Michael Laws on The Treaty of Waitangi and New Zealand Politics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- Michael Laws discusses the Treaty of Waitangi and New Zealand politics.
Join Platform Plus for enhanced access and features: theplatform.ki...
Download The Platform app for free:
App Store: apps.apple.com...
Google Play: play.google.co...
Call 0800 DEBATE or text us at 5050 (Standard SMS text charges will apply)
Listen to The Platform's straight-talking, free-thinking hosts every weekday.
Sean Plunket: 7am - 10am
Michael Laws: 10am - 1pm
Martin Devlin: 1pm - 4pm
#ThePlatformNZ
So many people who comment on this have no idea what either version of the treaty says and just rely on the opinions of others to shape what they think. I’ve even encountered folks on here that swear the Māori version is exactly the same as the English version. Poor dears.
There were many English drafts and the Mother one which was translated into Maori has not been made public by Te Papa tut tut this must come forth yesterday!!!
And then there are some who swear there are two completely different versions of the treaty. Equally poor dears. Fact is that there are two translations of the treaty, where the writers did the best job they could in conveying exactly what needed to be conveyed. Add to that the conversations and explanations between missionaries, statesmen, and chiefs, and no need to muddy the Waitangi waters.... unless one has a political agenda of course.
Yeah, you sound like one of those people.
@@nedKelly-x3z How so?
@@nedKelly-x3z 💯
Beautifully said. Brave, honest, articulated, and easy to understand. Well done.
Agreed
Hear hear!
Without Tiriti, Michael Laws would be living in the slums of UK
Its time to become a republic with a constitution to protect every citizens rights.
That would never happen.
Yup, agree.
Absolutely 💯 right ✅️ 👏
Absolutely disagree. Not interested. I will take the monarch as head of state any day. No politician deserves that honour. Just look at the senile old socialist the Yanks are stuck with!
I think I agree with everything you say ... except that the nz public had any say in the matter. We elect governments and then they do as they please. Some ..like the last labour version even go as far as hiding what they're doing for everyone.
And that's the ridiculousness of democracy, every now, and then you get to vote for your favourite dictator, we give China a hard time, but what people don't realise is the man can be fired if he falls from favor... but it's funny- who's had their hand in the middle east cookie jar since age's ago but never been held accountable? Who refused to sign the freedom of navigation law yet feels legit telling people where they can sail, I mean- dam who told the Haugh they would invade it if they ever tried to hold an American guilty of war crimes 😳 😆
People are triggered in the comments but Michael is 100% correct. This is what we created as NZers.
So triggered my response is gone.
There was no transparency in the last Labour Greens Govt
school up Michael...... where in the treaty does it say "there are two people'???? the Te tiriti is the only official treaty, why? because the English version wasn't at Waitangi on the 6th....
Here's an equal Truth. If its time for every New Zealander to stand up and remove The Treaty and any and all references to Maori. Then Maori have that same right to ignore New Zealanders and all their Law's Constitutions acts rights and privileges. Fair is fair. Im sickk of old crown law since 1840 that was then this is now. Out with the old in with the new
This i s so true. The Treaty had a particular purpose at a particular time. That time has long passed and the Treaty should now be of historical interest only.
Clearly you are not Māori.
Only for Pakeha, not for Maori.
If you want it- come and take it...
Tear up that peace treaty at everyone's peril, it stops us killing each other, id say that makes it very relevant indeed.
The fact is that part of the treaty was about protection from the Dutch and the French, Maori are also colonists who afflicted the Moriori to almost extinction, so in all essence who came out the worst off 🤪
It's really great when someone who agrees with my outlook on the Treaty...and all it contains..Yes we need to realise that it it is no longer relevant today....Do you think the Who and WEF are encouraging the Governing bodies to act this way?
So that's encouraging civil war I take it how else will it be sorted out without an agreement?
The fact that people are still debating the treaty after 180 years shows that it isn’t fit for purpose.
No,it shows it hasn't been abided by
It would be fit for purpose if it hadn't been ignored. NZ would look very different if Maori were honoured.
Does it?🤔 ...does it really?...🤨🤦♂️🤦♂️
If anything it has failed as a binding document.
It seems as though it was signed by the rangatira of the time in good faith & England's queen just left it to Hobson & all the other successive representatives of the crown to administer governance without check.
Not once did any of them stop to care whether they were actually observing it in relation to the treatment of maori & most certainly not while they confiscated millions of acres of land and provoked further resistance which resulted in more war, killing women and children along with the defending maori.
All the way down to attempting to squash te reo into extinction.
Land courts would often take weeks or months to be heard & only ever held in wellington so any claimant would have to travel there & hope to be heard before starvation forced them to abandon their case.
This is just the tip of the iceberg when we start looking at the systematic methods used to ignore the treaty & degrade manamotuhake of iwi maori.
