Many people say I am wasting my time with you and that you simply are not a genuine person who wants to really consider “both sides” of a debate, but I am going to trust that there’s still a part of you that can reflect upon new information and perhaps based upon that, consider slowly evolving your position and extend the limits of your knowledge beyond where they are fixed today.
First let me begin by stating some of the key points you have raised in the past week on G News ( with crude memes and poorly spelt comments ) and from these key points proceed to address aspects of them. Five key points that I have seen underpin your “anti-co-governance” mantra fall into the sub headings :
1. Principles of Te Tiriti versus the Text
2. The Littlewood Back Copy
3. The context of remarks by Apirana Ngata
4. People need to understand the content sold by Tross Publishing and One New Zealand Foundation
5. Feeling like you are the victim and you are losing your rights
Your position from my reading of it - is stated below in summary :
1. In your view, the principles of the Treaty were introduced in 1975 with the establishment of the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal as a distortion of the text which you frequently point out does not include certain words like “partnership” or “relationship” because you think this was a Treaty of cession, where there was an exchange of absolute sovereignty for protection and equal citizenship rights and that was the end of the matter.
2. You think the Littlewood copy of the Treaty is the lost final English draft used to write the Maori version.
3. You think Apirana Ngata’s words about how Maori ceded sovereignty to the Queen in article 1 was absolute and represents how all Māori thought in 1840, and that this is the end of the matter and only shows how later generations of “Māori Elites” have been tricky and changed the story along the way, especially in the 1980s and 1990s as part of a greedy gravy train.
4. You urge people on G News to read up on books published by Tross Publishing with common themes linking back to the view of the One New Zealand Foundation
5. You think funding for Maori language broadcasting and “by Māori for Māori” initiatives bypass democratic principles of one nation in law and Government.
There’s probably more about the way you tend to characterise Māori as cannibals and savages but I am sure you will agree, all civilisations stem from many "barbaric practices" by today’s standards if we go back far enough, so I will leave that to another time. Singling out Māori is silly.
Here is what I have to say to you Phil about the key points above :
1. Principles of the Treaty
I agree that the first references to the principles of the Treaty in law appear in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 after Māori had gained traction that the history be addressed. To take the heat out of the situation the Crown established the Waitangi Tribunal with limited jurisdiction. After 1985 the Tribunal could consider historical claims. Contrary to your view that Maori introduced the principles it was actually the Crown who used these as a tool because as was said in parliament at the time a literal interpretation of the Te Tiriti was problematic and incorporating the principles would get around that issue. There needed to be ways to interpret the intentions of the Treaty beyond 1840 because it was going to be applied to contemporary issues not imagined in 1840.
As you may be aware ( But Scott isn’t ) traditionally, scholars speak about three main approaches to treaty interpretation: (1) the textual approach, suggesting that treaties should be interpreted according to their language; (2) the subjective approach, suggesting that treaties should be interpreted according to the intentions of the state parties that signed them, and (3) the teleological approach, suggesting that treaties should be interpreted according to their object and purpose.
You and Scott appear to be limiting yourselves to the textual approach in a fashion similar to a biblical fundamentalist person who thinks a pair of Tuatara travelled over the Tasman, across Australia around the Indian coast down to Africa where they boarded Noah’s Ark before travelling all the way back home to New Zealand after the floods - cos that was what the words in the Bible say. In other words - it’s all about the textual words and you can’t get your head around “the spirit of the Treaty”.
The spirit of the Treaty is understood to be some sort of partnership. It’s not in the text but it’s in the intent.
You seem to object to how Under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal is tasked with determining the meaning and effect of the Treaty for the purposes of inquiring into Māori claims. However, as we both know the signed Māori text is not an exact translation of the signed English text. ( Which is why you care so much about the Littlewood copy ) For this reason, the Treaty of Waitangi Act requires the Tribunal to ‘decide issues raised by the differences between them’. The Tribunal has a broad jurisdiction and the principles it identifies comes from the hearings it holds to hear Māori Grievances.
I suggest you should be careful not to dismiss all of these hearings and claims as made up and imaginary which your deeper self knows must be untrue and a sign of your own prejudice. But you also know the Tribunal cannot force the Government to act.
As you know the second actor working with Treaty principles are the Courts and they are working with principles that appear in legislation. The courts can require the Crown as decision makers to act. In 1987 the Courts required that Government MUST safeguard Māori interests in land.
The Government at the time could have removed the Treaty obligation in the relevant act but they did not and now we have the language we use regarding principles. ( Sir Robin Cooke etc ) There are two actors - the Courts and the Tribunal who exercise different sorts of power but share much of the narratives about Treaty principles.
The courts have said that the Treaty created an enduring relationship akin to a partnership ( akin Scott - akin ) and each party would accept the positive duty to act in good faith with each other. The courts have not said anything about the relative power between the parties - but the Tribunal does speak about equal status of the partners - a reciprocity or exchange. ( This bothers Scott a great deal )
Protection or active protection was set out in 1987 - and the courts said the duty of the Crown is not merely passive but extends to active protection of Māori people in the use of their lands and water. The tribunal have placed “active protection” at the centre of it’s interpretations since the early 1980s.
