025 20:57:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou logically lost the argument there Rich. Your basis of asserting
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More nonsense. They made an agreement to be subservient to the Queen. That >>>>>is
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now >>>>>>>>you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>don't
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion? >>>>>>>>>>It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, >>>>>>>>>>we
wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably. >>>>>>>>>I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
agree
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. You
cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie. >>>>>>>>>Since ceding sovereignty
was clearly not intended by MaoriOf course it was.
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been said >>>>>>>that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were not >>>>>>>understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a rushed
job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up >>>>>>>until
that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
At the time the British had firepower, but they were losing too many >>>>>>Pakeha to Maori in various conflicts, and it was also becoming clear >>>>>>that many Pakeha had taken advantage of 'misunderstandings' to cheat >>>>>>Maori from lands. The number of Maori greatly exceeded that of >>>>>>European settlers; it was important that conflict be brought to an >>>>>>end. The Treaty signed by Maori did not mention Sovereignty. In effect >>>>>>Maori were saying that they wanted to retain their lands and manage >>>>>>their people as they had to that time, and for the Queen, through the >>>>>>Governor, to manage the Pakeha so that all could live in harmony. >>>>>Nonsense, there is no historical analysis that supports that.
Sovereignty was a word that did not appear in the Treaty signed by the >>>>>>Chiefs. They cannot have agreed to something that was not in the >>>>>>document.
it does not appear in the versionlies
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in >>>>>>>>>English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the >>>>>>>>>person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves >>>>>>>>>as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined >>>>>>>>>that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative. >>>>>>>> Sovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your >>>>>>>>constant
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed to >>>>>>>> sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't. >>>>>>
ceding sovereignty.
So says an uneducated bigoted racist twerp who offers no evidence for >>>>his racist (and wrong) far-right views . . . .
that Maori did not cede sovereignty by signing the Treaty was always
weak but by resorting to a personal attack like this clearly shows you
do not have what it takes to sustain your assertion.
At the time the Treaty was signed Maori greatly outnumbered non-Maori
in NZ (by 7 to 1 if I recall correctly an estimate from a historian),
but the trend for increased immigration from Australia and the UK was >>>well established. From the point of view of the (British) Crown, the >>>purpose of the Treaty was to avoid suppression of Maori by the usual >>>military means employed elsewhere in establishing what became the
British empire.
The intent of the Crown to have a ToW signed by Maori was purely to >>>ensure sovereignty was ceded. For the British this was a novel idea >>>because in every other country that became part of the empire the >>>assimilation of new countries by the British was purely by military
force and emigration. The same means were also used by France, Spain
and Portugal in various parts of the world.
While Maori Chiefs were asked to sign the ToW, the fact is there was
no concept of unity among Maori and certainly they would never have >>>understood the finer meaning of 'sovereignty'. This is a possible
reason why there is no mention of it - along with no Maori wording
that 'sovereignty' could be translated to.
However subsequent to the signing of the ToW the emerging forms of >>>government right up to full independence being granted (in 1947)
clearly indicated that sovereignty had been ceded by Maori.
I have given a number of links to determinations from academics and
lawyers that sovereignty was _not_ ceded. At least some of Maori would
have been aware of the difference between what they agreed to and full >>control of both Pakeha and Maori from the British, but the documents
are clear.
You are treating them as gullible, they were not.
There is no misinterpretation,.you continue to assume you are right with no >evidence - still no evidence.
I agree that Pakeha effectively ignored the provisions of the Treaty
for their own advantage, with many examples of 'sales' being based on >>"misunderstandings" - with the evidence such that redress was
ultimately ordered following Court judgments. There also arose a >>presumption among many Pakeha, including lawyers and law schools, that >>accepted this misinterpretation of the Treaty.
So now you are saying Maori were forced to sign at gunpoint, that is an >outrageous lie and one that I have never heard before so you are making it up.
At the time the Treaty was signed you are correct that Maori
population was greater than that of Pakeha - but there was also a >>significant difference in armaments - Pakeha had more guns than Maori
which outweighed greater local knowledge by Maori.
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law. >>>>>>>>>>>Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>>>>>>>sufficient.And nobody is suggesting that we should'
You can't have one country with two
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show your
evidence, Tony.
You have provided no fact.
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense? >>>>>>>>>>>I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>>>>>>>otherwise?
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, but >>>>>>>>>that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony. >>>>>>>> You were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic >>>>>>>>twerp.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to
honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National >>>>>>>>>>>Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . . >>>>>>>>>>Bullshit.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>>>>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
Bill.
On Tue, 6 May 2025 04:45:32 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes it was. You provide no evidence that
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I agree that some of the representatives of the Crown would have
On Tue, 06 May 2025 15:21:52 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:No they are not, the entire reason for the treaty from the English point of >>view was to cede sovereignty and what that led to. That is obvious, From a >>Maori point of view they understood that, because they were and are not >>stupid.
On Sun, 04 May 2025 09:51:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2025 20:57:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You logically lost the argument there Rich. Your basis of asserting >>>>that Maori did not cede sovereignty by signing the Treaty was always >>>>weak but by resorting to a personal attack like this clearly shows you >>>>do not have what it takes to sustain your assertion.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More nonsense. They made an agreement to be subservient to the Queen. >>>>>>That
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now >>>>>>>>>you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>don't
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion? >>>>>>>>>>>It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, >>>>>>>>>>>we
wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably. >>>>>>>>>>I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
agree
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. >>>>>>>>>You
cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie. >>>>>>>>>>Since ceding sovereignty
was clearly not intended by MaoriOf course it was.
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been said
that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were not >>>>>>>>understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a >>>>>>>>rushed
job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up >>>>>>>>until
that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
At the time the British had firepower, but they were losing too many >>>>>>>Pakeha to Maori in various conflicts, and it was also becoming clear >>>>>>>that many Pakeha had taken advantage of 'misunderstandings' to cheat >>>>>>>Maori from lands. The number of Maori greatly exceeded that of >>>>>>>European settlers; it was important that conflict be brought to an >>>>>>>end. The Treaty signed by Maori did not mention Sovereignty. In effect >>>>>>>Maori were saying that they wanted to retain their lands and manage >>>>>>>their people as they had to that time, and for the Queen, through the >>>>>>>Governor, to manage the Pakeha so that all could live in harmony. >>>>>>Nonsense, there is no historical analysis that supports that.
it does not appear in the versionlies
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in >>>>>>>>>>English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the
person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves >>>>>>>>>>as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined
that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative. >>>>>>>>> Sovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your >>>>>>>>>constant
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed >>>>>>>>>to
sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't.
Sovereignty was a word that did not appear in the Treaty signed by the >>>>>>>Chiefs. They cannot have agreed to something that was not in the >>>>>>>document.
is
ceding sovereignty.
So says an uneducated bigoted racist twerp who offers no evidence for >>>>>his racist (and wrong) far-right views . . . .
At the time the Treaty was signed Maori greatly outnumbered non-Maori >>>>in NZ (by 7 to 1 if I recall correctly an estimate from a historian), >>>>but the trend for increased immigration from Australia and the UK was >>>>well established. From the point of view of the (British) Crown, the >>>>purpose of the Treaty was to avoid suppression of Maori by the usual >>>>military means employed elsewhere in establishing what became the >>>>British empire.