Everyone is afraid of the co governance concept.
But maori never got the choice given when it came to land & culture retention.
Is it any wonder that they protest at what to many seem to be every turn.
It's because they have to.
Isn't it shameful that even in this day & age the government after 180 years in all of their wisdom & culturedness still tries to ignore the contract they put forward for those cheifs to sign in the promise of a country that was to live together in harmony.?
@@rondellleenicholls596 wow! ....well said 👏 👍 👌
People are triggered in the comments but Michael is 100% correct. This is what we created as NZers. We get what we voted in. That's true because we kept voting them in again...and again...and again...and again...Now young ones have to grow up in a divided country. That is so disappointing how the past generations from the 60s, 70s, and after have let us down. I've always been annoyed at the 'she'll be right', leave it alone, don't offend, don't touch it, culture that we have...What did that really mean: avoid disagreement...Our trajectory as a country is set but can we still change it? Can we pull back and progress as a unified country?
He's a load of shit talks out his ass
Get rid of the Treaty. It’s not fit for purpose.
Get rid of you first then c .mor luxtin
P.ters the treaty will b hear long after you 4 clowns and any other idiots many fools will come and go take on the treaty you'll loose just like Don brash and many others miky dog needs a shut up bone b 4 he chokes on his racist one point of shit talk good luck cause the treaty ant going any where
It's not fit for YOUR purpose
And just to repeat myself.... The penalty for TREASON is still punishable by DEATH.
Someone that makes sense thank god has brought this to light
A really animated Michael Laws. Really enjoyed your discourse.
Michael on a rant is brilliant, very good.
Sounds like we need Seymours bill.
The OG Maori cheifs were the smartest ones out of all other cheifs since, they knew signing the treaty was the only thing to insure the longevity of their kind, they knew another musket war would have devastated them, this insured peace amongst the tribes
Exactly. They were not stupid, which the old slogan of 'the treaty is a fraud' thought. The new cry of 'honour the treaty' from the new breed of radicals has to perhaps make them out as political scientists insofar as they understood rangatiratanga to *actually* mean sovereignty. lol
Not to mention other Countries interested in Global expansion, what would have been the out come then.
yes nailed it ,that is the reason they signed , they could see that maori were going to exterminate their own race .
May l observe....there is not much peace there now....
@@suphraphonicbull shit
The Maori activist and radical leaders place great emphasis upon te tiriti but the English "draft" was the first document. The intent and conditions for the Crown for a treaty with Maori. Maori contend that there is miscommunication when it was translated. Well I don't think so. There is too much evidence that Maori "got it"
Well put Michael. You are are far more educated than I gave you credit for. Though Maori were unhappy with the outcome of the treaty since the time it was signed, it was never dead to them like it was to pakeha.
They weren't unhappy at all haven't you read the Chiefs speeches at Kohimarama Conferences?
TOW has done its day, not fit for purpose in 2024
lol, same like colonization.. But here we are
It's just a historical document. If you think the British by 1840 how many treaties they had written up with Native peoples from North America and Australia, it was just another one. It's probably they best one they did because in making Maori citizens it largely protected them from future violence. But it was just a Treaty written for a single time and place.
@@maorifilm Nothing wrong with Colonization.
@cullenkehoe5184 buddy, at the time of the signing, there was a 40 to 1 situation.. No way are Māori signing over citizenship to someone they havnt meet.. Also at the time, we carnt support that the information that was told to Māori was understood..
@ColinIzer1111 I think when we look at it from one perspective it seems legit.. But only having one referral to ones understanding only makes one Prespective...
Pretty harsh Michael! I think we're all confused by the many conflicting stories and versions about the Treaty, rather than stupid.
Precisely right, Sheryl. It was the NZ Govt that were stupid and responsible for what happened in 1975 NOT the NZ people.
His point is that it is irrelevant to the present as it belongs to a distant past, that our politics can not be treaty-centric. In this sense, it doesn't matter whether we understand what it means or not.
It's an interesting take, and one I would put in the camp of reactionism [reacting to the treaty-centric radicals]. Personally, I think a pragmatic middle way is better - the treaty should be historicized while understanding the significant role it had in shaping the country that we've become. Yes, it has been superseded but it is not irrelevant, it should have a historically proportionate meaning for us, especially for Maori where they first attained to equal rights under law, which our subsequent Parliament ratified/ recognised shortly after we became a self-governing colony.
@@davethewave7248 yes but I still agree with laws here in that nzers in general are a stupid mob. Look at covid, look at the number of voters greens get, most kiwis are oblivious of politics in general and even those who think they are abreast of currant issues are ignorant to huge impacts when they happen, most often clueless.
Yeah it means: Iwi unite!
which they didn't when it was signed
DOI 1835 is the founding document
Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.
S2, ss3.
