Come on Henry. It might not have been what many Maori or Pakeha would want today, looking at it in retrospect, but we can’t deny that the Rangatira who signed it did so in good faith. Given the almost immediate breaches perpetrated by the Crown [settler government?] after its signing, it may be arguable whether the Crown signed it in good faith. Nevertheless, it was signed as the agreement that established our nation.
So, what actually is the “flaw� you assert is in the Treaty, Henry?

Flaw is not the best word perhaps, but on the British side you have a group who have to come up with the right answer or keep going back. If they had substituted the word rangatiratanga instead of kawanatanga Maori wouldn’t have signed.

Here’s a quote from Bullshit, Backlash, and Bleeding Hearts. By David Slack:

“Time for some expert help here. The first lecturer I had at law school who taught our class anything Treaty-related was Alex Frame. [ ….]
People sometimes ask me, ‘How do I see the Treaty. How should we think of the Treaty?’ I’ve always said that the first article of the Treaty – the kawanatanga part - is very strong - much stronger than some Maori are prepared to concede, and the second article, which guarantees rangatiratanga is also very strong - much stronger than many Pakeha are prepared to concede. So how can we have these two strong articles sitting there? I’m tempted sometimes by this idea. In a way both sides gambled. The Crown gambled. Why was it prepared to sign up to Article II? Well, in a sense the Crown gambled that there would be assimilation. And therefore if there was assimilation, as you will see. Article II would become increasingly unimportant. On the other hand, Maori gambled. After all, why did Maori sign up for Article I - and by the way, don’t go for these readings that say Article I was only giving the Queen power over Pakeha. The most elementary reading of the Maori version of the first article shows that that is completely untenable. It gives the Queen te Kawanatanga katoa - all – of the kawanatanga; o ratou wenua - of their lands. Now, which lands is that? That’s the lands of the chiefs. That’s all it can be -have a look at the structure and I challenge anyone to show me an even faintly tenable reading which can dispute that it’s all the territory of New Zealand.
So why did Maori sign up to that? Well, I think they gambled. I think they gambled that the demographics in New Zealand would stay, not exactly as they were in 1840, but would stay approximately such that there would be a preponderance of Maori and that the newcomers would be relatively few. I know there is a reference in the preamble to others coming, but I think the gamble was that if the demographics stayed favourable to Maori then this kawanatanga thing would be a really abstract sort of notion in the background. [End ofQuote]

What’s more treaty or no treaty there is a high chance colonisation would have proceeded anyway (from somewhere).

toad Says:
>And why is it that the staunchest of defenders of property rights seem to lose their fervour when those property rights are held by Maori?

That sounds fine except that this is the small matter of the beaches, coastline, bays, and waters off the coast to an unspecified distance. It isn’t just about this little sardine and that little sardine, more like a pod of whales, (even that isn’t a suitable metaphor). In fact it is the potential of and unlimitedness of ratifying the Maori version of the treaty that works against them.

I am reminded of the Merchant of Venice: you can have your pound of flesh (ratify the Maori version of the Treaty) but you must not draw any blood (destabilise society).

Saying: “The Iwi has always let anyone use that part of the coastline ….� Is not enough guarantee; after all, under the treaty it is theirs anyway; they can do what they want with it. Under a new ethos there is likely (IMHO) to be a tightening of control. Iwi can choose who their friends are (ie join for strength with whatever group, or billionaire foreigner. What’s more this would be a permanent change.
That is a key point of difference.

Remember in 1840 there were 60 to 70,000 Maori with the whole country to themselves, now 2006 they make up 15% of the population and 4+ million. We all need the freedom of the wilderness.

I note that the only other party (apart from the Maori party) that supports the private ownership of the coastline (not including ports and marinas) is ACT. The rich want to be able to buy what ever they want.
Henry

Come on Henry. It might not have been what many Maori or Pakeha would want today, looking at it in retrospect, but we can’t deny that the Rangatira who signed it did so in good faith. Given the almost immediate breaches perpetrated by the Crown [settler government?] after its signing, it may be arguable whether the Crown signed it in good faith. Nevertheless, it was signed as the agreement that established our nation.