The intent of the Crown to have a ToW signed by Maori was purely to >>>>ensure sovereignty was ceded. For the British this was a novel idea >>>>because in every other country that became part of the empire the >>>>assimilation of new countries by the British was purely by military >>>>force and emigration. The same means were also used by France, Spain >>>>and Portugal in various parts of the world.
While Maori Chiefs were asked to sign the ToW, the fact is there was
no concept of unity among Maori and certainly they would never have >>>>understood the finer meaning of 'sovereignty'. This is a possible >>>>reason why there is no mention of it - along with no Maori wording
that 'sovereignty' could be translated to.
However subsequent to the signing of the ToW the emerging forms of >>>>government right up to full independence being granted (in 1947) >>>>clearly indicated that sovereignty had been ceded by Maori.
I have given a number of links to determinations from academics and >>>lawyers that sovereignty was _not_ ceded. At least some of Maori would >>>have been aware of the difference between what they agreed to and full >>>control of both Pakeha and Maori from the British, but the documents
are clear.
You are treating them as gullible, they were not.
wanted Maori to have ceded sovereignty, but unfortunately for those
people, that was not what was agreed.
It is you that wants to change the long acknowledged fact that sovereignty was ceded, it is for you to provide evidence of your political and racist driven wish. You have provided zero.I have posted a number of url's giving just that evidence - whatThere is no misinterpretation,.you continue to assume you are right with no >>evidence - still no evidence.
I agree that Pakeha effectively ignored the provisions of the Treaty
for their own advantage, with many examples of 'sales' being based on >>>"misunderstandings" - with the evidence such that redress was
ultimately ordered following Court judgments. There also arose a >>>presumption among many Pakeha, including lawyers and law schools, that >>>accepted this misinterpretation of the Treaty.
evidence have you posted for your opinions, Tony?
I believe you certainly did and my English comprehension is hugely superior to yours.I did not say that at allSo now you are saying Maori were forced to sign at gunpoint, that is an >>outrageous lie and one that I have never heard before so you are making it up.
At the time the Treaty was signed you are correct that Maori
population was greater than that of Pakeha - but there was also a >>>significant difference in armaments - Pakeha had more guns than Maori >>>which outweighed greater local knowledge by Maori.
- I was referring to the sad realities of
the warring conflicts between settlers and soldiers against Maori.
Such considerations led to the desire on both sides to reach an
agreement that reduced deaths on both sides.
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law. >>>>>>>>>>>>Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>>>>>>>>sufficient.And nobody is suggesting that we should'
You can't have one country with two
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show your
evidence, Tony.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, butYou have provided no fact.
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense? >>>>>>>>>>>>I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>>>>>>>>otherwise?
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen >>>>>>>>>>>>to
honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National
Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . . >>>>>>>>>>>Bullshit.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>>>>>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony. >>>>>>>>> You were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic >>>>>>>>>twerp.
Bill.
On Tue, 6 May 2025 04:46:23 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo answer was provided. You don't need to answer the same post twice.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Answered in response to previous post
On Tue, 06 May 2025 15:21:52 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:No they are not, the entire reason for the treaty from the English point of >>view was to cede sovereignty and what that led to. That is obvious, From a >>Maori point of view they understood that, because they were and are not >>stupid.
On Sun, 04 May 2025 09:51:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2025 20:57:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You logically lost the argument there Rich. Your basis of asserting >>>>that Maori did not cede sovereignty by signing the Treaty was always >>>>weak but by resorting to a personal attack like this clearly shows you >>>>do not have what it takes to sustain your assertion.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More nonsense. They made an agreement to be subservient to the Queen. >>>>>>That
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now >>>>>>>>>you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>don't
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion? >>>>>>>>>>>It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, >>>>>>>>>>>we
wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably. >>>>>>>>>>I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
agree
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. >>>>>>>>>You
cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie. >>>>>>>>>>Since ceding sovereignty
was clearly not intended by MaoriOf course it was.
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been said
that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were not >>>>>>>>understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a >>>>>>>>rushed
job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up >>>>>>>>until
that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
At the time the British had firepower, but they were losing too many >>>>>>>Pakeha to Maori in various conflicts, and it was also becoming clear >>>>>>>that many Pakeha had taken advantage of 'misunderstandings' to cheat >>>>>>>Maori from lands. The number of Maori greatly exceeded that of >>>>>>>European settlers; it was important that conflict be brought to an >>>>>>>end. The Treaty signed by Maori did not mention Sovereignty. In effect >>>>>>>Maori were saying that they wanted to retain their lands and manage >>>>>>>their people as they had to that time, and for the Queen, through the >>>>>>>Governor, to manage the Pakeha so that all could live in harmony. >>>>>>Nonsense, there is no historical analysis that supports that.
it does not appear in the versionlies
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in >>>>>>>>>>English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the
person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves >>>>>>>>>>as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined
that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative. >>>>>>>>> Sovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your >>>>>>>>>constant
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed >>>>>>>>>to
sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't.
Sovereignty was a word that did not appear in the Treaty signed by the >>>>>>>Chiefs. They cannot have agreed to something that was not in the >>>>>>>document.
is
ceding sovereignty.
So says an uneducated bigoted racist twerp who offers no evidence for >>>>>his racist (and wrong) far-right views . . . .
At the time the Treaty was signed Maori greatly outnumbered non-Maori >>>>in NZ (by 7 to 1 if I recall correctly an estimate from a historian), >>>>but the trend for increased immigration from Australia and the UK was >>>>well established. From the point of view of the (British) Crown, the >>>>purpose of the Treaty was to avoid suppression of Maori by the usual >>>>military means employed elsewhere in establishing what became the >>>>British empire.
The intent of the Crown to have a ToW signed by Maori was purely to >>>>ensure sovereignty was ceded. For the British this was a novel idea >>>>because in every other country that became part of the empire the >>>>assimilation of new countries by the British was purely by military >>>>force and emigration. The same means were also used by France, Spain >>>>and Portugal in various parts of the world.
While Maori Chiefs were asked to sign the ToW, the fact is there was
no concept of unity among Maori and certainly they would never have >>>>understood the finer meaning of 'sovereignty'. This is a possible >>>>reason why there is no mention of it - along with no Maori wording
that 'sovereignty' could be translated to.
However subsequent to the signing of the ToW the emerging forms of >>>>government right up to full independence being granted (in 1947) >>>>clearly indicated that sovereignty had been ceded by Maori.
I have given a number of links to determinations from academics and >>>lawyers that sovereignty was _not_ ceded. At least some of Maori would >>>have been aware of the difference between what they agreed to and full >>>control of both Pakeha and Maori from the British, but the documents
are clear.
You are treating them as gullible, they were not.
- perhaps you accidentally sentNot an accident, it is a piece of dodgy code in my newsreader, it is imperfect like yours.
your post, again unsupported by any evidence, twice.
Have a check and if you had a real point, supported by evidence, bySee my previous response, you are the one that needs to prove your point, I have history on my side.
all means try again, Tony.
There is no misinterpretation,.you continue to assume you are right with no >>evidence - still no evidence.