In the event of any conflict in meaning between the English version of the Pre amble and the Maori version, the Maori version shall prevail.
That wasn't written in 1840
How many indigenous people in the world do you know have a Declaration of Independence, a Treaty, and a Law? Furthermore, your NZ Govt is already Appointed by the Rat-Ana Church (25th Jan), the Maori Council (6th Feb), and the Maori King (date unknown).
So therefore what are you electing? .....
A private company registered to a DEBT COLLECTOR called DUNN and BRADSTREET.
If either party doesn't understand what they are signing doesn't that void the contract?
Maori knew exactly what they were signing. It was read out to them in Maori. They gave the queen governorship, nothing else. Kept everything else to themselves.
1] The meaning was communicated well. 2] It is not a contract but a compact between peoples.
Thankyou Michael.. Truth hurts doesn’t it?
Chiefs were generally intelligent, they had the wording and meaning of Te Tiriti explained and they discussed this between themselves. They had already experienced decades of contact with European settlers and European ideas of ownership and governance. The New South Wales governance model was well known.
@@Thewandereringanzac Well, they were promised to keep lands and possessions to themselves. The definition of possessions or taonga has been stretched over time.
TIRITI ALSO GAVE PEACE FOR OVER 180Years. Would ALL AOTEAROA/NEW ZEALAND Throw that away...SURELY NOT...
I dont get it. How can you cede governance to the crown in article 1 but then say that you still own the land in article 2? But i take Michaels point. I suppose like legislation laws need to be rewritten, updated because its relevance does not hold up to current times.
The simple and obvious reason that the people of Aotearoa are one people (and not two or more) is that there has been almost two hundred years of relationships among people of different ethnic backgrounds. About a quarter of people identifying as European have Māori ancestry; and about half of people identifying as Māori have European ancestry. The vast majority of people have a multi-ethnic ancestry... Anyway, kiwis should move beyond race and ethnicity. And most do! Irrespective of anyone's race or ethnicity, humans have the lowest genetic diversity of almost any species. We are all human!
Yes, we developed as one people thanks to the treaty. There was no form of apartheid. My best mates at school were Maori and I remember their names well. One was a Morehu [a survivor].
What a wonderful world that would be Neil.. tell that to the Aboriginal people of Australia, or the Native people of North and South America or the many Indigenous people who have suffered Genocide because of Settler Colonial Imperialism. But guess what Neil, there are people RIGHT NOW suffering because other people want ALL their land, the International Court of Justice has found Plausible evidence against Israel that they are committing Genocide right Now! If it wasn’t for the foresight of my ancestors we would have suffered the same fate as our brothers and sisters.
@@korocam9137 Yes, there are major issues around the world... But we can't solve the world's problems in RUclips comments... Whenever I've been on a plane returning to Aotearoa, I have a strong feeling that I'm returning to one of the best countries on Earth. Let's continue to celebrate our differences and not allow them to divide us.
A True xunt of the Crown
Those of us lost in the labyrinthe of fickle theory today have no conception of the past whatsoever. Back in the day, practical and largely homourable men had a state and a country to build. Only the actual reading of actual history removes you from the two-dimensional maze.
NZ still breaks international law concerning treaties, and over the 180 years the NZ government have never ever honoured the offical legal document of Titiriti O Waitangi. Which illustrates even in 2024 that politicians today lie, are brought / lobbied with no policies directed to help all NZer's / Kiwis (only to slash people services education, medical, social housing (all peoples cultural right / custom came from a communal living setup (not cutting people out) etc.
And there you go!!!!
Fuck the treaty
😂 butthurt much lmao
Suck it pakeha😅
Why????
@@lockk132 Becoz he's a jealous bastard
Only if that's your mums name!
Michael,after all your ramping and raving about the treaty you didn't mention the Crown the owner of the Treaty document that was signed by the two people.If anyone reject the Crown then the signed Treaty is not valid is null and void.So where does that leave us back before 1840.
First off the treaty is a legal document so if you are not reading it with a legal dictionary ( I recommend blacks law dictionary version 1) you won't know what is says (legal definitions of words are often very different to English definitions of words. Secondly the English version is irreverent (for more information on that watch Sean Plunkets interview with Winston Peters). Thirdly if you are not reading the Maori version of the treaty in the context of the 1835 Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand / He Whakaputanga you will not understand its significance and how it protects us all
Yes that's correct...I agree, it's actually there to protect all of us...its actually the right for Maori and all kiwis to be sovereign on our land as guardians and not be ruled by a foreign entity which was the Crown....kia ora bro
yes but as laws pointed out, correctly, the treaty was deemed null and void by nz high court after the land wars. Thats where the legal buck stopped I'm afraid, its legal precedent 🤷♂
Which the laws were in place by the foreign and illegal government in the first place...the high court is run by the crown which only has their best interests in mind...where we as maori and non maori have the sovereign rule over our land ... not the monarchy of England...we choose and have the right under the treaty to protect our way of living and way of life and not be dictated by the crown or the government that represents the crown.
