Paul Moon on Article 4 of the Treaty of Waitangi
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лип 2024
- Michael Laws talks to Professor Paul Moon about Article 4 of the Treaty of Waitangi.
Watch the full video at theplatform.kiwi/
Support The Platform & become a UA-cam VIP! - / @theplatformnz
Join Platform Plus for enhanced access and features: theplatform.kiwi/platform-plus
Download The Platform app for free:
App Store: apps.apple.com/us/app/the-pla...
Google Play: play.google.com/store/apps/de...
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
Leah Panapa: 4pm - 6pm
#ThePlatformNZ
Attempts are being made to add a whole new article to the treaty to suit one group of people in NZ.
if it only says "btw this treaty also applies to catholics" what difference does it make?
@@annekevandenberg8165 rights what it is
What the heck has that got to do with the Treaty......ok so we need clarification on the Treaty urgently....
A+Media . Thank you. Michael. It would the many have narrarated the Treaty to suit their own narratives. Which is wrong from get go. Thankyou Professor Paul Moon🌹👍✨
Maybe you would like to rewrite that more legibly for those of us that do not understand Sanskrit?
@@hariseldon3786 UA-cam this - Chris Luxon, our activist Prime Minister (PART 1)
It's not the Treaty of Waitangi that needs reviewing. It's the "Treaty Principles" incorporated into every business and service NOT applying to every person in New Zealand.
Exactly right. Māori need their sovereignty returned to them. Something like a Māori Health Authority would be a good start.
Get rid of the Treaty period & stop the Endless Gravy train for Lawyers & Maori whom continue to lay claims as they don’t have to pay for as the Tax Payer pays All Maori claimants.
Maori Elite continue to make up a new narrative on the Treaty & are still getting traction.
Maori are not indigenous & this Myth must be removed period.
_"He said, she said"_
Not written so not in the treaty
Bishops have been told by the Pope to stay out of politics. Not written in the Treaty, doesn't exist.
You really ought to put a year on that Hugh! :):)
John Tamihere said I could stay at his house rent free for as long as I want. I don't have it in writing, but apparently that doesn't matter. See you tomorrow, John.
This seems to be a diversion.
If we have too many rabbit holes to discuss, we will never get anywhere!
As a Catholic, I know that Pompallier is still revered. But...
Politically he is proving to be a pest to this day.
The Anti-Christ is a bloody pest alright.
A large part of why the Treaty was asked for by Maori was because of the trouble the French were starting to cause in New Zealand. Maori did not like them so much, they preferred the British - a wise move.
@paulmeersa7162 you say that as tho they had an option, it's a dam peace treaty or else, moari were told to sighn or we the brittish will bring organized experienced redcoats from the mainland in the thousands ,they shit themselves and they sighned full bloody stop!, that's how it happened, bloody French b.s???
As a catholic, you believe in fairytales, and talk in fictional dialog
@@flyingroman247the treaty was formed because Māori were killing each other off that’s what the musket wars is about, the land wars came after the treaty(Māori vs English)
My brother's friends Sisters, cousin had relitives back in 1840...theres a 5th article...as I was told, it actually cancels out the Treaty all together. Must be true, because they would know, and wouldn't lie to me. I believe them.
Ok captain cook lol
@@patrickhauraki8713- 😂😂😂
As we well know such information passed down via word of mouth is unimpeachable. After all, that's the very foundation of all Waitangi Tribunal findings. Your bro's, sis's cuzzie's relie ought to look to the WT for a paid job in an advisory role?
@@utubermax- lol I be sure to let them know 😂😂😂 thank you for the heads up.
As Prof Moon says, Treaty's are between sovereign states. Tell me then, who was the sovereign of NZ, or Nu Tireni, before it was signed? As CJ Prendergast said in 1877, it's a "simple nullity." But as for the Fourth Article, even our MoE has put out video posts mentioning same, so how are our children to learn the truth? It's as imbecilic as claiming sovereignty wasn't ceded under the Treaty; it endorses co-governance; Maori have a claim to all natural resources; and/or Maori retain special additional rights over the rest of the country's citizens. It did no such thing, but politicians have certainly done their very best to promote racism in more recent decades and sell the majority of us down the river.
Yak yak yak here we go again when is this going to stop 🙄
When the money stops, and that will never happen.
Article 6, states...all there is, ever was, and to be...must wholly and completely...given to Maori.....this will be made public some time next month....when one of the leaders will suddenly remember that conversation, from a dream they have of a dearly departed. That will happen at the end of July, about 2:13am. 😊
...really?🤔
@@NA-sj9jy bull crap 💩
@@Anony_mutt- of course. 😂
You need to interview Bruce Moon - historian -of Nelson.
not written down and signed on, so not part of the treaty, things are complicated enough already.
