Hardly surprising that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that chiefs did not cede their sovereignty when the 'two treaty' principle is the basis of the Tribunal view of the Treaty. Arguably, a projection onto the past rather than asking what the treaty really meant to them at that time [as oppsoed to what we think it means now]. In rejecting the authority of the Crown to make laws over the whole of the territory of NZ, the Tribunal's judgement is bordering on the ridiculous, for this was the only basis on which Britain was going to govern NZ. Maybe that's what makes it easier to believe... for surely it can't be ridiculous... but then again, tell a fib big enough... lol
Archive records in the maori land court show every land transaction. 92% sold by 1900. Only 1.6 % of NZ land confiscated during the rebellions of the 1860s as a consequence of murdering and massacring settlers throughout those rebellions. Settlements through tribunal have compensated for most of that to the tune of over 6 bil. Why are there no advocates for the Govt in the tribunal. One sided graveytrain. Abolish the waitangi tribunal and let all claimants pay to hear their case in the High or Supreme courts like every other nzer
@@KerryTonga It was written by the British resident Busby, who had previously written the Whakaputanga document [Declaration of Independence]. This was based on the instructions as received by Hobson from the Colonial office. It was then translated into Maori [Te Tiriti] by the missionaries, who preceded to explain to the chiefs the principles involved.
There's actually 11 Treaty documents, which one do you wish to go by? One of the 8 sample drafts, the final draft and writ, the Maori translation or the back translated bastardised English version done by Maori. Be honest.
If the Treaty is about one thing it is about the cession of sovereignty to the British. The missionaries and Busby responsible for translating the final draft would've had this uppermost in mind. Therefore there has to be something drastically wrong with this notion of 'two' treaties... that has only been foistered on this country since the '80s.
That's because the one defaced at TePapa recently is a fraud which successive history ignorant Govts have ignorantly continued with embedding that false translation into the 1975 TOW Act. The Palmer ignorantly continued with his principles fabrication backed up by a fuddy duddy justice Cook who decided all by himself that the TOW was akin to a partnership . Pandora couldn't be happier.
@@davethewave7248 That means instant deportation for you. Its time for Maori Chiefs and the Crown to have a divorce. The Crown now has to give everything back to the groom as the original owner once we sign the divorce papers. Do you now understand pakeha?
The Maori version of Ti Tiriti is the only correct one. The English versions are rogue versions based on what James Freeman sent to England The Littlewood Treaty found in the 90's is Busby's final draft of the treaty which was translated into maori by the Williams
By saying the final English writ is different means the translation is inaccurate so you shoot yourself by saying that, kinda nullifies the maori version which of course we don't NEED
@@StGammon77 500+ Maori Chiefs signed the Maori version saying we did not cede sovereignty. Only 40 chiefs signed the english version. The english version is out voted by 500 to 40. You dishonest pakeha built the country on the english version. Do you UNDERSTAND how fraudulent you are?
In the Maori version article two it says Maori will get the protection and rights of British subjects. Do British subjects get to be Chiefs? Do they get to have sovereignty separate from the government separate from the crown? No, they get property rights and the right to develop and utilize the resources on their land. A property owner is a chief of the land of one’s family on that land, but not the government of the country article one clearly seeds, government forever to the crown over Maori land. You can’t have chiefs having total sovereignty and have a government with authority to govern over their lands. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever and chiefs at the time that didn’t sign clearly saw this and didn’t sign because of it.
Jeff Bezos owns Amazon. But he employs a CEO to run and govern his Amazon company. Maori Chiefs own land and resources but employ british government to run and govern there land and resources. But instead the government confiscated and stole everything and had the owners working for the government. Thats why they frauded the treaty to switch everything around.
The "official" Treaty is "not" the Treaty that was originally written in Maori in 1840. People (mainly politicians) over the years, destroyed the message of the Treaty. For a start they are Articles not Principles. These Principles have never been defined. The Treaty was "never" a partnership!! The Maori words you use are a "construct" produced by the then missionaries to form a view for Maori as to what loss of Sovereignty meant. The settlers, immigrants and Maori are now not unique. They were made all British citizens with "equal rights" and subsequent property rights. Prior to 1840 Maori owned no property (land). It was taken and held by conquest...Tribal war. In fact the Treaty has outlived itself.The days of the then people, Native and settlers along with the "crown" have gone!! Its now a political football. Parliament rules the day. Not Maori. If this is what young minds are being taught. Then God help us!
