Waitangi Tribunal and Don Brash Out of Touch on Rena Don Brash alerted us today that the Waitangi Tribunal was having an urgent hearing to determine whether the Crown had breached the Treaty by negotiating with the owners of the Rena He pointed out today that Article III of the Treaty makes it abundantly clear that Maori were becoming entitled to the rights and privileges of British subjects. His point was to make us aware that Maori did not get any extra rights. However, Don Brash and the Waitangi Tribunal are both incorrect and that is because they do not understand the language and neither do most people who identify as Maori today. Article III does not make it abundantly clear that Maori were given the same rights as British subjects at all. This is an important fact and understood by few: In 1840 there was no written word to collectively describe all the people who lived in New Zealand apart from the words “New Zealander” or “Native”. In 1840 the native or Polynesian word for people or man was “tangata” and the word for usual or ordinary was ‘maori”. You really have to concentrate on this because it is hard not to think of Maori as people. However, there is no evidence that the word “maori” was being used to describe New Zealanders collectively until the 1850’s more than a decade after the signing of the Treaty. In the English draft of the Treaty written by James Busby for William Hobson Article III actually states: In return for the cession of the Sovreignty to the Queen, THE PEOPLE OF NEW ZEALAND shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them. From the Native New Zealand language text Treaty the words used are “tangata Maori katoa o Nu Tirani” or “all the ordinary men/people of New Zealand” The words “tangata maori katoa” are important because they refer to ALL New Zealanders not just chiefs, not just brown people, not just white people, not just men, not just woman but ALL the ordinary people of New Zealand. This goes for the Preamble, Article I and Article II as well. The English draft does not even have the word “Maori” in it and that is because it was not in use in 1840. When the word ‘maori’ is used in what we call now the Maori language Treaty the word “maori” can be substituted with normal/usual/ordinary. The words used in 1840 to describe the Polynesian New Zealanders were aborigine or native. If the Treaty was directed at just them, like they say it was, we would see those words used in the Treaty. Needless to say the words aborigine and native are not used in the Treaty. What this means is: Pre 1850 there was no collective group called “Maori” and they did not become a “race” until the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act. What this also means is: In 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi was a contract between the Crown and ALL the people of New Zealand and it still is today. Further, it means: Every single race based policy in this country is a breach of Article III of the Treaty of Waitangi and this is the basis of my claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. The full claim can be read in my new book “Cannons Creek to Waitangi”
Posted on: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:15:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015