@zweed69 we as people of the land of the kiwi have the right to stand against the tyranny of government and officials...there actually isn't 2 treaty's there is only one which the Maori with wisdom and foresight put in place so all kiwis can preserve our way of living...even us maori need to understand this also...its for the benefit of all people who live in our land of the kiwi...the commonwealth umbrella is a joke, I'd rather us as a people look after our land water and oceans and not the illegal government in place...when you understand the government is simply there to divide the nation and create the chaos and offer the solution to the problem that they created, constantly keep us distracted to justify their jobs and push the corporate narrative at our expense you'd understand that we as a people are a threat when united and hold these institutions responsible they no longer serve a purpose so their best interests is to keep us distracted AND divided than actually moving forward as a nation...if you can't see that you truly are asleep my fellow person from the land of the humble kiwi
@@zweed69 I’m not sure that you intended but you’ve proved my point beautifully. However you are correct in the sense that the English version is null and void but the Maori version is far beyond the reach of any court in NZ. William gave the Hereditary Chefs independence.
Lets just be one people. There's nothing mad about that fact. People that try and twist and twine between that fact are trying to be something else.
We don't know the Maori version is authoritative. That is an opinion, with which many do not agree. I do agree with you, though, that it's time to relegate the Treaty to history, where it belongs.
wow such a breath of reason to architect progress. if you want it?
David Seymoe 9:18 9:19 is doing the rite thing this is the document as it was written now here are the so called differences what do you ALL think
Capitalism! It has links to feudalism and slavery. Which parties prompt this economic system?
90 day trials is one example which links feudalism and salvery. Think twice about D Brash and his thinking.
Can you exlain the significance of the Littlewood copy of the ToW and why, it would appear, so many have politely discounted it's significance and relevance. Also, is it a better translation than the so-called official translation? Thanks.
We need to look forwards, not backwards. A republic is not a good option- these usually come about through civil war. We need to diplomatically severe ties with the British monarchy, but retain Commonwealth ties. We need to cede sovereignty to ourselves- all citizens, inclusive of Treaty rights as established. Over decades we could take up a new flag, and new national anthem, as required. We are lucky we are made up of islands and don't have any land borders with others. We do have boundaries amongst ourselves, which we need to respect and embrace.
Great speech , Michael: The treaty is not the foundation document. But I think you are mistaken in saying it’s between the Crown and Maori. It was between the Crown and rangatira ( chiefs) who were concerned to retain their control over their tribes. The Maori King said last week to Mr Luxon that the exact words must be applied. That means the chiefs get sole authority over their tribes today but not over any pakeha. ( so co governance is forbidden under the Treaty). I think we should let that happen, and see how ordinary Maori like chiefs deciding everything for them.
Should be interesting
That may be the only thing that could shut the radicals up.
Take the cheaty to a referendum
You obviously haven’t been listening. It’s not gonna happen.
Fuk da cheaty and Maudy
Fuk da cheaty and Maudy
Why, the maoris lost !
@@jamesakers4713 Exactly. Use a referendum to weasel out of a contract. When maori signed the treaty there were only 2000 europeans here, so it was rather big of them dont you think.
Thanks, we'll explained. Certainly simplifies the arguments well.
Yes the treaty implies we all be treated the same. That's it's only saving grace in terms of longevity.
The Treaty Principles don't say we should be treated equally though
Michael is right when he says it created a world of two peoples. Maori got rights of British but British didn’t really get rights of Maori as Maori still had tino rangatiratanga. It’s a hard pill to swallow but Maori still own everything and this govt has no legal right to govern them.
Are you saying Mari give up there land what bit they have left, just because Mari have land some are still waiting to partition land off to build. Why don’t you look in your own back yard with these councils and see whats really going on. A lady wanted to build a house next door to her old house. No they said pull your old house down.
@@Thewandereringanzac nah man. If that is true...watch investment and people start to leave the country in droves and there will be only sheep left. Either everyone has the same rights or there will be only racial strife and violence, fighting ovrt thr sheep that remain
@@sallykemp1427 nobody is saying that. Even the most extreme act folks are not saying that. People are saying they just want equal rights. One legal system. One government. That's all. Activists have conjured up.some idea that Maori own the land, water, minerals, oils, anything in thr ground nationwide...even in lands they don't own. They say they still own it even though they don't. And they want a different legal.system to govern them and their own upper house of Parliament (unelected of course)
Where was the referendum in 1986 when the NZ Govt repealed the NZ Constitution Act of 1852!!!
Is this man saying that The Treaty of Waitangi has no legal standing? History? Oh yes, let's look at the history of my Pakeha Western world ancestors. My wife's people say that we talk too much without listening. Never trust the insurance policy you are told to sign. Thats how I see the word of the Western world.