So, what actually is the “flaw� you assert is in the Treaty, Henry?

You have to consider the circumstances under which the treaty was drawn up, with no positive outcome the British side had to come up with a positive result (or trudge back and forth, and do it again). If the British had used the word “rangatiratanga” instead of “kawanatanga” Maori wouldn’t have signed
Here’s a quote from Bullshit, Backlash, and Bleeding Hearts. By David Slack:

“Time for some expert help here. The first lecturer I had at law school who taught our class anything Treaty-related was
Alex Frame. [xxx]
People sometimes ask me, ‘How do I see the Treaty. How should we think of the Treaty?’ I’ve always said that the first article of the Treaty – the kawanatanga part - is very strong - much stronger than some Maori are prepared to concede, and the second article, which guarantees rangatiratanga is also very strong - much stronger than many Pakeha are prepared to concede. So how can we have these two strong articles sitting there? I’m tempted sometimes by this idea. In a way both sides gambled. The Crown gambled. Why was it prepared to sign up to Article II? Well, in a sense the Crown gambled that there would be assimilation. And therefore if there was assimilation, as you will see. Article II would become increasingly unimportant. On the other hand, Maori gambled. After all, why did Maori sign up for Article I - and by the way, don’t go for these readings that say Article I was only giving the Queen power over Pakeha. The most elementary reading of the Maori version of the first article shows that that is completely untenable. It gives the Queen te Kawanatanga katoa - all – of the kawanatanga; o ratou wenua - of their lands. Now, which lands is that? That’s the lands of the chiefs. That’s all it can be -have a look at the structure and I challenge anyone to show me an even faintly tenable reading which can dispute that it’s all the territory of New Zealand.
So why did Maori sign up to that? Well, I think they gambled. I think they gambled that the demographics in New Zealand would stay, not exactly as they were in 1840, but would stay approximately such that there would be a preponderance of Maori and that the newcomers would be relatively few. I know there is a reference in the preamble to others coming, but I think the gamble was that if the demographics stayed favourable to Maori then this kawanatanga thing would be a really abstract sort of notion in the background. ”

If there was no treaty, the chances are that colonisation would have proceeded anyway.

>And why is it that the staunchest of defenders of property rights seem to lose their fervour when those property rights are held by Maori?

That sounds fine, but it depends how much spin you put on the tiny matter of who owns the foreshore and seabed. At present many of us have grown up thinking “us” or “we the people” and that we have the benevolent “Queens Chain” along the coast.

You ought to put your money where your mouth is and clarify what this is likely to mean. Saying “The Iwi has always let anyone use xxx” is an unsatisfactory guarantee, since long term various Iwi are likely (IMHO) to consolidate their control over their section of coast (and why shouldn’t they,.. it’s “theirs”). Iwi can also choose who there friends are: Pacific Islanders, rich Chinese?? What’s more this is permanent.

It is notable that the only other party that supports private ownership of the coast (apart from ports and marinas) is ACT. Why? because the rich have the money and think they should be allowed anything.

As Portia said: You can have your pound of flesh (Maori version of treaty) but you you must not draw any blood (create an environment that destabilizes the whole country).
Henry

So, what actually is the “flaw” you assert is in the Treaty, Henry?

And why is it that the staunchest of defenders of property rights seem to lose their fervour when those property rights are held by Maori?

>Recently the current Government/Parliament, over-riding a Treaty Settlement underway through the Waitangi Tribunal, rushed ahead and claimed “the Seabed and Foreshore for all New Zealanders� to stop a strong historical “customary rights� claim of stewardship of a small part of the coastline which was a legitimate part of an Iwi’s application to the Waitangi Tribunal. (The Iwi has always let anyone use that part of the coastline which has been under their stewardship for centuries.)

The Maori version of the treaty gives Maori :“full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and
Estates, Forests, Fisheries, and other properties which they may collectively or individually
possess�. The Crown thus recognized Maori’s inherent property rights, customary use of lands
and resources, cultural heritage and traditional chieftainship authority.