Totally agree, Treaty was only active until Parliament formed 1852 which was expected to be Pakeha NOT Maori. Since we let them into Politics it's been a sordid downhill slide into an inside attempted coup that Citizens are suffering over but very little Politicians have the fortitude to reset! We have a Maori Governor General ffs who's meant to be mediator between Monarchy and Parliament, Jacinda chose her and that's a problem right there.
The discovery doctrine is the only document that is been acknowledged since the 1800s, and according to the doctrine maori people have the same status as animals because animals dont have rights. everything was confiscated from the waters that flow from our mountains to the seabed, to our own language that must not be spoken in the eyes of the public (only in recent times our language has been acknowledged due to UNs reports of NZ governments Maori rights abuse, and 52 countries recommendations opposing this abuse). as long as the doctrine of discovery exists there is no te tiriti o waitangi agreement for all New Zealanders to benefit from. they will only favor industries and expand these operations, into our natural environments consisting of whakapapa our tupuna handed down to us to preserve for our sustainable future. The doctrine of discovery soon became the doctrine of law.
The discovery doctrine is a Catholic doctrine. The Missionaries that came to New Zealand were Protestant!!. Please get that clear!! A "treaty" was signed by Maori, Ceding control (Law and order) and governance to Great Britain. Period
@@dallasstrom1308 The problem with the system of utu is that it could escalate realtively minor incidents into major warfar... not only between iwi but also between hapu within iwi. Nga Puhi history is a good example of this - the 'girl's war' and the later civil war that broke out... both in the 1830s just previous to the signing of the treaty. You can see why they signed for British law and order right. The conversion to Christianity also had much to do with it.
@@davethewave7248 Every society in every civilisation all over the world and throughout history has engaged in some form of conflict or retribution against their own people. The concept of utu, embodying reciprocity and balance, was not unique to the Māori; it was a universal principle observed in various forms across cultures. I find your comment quite surprising. It seems as though you are positioning the British as the saviours of mankind, almost as if they were the Son of God himself. The notion that the Māori were uniquely devastated by utu ignores the broader historical context in which all societies practiced their own forms of justice and retribution. Using the word utu to push a negative narrative demonstrates a misunderstanding of the true cultural significance. "Utu" is the concept of reciprocity or balance. It can denote both positive and negative aspects of returning a favour or seeking retribution. Utu is about maintaining balance and harmony within relationships and the community. If someone does something good for you, you are expected to reciprocate with a good deed. Conversely, if someone wrongs you, utu can involve seeking redress or retribution to restore balance.
What part of giving absolutely forever the government over their lands does she not understand? How does the crown have absolute government over Maori land without chiefs, seeding sovereignty? In the Maori version article two it says Maori will get the protection and rights of British subjects. Do British subjects get to be Chiefs? Do they get to have sovereignty separate from the government separate from the crown? No, they get property rights and the right to develop and utilize the resources on their land. A property owner is a chief of the land of one’s family on that land, but not the government of the country article one clearly seeds, government forever to the crown over Maori land. You can’t have chiefs having total sovereignty and have a government with authority to govern over their lands. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever and chiefs at the time that didn’t sign clearly saw this and didn’t sign because of it. She promotes revisionism. She promotes presentusm. She promotes neo-Marxist activism masquerading as academia it’s not about narratives it’s about article 1 of the treaty. It’s very very clear what that says article one is the first an overriding article that sets the context for the rest of the treaty. That is the first time of the crown, absolute government over Maori lands meaning over the Chiefs over the Maori people it’s very very simple trying to whine back the clock and pretend that’s not the fact is disingenuous .
Imivanke yes. It’s the government if the country. But oh but I know we can imagine overthrowing the government. We can imagine having a Maori government. We can imagine Maori supremacy I am it’s just neo Marxist nonsense. Maori we’re a tribal society that was stratified with the elite commoners and slaves.
Back in the 70s 80s there was a DNA scale that if you had more than 50% Polynesian you were Maori in NZ. At this stage 200 years of intermarriage has blended us noone is truly Maori or living as native forest dwellers, we arent racist in NZ really its just division over politics, we have a 2 tiered racial Parliament fighting in cabinet its bad, anti white campaigns, decolonise projects, educating white kids to feel guilty and making Maori kids victims its the old oppressed and oppressor cliche but who and what is really being suppressed here?