@@J.Smith-rc6wh exactly try and fight for article 4 in a court without it being set in concrete so to speak would not happen.
This is why lies and misinformation are so dangerous and should always be called out, some will accept the lie and perpetuate it if they think it benefits them in some way.
Im no expert in GeoPolitics. But, if the Treaty is between Sovereign States, how is the Treaty even legitimate if the Treaty was signed by a conglomerate of Chiefs from different Tribes if they're technically not sovereign through unity? Please correct me if I am wrong here.
It's not a treaty. It's a fairy tale.
it was signed by the Confederation of Tribes of New Zealand whose sovereignty was recognized by Britain and USA
Treaty states Maori should be given power back.
@@korowheke3182 ok thank you for that. Which was formed in 1835?
@@hawaiikian7407na mate not by a long shot
We can't agree on the writern let alone an oral contract. Great topic platform 👍👍👍
Nah those guys would write it down
The 4th cannot be used !!😛😛😛
The Treaty is Backed
For ALL under Common Laws and THE MAGNA CARTA , anyway !♾️🙏😛😛😛
Then there is the fifth article-, dated 27 April 1840, one day prior to the major signing at kaitaia-: Hobsons formal printed assurance to hapu that the Rangatiratanga of the Queen would not trample down their own rangatiratanga but that her Governor would continue to uphold the protective assurances of the Treaty. The relative spheres of rangatiratanga in this document clearly indicate a tiered structure of authority not a parity partnership. Strangely, this important document is rarely referenced. Available on line as part of the NZ Electronic Text Coillection (NZETC)
Pharmac have the patents and rights to medicene. They are global...
Frenchie mischief. They've been doing this since 1559.
Moon could have gone harder on the "no oral treaties" angle - not only are treaties at international law texts signed between legitimate representatives of nations, you can't pretend things like verbal contract can can jammed into international treaty-making because you feel like it. There are significant discussions in and around treaties which never make it into text, or get removed at the 11th hour. There is no practical way you can run a treat system qua Treaty of Westphalia with a "yeah, but XYZ was discussed too and it wasn't explicitly rejected so it must be adjoined to the treaty". This is bad faith or kids' sandpit argumentation.
Your editing skills are on point!
There was a 4th Article, but the snails ate it.
There were several explanations and assurances given during the days leading up to the signing of the Treaty. They were purely explanations of what the three articles meant. Hobson said to every signatory "He iwi tahi tātou", explained what sovereignty meant, and added that freedom of religion was part of Article Three. In fact, Article Three said that signatories had the rights of British subjects and, at the time, the Toleration Act 1688 excluded Roman Catholics and Jews. So, since Hobson mentioned something that was not consistent with British law, this could have been interpreted as something separate, which would never be binding until laws said so.
There is also this idea by NZ judges that the Treaty is a partnership. At the time, many chiefs saw it as an alliance. Since Hobson received his instructions from the Marquis of Normandy in August 1939, a lot had happened. As Hobson was loading up The Herald in Sydney Cove in January 1840, there were ships being loaded up with weaponry to be delivered to Waikato, Ngati Whatua, and Rotorua. The Nga Puhi were about to be exterminated. Soon after signing the Treaty, Hobson then headed south and got the Nga Puhi's enemies to sign the Treaty. Clever politics, when you think of it. The same pattern happened throughout the archipelago. (A lot of the 1840 stockpile was used during the 1860s.)
The Declaration of Independence
of New Zealand 1835 October 28th
- Translation by Dr Mānuka Hēnare of Ngāpuhi, Te Aupōuri, Te Rarawa and Ngāti Kuri
He Wakaputanga o Te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni
1. We, the absolute leaders of the tribes (iwi) of New Zealand (Nu Tireni) to the north of Hauraki (Thames) having assembled in the Bay of Islands (Tokerau) on 28th October 1835. [We] declare the authority and leadership of our country and say and declare them to be prosperous economy and chiefly country (Wenua Rangatira) under the title of ‘Te Wakaminenga o ngā Hapū o Nu Tireni’ (The sacred Confederation of Tribes of New Zealand).
2. The sovereignty/kingship (Kīngitanga) and the mana from the land of the Confederation of New Zealand are here declared to belong solely to the true leaders (Tino Rangatira) of our gathering, and we also declare that we will not allow (tukua) any other group to frame laws (wakarite ture), nor any Governorship (Kawanatanga) to be established in the lands of the Confederation, unless (by persons) appointed by us to carry out (wakarite) the laws (ture) we have enacted in our assembly (huihuinga).