I agree that Pakeha effectively ignored the provisions of the Treaty
for their own advantage, with many examples of 'sales' being based on >>>"misunderstandings" - with the evidence such that redress was
ultimately ordered following Court judgments. There also arose a >>>presumption among many Pakeha, including lawyers and law schools, that >>>accepted this misinterpretation of the Treaty.
So now you are saying Maori were forced to sign at gunpoint, that is an >>outrageous lie and one that I have never heard before so you are making it up.
At the time the Treaty was signed you are correct that Maori
population was greater than that of Pakeha - but there was also a >>>significant difference in armaments - Pakeha had more guns than Maori >>>which outweighed greater local knowledge by Maori.
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law. >>>>>>>>>>>>Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>>>>>>>>sufficient.And nobody is suggesting that we should'
You can't have one country with two
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show your
evidence, Tony.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, butYou have provided no fact.
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense? >>>>>>>>>>>>I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>>>>>>>>otherwise?
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen >>>>>>>>>>>>to
honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National
Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . . >>>>>>>>>>>Bullshit.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>>>>>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony. >>>>>>>>> You were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic >>>>>>>>>twerp.
Bill.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 04:45:32 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes it was. You provide no evidence that
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I agree that some of the representatives of the Crown would have
On Tue, 06 May 2025 15:21:52 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:No they are not, the entire reason for the treaty from the English point of >>>view was to cede sovereignty and what that led to. That is obvious, From a >>>Maori point of view they understood that, because they were and are not >>>stupid.
On Sun, 04 May 2025 09:51:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2025 20:57:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You logically lost the argument there Rich. Your basis of asserting >>>>>that Maori did not cede sovereignty by signing the Treaty was always >>>>>weak but by resorting to a personal attack like this clearly shows you >>>>>do not have what it takes to sustain your assertion.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More nonsense. They made an agreement to be subservient to the Queen. >>>>>>>That
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>we
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion? >>>>>>>>>>>>It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded,
wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
don't
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably. >>>>>>>>>>>I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
you
agree
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. >>>>>>>>>>You
cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie. >>>>>>>>>>>Since ceding sovereignty
was clearly not intended by MaoriOf course it was.
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been said
that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were not >>>>>>>>>understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a >>>>>>>>>rushed
job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up >>>>>>>>>until
that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
At the time the British had firepower, but they were losing too many >>>>>>>>Pakeha to Maori in various conflicts, and it was also becoming clear >>>>>>>>that many Pakeha had taken advantage of 'misunderstandings' to cheat >>>>>>>>Maori from lands. The number of Maori greatly exceeded that of >>>>>>>>European settlers; it was important that conflict be brought to an >>>>>>>>end. The Treaty signed by Maori did not mention Sovereignty. In effect >>>>>>>>Maori were saying that they wanted to retain their lands and manage >>>>>>>>their people as they had to that time, and for the Queen, through the >>>>>>>>Governor, to manage the Pakeha so that all could live in harmony. >>>>>>>Nonsense, there is no historical analysis that supports that.
it does not appear in the versionlies
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in
English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the
person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves
as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined
that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative. >>>>>>>>>> Sovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your >>>>>>>>>>constant
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed >>>>>>>>>>to
sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't.
Sovereignty was a word that did not appear in the Treaty signed by the >>>>>>>>Chiefs. They cannot have agreed to something that was not in the >>>>>>>>document.
is
ceding sovereignty.
So says an uneducated bigoted racist twerp who offers no evidence for >>>>>>his racist (and wrong) far-right views . . . .
At the time the Treaty was signed Maori greatly outnumbered non-Maori >>>>>in NZ (by 7 to 1 if I recall correctly an estimate from a historian), >>>>>but the trend for increased immigration from Australia and the UK was >>>>>well established. From the point of view of the (British) Crown, the >>>>>purpose of the Treaty was to avoid suppression of Maori by the usual >>>>>military means employed elsewhere in establishing what became the >>>>>British empire.
The intent of the Crown to have a ToW signed by Maori was purely to >>>>>ensure sovereignty was ceded. For the British this was a novel idea >>>>>because in every other country that became part of the empire the >>>>>assimilation of new countries by the British was purely by military >>>>>force and emigration. The same means were also used by France, Spain >>>>>and Portugal in various parts of the world.
While Maori Chiefs were asked to sign the ToW, the fact is there was >>>>>no concept of unity among Maori and certainly they would never have >>>>>understood the finer meaning of 'sovereignty'. This is a possible >>>>>reason why there is no mention of it - along with no Maori wording >>>>>that 'sovereignty' could be translated to.
However subsequent to the signing of the ToW the emerging forms of >>>>>government right up to full independence being granted (in 1947) >>>>>clearly indicated that sovereignty had been ceded by Maori.
I have given a number of links to determinations from academics and >>>>lawyers that sovereignty was _not_ ceded. At least some of Maori would >>>>have been aware of the difference between what they agreed to and full >>>>control of both Pakeha and Maori from the British, but the documents >>>>are clear.
You are treating them as gullible, they were not.
wanted Maori to have ceded sovereignty, but unfortunately for those
people, that was not what was agreed.
Abuse gone.
It is you that wants to change the long acknowledged fact that sovereignty wasI have posted a number of url's giving just that evidence - whatThere is no misinterpretation,.you continue to assume you are right with no >>>evidence - still no evidence.
I agree that Pakeha effectively ignored the provisions of the Treaty >>>>for their own advantage, with many examples of 'sales' being based on >>>>"misunderstandings" - with the evidence such that redress was >>>>ultimately ordered following Court judgments. There also arose a >>>>presumption among many Pakeha, including lawyers and law schools, that >>>>accepted this misinterpretation of the Treaty.
evidence have you posted for your opinions, Tony?
ceded, it is for you to provide evidence of your political and racist driven >wish. You have provided zero.
I believe you certainly did and my English comprehension is hugely superior to >yours.
I did not say that at allSo now you are saying Maori were forced to sign at gunpoint, that is an >>>outrageous lie and one that I have never heard before so you are making it up.
At the time the Treaty was signed you are correct that Maori
population was greater than that of Pakeha - but there was also a >>>>significant difference in armaments - Pakeha had more guns than Maori >>>>which outweighed greater local knowledge by Maori.
- I was referring to the sad realities of
the warring conflicts between settlers and soldiers against Maori.
Such considerations led to the desire on both sides to reach an
agreement that reduced deaths on both sides.
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>sufficient.And nobody is suggesting that we should'
You can't have one country with two
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show your
evidence, Tony.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, butYou have provided no fact.
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense? >>>>>>>>>>>>>I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>>>>>>>>>otherwise?
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen >>>>>>>>>>>>>to
honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National
Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . . >>>>>>>>>>>>Bullshit.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony. >>>>>>>>>> You were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic >>>>>>>>>>twerp.
Bill.
On Tue, 06 May 2025 15:21:52 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2025 09:51:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2025 20:57:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou logically lost the argument there Rich. Your basis of asserting
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More nonsense. They made an agreement to be subservient to the Queen. That is
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>don't
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion? >>>>>>>>>It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, we
wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably. >>>>>>>>I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
agree
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. You >>>>>>>cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie.
