The articles of the Maori version of the Treaty (as translated by Sir Hugh Kawharu on the ToW Tribunal website). It doesn't take great knowledge of anything to understand what they mean: THE FIRST - The Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land. THE SECOND - The Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures. But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed to by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent. THE THIRD - For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.
You do know that the treaty was not actually a contract! It's a treaty.... basically an agreement signed in good faith..... and yes the crown has lied, stole and mislead.... but they werent the only bad actors..... a number of those Maori Chiefs that signed the treaty..... just planely and simply sold their people out..... Also there was a number of chiefs that supposedly saw through the BS and didn't even sign!!! But neither of those sets of Chiefs are ever spoken about 🙄
The Treaty of Waitangi is a legally binding document signed between the British Crown and Māori chiefs. It established a framework for governance and the protection of Māori rights, becoming a foundational part of New Zealand law. Its binding nature is reinforced through incorporation into domestic legislation and the oversight of the Waitangi Tribunal, which addresses breaches and ensures adherence to its terms. The Treaty is often referred to as a contract due to its agreement-like structure between two parties, outlining mutual obligations and commitments. This comparison underscores the binding legal commitment inherent in the Treaty. Both treaties and contracts are legally binding and must be honoured. The Treaty of Waitangi, as a legal document, carries enforceable obligations, and breaching it can result in legal penalties. Honouring the Treaty means upholding its promises, protecting Māori rights, and addressing historical grievances, reinforcing the importance of legal obligations in maintaining justice and equity.
Co-governance is in the treaty. Brits replaced rangatiratanga (run by local chiefs) into sovereignty (run by UK royals). The treaty house was set on fire but the treaty document still exists showing the details along with its burnt frayed edges. We've tried the colonial system for a hell of a long time and now is the time to give the actual documented deal a fair go.
BS. You can’t have co governance between tribes and the crown. The treaty is very simple. Sign over sovereignty and we’ll protect you and your land ownership rights and in return you’ll be treated as equals. It make no sense the crown would go with cofvernance with what they offered. There written evidence from the chiefs they were aware of what they were signing.
What kind of society can we have with that attitude? Maori are expected to accept imposed colonial rule with a smile and migrants are disregarded? Doesn't sound like it will ever be a good place to for everybody just pakeha
'asian is a political term to categorise us as other' no darling, asian people come from asia which is a continent honestly where do they find these people
you weren't listening darling , the huge diversity and different communities the Asian banner represents. Please tell me you know India is a part of Asia
what is the right side of history may i ask. please the past was brutal on both sides do not take the high moral ground ,there is no debate just a small group demanding
The articles of the Maori version of the Treaty (as translated by Sir Hugh Kawharu on the ToW Tribunal website). It doesn't take great knowledge of anything to understand what they mean:
THE FIRST - The Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.
THE SECOND - The Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures. But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed to by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent.
THE THIRD - For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.
Nah mate thats not it 🤦🏾♀️🤦🏾♀️
You do know that the treaty was not actually a contract! It's a treaty.... basically an agreement signed in good faith..... and yes the crown has lied, stole and mislead.... but they werent the only bad actors..... a number of those Maori Chiefs that signed the treaty..... just planely and simply sold their people out..... Also there was a number of chiefs that supposedly saw through the BS and didn't even sign!!!
But neither of those sets of Chiefs are ever spoken about 🙄
The Treaty of Waitangi is a legally binding document signed between the British Crown and Māori chiefs. It established a framework for governance and the protection of Māori rights, becoming a foundational part of New Zealand law. Its binding nature is reinforced through incorporation into domestic legislation and the oversight of the Waitangi Tribunal, which addresses breaches and ensures adherence to its terms.
The Treaty is often referred to as a contract due to its agreement-like structure between two parties, outlining mutual obligations and commitments. This comparison underscores the binding legal commitment inherent in the Treaty. Both treaties and contracts are legally binding and must be honoured. The Treaty of Waitangi, as a legal document, carries enforceable obligations, and breaching it can result in legal penalties. Honouring the Treaty means upholding its promises, protecting Māori rights, and addressing historical grievances, reinforcing the importance of legal obligations in maintaining justice and equity.
Co-governance is in the treaty. Brits replaced rangatiratanga (run by local chiefs) into sovereignty (run by UK royals). The treaty house was set on fire but the treaty document still exists showing the details along with its burnt frayed edges. We've tried the colonial system for a hell of a long time and now is the time to give the actual documented deal a fair go.
BS. You can’t have co governance between tribes and the crown. The treaty is very simple. Sign over sovereignty and we’ll protect you and your land ownership rights and in return you’ll be treated as equals. It make no sense the crown would go with cofvernance with what they offered. There written evidence from the chiefs they were aware of what they were signing.
Amen uso ✊🏽and my Asian sister
Wow. Some really dangerous separatist ideologies there from my people. I’m a bit ashamed
Absurd negativity
I love ACT party
Who cares what migrants think?
If they don't like it don't come
What kind of society can we have with that attitude? Maori are expected to accept imposed colonial rule with a smile and migrants are disregarded? Doesn't sound like it will ever be a good place to for everybody just pakeha
Interesting kōrero.
'asian is a political term to categorise us as other'
no darling, asian people come from asia which is a continent
honestly where do they find these people
you weren't listening darling , the huge diversity and different communities the Asian banner represents. Please tell me you know India is a part of Asia
@@wadetewano thanks for confirming my point
@@mra4955 for a moment there I thought you had an opposing view to Kirsty Fong . Thanks for clarifying
what is the right side of history may i ask. please the past was brutal on both sides do not take the high moral ground ,there is no debate just a small group demanding