3. We, the true leaders have agreed to meet in a formal gathering (rūnanga) at Waitangi in the autumn (Ngahuru) of each year to enact laws (wakarite ture) that justice may be done (kia tika ai te wakawakanga), so that peace may prevail and wrong-doing cease and trade (hokohoko) be fair. [We] invite the southern tribes to set aside their animosities, consider the well-being of our land and enter into the sacred Confederation of New Zealand.
4. We agree that a copy of our declaration should be written and sent to the King of England to express our appreciation (aroha) for this approval of our flag. And because we are showing friendship and care for the Pākehā who live on our shores, who have come here to trade (hokohoko), we ask the King to remain as a protector (matua) for us in our inexperienced statehood (tamarikitanga), lest our authority and leadership be ended (kei whakakahoretia tō mātou Rangatiratanga).
The Codicil
We are the rangatira who, although we did not attend the meeting due to the widespread flooding or other reasons, fully agree with He Whakaputanga Rangatiratanga o Nu Tirene and join the sacred Confederation.
1835 October 28th
Toitū He Wakaputanga
GOD defend New Zealand
שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד
Toitū (verb) to be undisturbed, untouched, permanent.
Confederation of New Zealand Constitutional Republic
CNZCR est. 2024 April 25th
1834 March 20th
Te Kara on a Te Wakaminenga
o Nga Hapū o Nu Tireni
1835 October 28th
He Whakaputanga o te
Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni
We, the true leaders have agreed to meet in a formal gathering (rūnanga) at Waitangi in the autumn (Ngahuru) of each year to enact laws (wakarite ture) that justice may be done (kia tika ai te wakawakanga), so that peace may prevail and wrong-doing cease and trade (hokohoko) be fair. [We] invite the southern tribes to set aside their animosities, consider the well-being of our land and enter into the sacred Confederation of New Zealand.
2024 APRIL 25th
ENACTMENT / WAKARITE TURE
Declaration of Confederation of
New Zealand Constitutional Republic
2024 APRIL 25th
ENACTMENT / WAKARITE TURE
The RIGHT to SELF DEFENCE
"Since it is true that a well armed, fully functional and effective distributed fighting force, comprised of the whole populace, is absolutely necessary and required for the preservation of a free way of life, the inherent and unalienable Right of all individuals to possess and carry arms and ammunition of any kind shall never be removed or incrementally encroached upon by anyone"
2024 APRIL 25th
ENACTMENT / WAKARITE TURE
No member of the Confederation of the New Zealand Constitutional Republic shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Trade Agreement; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts, pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or impacting the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Confederation of New Zealand Constitutional Republic
CNZCR est. 2024 April 25th
Toitū He Wakaputanga
GOD defend New Zealand
שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד
Maori are not the "Indigenous" people of New Zealand. They were killed off by the invading maori tribes.
lol find a new yarn thats getting old,end of day the british signed a treaty with tangata whenua so suck it up lol,you dont like it? well theres also 1835 declaration agreed to and signed too.he whakaputunga lol
Don't mention the Moa.
@@emmanuelfore2938get off the gravy train
😂😂😂
@@rippedup1931
the likes pakeha the same
An ordeal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
We so need this sort of scholarship in politics or at least respected and encouraged in political life.
Please please ask him on more often.
As to the fourth article, preserved in written form by Colenso, how do we interpret it?. Protection is strictly guaranteed to only four groups: three faiths of England (Anglicans, Wesleyans, Catholics) and ritenga maori. Intended as a general statement of religious freedom, it could also be read as a formal statement of exclusivity establishing four state "religions" while completely excluding any other faiths from protection. Are Moslems protected under this Clause, or at a promissory disadvantage? What a potential field day for partisan redefinitions.
All government departments that are doing this need to have their CEO's and department heads promoting this nonsense FIRED as unsuitable for their positions.
Super natural made natural...Magic mushrooms made...some people dead.
Claudia Orange, in her 2004 book "An Illustrated History of the Treaty of Waitangi (2nd edition)", has the "fourth article" on page 32. Was she wrong then ? I am genuinely curious.
British colonization of these islands was a good thing. It saved Maori from themselves. There is no reason not to suppose that they wouldn't have imploded like the people of Easter Island.
You sound stupid.
'The parliamentary act says the tribunal needs to base its work on the text of the treaty'. No reference at all to the context of the treaty. Therein lies the problem.
Also, how is international law applicable to the treaty if that law only recognizes agreements between sovereign states [our treaty involves the dissolution of a nominal sovereign state - the ceding to Britain]?