Since ceding sovereigntyOf course it was.
was clearly not intended by Maori
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been said >>>>>>that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were not >>>>>>understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a rushed
job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up until
that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
At the time the British had firepower, but they were losing too many >>>>>Pakeha to Maori in various conflicts, and it was also becoming clear >>>>>that many Pakeha had taken advantage of 'misunderstandings' to cheat >>>>>Maori from lands. The number of Maori greatly exceeded that of >>>>>European settlers; it was important that conflict be brought to an >>>>>end. The Treaty signed by Maori did not mention Sovereignty. In effect >>>>>Maori were saying that they wanted to retain their lands and manage >>>>>their people as they had to that time, and for the Queen, through the >>>>>Governor, to manage the Pakeha so that all could live in harmony. >>>>Nonsense, there is no historical analysis that supports that.
Sovereignty was a word that did not appear in the Treaty signed by the >>>>>Chiefs. They cannot have agreed to something that was not in the >>>>>document.
it does not appear in the versionSovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your constant
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in >>>>>>>>English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the >>>>>>>>person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves >>>>>>>>as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined >>>>>>>>that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative.
lies
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed to >>>>>>> sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't. >>>>>
ceding sovereignty.
So says an uneducated bigoted racist twerp who offers no evidence for
his racist (and wrong) far-right views . . . .
that Maori did not cede sovereignty by signing the Treaty was always
weak but by resorting to a personal attack like this clearly shows you
do not have what it takes to sustain your assertion.
At the time the Treaty was signed Maori greatly outnumbered non-Maori
in NZ (by 7 to 1 if I recall correctly an estimate from a historian),
but the trend for increased immigration from Australia and the UK was
well established. From the point of view of the (British) Crown, the >>purpose of the Treaty was to avoid suppression of Maori by the usual >>military means employed elsewhere in establishing what became the
British empire.
The intent of the Crown to have a ToW signed by Maori was purely to
ensure sovereignty was ceded. For the British this was a novel idea >>because in every other country that became part of the empire the >>assimilation of new countries by the British was purely by military
force and emigration. The same means were also used by France, Spain
and Portugal in various parts of the world.
While Maori Chiefs were asked to sign the ToW, the fact is there was
no concept of unity among Maori and certainly they would never have >>understood the finer meaning of 'sovereignty'. This is a possible
reason why there is no mention of it - along with no Maori wording
that 'sovereignty' could be translated to.
However subsequent to the signing of the ToW the emerging forms of >>government right up to full independence being granted (in 1947)
clearly indicated that sovereignty had been ceded by Maori.
I have given a number of links to determinations from academics and
lawyers that sovereignty was _not_ ceded.
At least some of Maori would
have been aware of the difference between what they agreed to and full >control of both Pakeha and Maori from the British, but the documents
are clear.
I agree that Pakeha effectively ignored the provisions of the Treaty
for their own advantage, with many examples of 'sales' being based on >"misunderstandings" - with the evidence such that redress was
ultimately ordered following Court judgments. There also arose a
presumption among many Pakeha, including lawyers and law schools, that >accepted this misinterpretation of the Treaty.
At the time the Treaty was signed you are correct that Maori
population was greater than that of Pakeha - but there was also a
significant difference in armaments - Pakeha had more guns than Maori
which outweighed greater local knowledge by Maori.
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law. >>>>>>>>>>Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>>>>>>sufficient.And nobody is suggesting that we should'
You can't have one country with two
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show your
evidence, Tony.
You have provided no fact.
I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>>>>>>otherwise?
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense?
Bullshit.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to >>>>>>>>>>honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National >>>>>>>>>>Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . .
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever. >>>>>>>>I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, but >>>>>>>>that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony. >>>>>>> You were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic twerp.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>>>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
Bill.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2025 15:21:52 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:No they are not, the entire reason for the treaty from the English point of >view was to cede sovereignty and what that led to. That is obvious, From a >Maori point of view they understood that, because they were and are not stupid.
On Sun, 04 May 2025 09:51:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2025 20:57:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou logically lost the argument there Rich. Your basis of asserting
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More nonsense. They made an agreement to be subservient to the Queen. That >>>>>is
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now >>>>>>>>you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>don't
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion? >>>>>>>>>>It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, >>>>>>>>>>we
wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably. >>>>>>>>>I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
agree
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. You
cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie. >>>>>>>>>Since ceding sovereignty
was clearly not intended by MaoriOf course it was.
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been said >>>>>>>that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were not >>>>>>>understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a rushed
job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up >>>>>>>until
that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
At the time the British had firepower, but they were losing too many >>>>>>Pakeha to Maori in various conflicts, and it was also becoming clear >>>>>>that many Pakeha had taken advantage of 'misunderstandings' to cheat >>>>>>Maori from lands. The number of Maori greatly exceeded that of >>>>>>European settlers; it was important that conflict be brought to an >>>>>>end. The Treaty signed by Maori did not mention Sovereignty. In effect >>>>>>Maori were saying that they wanted to retain their lands and manage >>>>>>their people as they had to that time, and for the Queen, through the >>>>>>Governor, to manage the Pakeha so that all could live in harmony. >>>>>Nonsense, there is no historical analysis that supports that.
Sovereignty was a word that did not appear in the Treaty signed by the >>>>>>Chiefs. They cannot have agreed to something that was not in the >>>>>>document.
it does not appear in the versionlies
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in >>>>>>>>>English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the >>>>>>>>>person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves >>>>>>>>>as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined >>>>>>>>>that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative. >>>>>>>> Sovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your >>>>>>>>constant
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed to >>>>>>>> sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't. >>>>>>
ceding sovereignty.
So says an uneducated bigoted racist twerp who offers no evidence for >>>>his racist (and wrong) far-right views . . . .
that Maori did not cede sovereignty by signing the Treaty was always
weak but by resorting to a personal attack like this clearly shows you
do not have what it takes to sustain your assertion.
At the time the Treaty was signed Maori greatly outnumbered non-Maori
in NZ (by 7 to 1 if I recall correctly an estimate from a historian),
but the trend for increased immigration from Australia and the UK was >>>well established. From the point of view of the (British) Crown, the >>>purpose of the Treaty was to avoid suppression of Maori by the usual >>>military means employed elsewhere in establishing what became the
British empire.
The intent of the Crown to have a ToW signed by Maori was purely to >>>ensure sovereignty was ceded. For the British this was a novel idea >>>because in every other country that became part of the empire the >>>assimilation of new countries by the British was purely by military
force and emigration. The same means were also used by France, Spain
and Portugal in various parts of the world.
While Maori Chiefs were asked to sign the ToW, the fact is there was
no concept of unity among Maori and certainly they would never have >>>understood the finer meaning of 'sovereignty'. This is a possible
reason why there is no mention of it - along with no Maori wording
that 'sovereignty' could be translated to.
However subsequent to the signing of the ToW the emerging forms of >>>government right up to full independence being granted (in 1947)
clearly indicated that sovereignty had been ceded by Maori.
I have given a number of links to determinations from academics and
lawyers that sovereignty was _not_ ceded. At least some of Maori would
have been aware of the difference between what they agreed to and full >>control of both Pakeha and Maori from the British, but the documents
are clear.
You are treating them as gullible, they were not.
There is no misinterpretation,.you continue to assume you are right with no >evidence - still no evidence.