The Treaty will tear this country appart within the next 20 years
Or balance it out
Michael confuses property (asset) right with the right to govern. They’re different rights.
The only solution is to write a constitution. Many have tried to make the Treaty Principles our constitution (over and above the Westminster Parliamentary system we have had for nearly 150 years).
Oh, and those trying to make the Treaty Principles a constitution have never consulted the public on this.
It's wild stuff. Judges, Waitangi Tribunal folks, academics, Maori activists, and even the UN have nearly written it into our legal system that Maori need their own legal system, they own the water and timber, and land nationwide. We need an Upper House of Parliament (unelected of course) to veto legislation from the elected Parliament (see He Puapua report) and it seems everyday new nonsense they are coming up with.
It's nothing short of neo-feudalism where we are the peasants.
If you knew what these activists have cooked up you would freak out too if someone said we a need equal rights.
Yes, a codified constitution and then embedded.
We already have the Magna Carta Common Law Court its just not taught to us and how it is a perfect remedy for Governing bodies who go rogue and commit breaches which includes mis spending taxes (giving billions to maori)
1)Total takeover.....2.....
I suppose it was born out of our anti apartheid stance on South Africa. Today we look back at that movement and think, “What were we thinking?” The African royalty took over the other Africans who remained in the ghettos. The only thing that changed was black faces behind the guns instead of white faces. Today many Maori continue to live in poverty despite so-called reparations. This treaty nonsense reached the height of ridiculousness when Moriori made a claim. These descendants of Moriori didn’t sue Maori for their extermination as a race and enslavement yet had the audacity to make a claim. When will the gravy train end?
7:45 Yes the courts *did* rule the treaty was null and void after the land wars, why is that Michael? 🤔
Bring back the Treaty of Versailles I say!
Tha Magna Carta
@@lindamckenzie6500 technically still a part of the constitution, for the better.
Correction: TERITI is an agreement between two Sovereign Entities as stated in the Preamble a continuation of the 1835 Declaration of Independence by He Whakaputanga. 3 article is Individual and gives all Māori the protection of British Citizenship!
WRONG! Ngapuhi Battalion didnt need your protection. You needed ours. Hone Heke chopped your british flag down 3 times to terminate the treaty contract as there were language misunderstandings. Hone Heke also stated if you cant defend your own flag what makes you think you can defend us?
CITI-ZEN comes from London citi, hence citi-zen, the Administration and Financial district for all Deceased Estates and is separate from England. The Queen of England was the figurehead of all Deceased Estates which means everyone who has a Birth Certificate is a Deceased Estate.
So land confiscation crime is (well we've moved on) how would you get on in court saying that these days 😂😂
Cutt the bs and just talk. That's what this country used to be. You may see yourself as lennon but that doesn't make it so.
Because both sides are playing us. Always been this way
If we become a republic that will end all the Treaty settlements and fights
Thank you Michael for pointing a finger at the demise of Heartland New Zealand.
The romantic notion of the glory days of "Heartland New Zealand" overlooks that it existed for barely 100 years. Prior to which it would have been called something very different. Probably heartland maoridom. Before it was stolen from them.
Neolibralism gutted this country far worse than any colonial ever did, but now I'm the boogeyman🤔😁
Frankenstein's nuts and bolts are rusty outdated and a hazard....time for an upgrade to Titanium alloys and carbon fibre...bring on the New World and irrelevance to all this past nonsense and ambiguity....
Ask One New Zealand Foundation about the written charter that the museum won't bring out from storage. That is THE document.
The problem that we face is if the Treaty is to only be an historical document we would need to go down a long and expensive path to documenting a constitution
I recommend you read 'a nz coup' by Ian Wishart
They signed it because they were killing and eating the useless warriors they bashed with clubs and schooled in warfare, they knew that it didn’t serve anyone to keep a land of war and murder, they had already experienced it in Tahiti, so yea they knew what their adversary didn’t know
In 2002, Bill English delivered a lecture at the NZ Centre for Public Law. The title of the lecture was "The Treaty of Waitangi and New Zealand Citizenship"
It places the Treaty in its 1840 context of international law. Hobson and the British faced a basic choice - to mimic treaties signed elsewhere in the world, or to adopt a different model.
The overseas treaties (in North America for example) provide for indigenous tribes to be protected peoples. This is why Canadian tribes are these days represented as being "first nations". Plains Indians did not obtain a right to a passport until the 1920s (from memory).
The ToW on the other hand specified that there was to be one status for all citizens of a new sovereign entity in the land. That is, Maori would have the same rights and responsibilities as other subjects of Britain - the lesser status of a protected people.
Article One, therefore, enabled Article Three. And Article Two was meant to end the conquest of the rohe of smaller iwi by larger iwi with guns,
There had to be some awareness at the time that it would take time to reach the final destination. Yet the the final destination (very imprecisely) charted.
