Apartheid alive & well. In NZ.

[H3LL]

<<< Told!

 

[The Atheist]

<<< Told!

Not really. The last full-blooded Moriori was Tommy Solomon, who died in the 1950s, I think, but part Moriori are entitled - as are Maori - to claim their ethnic heritage if they identify with being Moriori.

 

[H3LL]

Not really. The last full-blooded Moriori was Tommy Solomon, who died in the 1950s, I think, but part Moriori are entitled - as are Maori - to claim their ethnic heritage if they identify with being Moriori.

Does that work out at about 10% of a Chatham Island each?



I'll stop now - please carry on - I'm really quite interested.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You ought to do some research yourself, before you make such patently WRONG assertions

Pakeha and The Treaty of Waitangi - Faculty of Law - The University of Auckland



www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz The Waitangi Tribunal - Background

Perhaps you should read your own quotes. The first says one of the princple founding documents. It was one of many, not "The founding document".

You also need to read the acts you showed. Neither enshrine the Treaty in law, and the first, that establishing the Waitangi Tribunal, wasn't even done until 1975!

Try again.

 

[six7s]

Perhaps you should read your own quotes. The first says one of the princple founding documents. It was one of many, not "The founding document".

If you have a point, please do explain what it is

You also need to read the acts you showed. Neither enshrine the Treaty in law, and the first, that establishing the Waitangi Tribunal, wasn't even done until 1975!

Try again.

Why should I try again?

So that you can raise yet more irrelevant 'points'?

No thanks

 

[The Atheist]

Does that work out at about 10% of a Chatham Island each?

I'll stop now - please carry on - I'm really quite interested.

Fascinating stuff, the story of Moriori, and the best part of it is that it's all at about the same evidentiary level as the christian bible - lots of hearsay and rumour, little fact. I really only know things on the micro level regarding Moriori because one of the ex-wives was friends with a niece of Tommy Solomon.

The best resource is Michael King's* Moriori, A People Rediscovered, but the site 6*7 gave is as good as any quick info.

When I was a kid, we were taught that Moriori died out with Tommy Solomon, so I'd never even given thought to it until many years later when a statistic came out - probably the 1991 census - with a load of Moriori on it. "Where the hell did they come from?" thinking, never mind Jesus' pathetic resurrection of one - we've got a whole race of 'em!

 

[Carnivore]

Umm... It isn't the "founding Document" of New Zealand. It was never ratified and wasn't even considered important enough to look after until the 1970's. Nor is it legally binding since it was never ratified and never made part of New Zealand law.

You need to learn the history of it yourself.

This has been a major point of legal contention since the 1840s.

One big problem is that Soveriegnty over New Zealand has to have been transferred at some point from Maori to the British Crown in order for modern New Zealand to exist as a legal entity. It is not enough to assume it must have happened at some vague and undefined point. The Sovereignty of New Zealand was recognized to exist in the Maori people when the 1835 Declaration of Independence was recognized by the UK, the USA and others. Therefore if there is not a legal transfer of sovereignty, sovereignty would remain with the United Tribes of New Zealand. Very few people seriously argue this is the case, so the question is, when did the transfer of sovereignty take place?

It is commonly held to be the Treaty of Waitangi that was the mechanism by which sovereignty was transferred from the United Tribes of New Zealand to the British Crown. There is no ther specific event or document whic is claimed as the mechanism forr the transfer of sovereignty. If the Treaty is not binding, then sovereignty was not officially transferred and presumably no law ever passed in New Zealand under Crown authority is legally binding.

There have been various court cases since the 1840s to decide if Treaty principles were binding on the Government of New Zealand. One of the earliest in 1847 decided the Treaty was binding, the judge deciding in R vs Symonds:

'Whatever may be the opinion as to the strength or weakness of Native title ... it cannot be too solemnly asserted that it is entitled to be respected, that it cannot be extinguished (at least in times of peace) otherwise than by the free consent of the Native occupiers. But for their protection and for the sake of humanity, the government is bound to maintain it, and the courts to assert, the Queens exclusive right to extinguish it...The assertion of the Queen's pre-emptive right supposes only a modified dominion as residing in the Natives...This technical seisen against all the world except the natives is the strongest ground whereon the due protection of their qualified dominion can be based.'

However by 1877 New Zealand had it's own court system and when Wi Parata sued Octavius Hadfield, for breach of contract and violation of Treaty principles, Supreme Court Judge James Prendergast held that not only was the Treaty not binding but that it was "a simple nullity". To justify this he added with quite breathtaking cynicism that "In the case of primitive barbarians the Government must be the sole arbiter of it's own justice."

In the case of Te Heuheu Tukino v Aotea District Maori Land Board which went before the courts in 1938 and was heard by the Privy Council in 1941 decided that the Treaty was valid for transferring sovereignty - but not binding on the New Zealand Government unless incorporated into New Zealand statutory law.

Since the mid 1970s, as longstanding Maori issues gained more attention from the general public, acknowledgement has been made in New Zealand legislation that the Treaty is NZ's founding document and that NZ law cannot run counter to Treaty principles.

The 1987 New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General case established the principle that if the Treaty is mentioned in a piece of legisation it takes precedence over any other part of that legislation in the event that they conflict.

The 1990 New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General case established that Treaty was (or could be)relevant even to legislation that does not mention it.


If the treaty is not NZ's founding document, then a fair question would be to ask what is?