There’s nothing in the treaty about grievances. It’s astonishing that the focus is on grievances and not the benefits of colonization. The first thing that she starts talking about is grievances article 1 of the Maori version of the treaty of Waitangi clearly states that the Chiefs give total government to the crown over their lands forever. It’s very clear there’s no ambiguity. It doesn’t mention that the Chiefs give the right to Gavin over European settlers. It clearly states governance forever over their lands. The Chiefs lands, Maori land. When Maori breached this clause in the treaty, the crown acted to stop that rebellion, acting to enforce the governments that had been seeded via the treaty. Any grievances that did come about clearly need to be addressed. Those such should be addressed in respect to the transgression of Maori not just the actions of the crown. It’s curious that there’s no talk about the land theft and genocide during the musket wars. There’s no recognition of how that impacted Maori in the past and now.
There’s nothing in the treaty about non-Maori land. So when it comes to resource management and the environment on land owned by non-Maori, it has nothing to do with the treaty.
You're delusional. But then again, I understand your desperation. I'd feel that way too if my ancestors' dodgy dealings were exposed, and worse, knowing that I have probably benefited from it. The fact is, Maori ceeded governship, not tino rangatiratanga (self-determination, autonomy, absolute authority), see article 2, Ti Tiriti. It's clear that you don't know the difference.
It's very clear Maori never ever had jails or locked up prisoners they like anyone still had arguments and grievances the difference is in the character or attitude of the individual plus we lived God's LORE the maori way is to talk it through or negotiate pakeha need remuneration or to cause you pain by jailing you no effort made to understand or be reasonable
The significant differences aren't so different because the spirit and intent was translated. Maori ceded sovereignty under article 1; but, it wasn't absolute sovereignty, it was rather a sharing of power. England had parliamentary sovereignty in 1840, and it was that form of sovereignty which was ceded by Maori (not the form exercised by William the Conqueror). Kawanatanga or Civil Government, written in the preamble of the Treaty, is a form of sharing of power between the Queen and the citizens of NZ, through their representatives. Sadly, Maori were disenfranchised in the system of Kawanatanga, as a consequence of token representation in Parliament. The real issue is so-called academics still haven't figured this out after 180 years. Cultural hegemony is at play.
we are full sovereign owners of Aotearoa, the crown are just ceremonialists nothing else. they never lived here or ever will, you cannot identify yourself to a place in name only, but in language and residential rights, we live here generations and generations, thats human rights. My greatgrand parents are from Ireland but I was born here I cannot say Im from Ireland, but I can join the cermonies if I want to but I cannot say I belong or Ireland belongs to me. It pays to be fully on and not half hearted about whose sovereign. The Long White Cloud is our cover. God is our Soveriengty. Our constitution is partly to limit powers over whosoever. Back in Genesis, We are a blessed nation.
@@ngatibroffessor1840 did you vote? Voting is an exercise of sovereignty. The right to make laws, by electing a representative of your choice in Parliament. Maori text Kawanatanga = Government English text Sovereignty = Government
@@GS-wz1ud Article 2: In the Māori text, Māori were guaranteed 'te tino rangatiratanga' or the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages, and all their property and treasures. Māori also agreed to give the Crown the right to buy their land if they wished to sell it.
@@GS-wz1ud Its very clear that both the English and Maori text were not the same. Regardless...The Crown still failed to uphold its agreement even under the English text of the treaty. Hence Maori are in various stages of settlement for breeches of the English version of the Treaty.
A consittution should be worded to define how a country is governed.
And should be based on democracy
One man one vote, equal rights for all
Weak af bolo a constitution should set the limits of power ❤❤
Justice will bring peace and prosperity to the common man , , ,🤙
Mihi nui ki a koe e professor Hayward. Thank you so much for your research insights and reflections.
Hardly surprising that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that chiefs did not cede their sovereignty when the 'two treaty' principle is the basis of the Tribunal view of the Treaty. Arguably, a projection onto the past rather than asking what the treaty really meant to them at that time [as oppsoed to what we think it means now]. In rejecting the authority of the Crown to make laws over the whole of the territory of NZ, the Tribunal's judgement is bordering on the ridiculous, for this was the only basis on which Britain was going to govern NZ. Maybe that's what makes it easier to believe... for surely it can't be ridiculous... but then again, tell a fib big enough... lol
Archive records in the maori land court show every land transaction. 92% sold by 1900. Only 1.6 % of NZ land confiscated during the rebellions of the 1860s as a consequence of murdering and massacring settlers throughout those rebellions. Settlements through tribunal have compensated for most of that to the tune of over 6 bil. Why are there no advocates for the Govt in the tribunal. One sided graveytrain. Abolish the waitangi tribunal and let all claimants pay to hear their case in the High or Supreme courts like every other nzer
To my understanding te Tiriti was written by pakeha scholars Hobson an mate's blame those Know it all blokes not Maori,,???