What amazes me is all the constitutional wrangling over the treaty. All you had there was a ceding of a *nominal* sovereignty to the British Crown [by which the tribes gained the privileges of British subjects]. Britain then declared *actual* sovereignty over the whole country shortly after... thereby begins a train of historical events that supercede the treaty [not abolish it]. The way out of this mess is first not to think in treaty-centric terms, but in terms of evolution and historical process... in terms of a semnse of historical proportion. Probably asking too much lol.
@@davethewave7248 they didn't cede soverignty though. Why would they, there were only 2000 europeans here in 1840.
@@barneyboy2008 Chiefs had been to Sydney, and London. They knew what was coming. They had learnt a new way from the missionaries after the most brutal war/ slaughter between the tribes over the past two decades once northern tribes gained muskets. Signing the treaty in the political sphere coincided with their conversion in the spiritual sphere. They were ready for law and order and realized this could only be achieved by submitting to the Queen and her representatives on very favorable terms.
@barneyboy2008 oh yes they did! And obviously they knew what would happen if they didn't get recognition and protection of the British govnt ! Come on you can't be that naive !
@@kenmckay5578 protection against who?
Well said
I COULDN'T BE HAPPIER TO BE LEAVING NZ . NZ IS OFFICIALLY effffd 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Where do you go that's any better, though?
@@MyNic28 aussie because they don't put up with this garbage 👌
yeah, but Aussie have got their own issues. Have you looked into what's been going on with Australia Day, etc. It's crazy over there to, unfortunately 😔
You are definitely right about NZ tho 😞
You argue that after 1860ish the treaty did not mean anything , that is your opinion. your whole argument is an opinion based bias perspective. The document s status is warranted. The signatures after the 6th were defacto .... they did d not matter .
Your perspective is very weak
Sorry Michael where does the treaty of Waitangi say we are 2 seperate peoples? It doesn’t. It says 1. the Maori surrender governance (the ability to form a national government) to the crown. 2 Maori can sell land to the crown and retain their lands As long as they wish to retain them, well if you sell possession of land you lose the adjacent river/ocean rights as well. and 3 that they have full rights and responsibility’s as British subjects.
The Treaty says that Māori have the same “rights and responsibilities” as other subjects of Britain.
Unfortunately Māori have demanded the “Rights “ but have seemingly abrogated the “Responsibilities “ as per the Treaty. The fact is that Māori are a contentious people who, in recent years, have seen themselves as a seperate nation within a nation and it is now important that the Treaty be discussed to see if it is still relevant to BOTH parties so that they can go on together into the future.
We are not the same people and never will be! NEVER!!!
The UN has been in the background instigating much of the recent madness on the Treaty Principles. Once they dropped UNDRIP in 2007 and NZ signed in 2010....they have been molding the Treaty Principles into a constitution of sorts, prodding it along. Maori activists themselves say this in some of their videos on RUclips. It's to "make us compliant" with UNDRIP
@@cullenkehoe5184 the Jewnited Nations! 🥴
Mate. I will vote for you! Lets become a republic.
Michael which document are you repeating? Artical 2 said nothing about forests and fisheries. I'm so sorry to hear you, for once, not having your facts right.
BRO it's symbolizes as a reminder our ancestors arm with a patu & taiaha lost the battle but won the war sent the English home with there heads stuck between there legs together with there state of the art weapon. Bastion point is maori land & the government wants to claim it by manipulating the treaty
All i want michael to do is point out the reo words for fisheries and forrest, i ask him to pay close attention when providing the S in these words, il wait...
I dont like Seymour but i agree with him on this matter.
Define a Maori for me in our current day and age. There are none except watered down versions of multiple races including but not limited to English, German, Asian including Indian, Chinese, Philippine etc etc and many more that are now more prominent blood lines than their original ancestry. You here claims being made on ancestral rights, are those the English or the Maori side of things or issues that will garner the most taxpayer money for doing the least. The Treaty of Waitangi is totally outdated given the amount of bastard bloodlines now running around and what we really need now is just one constitutional document encompassing all people who claim birth rights or citizenship to New Zealand. Just my thoughts but I think I’m pretty much on the money with how most people think today.
Yip bastard bloody lines is you fken pakeha cunts yes your right
Wow, laws your knowledge of the treaty, and your dramatized speel about politics is like the weather, all over the place. It is a waste of time listening to you.
I laugh at this people up in arms about Māori being separatists but that’s exactly how kiwi Europeans have treated Māori so what is it you want one people one nation or we are different?? Haha or pick and chose when it suits because you are scared to have what happened to Māori done to kiwi Europeans haha.
That would never happen because that’s how they are not Māori
So you would prefer equal treatment?
@@Empathiclistener so I don’t currently get or have it ?