It's also inaccurate to say that no one considered the treaty important before the 1970s - large numbers of New Zealand citizens, especially Maori, considered the Treaty and it's legal ramifications crucial to the future of the country.

Almost uniquely, New Zealand was colonized by European settlers with the consent of the indigenous people, who had a written guarantee from the Crown that their property, their rights and their culture would be protected
by law. That the attempt is being made to follow through on this promise after much historical hypocracy and injustice should be a source of pride for New Zealanders.

 

[The Atheist]

That the attempt is being made to follow through on this promise after much historical hypocracy and injustice should be a source of pride for New Zealanders.

That might even stack up if there were a single positive which meant that it had achieved anything at all.

 

[six7s]

That might even stack up if there were a single positive which meant that it had achieved anything at all.

Are you privy to data from some 'control' NZ?

 

[The Atheist]

Take your pick.

 

[six7s]

So... thats a 'no' then

 

[Carnivore]

That might even stack up if there were a single positive which meant that it had achieved anything at all.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that upholding the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is a magic solution to the problems in Maori society. I also don't believe for a second that treaty settlement payments will do a damn thing for the vast majority of the tribes they go to. (If you'll forgive an anecdote, my best friend is Tainui and never has nor ever will see a penny of the Tainui treaty settlement millions.) Nor does treaty guided legislation do much good for urban Maori without Iwi affiliation.

However, the problems in Maori society have to be seen within the context of Maori society's place in New Zealand society as a whole. For nearly all of New Zealand's post ToW history, the official attitude towards Maori has been -at best- paternalistic and patronising. Unofficially, until fairly recently sections of NZ society have openly treated Maori as second class citizens of their own country. (Another anecdote, my best friend's dad used to get the strap for speaking Maori in the playground at school in the 1970s. Maori is one of the official languages of the country!)

It is within living memory that some hotels and restaurants had open policies barring Maori guests. Even today I hear (European) New Zealanders call for the Treaty to be "scrapped" and when I ask what they mean it sometimes boils down trampling New Zealand's unique indigenous culture and language into non existence.

Ultimately every individual is responsible for their own life, but some lives are more advantaged than others. If your life has been artificially disadvantaged because some other bugger set aside the law in order to rob your parents blind, I'm pretty sure you would consider that an injustice.

Upholding the principles of the treaty the country was founded on and acknowledging the fact that country exists as a result of that agreement is worthwhile no matter what the current state of Maori poverty or health statistics.

 

[Floyt]

No wonder you have no idea what you're talking about. A visitor staying in the least-Maori city in NZ.

Yep, just like Jap, which I notice you don't object to.

Dead is dead.

Nice. Two snarky non-sequiturs and an irrelevancy. Do you only start discussions to find people to abuse? I'm rapidly losing all respect I might have had for you.

I'm out of this thread.

 

[kerikiwi]

my best friend's dad used to get the strap for speaking Maori in the playground at school in the 1970s. Maori is one of the official languages of the country!)

I am skeptical of such a claim.
I went through Teachers College in the late '60s and was a member of the kapa haka group. Certainly no discouragement from speaking Maori there -- on the contrary: it was expected.
I taught in many schools through the '70s and often taught aspects of Maori culture. There was never a hint of punishing children for speaking Maori.

 

[six7s]

I will never forget that two of my classmates were strapped for speaking (to each other, in the playground - not the classroom) in Te Reo

Date: 1971

 

[kerikiwi]

I will never forget that two of my classmates were strapped for speaking (to each other, in the playground - not the classroom) in Te Reo

Date: 1971

Which school?

 

[Carnivore]

I am skeptical of such a claim.
I went through Teachers College in the late '60s and was a member of the kapa haka group. Certainly no discouragement from speaking Maori there -- on the contrary: it was expected.
I taught in many schools through the '70s and often taught aspects of Maori culture. There was never a hint of punishing children for speaking Maori.

Like I say, anecdote only. I've got nothing to back it up and I wasn't present to see it. All I can say is the story was related to me apparently sincerely, and does not strike me as being wildly implausible.

More anecdote: Even when I was at primary school in the 1980s the power to administer corporal punishment was in the hands of individual teachers and applied very unevenly.

ETA: There was no anti Maori bias that I noticed at my primary school. We were taught some basics of Maori culture and language.

 

[six7s]

Which school?

In a continuing effort to refrain from posting any 'RL me identifying' info, I won't specify, here...

It was a state primary in a provincial town

Catchment:

50% 'Nappy Valley' weather-board and stucco 60s-style subdivisions
30% State Housing
20% older, established-garden homes
​

Ethnicities:

85% Pakeha
10% Maori
5% Other​

Cultures:

1​

 

[kerikiwi]

The Waitangi tribunal has recorded evidence of children being punished for speaking Maori in school in the early years of the 20th C, though it was never official Education Department policy.
The belief was that it was in their interests to become fluent in English. The means of achieving that were questionable, as were the means of teaching times tables.
I remain highly skeptical that such methods were used in the 70s in any official, systematic way.

How do you know the children were strapped for speaking Maori, rather than for some other misdemeanour?

 

[six7s]

I remain highly skeptical that such methods were used in the 70s in any official, systematic way

Why the 'official, systematic way' clause?

How do you know the children were strapped for speaking Maori, rather than for some other misdemeanour?

I know because, being less than 5m away, I heard and saw the whole sorry episode