@@KerryTonga It was written by the British resident Busby, who had previously written the Whakaputanga document [Declaration of Independence]. This was based on the instructions as received by Hobson from the Colonial office. It was then translated into Maori [Te Tiriti] by the missionaries, who preceded to explain to the chiefs the principles involved.
@@davethewave7248 Do your research more in depth rather than the shallowness of your views.
@@sidneylewis9964 I've a whole bookshelf of NZ history to say I've done my research. How much history have you read?
Oh wow, those are my exact feelings n thought's towards the treaty, and I was limited on that knowledge, thank u
There's actually 11 Treaty documents, which one do you wish to go by? One of the 8 sample drafts, the final draft and writ, the Maori translation or the back translated bastardised English version done by Maori. Be honest.
If the Treaty is about one thing it is about the cession of sovereignty to the British. The missionaries and Busby responsible for translating the final draft would've had this uppermost in mind. Therefore there has to be something drastically wrong with this notion of 'two' treaties... that has only been foistered on this country since the '80s.
That's because the one defaced at TePapa recently is a fraud which successive history ignorant Govts have ignorantly continued with embedding that false translation into the 1975 TOW Act. The Palmer ignorantly continued with his principles fabrication backed up by a fuddy duddy justice Cook who decided all by himself that the TOW was akin to a partnership . Pandora couldn't be happier.
Wheres our signed copy?
@@dgm2593 Irelevant now. The country moved on, and was not treaty-centric. The treaty-centricity [or ecentricity] you see today is retrogressive.
@@davethewave7248 That means instant deportation for you. Its time for Maori Chiefs and the Crown to have a divorce. The Crown now has to give everything back to the groom as the original owner once we sign the divorce papers. Do you now understand pakeha?
@@dgm2593 lol. In your dreams.
The Maori version of Ti Tiriti is the only correct one.
The English versions are rogue versions based on what James Freeman sent to England
The Littlewood Treaty found in the 90's is Busby's final draft of the treaty which was translated into maori by the Williams
By saying the final English writ is different means the translation is inaccurate so you shoot yourself by saying that, kinda nullifies the maori version which of course we don't NEED
@@StGammon77 500+ Maori Chiefs signed the Maori version saying we did not cede sovereignty. Only 40 chiefs signed the english version. The english version is out voted by 500 to 40. You dishonest pakeha built the country on the english version. Do you UNDERSTAND how fraudulent you are?
In the Maori version article two it says Maori will get the protection and rights of British subjects. Do British subjects get to be Chiefs? Do they get to have sovereignty separate from the government separate from the crown? No, they get property rights and the right to develop and utilize the resources on their land. A property owner is a chief of the land of one’s family on that land, but not the government of the country article one clearly seeds, government forever to the crown over Maori land. You can’t have chiefs having total sovereignty and have a government with authority to govern over their lands. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever and chiefs at the time that didn’t sign clearly saw this and didn’t sign because of it.
Jeff Bezos owns Amazon. But he employs a CEO to run and govern his Amazon company.
Maori Chiefs own land and resources but employ british government to run and govern there land and resources.
But instead the government confiscated and stole everything and had the owners working for the government. Thats why they frauded the treaty to switch everything around.
Exactly
Aotearoa is now multicultural but te tiriti was between maori and the crown. Why is the government involved where is the crown
The "official" Treaty is "not" the Treaty that was originally written in Maori in 1840. People (mainly politicians) over the years, destroyed the message of the Treaty. For a start they are Articles not Principles. These Principles have never been defined. The Treaty was "never" a partnership!!
The Maori words you use are a "construct" produced by the then missionaries to form a view for Maori as to what loss of Sovereignty meant. The settlers, immigrants and Maori are now not unique. They were made all British citizens with "equal rights" and subsequent property rights. Prior to 1840 Maori owned no property (land). It was taken and held by conquest...Tribal war.
In fact the Treaty has outlived itself.The days of the then people, Native and settlers along with the "crown" have gone!! Its now a political football. Parliament rules the day. Not Maori.
