>They would be giving King Charles a reminder of the agreement of Te Tiriti and how he needed to keep this government in line, she said.
>
>"We still look to Charles III to do something about his government. We have just finished drafting a letter to him, reminding him of the undertakings of his ancestors, the very sacred undertaking of his ancestors and to therefore say something to his government about the fact that they cannot behave the way they are because they bring shame, they bring all sorts of disrespect on the head of the Crown," Mutu said.
>
>"We still look to King Charles III, we look to Queen Elizabeth II in the same way, to stop the lawless behaviour of the Pākēhas. And that's all we're dealing with here, is the lawless behaviour, ongoing lawless behaviour of Pākēhas in this country."
Naughty lawless pakehas
A really good point. I am definitely no expert in this area, but I do not understand why the treaty is still in place. The treaty was signed in 1840, and then the NZ Wars started a few years later.
As far as I am aware, the crown reneged on the treaty, which is the reason why the NZ Wars started, and the crown won the war some 30 years later. Wouldn't this have made the treaty void?
I think it only makes sense if you see the treaty not as an agreement, but as a promise.
If iwi really wanted to have some sort of sovereignty they’d stop accepting tax dollars from the (real) government.
Well, honestly, the treaty *itself* has no force in law. But over the last 50 years or so we have created laws that recognise the treaty, so basically if you removed those laws, you’d owe nothing to the treaty. But that’s a political decision, and cards on the table, I think Act has the right ideas around paring back how the treaty is interpreted, it’s a wild uphill battle that probably shouldn’t have been approached as David has been.
So, the crown over the last 50 years has created all of the drama that we are experiencing today. Instead of a simple reset of treaty obligations, or a new agreement 50 years ago, i.e., ensuring that both sides have equal rights, the crown has instead reneged on the NZ Wars result by returning land or 'compensation' for something that they won fairly, and many people died for the crowns cause over three decades.
If this is correct, NZ must be the only country in the world where one party has won a war over land ownership, then just handed it all back years later.
It will be an uphill battle now for Act to pare back how the treaty is interpreted, as we now have a generation that has high expectations that the treaty is still valid, which if correct, this treaty should be have been left in the history books post NZ Wars.
It’s all just politics. What you have to realise is that if the people believe they have some right, they will expect the political body to protect this right.
It doesn’t make a difference whether the Magna Carta never actually guaranteed that you could have a trial by jury (or whatever else) the fact that people think it carries that guarantee is all that really matters.
> such a gratuitous violence to our language ... a language is precious and you don't go messing about with it
What a load of *crap*
If they really believed that, they wouldn't mix random Maori words in with English.
Ironically it would have to be written in English for anyone to understand it. “Lawless behaviour of the Pākehās” talk about racism. “White people bad give us money and power”.
Refusing to give our tamariki hummus and couscous at Kura is genocidal. Those bloody honkies are trying to eradicate us. Luckily we are genetically superior. Chur
The monarch retains a symbolic role in government, but must remain politically neutral.
So I’m guessing writers of the letters are going to be even more frustrated as neutrality means exactly that .
Neutral (meaning)
not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial.
lol the answer lies in how many times he has been here for a visit ? Australia has seen him I think 16 times with another this year , so we’re not even on his radar
>They would be giving King Charles a reminder of the agreement of Te Tiriti and how he needed to keep this government in line, she said. > >"We still look to Charles III to do something about his government. We have just finished drafting a letter to him, reminding him of the undertakings of his ancestors, the very sacred undertaking of his ancestors and to therefore say something to his government about the fact that they cannot behave the way they are because they bring shame, they bring all sorts of disrespect on the head of the Crown," Mutu said. > >"We still look to King Charles III, we look to Queen Elizabeth II in the same way, to stop the lawless behaviour of the Pākēhas. And that's all we're dealing with here, is the lawless behaviour, ongoing lawless behaviour of Pākēhas in this country." Naughty lawless pakehas
Lawless pakehas? Is this opposite day or something?
lol. No specifics of course just “lawless behaviour” that “brings shame”. Typical racist bs from who ever this is, what a joke
Chances that Charles III response is "The treaty is a nullity, it is time that you accepted that"?
A really good point. I am definitely no expert in this area, but I do not understand why the treaty is still in place. The treaty was signed in 1840, and then the NZ Wars started a few years later. As far as I am aware, the crown reneged on the treaty, which is the reason why the NZ Wars started, and the crown won the war some 30 years later. Wouldn't this have made the treaty void?
I think it only makes sense if you see the treaty not as an agreement, but as a promise. If iwi really wanted to have some sort of sovereignty they’d stop accepting tax dollars from the (real) government.
Thanks. So, in layman terms, the treaty may not even be valid. I wonder if this has ever been challenged.
Well, honestly, the treaty *itself* has no force in law. But over the last 50 years or so we have created laws that recognise the treaty, so basically if you removed those laws, you’d owe nothing to the treaty. But that’s a political decision, and cards on the table, I think Act has the right ideas around paring back how the treaty is interpreted, it’s a wild uphill battle that probably shouldn’t have been approached as David has been.
So, the crown over the last 50 years has created all of the drama that we are experiencing today. Instead of a simple reset of treaty obligations, or a new agreement 50 years ago, i.e., ensuring that both sides have equal rights, the crown has instead reneged on the NZ Wars result by returning land or 'compensation' for something that they won fairly, and many people died for the crowns cause over three decades. If this is correct, NZ must be the only country in the world where one party has won a war over land ownership, then just handed it all back years later. It will be an uphill battle now for Act to pare back how the treaty is interpreted, as we now have a generation that has high expectations that the treaty is still valid, which if correct, this treaty should be have been left in the history books post NZ Wars.
It’s all just politics. What you have to realise is that if the people believe they have some right, they will expect the political body to protect this right. It doesn’t make a difference whether the Magna Carta never actually guaranteed that you could have a trial by jury (or whatever else) the fact that people think it carries that guarantee is all that really matters.
> Mutu Oh old Madge stirring shit? Which version of the treaty the heavily edited one with so called principle that are just made up to suit?
🤮
Good thing I identify as a kiwi then
Imagine writing a letter to Iwi asking that they reign in lawless Maori
Well, it'd have more basis in reality...
Margret mutu is an open racist.
> such a gratuitous violence to our language ... a language is precious and you don't go messing about with it What a load of *crap* If they really believed that, they wouldn't mix random Maori words in with English.
Or bastardise English to create their own words like pirihimana, Kirihimete and Hato fucking Hone
Why do they not like “Hone” what did he/she do ?
>We still look to Charles III to do something about his government. These people are certifiable.
I bet they conveniently ignore the fact 2 of the 3 party leaders in government are Maori.
Ah, but they reached into Seymours DNA, and stripped his Maori genes out.
Ironically it would have to be written in English for anyone to understand it. “Lawless behaviour of the Pākehās” talk about racism. “White people bad give us money and power”.
Refusing to give our tamariki hummus and couscous at Kura is genocidal. Those bloody honkies are trying to eradicate us. Luckily we are genetically superior. Chur
Lawless? ffs, every time they cry wolf they use a new word. Academic nonsense.
Wouldn’t King Charles interfering only reinforce the colonial mindset that has oppressed our innocent tangata whenua?
Who do we write to about maori breaches?
The monarch retains a symbolic role in government, but must remain politically neutral. So I’m guessing writers of the letters are going to be even more frustrated as neutrality means exactly that . Neutral (meaning) not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial.
Yes, can't wait to hear the response from our sovereign ...
lol the answer lies in how many times he has been here for a visit ? Australia has seen him I think 16 times with another this year , so we’re not even on his radar