That is why we are voting you back into line
@@StGammon77 haha 😂 you’ll do nothing enjoy your Māori speaking family members and grand children and great grandchildren 😘
Yep. Correct. Iwi maori existed in 1840 & shock horror iwi maori still exist in 2024.
Point of note: the monarchy of England being the crown decendants of queen Victoria also still exist.
The treaty is just as relevant today as it did on the day it was signed.
You cant expect to change the principles of the treaty because the two parties named within it are still here.
Thats for them to ammend... not the public not Seymour or the government.
What quantity of Maori blood is required to be an individual party to the Treaty today? How many if any full blooded Maori are even alive today? If I am 1/8 th Bulgarian and 7/8 Korean do I say i am Bulgarian and ignore the Korean ethnicity? Logic fails me.
The Treaty was signed by men not by wandering pen they became Pakeha Christians, the ones who didn't sign kept breaching the Treaty hence lawful confiscation of which noone has ever had returned except privileges maoris of the 20th century
@@StGammon77 poor mislead thing.....
you know of abou 0.5% of actual new zealand history.
do a bit more research before commenting any further.
Article 2. Tino Rangatiratanga applies to Chiefs, tribes and ALL the people of New Zealand 😂 you need to read the treaty again.
I dont think that is in there as all the people of NZ didn't sign a treaty with the crown.
@barneyboy2008 well, it is in there.
By signing, the Chiefs then agreed it applied to all New Zealanders regardless if all New Zealanders signed or not.
Homework is hard.
Please see the English wording of Article 2 below, which shows you to be lying your head off:
Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.
@@jamesakers4713 "and to the respective families and individuals there of" 😂
Thank you
@jamesakers4713 this is the Hugh Kawharu English translation from the Maori version that the Waitangi Tribunal uses
"The Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise (7) of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures"
The one thing Michael missed is the protests undertaken by Maori that raised the nation's consciousness to their plight.
Agreed. They were never happy with how the treaty has played out. What if someone said the contract on your house was of historical interest only.
We have more important plight that effect all, 50k went to the Parliament occupation last year as a united freedom collective of all types and were called a river of filth. But Maori can do a haka and have their whining on National TV, we got tired of it in the 80s and now it's a mind boggling nightmare that maoris seem to be enjoying provoking with racist attacks daily they suck and do not have the same united spirit.
What plight?
Raised Satan you mean
What a bitter old dude
Heard of The God Delusion?
Wow!! Wow!! This has been the brightest and most insightful views I've ever heard about the Treaty of Waitangi which definitely was void ab initio. How such a divisive and semantically blurry source of disagreement could have been labelled as the founding document of our nation regardless if the signing parties acted in good faith? A crucial point Michael Laws did not talk about is the fact that the Head of our "independent New Zealand" is still the King of England. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe such a constitutional aberration needs to be dealt with because legally speaking the Crown (The United Kingdom) is still the representative signatory party involved in the Treaty and not the citizens populating New Zealand in 2024. Therefore, the Treaty of Waitangi is a fossilised document that has to be reviewed. This is an unavoidable step as it is time to stop sweeping the dust under the carpet with politically correct statements.
I say lets become a Republic. We do not need the UK or the Treaty.
Finally someone who gets it.
🤔
Even if we were to take the english version as a point of issue, rangatiratanga was guaranteed by the queen ,if maori was to hold her to this then anything she said in that treaty❤ was her bound word,,, after that when those treaty princible were broken ,who's to say her word isn't doggy doo doo ,,who can say her words of guarantee are worth a hill of beans ,,,the answer is the new zealand parliament,,, thats who,, ,they were the ones that see the treaty as divisive and non inclusive ,they were the ones who lost faith in the queens ability to make decisions on their behalf,,,and effectively saying we are not taking this doccument seriously and we are not going to listen to you ,we're going to make our own laws ,,,it is now a known result that,,, ,and this is important to remember, up to 1835 new zealand was under the control of a governor and the new south wales government so in order to form its own government new zealand settlers and colonisers needed to have the will of the people or unfettered consent of ths people hence the need for a treaty in the first place ,so if the will of the people was not deemed lawful and binding then why run around the country in the first place trying to bullshit anyone,to sign the damn thing. ,,rectify the wrongs of the treaty ratify the injustices on it and identify the protection provisions under thar treaty for all ,,whanau,,, pakeha or tauiwi,,,so say i ,,,,,
Brilliant Michael
An excellent analysis, Michael. Thank you.
Best prime minister we never had ! NZ missed a huge opportunity 😢
The stupidity of New Zealand has led to many, like myself, walking away and abandoning New Zealand completely....never to return....
You won’t be missed.
@@jamesakers4713 😂I dont miss that gang ridden, maori moaning whining whinging shithole...
