Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[Garry Saloon]

What do you sign in the course of become employed? In any case youre wrong.

A grievance is a harm or distress incurred by an individual or employee. In this lesson you will learn the definition of a grievance, what determines legal standing, and policies and procedures for addressing grievances.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/grievance-in-the-law-definition-procedure-policy.html

You've had to scour around til you found an American definition and it still says employees and individuals. Irrelevant to iwi crown relations.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

You're asserting that without evidence or expertise.

I have experience in achieving success from an unprivileged background and one thing I know is dwelling on the ancient past and seeing more new grievances because of a document that was signed about 8 generations ago is like a cancer that will eat you away.

My race/ sexuality, etc don’t define me and I believe I benefit from this view.

 

[Garry Saloon]

I have experience in achieving success from an unprivileged background and one thing I know is dwelling on the ancient past and seeing more new grievances because of a document that was signed about 8 generations ago is like a cancer that will eat you away.

My race/ sexuality, etc don’t define me and I believe I benefit from this view.

Sweet. I'm gonna burgle you. You won't seek justice I'm sure because that would be dwelling on past grievances. You'll move on and pull yourself up by your boot straps I'm sure.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Sweet. I'm gonna burgle you. You won't seek justice I'm sure because that would be dwelling on past grievances. You'll move on and pull yourself up by your boot straps I'm sure.

8 generations ago bro.

Just personal opinion - there are some complex family crimes (from extended family experience) where it really is better to heal and move on rather than eat yourself up trying to get justice. The pain is simply not worth it.

There are 7 stages of grief. Shock and denial; pain and guilt; anger and bargaining; depression; the upward turn.; reconstruction and working through; acceptance and hope.

You want to get to acceptance and hope to move forward. This is the only way to self actualisation, healing and making progress in life. Many Maori seem to still be in the anger, bargaining and depression stages. Is it really worth it or is it better to have closure and move on.

As I said previously the treaty (or any grievance with no short term solution) can eat away at you like a cancer.

No point in winning the battle (even if your right) and paying for it by losing a war (long term misery to get there).

 

[Garry Saloon]

The treaty isn't a grievance it's an agreement. It was signed eight generations ago and has been breached continuously ever since. It's a living document. You can't just wash your hands of it. Māori want the treaty honoured. They're not after self help platitudes.

 

[juju]

The treaty isn't a grievance it's an agreement. It was signed eight generations ago and has been breached continuously ever since. It's a living document. You can't just wash your hands of it. Māori want the treaty honoured. They're not after self help platitudes.

Christ Finlayson calls people exhibiting the exact behaviour of some of the posters here "The Sour Right" or "the KKK Brigade"
This is the National Party Attorney General and Treaty Negotiator.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Sweet. I'm gonna burgle you. You won't seek justice I'm sure because that would be dwelling on past grievances.

The treaty isn't a grievance

I give up

It’s been fun and I actually appreciate the points of difference without getting emotionally caught up in it all.

Let’s agree to disagree on this one. Neither of us is going to change our view point and there’s nothing wrong with that

 

[Worried2Death]

Any remaining inequality will not be fixed via tribunals and politicians

How will it be fixed without money and resources. An attitude change?

 

[Tragic]

It's not a question of not honouring the Treaty, rather interpretation.
Are we one or two different people?

Two different cultures with different values. One about ancestry and family, one about a better life through capitalism and always striving for more .
It's easy to want to be equal once you have gained the upper hand.

If I was going to get someone to"interpret" the treaty the last person I would get to do that is a grifter like Seymour.

 

[Worried2Death]

David here.
Give me your list of breaches.

This bloke is onto you mate

Log in to Facebook

Log in to Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[Tragic]

How will it be fixed without money and resources. An attitude change?

 

[dean]

Two different cultures with different values. One about ancestry and family, one about a better life through capitalism and always striving for more .
It's easy to want to be equal once you have gained the upper hand.

If I was going to get someone to"interpret" the treaty the last person I would get to do that is a grifter like Seymour.

Seymour wants the public decide the way forward. He has offered three simple statements easily understood.
The problem as I see it is the Treaty(s) is a very poor document.
It was cobbled together by Hobson and a couple of others over a few days before presenting it to Maori and Europeans at Waitangi.
None of those that wrote it were lawyers. It was translated by a missionary and his son into Maori the night before .
The translation is not accurate because Maori did not have the vocabulary with the same words and meaning.
Maori focused on the Maori version, It was discussed for part of a day and signed the next.
At some point it was stored away somewhere to be what looks like savaged by insects or rodents.
It was and is a very poor founding document, full of good intent but not much else.
I think what Seymour wants to do is end the notion of two systems.

 

[dean]

What's your point

My points are.
We are looking at events 200 years ago through todays lens.
Early contact between Maori and Europeans was mutally beneficial.

 

[juju]

Seymour wants the public decide the way forward. He has offered three simple statements easily understood.
The problem as I see it is the Treaty(s) is a very poor document.
It was cobbled together by Hobson and a couple of others over a few days before presenting it to Maori and Europeans at Waitangi.
None of those that wrote it were lawyers. It was translated by a missionary and his son into Maori the night before .
The translation is not accurate because Maori did not have the vocabulary with the same words and meaning.
Maori focused on the Maori version, It was discussed for part of a day and signed the next.
At some point it was stored away somewhere to be what looks like savaged by insects or rodents.
It was and is a very poor founding document, full of good intent but not much else.
I think what Seymour wants to do is end the notion of two systems.