2. The Littlewood Back Copy
Dr. Donald M. Loveridge did a comprehensive review of two studies into the provenance of the unsigned LittleWood version discovered in a side drawer in 1989 by Beryl Needham and he reckoned you are barking up the wrong tree Phil.
Here’s one reason why :
“..even if we were to accept that Clendon did play an active role in the drafting, that the Feb. 4th final drafting meeting was held at his Okiato home, and that Clendon retained a personal copy of the final English draft given to Williams, we would be left with a major problem. That is, why did Clendon then go on to describe the English text sent to the U.S. with his Feb. 20th despatch as a “Translation ... from the Native Document and not a Copy of the Official Document in English from which the Native one is made”? This is a very explicit statement and, one would think, quite unambiguous – and it must also be noted that Clendon stated in the despatch itself that “I have also forwarded a Copy of the Treaty entered into with the Chiefs, with a translation attached thereto”, and the English text referred to is clearly headed “Translation”.
Here’s another :
“An examination of the Littlewood document and the historical evidence relating to it does not, in my opinion, provide any support for Mr. Doutré’s proposition that this is the long-lost final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi, or a copy of it. His argument relies heavily on assertions about the role played by J.S. Clendon in the drafting of the Treaty which do not appear to have much substance. His argument that the document is not a backtranslation of the Maori text of the Treaty flies in the face of Clendon’s own clear and unambiguous statement to the contrary, which Mr Doutré is unable to explain away.”
And another for good measure :
Mr. Doutré has not provided satisfactory explanations for the lack of any evidence that Governor Hobson, James Busby, Henry Williams or James R. Clendon ever stated or implied that the ‘official’ English text dated Feb. 6th, 1840, was not the one which provided the basis for the Maori text.
Enough said Phil - The LittleWood version was not signed and there you have it. Never mind nice try.
3. The context of remarks made by Apirana Ngata
Some of your “Anti-CoGovernance literature” claims that Apirana Ngata said Article 1 transfers all chiefly authority to the Queen forever and you delight in going around the internet plastering memes about this.
But Phil wake up - people are laughing at you. He was expressing the conventional wisdom of his time, when all authorities, including scholars such as Ngata, were content to rely on the English text of the Treaty.
All assumed that the sovereignty Maori ceded to the Queen in article 1 was absolute and indivisible, and not qualified by their retention of chieftainship in article 2.
What’s really going to bake your noodle is you know that Te Tiriti ( The Māori version ) is the one understood by most Maori who signed up and words like “Kawanatanga” ( governorship ) did not correspond with English notions of Sovereignty.
You know the “Textual” issues that are problematic although Ned Fletcher argues that those who wrote the English version saw “sovereignty” as compatible with continued Māori self-government.
4. Urging people on G News to read Tross Publishing material
There’s nothing wrong with reading around a topic and I understand Tross Publishing specialise in various whack ball topics and conspiratorial works. I read all of Doutre’s work for example but I do have to inform you that the reason people tend not to read rubbish is because they know it’s misleading. Here is a section of an article from the Spinoff about some of the folk you choose to adhere to.
“…It is difficult to argue with a conspiracy theorist, because the conspiracy theorist is liable to see a critic as part of the conspiracy they deplore. Paul Moon was one historian who tried to reason with the claims that the One New Zealand Foundation and its supporters made about the Littlewood Treaty. In a series of emails that were published on the One New Zealand Foundation website, Moon pointed out that the Littlewood document could not be a treaty, because it was never signed. He also noted that terms like “people of New Zealand” referred, in 1840, to Māori only. In response, Ross Baker accused Moon of being part of the conspiracy to rewrite New Zealand history. When Moon stopped replying to his emails, Baker proclaimed this as proof that the historian had been “gotten to”. Moon had been pressured into silence, Baker said, by the secret enforcers of the conspiracy. In 2013 the Northland District Court found Allan Titford guilty of rape, arson, perjury, and child abuse. Titford’s wife had told the court that he had burned down his own home, then blamed it on Māori. He had kept her captive for years, raped her repeatedly, and beaten his children. Titford was sentenced to 24 years in prison.”
5. Democracy and being a victim
We are having a general election soon Phil. Co-Governance does not prevent us from having our say at the ballot. Instead it’s just about recognising special rights and interests like we accept in all sorts of other areas ( like say property rights ). Don’t be glum. You are not being taken over - you are just learning to share and it’s the putting right that counts. Cheer up.
Summary
The Crown not Maori introduced the principles.
The LittleWood version is a back translation of the Maori Version and is unsigned.
Apirana Ngata spoke in the context of the English version only before it was appreciated that more weight be given to the Maori version.
Your sources are dodgy and should seed doubts in your mind if you have any integrity.
Our democracy is okay and we get two votes not one and we are one nation with a set of founding documents and constitutional laws which together form one constitution.
I know you love that number one better than two.
I hope this letter gives you some pause to reflect upon matters and do more research, laying aside your preconceived prejudice and passion for your version of reality.
Kind regards
G
Comments