I agree that Pakeha effectively ignored the provisions of the Treaty
for their own advantage, with many examples of 'sales' being based on >>"misunderstandings" - with the evidence such that redress was
ultimately ordered following Court judgments. There also arose a >>presumption among many Pakeha, including lawyers and law schools, that >>accepted this misinterpretation of the Treaty.
So now you are saying Maori were forced to sign at gunpoint, that is an >outrageous lie and one that I have never heard before so you are making it up.
At the time the Treaty was signed you are correct that Maori
population was greater than that of Pakeha - but there was also a >>significant difference in armaments - Pakeha had more guns than Maori
which outweighed greater local knowledge by Maori.
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law. >>>>>>>>>>>Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>>>>>>>sufficient.And nobody is suggesting that we should'
You can't have one country with two
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show your
evidence, Tony.
You have provided no fact.
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense? >>>>>>>>>>>I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>>>>>>>otherwise?
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, but >>>>>>>>>that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony. >>>>>>>> You were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic >>>>>>>>twerp.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to
honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National >>>>>>>>>>>Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . . >>>>>>>>>>Bullshit.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>>>>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
Bill.
On Tue, 06 May 2025 16:13:38 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>I agree, but that does not change the actual wording of the Treaty,
wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2025 15:21:52 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2025 09:51:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2025 20:57:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou logically lost the argument there Rich. Your basis of asserting
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More nonsense. They made an agreement to be subservient to the Queen. That is
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>don't
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion? >>>>>>>>>>It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, we
wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably. >>>>>>>>>I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
agree
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. You
cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie. >>>>>>>>>Since ceding sovereignty
was clearly not intended by MaoriOf course it was.
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been said >>>>>>>that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were not >>>>>>>understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a rushed
job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up until
that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
At the time the British had firepower, but they were losing too many >>>>>>Pakeha to Maori in various conflicts, and it was also becoming clear >>>>>>that many Pakeha had taken advantage of 'misunderstandings' to cheat >>>>>>Maori from lands. The number of Maori greatly exceeded that of >>>>>>European settlers; it was important that conflict be brought to an >>>>>>end. The Treaty signed by Maori did not mention Sovereignty. In effect >>>>>>Maori were saying that they wanted to retain their lands and manage >>>>>>their people as they had to that time, and for the Queen, through the >>>>>>Governor, to manage the Pakeha so that all could live in harmony. >>>>>Nonsense, there is no historical analysis that supports that.
Sovereignty was a word that did not appear in the Treaty signed by the >>>>>>Chiefs. They cannot have agreed to something that was not in the >>>>>>document.
it does not appear in the versionlies
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in >>>>>>>>>English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the >>>>>>>>>person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves >>>>>>>>>as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined >>>>>>>>>that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative. >>>>>>>> Sovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your constant
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed to >>>>>>>> sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't. >>>>>>
ceding sovereignty.
So says an uneducated bigoted racist twerp who offers no evidence for >>>>his racist (and wrong) far-right views . . . .
that Maori did not cede sovereignty by signing the Treaty was always
weak but by resorting to a personal attack like this clearly shows you
do not have what it takes to sustain your assertion.
At the time the Treaty was signed Maori greatly outnumbered non-Maori
in NZ (by 7 to 1 if I recall correctly an estimate from a historian),
but the trend for increased immigration from Australia and the UK was >>>well established. From the point of view of the (British) Crown, the >>>purpose of the Treaty was to avoid suppression of Maori by the usual >>>military means employed elsewhere in establishing what became the
British empire.
The intent of the Crown to have a ToW signed by Maori was purely to >>>ensure sovereignty was ceded. For the British this was a novel idea >>>because in every other country that became part of the empire the >>>assimilation of new countries by the British was purely by military
force and emigration. The same means were also used by France, Spain
and Portugal in various parts of the world.
While Maori Chiefs were asked to sign the ToW, the fact is there was
no concept of unity among Maori and certainly they would never have >>>understood the finer meaning of 'sovereignty'. This is a possible
reason why there is no mention of it - along with no Maori wording
that 'sovereignty' could be translated to.
However subsequent to the signing of the ToW the emerging forms of >>>government right up to full independence being granted (in 1947)
clearly indicated that sovereignty had been ceded by Maori.
I have given a number of links to determinations from academics and
lawyers that sovereignty was _not_ ceded.
Your evidence was from those who have a predetermined viewpoint based
on popular modern re-interpretations of historical facts. Maori faced >threats from those who had demonstrable superior military capability. >Firearms was part of this but so was horticultural production and
farming diversity. Maori, in contrast, had significantly limited
ability to produce food.
It was not written by the Governor - he did not speak Maori -At least some of Maori would
have been aware of the difference between what they agreed to and full >>control of both Pakeha and Maori from the British, but the documents
are clear.
No they are not, because the British wrote the ToW (including the >translations) and what was in it was what the British thought they
could get the various Maori 'tribes' to sign up to.
Which British? The Governor in Sydney, or the Crown in England, bothIt was the interpretation that the Crown always intended. Every
I agree that Pakeha effectively ignored the provisions of the Treaty
for their own advantage, with many examples of 'sales' being based on >>"misunderstandings" - with the evidence such that redress was
ultimately ordered following Court judgments. There also arose a >>presumption among many Pakeha, including lawyers and law schools, that >>accepted this misinterpretation of the Treaty.
country invaded by the British treated existing 'natives' this way.
It is also clear that some Maori did not then and have not since, andAt the time the Treaty was signed you are correct that MaoriSo? It is logical to assume that at least some Maori, including Hone
population was greater than that of Pakeha - but there was also a >>significant difference in armaments - Pakeha had more guns than Maori
which outweighed greater local knowledge by Maori.
Heke in the Bay of Islands, accepted that Maori were powerless in the
face of superior force from the British. There is a famous saying -
'if you cant beat them - join them'. For Hone Heke in particular this
is exactly what he did.
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law. >>>>>>>>>>>Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>>>>>>>sufficient.And nobody is suggesting that we should'
You can't have one country with two
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show your
evidence, Tony.
You have provided no fact.
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense? >>>>>>>>>>>I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>>>>>>>otherwise?
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, but >>>>>>>>>that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony. >>>>>>>> You were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic twerp.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to
honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National >>>>>>>>>>>Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . . >>>>>>>>>>Bullshit.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>>>>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
Bill.
On Tue, 6 May 2025 04:45:32 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2025 15:21:52 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:No they are not, the entire reason for the treaty from the English point of >>view was to cede sovereignty and what that led to. That is obvious, From a >>Maori point of view they understood that, because they were and are not stupid.
On Sun, 04 May 2025 09:51:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2025 20:57:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You logically lost the argument there Rich. Your basis of asserting >>>>that Maori did not cede sovereignty by signing the Treaty was always >>>>weak but by resorting to a personal attack like this clearly shows you >>>>do not have what it takes to sustain your assertion.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More nonsense. They made an agreement to be subservient to the Queen. That
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now >>>>>>>>>you
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>don't
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion? >>>>>>>>>>>It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded, >>>>>>>>>>>we
wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably. >>>>>>>>>>I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
agree
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. You
cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie. >>>>>>>>>>Since ceding sovereignty
was clearly not intended by MaoriOf course it was.