The principles aren't simple at all - and they were actually five
Until they dropped two of those and added a brand new one.

The legal advice back was bill "distorted the text of the treaty","was novel in its interpretations" "was based on flawed policy"

Can you show any sort of credence or backing to what you're saying outside of Act PR or Hobsons Pledge?

Again you're understanding of the treaty is bad.
540 signed the Maori translation of the treaty and only 30 signed the english.
The translations are very different.

Again - here's the ex National Party Treaty Negotiator on the treaty


"A decade of my life was spent on Treaty settlements. I think many people would be a lot more sympathetic toward the notion of co-governance if they learned the things that I was able to learn as a public official in that role.

Once you’ve read the factual concessions by the Crown, read the apologies, you begin to realise the wrongs that have been committed. You begin to get a good understanding of the facts.

The Crown promised to protect “the unqualified exercise of . . . [Māori] chieftainship over their lands, villages and . . . treasures”.

But it not only failed to perform that obligation — it went out of its way to breach it. We must acknowledge that failure and that breach, and remain committed to putting things right"

 

[juju]

My points are.
We are looking at events 200 years ago through todays lens.
Early contact between Maori and Europeans was mutally beneficial.

1 million hectares of land was illegally confiscated after the treaty. Mutual?

The total treaty settlements are only double what reversing interest deductibility was.

The Sour Right!

 

[Juno]

Seymour wants the public decide the way forward. He has offered three simple statements easily understood.
The problem as I see it is the Treaty(s) is a very poor document.
It was cobbled together by Hobson and a couple of others over a few days before presenting it to Maori and Europeans at Waitangi.
None of those that wrote it were lawyers. It was translated by a missionary and his son into Maori the night before .
The translation is not accurate because Maori did not have the vocabulary with the same words and meaning.
Maori focused on the Maori version, It was discussed for part of a day and signed the next.
At some point it was stored away somewhere to be what looks like savaged by insects or rodents.
It was and is a very poor founding document, full of good intent but not much else.
I think what Seymour wants to do is end the notion of two systems.

A condescending, dismissive post. Cherry-picking and minimising of events, facts and actions...
There were 60-80,000 maori at the time, a fraction of that number of colonials. 500 rangatira signed the maori version after a day of wananga on what they wanted to be in it - and the maori verrsion was written as they agreed ( not the scribe's translation of the english version as you imply.)
A very small number signed the english version compared to the maori version, perhaps for reasons of their own or some other reason, who knows...they certainly didn't have the same meaning.
The fact it was not cared for properly says more about what the govt of the day, and successive ones, of its lack of importance to them. From that day to this they began and continue, to take away a peoples right to be who they are under ill-conceived, ill-concealed, dismissive, and unjust means. Today, we're talking about 20% of this country's population.
Its a treaty & they signed it too - the trope about that was then, this is now ('today's lens') is irrelevant.

 

[dean]

A condescending, dismissive post. Cherry-picking and minimising of events, facts and actions...
There were 60-80,000 maori at the time, a fraction of that number of colonials. 500 rangatira signed the maori version after a day of wananga on what they wanted to be in it - and the maori verrsion was written as they agreed ( not the scribe's translation of the english version as you imply.)
A very small number signed the english version compared to the maori version, perhaps for reasons of their own or some other reason, who knows...they certainly didn't have the same meaning.
The fact it was not cared for properly says more about what the govt of the day, and successive ones, of its lack of importance to them. From that day to this they began and continue, to take away a peoples right to be who they are under ill-conceived, ill-concealed, dismissive, and unjust means. Today, we're talking about 20% of this country's population.
Its a treaty & they signed it too - the trope about that was then, this is now ('today's lens') is irrelevant.

Again, you don't like what I say so you describe it as condescending.
I have not mentioned how many signed what treaty or the population of Maori or European at the time of signing.
I haven't mentioned what happened during the next 184 years.
I stand by what I said.
A poorly written treaty by people unqualified to put such a document together, a translation at the eleventh hour using words out side the Maori vocabulary and with little or no time for consideration or due diligence before signing for either party.

 

[dean]

1 million hectares of land was illegally confiscated after the treaty. Mutual?

The total treaty settlements are only double what reversing interest deductibility was.

The Sour Right!

You clearly dislike landlords, pensioners, privately educated people and anyone questioning leftist beliefs.
Read my post again before letting your bias prevail.
I specifically mentioned 200 years ago and related that to the setting up of whaling stations and the benefits of that arrangement.

 

[juju]

You clearly dislike landlords, pensioners, privately educated people and anyone questioning leftist beliefs.
Read my post again before letting your bias prevail.
I specifically mentioned 200 years ago and related that to the setting up of whaling stations and the benefits of that arrangement.

What's actually clear is you dislike Maori.

 

[miket12]

As I see it, language is dynamic and constantly changing. All we can do is interpret the Treaty not on what we think the words mean now but, on their meaning, when first written.

I don't particularly like how the Treaty is played around with like a political football nor that government hasn't debated it rather that the interpretation of it has been left up to academics and judges and people on the Waitangi Tribunal. But, I also don't like leaving it up to politicians to debate it along party lines in isolation in either Parliament or select committees. I think the discussion on it is so far reaching, we need to move beyond parliamentary discussions and have something hybrid set up involving iwi, judges, academics, politicians, Māori language experts, etc. which will discuss it once and for all. Enshrine the findings into a Law which can't be altered without 75% of Parliament agreeing to it.

Alas, I don't think we are mature enough as a country to do that.