About time we abolished this out of date stupid document and get on as one people
Who wins with bullshit
Not the majority just the people of Māori blood who have the hand out
Leave the commonwealth then show us a single governing country ???
Then ww3 we are sitting ducks.
@@arenuzzle6282 haha no one’s coming down to nz mate only because we are with the crown is why we will get fucked
The Government needs to be taken to court for misrepresentation of the people of NZ for decades of incompetence in Infrastructure, Health, Education etc
You will have to include the Deep state of America, they are pulling the strings of our marionette government !!
Neville Chamberlain was also a businessman. : (
Probably a merchant and a Freemason🤔
FACTOID : AT the time of the Treaty of Waitangi maori did not have any written language . So only the English version is legal . It must be remembered that even written in any language the maori could not read it !!!!
FACTOID: If you present an agreement to a party to be agreed upon and signed, then it is THAT VERSION which holds the most authority.
ANOTHER FACTOID.
You don’t need to have any spoken or written language for the above to apply.
Maori were taught in Te Reo by missionaries before the treaty of Waitangi. Many Maori Chiefs could read both English and Te Reo and were Bi Lingual
Totally untrue. A definitive orthography had been devised in the 1820s and was in common usage by 1840.
Factoid: a verbal contract is legally binding regardless of the language used.
Great point!
Wakaminenga is the only important contract to me, it declares sovereignty of the whole Central North Island. As one of the Chieftain lines I now evict the crown from our properties, you have a few months notice to move or else you will be served a trespass notice (NZ Police swore their oath to Land Law not Maritime Law).
The Police legally work under Common Law, but of course corporations buy their contracts which makes them more mercenaries. The WEF is playing everyone, they need to abolish Maori Land Titles to take over this country, this is why WEF students such as Jacinda Ardern setup co governance so the coalition government could step in and try to remove Te Tiriti @@NA-sj9jy
This is why we are voting you back into line
95% of Maori Land was sold in Native Land Court, by Maori (chiefs even sailed to Australia in an effort to sell land) 5% was confiscated for breeches of the Treaty (Waikato and Taranaki), so you are wrong, Maori did give up ownership of the land and taonga's... ....
Michael, chiefs sold huge chunks of land to the Crown shortly after the signing [most of the South Island was secured for settlement here. Much of the North Island also was sold legally to chiefs shortly after the signing. It was only 2 decades later that a land league developed in central North Island tribes, which led to the series of battle. Some land was confiscated. But later, after the wars, the bulk of Maori land was legally sold again through the land courts.
The treaty was considered a *legal* nullity because not between two parties under an over-riding legal system. the treaty was the ceding of nominal sovereignty to the Crown in order for the Crown to establish a legal system... it becoming the law of the land... and territorial integrity required for this. Though a legal nullity it still held moral/ poltical/ cultural and historical force - the obligations to Maori of the treaty were inherited by our own Parliament, and so system of apartheid developed - we were considered one.
You type in ignorance, start again
@@lockk132 lol. What part do you think ignorant and why?
@@davethewave7248 all of it. Go to the back of the class.
You can't overlook the theft of land. Quality research will reveal the truth.
@@iammattbarker Most of NZ was legally sold just after the signing of the treaty, and once again through the Land Courts over the course of the 19th century. Some land was confiscated over the course of the war from central North Island tribes that rejected British sovereignty and formed a land league [sovereignty over the whole of NZ was declared shortly after the signing], Some of the confiscated land was returned. Various governments over the generations have sought to address genuine land grievances. Only the bigot thinks all the evil is on one side, and all the good on the other.
Thank you Michael; yes the old Michael from the wonderful University of Otago! SCRUM!
More importantly what you have been saying is 100% correct. Unfortunately the current course of action will destroy this country>
Yes, agree with a lot of this. We need to just forget about the Treaty and base the country on something coherent instead.
The English version is the best.
The English version (draft) was signed by a handful of Chiefs, while the Maori version was signed by over 500, therefore democracy and International law decides which version takes precedence.
One of the fundamental roadblocks to progress, regarding the issue of Maoridom, is the civil service. They seem to go their own way and according to their own 'woke narrative' and foot drag or artificially put up barriers to progress. Regarding the Māori vs. the English versions, at the end of the day all accepted British sovereignty and in doing so, along with it comes the English language regarding the law.
WRONG! Those Warrior Chiefs did not cede sovereignty. They agreed to a partnership not ownership.
Where does it say they ceded sovereignty bro? It doesn’t. They only gave the queen kawanatanga which is governorship. Everything else stayed with Maori.
@@dgm2593 were you there?
@@Anonymous-c4p yes those Warrior Chiefs are my direct family.
@@dgm2593 if we all go back far enough...they're called ancestors.
But that doesn't mean we know how they lived what they said let alone how they thunk!🤔
At the end of the day it is the founding document of NZ. And maori has given nothing away in accordance with the Treaty principles.