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been said
that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were not >>>>>>>>understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a rushed
job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up >>>>>>>>until
that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
At the time the British had firepower, but they were losing too many >>>>>>>Pakeha to Maori in various conflicts, and it was also becoming clear >>>>>>>that many Pakeha had taken advantage of 'misunderstandings' to cheat >>>>>>>Maori from lands. The number of Maori greatly exceeded that of >>>>>>>European settlers; it was important that conflict be brought to an >>>>>>>end. The Treaty signed by Maori did not mention Sovereignty. In effect >>>>>>>Maori were saying that they wanted to retain their lands and manage >>>>>>>their people as they had to that time, and for the Queen, through the >>>>>>>Governor, to manage the Pakeha so that all could live in harmony. >>>>>>Nonsense, there is no historical analysis that supports that.
it does not appear in the versionlies
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in >>>>>>>>>>English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the
person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves >>>>>>>>>>as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined
that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative. >>>>>>>>> Sovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your >>>>>>>>>constant
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed to
sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't.
Sovereignty was a word that did not appear in the Treaty signed by the >>>>>>>Chiefs. They cannot have agreed to something that was not in the >>>>>>>document.
is
ceding sovereignty.
So says an uneducated bigoted racist twerp who offers no evidence for >>>>>his racist (and wrong) far-right views . . . .
At the time the Treaty was signed Maori greatly outnumbered non-Maori >>>>in NZ (by 7 to 1 if I recall correctly an estimate from a historian), >>>>but the trend for increased immigration from Australia and the UK was >>>>well established. From the point of view of the (British) Crown, the >>>>purpose of the Treaty was to avoid suppression of Maori by the usual >>>>military means employed elsewhere in establishing what became the >>>>British empire.
The intent of the Crown to have a ToW signed by Maori was purely to >>>>ensure sovereignty was ceded. For the British this was a novel idea >>>>because in every other country that became part of the empire the >>>>assimilation of new countries by the British was purely by military >>>>force and emigration. The same means were also used by France, Spain >>>>and Portugal in various parts of the world.
While Maori Chiefs were asked to sign the ToW, the fact is there was
no concept of unity among Maori and certainly they would never have >>>>understood the finer meaning of 'sovereignty'. This is a possible >>>>reason why there is no mention of it - along with no Maori wording
that 'sovereignty' could be translated to.
However subsequent to the signing of the ToW the emerging forms of >>>>government right up to full independence being granted (in 1947) >>>>clearly indicated that sovereignty had been ceded by Maori.
I have given a number of links to determinations from academics and >>>lawyers that sovereignty was _not_ ceded. At least some of Maori would >>>have been aware of the difference between what they agreed to and full >>>control of both Pakeha and Maori from the British, but the documents
are clear.
You are treating them as gullible, they were not.
There is no misinterpretation,.you continue to assume you are right with no >>evidence - still no evidence.
I agree that Pakeha effectively ignored the provisions of the Treaty
for their own advantage, with many examples of 'sales' being based on >>>"misunderstandings" - with the evidence such that redress was
ultimately ordered following Court judgments. There also arose a >>>presumption among many Pakeha, including lawyers and law schools, that >>>accepted this misinterpretation of the Treaty.
So now you are saying Maori were forced to sign at gunpoint, that is an >>outrageous lie and one that I have never heard before so you are making it up.
At the time the Treaty was signed you are correct that Maori
population was greater than that of Pakeha - but there was also a >>>significant difference in armaments - Pakeha had more guns than Maori >>>which outweighed greater local knowledge by Maori.
Actually this can be supported by the way that some Maori reacted to
the British. There were a number of Maori tribes in what is now the
Far North that recognised that the British settlers brought a superior
form of civilisation (including military technology, but also
including civil engineering capability) that Maori could not match.
The impetus for the ToW was Hobson's belief that European colonisation
via military conquest (the traditional method of European invaders
(British, Dutch, French and Spanish and others through military
conquest) could be avoided in NZ. The end was always conquest, the
means was negotiation. The end was never noble, the means was always >deception and dishonesty of intent.
The ToW was always intended by the British to hoodwink Maori into
ceding sovereignty without necessarily understanding this was the
case. The British never treated Maori as equal unless this was part
of a short game of deceit towards a long gain of conquest.
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law. >>>>>>>>>>>>Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>>>>>>>>sufficient.And nobody is suggesting that we should'
You can't have one country with two
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show your
evidence, Tony.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, butYou have provided no fact.
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense? >>>>>>>>>>>>I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>>>>>>>>otherwise?
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to
honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National
Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . . >>>>>>>>>>>Bullshit.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>>>>>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony. >>>>>>>>> You were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic >>>>>>>>>twerp.
Bill.
On Tue, 6 May 2025 07:14:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 04:45:32 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes it was. You provide no evidence that
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I agree that some of the representatives of the Crown would have
On Tue, 06 May 2025 15:21:52 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:No they are not, the entire reason for the treaty from the English point of >>>>view was to cede sovereignty and what that led to. That is obvious, From a >>>>Maori point of view they understood that, because they were and are not >>>>stupid.
On Sun, 04 May 2025 09:51:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2025 20:57:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You logically lost the argument there Rich. Your basis of asserting >>>>>>that Maori did not cede sovereignty by signing the Treaty was always >>>>>>weak but by resorting to a personal attack like this clearly shows you >>>>>>do not have what it takes to sustain your assertion.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>More nonsense. They made an agreement to be subservient to the Queen. >>>>>>>>That
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, >>>>>>>>>>>now
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>we
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion? >>>>>>>>>>>>>It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was >>>>>>>>>>>>>ceded,
wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
don't
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably. >>>>>>>>>>>>I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
you
agree
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. >>>>>>>>>>>You
cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>Since ceding sovereignty
was clearly not intended by MaoriOf course it was.
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been >>>>>>>>>>said
that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were not >>>>>>>>>>understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a >>>>>>>>>>rushed
job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up >>>>>>>>>>until
that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
At the time the British had firepower, but they were losing too many >>>>>>>>>Pakeha to Maori in various conflicts, and it was also becoming clear >>>>>>>>>that many Pakeha had taken advantage of 'misunderstandings' to cheat >>>>>>>>>Maori from lands. The number of Maori greatly exceeded that of >>>>>>>>>European settlers; it was important that conflict be brought to an >>>>>>>>>end. The Treaty signed by Maori did not mention Sovereignty. In effect >>>>>>>>>Maori were saying that they wanted to retain their lands and manage >>>>>>>>>their people as they had to that time, and for the Queen, through the >>>>>>>>>Governor, to manage the Pakeha so that all could live in harmony. >>>>>>>>Nonsense, there is no historical analysis that supports that. >>>>>>>>>>
it does not appear in the versionlies
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version >>>>>>>>>>>>in
English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by >>>>>>>>>>>>the
person who translated it into English - we need not concern >>>>>>>>>>>>ourselves
as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have >>>>>>>>>>>>determined
that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative. >>>>>>>>>>> Sovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your >>>>>>>>>>>constant
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed >>>>>>>>>>>to
sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but >>>>>>>>>>>won't.