If this is what young minds are being taught. Then God help us!
Totally agree, Treaty was only active until Parliament formed 1852 which was expected to be Pakeha NOT Maori. Since we let them into Politics it's been a sordid downhill slide into an inside attempted coup that Citizens are suffering over but very little Politicians have the fortitude to reset! We have a Maori Governor General ffs who's meant to be mediator between Monarchy and Parliament, Jacinda chose her and that's a problem right there.
The discovery doctrine is the only document that is been acknowledged since the 1800s, and according to the doctrine maori people have the same status as animals because animals dont have rights. everything was confiscated from the waters that flow from our mountains to the seabed, to our own language that must not be spoken in the eyes of the public (only in recent times our language has been acknowledged due to UNs reports of NZ governments Maori rights abuse, and 52 countries recommendations opposing this abuse). as long as the doctrine of discovery exists there is no te tiriti o waitangi agreement for all New Zealanders to benefit from. they will only favor industries and expand these operations, into our natural environments consisting of whakapapa our tupuna handed down to us to preserve for our sustainable future. The doctrine of discovery soon became the doctrine of law.
The discovery doctrine is a Catholic doctrine. The Missionaries that came to New Zealand were Protestant!!. Please get that clear!!
A "treaty" was signed by Maori, Ceding control (Law and order) and governance to Great Britain. Period
@@DW_Kiwiwhich part in te tiriti does it say we cede anything? Nowhere. We have the Queen kawanatanga, or governorship, that’s all. No ceding here.
I don't think you are in any position to defame God's good work sending Pakeha on a humanitarian and evangelical mission to the former natives.
Utu... balance and reciprocity. Disastrous for tribes.
Not in the slightest. Goes to show what you truly understand about the culture. Colonialist much.
@@dallasstrom1308 The problem with the system of utu is that it could escalate realtively minor incidents into major warfar... not only between iwi but also between hapu within iwi. Nga Puhi history is a good example of this - the 'girl's war' and the later civil war that broke out... both in the 1830s just previous to the signing of the treaty. You can see why they signed for British law and order right. The conversion to Christianity also had much to do with it.
@@davethewave7248 Every society in every civilisation all over the world and throughout history has engaged in some form of conflict or retribution against their own people. The concept of utu, embodying reciprocity and balance, was not unique to the Māori; it was a universal principle observed in various forms across cultures. I find your comment quite surprising. It seems as though you are positioning the British as the saviours of mankind, almost as if they were the Son of God himself. The notion that the Māori were uniquely devastated by utu ignores the broader historical context in which all societies practiced their own forms of justice and retribution. Using the word utu to push a negative narrative demonstrates a misunderstanding of the true cultural significance.
"Utu" is the concept of reciprocity or balance. It can denote both positive and negative aspects of returning a favour or seeking retribution. Utu is about maintaining balance and harmony within relationships and the community. If someone does something good for you, you are expected to reciprocate with a good deed. Conversely, if someone wrongs you, utu can involve seeking redress or retribution to restore balance.
What part of giving absolutely forever the government over their lands does she not understand? How does the crown have absolute government over Maori land without chiefs, seeding sovereignty?
In the Maori version article two it says Maori will get the protection and rights of British subjects. Do British subjects get to be Chiefs? Do they get to have sovereignty separate from the government separate from the crown? No, they get property rights and the right to develop and utilize the resources on their land. A property owner is a chief of the land of one’s family on that land, but not the government of the country article one clearly seeds, government forever to the crown over Maori land. You can’t have chiefs having total sovereignty and have a government with authority to govern over their lands. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever and chiefs at the time that didn’t sign clearly saw this and didn’t sign because of it.
She promotes revisionism. She promotes presentusm. She promotes neo-Marxist activism masquerading as academia it’s not about narratives it’s about article 1 of the treaty. It’s very very clear what that says article one is the first an overriding article that sets the context for the rest of the treaty. That is the first time of the crown, absolute government over Maori lands meaning over the Chiefs over the Maori people it’s very very simple trying to whine back the clock and pretend that’s not the fact is disingenuous .
Imivanke yes. It’s the government if the country. But oh but I know we can imagine overthrowing the government. We can imagine having a Maori government. We can imagine Maori supremacy I am it’s just neo Marxist nonsense. Maori we’re a tribal society that was stratified with the elite commoners and slaves.
