Thanks for uploading these videos Sam. They're important contributions to the conversations we're going to have. I hope the algorithm picks it up whenever people are looking for material on Te Tiriti.
The hikoi attendance was multi-racial and multi-generational. Multiple gangs under the truce of Kotahitanga were also present. Our nation and the rest of the world saw how unified we all were. Te Tiriti ensures Māori are at the decision table. Co-governance rather than separate governments ensures government laws meet matauranga and ecological criteria that affect all New Zealanders. Don't allow the 8% who voted for Act Party and who are paid for by the Atlas Network, cloud your judgement. If we truly want to vote for fairness, then let's change the Bill to a Treaty vs UK Royals Principles Bill.
The Court did NOT find the Treaty was a partnership. It found it was akin to a partnership --- in other words they were saying its not a partnership but something else. Around a year later, Justice Cooke further explained that there are many types of partnership which are seldom 50/50 relationships. Dr Carpenter appears to be nebulousness personified in my view.
On the contrary, I explain quite clearly in video #3 of this series that the Court of Appeal in 1987 was drawing on concepts of private law partnership; I specifically mention the concept of a business partnership in which the law requires partners to act reasonably and in good faith. I even state: "Thus, the treaty relationship between Crown and iwi Māori was seen by the court as akin to a private law partnership". So you are correct about "akin to partnership", but given I clearly explain this later your characterisation of my explanation as "nebulous" is uncharitable and actually quite wrong. In the context of the SOE Act of 1986, the concept of (akin to) partnership was helpful in explaining that the Crown and Māori had obligations they owed to each other. (see video #3)
@samuelcarpenter5754 I understand that months later Justice Cooke further commented that there are many types of partnership and that he did not mean to imply a 50/50 relationship between Maori and the Crown.
![LAVROV's interview with Tucker CARLSON 😁 [Parody]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mbMemqc-QEk/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for uploading these videos Sam. They're important contributions to the conversations we're going to have. I hope the algorithm picks it up whenever people are looking for material on Te Tiriti.
The hikoi attendance was multi-racial and multi-generational. Multiple gangs under the truce of Kotahitanga were also present. Our nation and the rest of the world saw how unified we all were. Te Tiriti ensures Māori are at the decision table. Co-governance rather than separate governments ensures government laws meet matauranga and ecological criteria that affect all New Zealanders. Don't allow the 8% who voted for Act Party and who are paid for by the Atlas Network, cloud your judgement. If we truly want to vote for fairness, then let's change the Bill to a Treaty vs UK Royals Principles Bill.
The Court did NOT find the Treaty was a partnership. It found it was akin to a partnership --- in other words they were saying its not a partnership but something else. Around a year later, Justice Cooke further explained that there are many types of partnership which are seldom 50/50 relationships. Dr Carpenter appears to be nebulousness personified in my view.
On the contrary, I explain quite clearly in video #3 of this series that the Court of Appeal in 1987 was drawing on concepts of private law partnership; I specifically mention the concept of a business partnership in which the law requires partners to act reasonably and in good faith. I even state: "Thus, the treaty relationship between Crown and iwi Māori was seen by the court as akin to a private law partnership". So you are correct about "akin to partnership", but given I clearly explain this later your characterisation of my explanation as "nebulous" is uncharitable and actually quite wrong. In the context of the SOE Act of 1986, the concept of (akin to) partnership was helpful in explaining that the Crown and Māori had obligations they owed to each other. (see video #3)
@samuelcarpenter5754 I understand that months later Justice Cooke further commented that there are many types of partnership and that he did not mean to imply a 50/50 relationship between Maori and the Crown.