Sovereignty was a word that did not appear in the Treaty signed by the >>>>>>>>>Chiefs. They cannot have agreed to something that was not in the >>>>>>>>>document.
is
ceding sovereignty.
So says an uneducated bigoted racist twerp who offers no evidence for >>>>>>>his racist (and wrong) far-right views . . . .
At the time the Treaty was signed Maori greatly outnumbered non-Maori >>>>>>in NZ (by 7 to 1 if I recall correctly an estimate from a historian), >>>>>>but the trend for increased immigration from Australia and the UK was >>>>>>well established. From the point of view of the (British) Crown, the >>>>>>purpose of the Treaty was to avoid suppression of Maori by the usual >>>>>>military means employed elsewhere in establishing what became the >>>>>>British empire.
The intent of the Crown to have a ToW signed by Maori was purely to >>>>>>ensure sovereignty was ceded. For the British this was a novel idea >>>>>>because in every other country that became part of the empire the >>>>>>assimilation of new countries by the British was purely by military >>>>>>force and emigration. The same means were also used by France, Spain >>>>>>and Portugal in various parts of the world.
While Maori Chiefs were asked to sign the ToW, the fact is there was >>>>>>no concept of unity among Maori and certainly they would never have >>>>>>understood the finer meaning of 'sovereignty'. This is a possible >>>>>>reason why there is no mention of it - along with no Maori wording >>>>>>that 'sovereignty' could be translated to.
However subsequent to the signing of the ToW the emerging forms of >>>>>>government right up to full independence being granted (in 1947) >>>>>>clearly indicated that sovereignty had been ceded by Maori.
I have given a number of links to determinations from academics and >>>>>lawyers that sovereignty was _not_ ceded. At least some of Maori would >>>>>have been aware of the difference between what they agreed to and full >>>>>control of both Pakeha and Maori from the British, but the documents >>>>>are clear.
You are treating them as gullible, they were not.
wanted Maori to have ceded sovereignty, but unfortunately for those >>>people, that was not what was agreed.
Abuse gone.
It is you that wants to change the long acknowledged fact that sovereignty >>wasI have posted a number of url's giving just that evidence - whatThere is no misinterpretation,.you continue to assume you are right with >>>>no
I agree that Pakeha effectively ignored the provisions of the Treaty >>>>>for their own advantage, with many examples of 'sales' being based on >>>>>"misunderstandings" - with the evidence such that redress was >>>>>ultimately ordered following Court judgments. There also arose a >>>>>presumption among many Pakeha, including lawyers and law schools, that >>>>>accepted this misinterpretation of the Treaty.
evidence - still no evidence.
evidence have you posted for your opinions, Tony?
ceded, it is for you to provide evidence of your political and racist driven >>wish. You have provided zero.
I believe you certainly did and my English comprehension is hugely superior >>to
I did not say that at allSo now you are saying Maori were forced to sign at gunpoint, that is an >>>>outrageous lie and one that I have never heard before so you are making it >>>>up.
At the time the Treaty was signed you are correct that Maori >>>>>population was greater than that of Pakeha - but there was also a >>>>>significant difference in armaments - Pakeha had more guns than Maori >>>>>which outweighed greater local knowledge by Maori.
yours.
- I was referring to the sad realities of
the warring conflicts between settlers and soldiers against Maori.
Such considerations led to the desire on both sides to reach an
agreement that reduced deaths on both sides.
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>sufficient.And nobody is suggesting that we should'
You can't have one country with two
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show yourtwerp.
evidence, Tony.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, >>>>>>>>>>>>butYou have provided no fact.
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>otherwise?
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none >>>>>>>>>>>>>whatsoever.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>seen
to
honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>National
Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . . >>>>>>>>>>>>>Bullshit.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony. >>>>>>>>>>> You were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a >>>>>>>>>>>sarcastic
Bill.
On Tue, 06 May 2025 16:13:38 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
At the time the Treaty was signed you are correct that MaoriSo? It is logical to assume that at least some Maori, including Hone
population was greater than that of Pakeha - but there was also a >>significant difference in armaments - Pakeha had more guns than Maori
which outweighed greater local knowledge by Maori.
Heke in the Bay of Islands, accepted that Maori were powerless in the
face of superior force from the British. There is a famous saying -
'if you cant beat them - join them'. For Hone Heke in particular this
is exactly what he did.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 07:14:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 04:45:32 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2025 15:21:52 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2025 09:51:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2025 20:57:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>we
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>ceded,
don't
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably. >>>>>>>>>>>>>I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:16:24 -0000 (UTC), TonyI was not abusive, what are you on? You need help.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 07:14:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 04:45:32 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2025 15:21:52 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2025 09:51:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2025 20:57:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>we
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ceded,
don't
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
You are now getting abusive, Tony.
and refusing to accept evidence putYou have provided no evidence.
before you.
All you need is here: >https://www.google.com/search?q=did+maori+cede+sovereignty+in+the+treaty+of+waitangiI have not abused you at all in this thread or any other for a long time, you are the abuser and you are deranged.
and here: >https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
You have not provided any evidence to the contrary, you persistently
abuse other posters to nz.general, and persistently mis-represent what
others say.
You are unable to able to address the difference between official >determinations by senior lawyers and judges, you persistently go offNo. I am correct, you are lying. There is no evidence available to support your lies.
topic and become abusive. I can only conclude that you are being
deliberately objectionable. You are wrong, Tony.
On Tue, 06 May 2025 21:13:44 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 04:45:32 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2025 15:21:52 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:No they are not, the entire reason for the treaty from the English point of >>>view was to cede sovereignty and what that led to. That is obvious, From a >>>Maori point of view they understood that, because they were and are not stupid.
On Sun, 04 May 2025 09:51:48 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2025 20:57:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You logically lost the argument there Rich. Your basis of asserting >>>>>that Maori did not cede sovereignty by signing the Treaty was always >>>>>weak but by resorting to a personal attack like this clearly shows you >>>>>do not have what it takes to sustain your assertion.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 3 May 2025 04:17:53 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:More nonsense. They made an agreement to be subservient to the Queen. That
On 2025-05-02, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 03:59:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:But you keep saying that there is evidence that it was not ceded, now
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2025 04:53:45 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>we
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 20:17:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Do you offer any purported facts relating to that assertion? >>>>>>>>>>>>It is not an assertion. you have to show that sovereignty was ceded,
wrote:
Why is the government lying about this issue?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858168136508485
This is complete crap. Maori ceded sovereignty.
don't
have to show that it wasn't. So far you have failed miserably. >>>>>>>>>>>I cannot show you what does not exist, Tony.
you
agree
there is no such evidence.
The intent was to cede sovereignty, that intent was by all present. You
cannot
show otherwise and all you do is double down on the lie. >>>>>>>>>>>Since ceding sovereignty
was clearly not intended by MaoriOf course it was.