So it was an oral agreement for "religion"?
Holistic avenues for shaman, witches, warlocks, naturopaths, druids, followers of Gaia, Tane, or any of the other "gods", have been covered.
Or I was distracted and misunderstood all of this.
artical 4 is in a sense the unwritten spoken article of the treaty.or first presentation of the treaty is how they put it . Arch Bishop Pompelia attemted to convince many cheifs from signinig the treaty Some convinced that this is an artical of the treaty due to promises made at the time of signing. but not recognised by our law or international law interesting in other words its not legit
is this what david seymore is using to push his agenda
An 'article' is either - a word that comes before a noun to show whether it is specific or general or - a piece of writing... Article 4 is neither. I rest my case.
so essentially hobson was just reiterating to the bishop, that everyone is covered by the treaty, and no 4th article exists, otherwise it would have been written into the actual treaty, the ghoul of some people behooves me as to their desire to cause decent.
So what does this fourth article purport, that Maori of all religions are included..? Is that what it says guys because it isn't all that clear from this podcast... Perhaps you should clarify.
BUT if it does say that; nothing has changed at all because ALL living Maori are included already are they not..? Or aren't they?
Thank you Professor Paul for that clarification. You sound a little disappointed Mike. Lol.
Stick to what is written in the Treaty of 06/02/1840.
Don't concern ourselves with hearsay, it will only stir up more useless debate.
All for one and one for all.
Get it sorted National/Act/NZ first.
All commentary around the treaty has very little to do with the fact that the Treaty of Waitangi in its entirety is an agreement that hasn't been upheld by successive governments and this is why this country is in a mess around the Treaty of Waitangi and it's Treaty obligations. Uphold the Treaty.
FFS
The pre amble is a protestant law. Under the 1688 bill of rights.
The 3 articles cannot exist without the pre amble.
Australia is in the pre amble.
There is an agreement with hamburg 🇩🇪 Germany that their natives shipped to New Zealand would retain by law,nationality, their language and protestant religion by the law in perpetuity.
Tell the truth Michael laws and moon man.
🙄 lol smh.
So many trying to manipulate the treaty for their own ends
@@geoffstokes
grifters to the max’s whinging non stop on here must be feeling threatened
Maori can thank their lucky stars that it was the Brits who came here, not the *Spanish*.
If it had been the Spanish, I guarantee you there'd be no Treaty.
No "Maori everything" either, like there is now.
Yes absolutely, we would be an impoverished little third world poor struggling backwater handcuffed and hobbled by catholicism if the spaniards let us live.
maori were considered too primitive and didn't have any gold.
You ever heard of a place called Waihi@@sclark9011
Your opinion is a fairytale if this if that never occurred as you say
@@gaius_enceladus but the spanish never discovered New Zealand so your point is.. well pointless.
@@sclark9011 the Spanish empire had basically collapsed in the 1830s so what you’re saying is completely made up and apart of your imagination but keep telling yourself how “lucky Māori are” for something that never would have happened.
Firstly Maori are divided into different tribes. Maori are not one tribe. The weaker tribes may of ceded sovereignty but the bigger stronger tribes did not cede sovereignty.
The nothern tribes did not cede sovereignty hence the British government did not build parliment in Waitangi.
The British went south to Wellington once Hone Heke cut the british flag down to insult and terminate the treaty and any future partnerships with the British Crown. Hone Heke was the first Ngapuhi Chief to sign 'The Treaty of Waitangi' and terminate it. Once he witnessed the British stealing land and confiscation of Chief land. Hone Heke said to himself "this is not what we meant?" So he cut the british flag down to insult your Millitary and Queen and terminate the treaty forever and ever Amen.
If Hone Heke a powerful Chief of Ngapuhi ceded sovereignty he wouldnt of cut your British flag down and insult your Queen Victoria who promised those Chiefs that all there land and resources and everything you value still belongs to you! Then Hone Heke would of embraced the British flag.
So Ngapuhi the biggest strongest tribe did not cede sovereignty to the british empire!
Pompelliar is getting a bad rap here. He actually helped Maori understand what was involved with the treaty [the ceding of sovereignty], and then became concerned with defending religious tolerance [of the Anglican toward other religions.
Farcical greasing to those who wont be greased Hahaha
180 yrs and your still trying to interpret 😂
Paul Moon = George Soros monster... Hi iwi tahi tatou!
Under the Maori flag then
Is there real evidence to your claim or do you just say it to make yourself feel bigger and better then perhaps you are?
More Chinese than Maori in NZ lol