Agrees, she's succumbed to the erroneous maori teachings, a traitor
Are you racists stupid on purpose? LOLOOL
So HOW do we divide the country by race!!!!
By giving more than is due to Maori. The natives found in this land.
Back in the 70s 80s there was a DNA scale that if you had more than 50% Polynesian you were Maori in NZ. At this stage 200 years of intermarriage has blended us noone is truly Maori or living as native forest dwellers, we arent racist in NZ really its just division over politics, we have a 2 tiered racial Parliament fighting in cabinet its bad, anti white campaigns, decolonise projects, educating white kids to feel guilty and making Maori kids victims its the old oppressed and oppressor cliche but who and what is really being suppressed here?
Propaganda. Yawn.
There’s nothing in the treaty about grievances.
It’s astonishing that the focus is on grievances and not the benefits of colonization. The first thing that she starts talking about is grievances article 1 of the Maori version of the treaty of Waitangi clearly states that the Chiefs give total government to the crown over their lands forever. It’s very clear there’s no ambiguity. It doesn’t mention that the Chiefs give the right to Gavin over European settlers. It clearly states governance forever over their lands. The Chiefs lands, Maori land. When Maori breached this clause in the treaty, the crown acted to stop that rebellion, acting to enforce the governments that had been seeded via the treaty.
Any grievances that did come about clearly need to be addressed. Those such should be addressed in respect to the transgression of Maori not just the actions of the crown. It’s curious that there’s no talk about the land theft and genocide during the musket wars. There’s no recognition of how that impacted Maori in the past and now.
There’s nothing in the treaty about non-Maori land. So when it comes to resource management and the environment on land owned by non-Maori, it has nothing to do with the treaty.
You're delusional. But then again, I understand your desperation. I'd feel that way too if my ancestors' dodgy dealings were exposed, and worse, knowing that I have probably benefited from it.
The fact is, Maori ceeded governship, not tino rangatiratanga (self-determination, autonomy, absolute authority), see article 2, Ti Tiriti. It's clear that you don't know the difference.
It's very clear Maori never ever had jails or locked up prisoners they like anyone still had arguments and grievances the difference is in the character or attitude of the individual plus we lived God's LORE the maori way is to talk it through or negotiate pakeha need remuneration or to cause you pain by jailing you no effort made to understand or be reasonable
wake up mateTe Tiriti covers all an everything in Aotearoa just read your Tiriti o waitangi
The significant differences aren't so different because the spirit and intent was translated. Maori ceded sovereignty under article 1; but, it wasn't absolute sovereignty, it was rather a sharing of power. England had parliamentary sovereignty in 1840, and it was that form of sovereignty which was ceded by Maori (not the form exercised by William the Conqueror).
Kawanatanga or Civil Government, written in the preamble of the Treaty, is a form of sharing of power between the Queen and the citizens of NZ, through their representatives.
Sadly, Maori were disenfranchised in the system of Kawanatanga, as a consequence of token representation in Parliament.
The real issue is so-called academics still haven't figured this out after 180 years. Cultural hegemony is at play.
we are full sovereign owners of Aotearoa, the crown are just ceremonialists nothing else. they never lived here or ever will, you cannot identify yourself to a place in name only, but in language and residential rights, we live here generations and generations, thats human rights. My greatgrand parents are from Ireland but I was born here I cannot say Im from Ireland, but I can join the cermonies if I want to but I cannot say I belong or Ireland belongs to me. It pays to be fully on and not half hearted about whose sovereign. The Long White Cloud is our cover. God is our Soveriengty. Our constitution is partly to limit powers over whosoever. Back in Genesis, We are a blessed nation.
G S says Maori ceded sovereignty under article 1...
-----------------------
REPLY: Not according to the Maori translation of article 1.
@@ngatibroffessor1840 did you vote? Voting is an exercise of sovereignty. The right to make laws, by electing a representative of your choice in Parliament.
Maori text
Kawanatanga = Government
English text
Sovereignty = Government
@@GS-wz1ud Article 2: In the Māori text, Māori were guaranteed 'te tino rangatiratanga' or the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages, and all their property and treasures. Māori also agreed to give the Crown the right to buy their land if they wished to sell it.
@@GS-wz1ud Its very clear that both the English and Maori text were not the same. Regardless...The Crown still failed to uphold its agreement even under the English text of the treaty. Hence Maori are in various stages of settlement for breeches of the English version of the Treaty.