How did the Maori understand the concept of soverignty. It has been said
that they did not not have a word for it. (soverignty)
The British proposed some a deal and the full impications were not >>>>>>>>>understood by the Maori. After all it seems to have been a bit of a rushed
job for such a complex thing. (Still it was a relativily new idea, up >>>>>>>>>until
that time it was bash the natives into sumission)
At the time the British had firepower, but they were losing too many >>>>>>>>Pakeha to Maori in various conflicts, and it was also becoming clear >>>>>>>>that many Pakeha had taken advantage of 'misunderstandings' to cheat >>>>>>>>Maori from lands. The number of Maori greatly exceeded that of >>>>>>>>European settlers; it was important that conflict be brought to an >>>>>>>>end. The Treaty signed by Maori did not mention Sovereignty. In effect >>>>>>>>Maori were saying that they wanted to retain their lands and manage >>>>>>>>their people as they had to that time, and for the Queen, through the >>>>>>>>Governor, to manage the Pakeha so that all could live in harmony. >>>>>>>Nonsense, there is no historical analysis that supports that.
it does not appear in the versionlies
in the Maori language which the majority signed - that the version in
English included such a statement is clearly a misunderstanding by the
person who translated it into English - we need not concern ourselves
as to the possibility of fraud; successive governments have determined
that the version in Maori should be regarded as determinative. >>>>>>>>>> Sovereignty was ceded and you still cannot show otherwise. Your >>>>>>>>>>constant
are offensive. In particular they are offensive to Maori who agreed to
sovereignty in a dignified way - you could learn from them, but won't.
Sovereignty was a word that did not appear in the Treaty signed by the >>>>>>>>Chiefs. They cannot have agreed to something that was not in the >>>>>>>>document.
is
ceding sovereignty.
So says an uneducated bigoted racist twerp who offers no evidence for >>>>>>his racist (and wrong) far-right views . . . .
At the time the Treaty was signed Maori greatly outnumbered non-Maori >>>>>in NZ (by 7 to 1 if I recall correctly an estimate from a historian), >>>>>but the trend for increased immigration from Australia and the UK was >>>>>well established. From the point of view of the (British) Crown, the >>>>>purpose of the Treaty was to avoid suppression of Maori by the usual >>>>>military means employed elsewhere in establishing what became the >>>>>British empire.
The intent of the Crown to have a ToW signed by Maori was purely to >>>>>ensure sovereignty was ceded. For the British this was a novel idea >>>>>because in every other country that became part of the empire the >>>>>assimilation of new countries by the British was purely by military >>>>>force and emigration. The same means were also used by France, Spain >>>>>and Portugal in various parts of the world.
While Maori Chiefs were asked to sign the ToW, the fact is there was >>>>>no concept of unity among Maori and certainly they would never have >>>>>understood the finer meaning of 'sovereignty'. This is a possible >>>>>reason why there is no mention of it - along with no Maori wording >>>>>that 'sovereignty' could be translated to.
However subsequent to the signing of the ToW the emerging forms of >>>>>government right up to full independence being granted (in 1947) >>>>>clearly indicated that sovereignty had been ceded by Maori.
I have given a number of links to determinations from academics and >>>>lawyers that sovereignty was _not_ ceded. At least some of Maori would >>>>have been aware of the difference between what they agreed to and full >>>>control of both Pakeha and Maori from the British, but the documents >>>>are clear.
You are treating them as gullible, they were not.
There is no misinterpretation,.you continue to assume you are right with no >>>evidence - still no evidence.
I agree that Pakeha effectively ignored the provisions of the Treaty >>>>for their own advantage, with many examples of 'sales' being based on >>>>"misunderstandings" - with the evidence such that redress was >>>>ultimately ordered following Court judgments. There also arose a >>>>presumption among many Pakeha, including lawyers and law schools, that >>>>accepted this misinterpretation of the Treaty.
So now you are saying Maori were forced to sign at gunpoint, that is an >>>outrageous lie and one that I have never heard before so you are making it up.
At the time the Treaty was signed you are correct that Maori
population was greater than that of Pakeha - but there was also a >>>>significant difference in armaments - Pakeha had more guns than Maori >>>>which outweighed greater local knowledge by Maori.
Actually this can be supported by the way that some Maori reacted to
the British. There were a number of Maori tribes in what is now the
Far North that recognised that the British settlers brought a superior
form of civilisation (including military technology, but also
including civil engineering capability) that Maori could not match.
The impetus for the ToW was Hobson's belief that European colonisation
via military conquest (the traditional method of European invaders >>(British, Dutch, French and Spanish and others through military
conquest) could be avoided in NZ. The end was always conquest, the
means was negotiation. The end was never noble, the means was always >>deception and dishonesty of intent.
The ToW was always intended by the British to hoodwink Maori into
ceding sovereignty without necessarily understanding this was the
case. The British never treated Maori as equal unless this was part
of a short game of deceit towards a long gain of conquest.
That is a very sad commentary on the motivations of the British at
that time. I suspect their motives were not that unpure, but in
particular I suspect that the missionary who hosted the talks and who
had been involved in the education of many Maori in the English
language and the system of English laws and customs had no such
nefarious intent. Thee Treaty was written by an English speaker, in >discussions with Maori in the Maori and English languages - I think
your suggestion is misplaced - I cannot prove that of course, just as
you cannot prove your assertion; but importantly the Treaty itself did
not include the assertion that has been made in this thread that Maori
ceded sovereignty.
Until you are able to provide such evidence, this is opinion vs
opinion; but to me the absence of such a surrender of sovereignty has
been proved by the words of the Treaty itself, as demonstrated in a
number of urls that I have posted. The validity of those articles, and
the scholarship vested in them, has not been factually refuted by
those making the untrue assertions of such deceit on the part of the
British, and goes against the evidence in the words of the Treaty
itself.
So I reject your unsupported assertion, Crash - not in any sense of
anger, but a quiet nod towards the power of actual evidence . . .
Of what? Pray tell.
Yeah right!
That was necessary to establish equality under the law. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Whether it was necessary is debatable, but clearly it is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>sufficient.And nobody is suggesting that we should'
You can't have one country with two
governments.
I see no evidence of that
- if you think someone wants that, show your
evidence, Tony.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the Alberta Treaty to comment, butYou have provided no fact.
The question is, why are you perpetuating this nonsense? >>>>>>>>>>>>>I am not perpetuating anything other than fact - can you show >>>>>>>>>>>>>otherwise?
There is no right to self governance in the treaty - none whatsoever.
What purpose does it serve?Because I believe that it is desirable that our government be seen to
honour its contracts - that used to be a principle that the National
Party often spoke of, but not so much recently . . >>>>>>>>>>>>Bullshit.
Treaty Rights can be important - see for example: >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://edmontonjournal.com/news/indigenous-chiefs-accuse-alberta-premier-smith-of-stoking-separatism-talk
that is I suspect irrelevant to the point they were making, Tony. >>>>>>>>>> You were addressing our treaty, so was I. Don' t be such a sarcastic >>>>>>>>>>twerp.
Bill.
On 2025-05-06, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2025 16:13:38 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[A huge snip]
Was this the start of the co-governence movement?
At the time the Treaty was signed you are correct that MaoriSo? It is logical to assume that at least some Maori, including Hone
population was greater than that of Pakeha - but there was also a >>>significant difference in armaments - Pakeha had more guns than Maori >>>which outweighed greater local knowledge by Maori.
Heke in the Bay of Islands, accepted that Maori were powerless in the
face of superior force from the British. There is a famous saying -
'if you cant beat them - join them'. For Hone Heke in particular this
is exactly what he did.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 55:02:17 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,420 |
| Posted today: | 1 |