One case is not the end but the beginning; we have seen occupation of Brighton Pier for instance (and others); then there are the bumper stickers “Foreshore and seabed Maori fore shore”. In addition the people on the hikoi filmed on Harbour Bridge were saying “we’re your new landlords”…(is this the expectation? Motivation is a function of the value of a goal and the probability of achieving it)

>Greens regard this action of Parliament, in this context, as a serious and dangerous misuse of power. (�Fine while we are in the majority� you might say) … but unfair, and potentially a dangerous precedent fot the future.

And Tariana Turia is fond of issuing veiled threats about “one day brown people will outnumber blah! blah!…” and she hopes they will “treat us better than we treated them” which was “worse than the holocaust”. She has chastised people for criticizing teenage pregnancies among “her people” (forget she is more an ethnic Pakeha than Maori)

>Tochigi asked/pointed out:
“do you mean one law for all, as in when the clark govt doesn’t like an appeal court decision in favour of an iwi’s customary rights they pass a new law to extinguish said rights? in other words, 21st century property expropriation.�

In this case “one law for all” means the right to test customary title (property rights) for the whole coastline and surrounding seas as guaranteed in the Maori version of the treaty. That’s why Labour (wisely) stopped it.

One thing no one (NZ Government) wants to admit is that the Treaty was flawed.
Henry

Bolivia is alive and changing. the new president Evo, is nationalising this and that and rewriting the constitution to take into account the indigenous people that make up the majority here.

You can here the rumblings all the way to Washington.

Harrison
http://www.harrisonmitchell.com

phil(whoart.co.nz)

I’m gonna keep it to debating the frogblog , so here are a few ideas.

1. The forum is a good idea, but it will need moderation, it could serve to act as a good debating ground though, which I think frogblog needs after losing a bit of edge since the elections.
2. Green News send in. frogblog could recieve first hand submissions on green news from around the country/world. Alternatively you could arrange an automatic rss feed with certain key words from certain key sites to keep the news up to date.
3. Spruce up the colours of frogblog, there are nicer greens than the ones its using.
4. I think multimedia is the way to go, you are using wordpress which makes adding audio and video content a piece of cake. And one good thing about living in exile is that the rest of the world has broadband! Common, I’m sitting in an internet cafe in Bolivia for Christ sake and am able to stream video content!

Thats it!

Harrison
http://www.harrisonmitchell.com

anyway…good fireplace, good mussels, good beer, good music…excellent composting lav!

Blog threads are often led astray onto simmering topics which flare into heated debate. These gems are often missed by those doing a casual skim of the blog page for something of interest. A forum with fresh threads with good descriptive titles gets more eyes reading I think (although I am guilty of regular ‘231 comments’ marathon reads on The Oil Drum, and perhaps the odd ‘576 comments’ JHK job to get an insight into American attitudes).

On the treaty and how we feel as a nation… my perception is that there is a drawing together, in the face of an ‘us and them’ situation. Especially among many of my young friends, those I talk to at schools etc, there is a lessening in the traditional bi-cultural rift and a rising ‘unease’ over the “Asian invasion”. Unadulterated xenophobia really. But apparently based on real experiences and attitudes… Asian students requiring/demanding more teacher time and resources, intimidation by those with triad/gang affiliations etc. Among GenX and Y’ers it’s less xenophobic, more a feeling of increased competitiveness due to immigration pressure and its effect on some aspects of life such as the housing market.

I was relaxing out by the fire at the Mussel Inn, and as the night drew on a good number dudes and dudettes of Asian origin arrived: all sat there, faces lit by cell phone glow or behind the slow panning of a red handycam LED and the odd flash. Kind of dented the ambiance, but the fire was warm and hearty and the site-brewed beer cold so it was a pleasant place to be. Nevertheless, a portly female of the babyboomer persuasion beside me started muttering Asian invasion this, Asian invasion that. It transpired she was a big city property developer. I pointed out the irony.

The Treaty festering sore is becoming somewhat healed (or sidelined) among the youth. The young Maori are progressively expressing open dislike of Asian immigrants. Why would they embrace multiculturalism when the biculturalism experiment still had so far to go?
Just as an aside… a good Chinese friend of mine went back to Shanghai to sell her house and told me she had seen the ‘body in a suitcase’ case reported in a Chinese paper as being perpetrated by four Maoris!