Nat/act/nzf 2023

[Logen Ninefingers]

In Daytr's 'real world', all Kiwi's - Maori, European, and others alike - all sought to band together to get along and get ahead under our one government.....but then one day into this utopian bliss along came David Seymour with a shocking attempt to divide us. So what was he using as a platform to do this when complete and perfect harmony was securely ensconsed across the land? Why, he just used 'a figment of his imagination'.

This is classic gaslighting from daytr; far from being 'the real world', it is a complete inversion of reality.

[Daytr]

What 'figment of (his) imagination' are you talking about?

A referendum.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Where did I say it was all sorted?
You love making things up.

For starters the settlement with Ngapuhi the largest iwi in NZ hasn't even happened yet.

There is land that the Government confiscated in WWII for strategic purposes that still hasn't been returned.

However I think what has upset most people is the over reach by the Maori Labour caucus & the creation of Whata Ora etc. These can all be addressed without a referendum & I would support those changes.

Anyhoo why are we talking about a figment of David Seymour's imagination.
I suspect he doesn't even believe in it himself but he is playing to voter base just as Winston Peters does. Says a lot and used it as a bargaining chip with no real intention of following through. But ACT voters lapped up his act.

Off to the real world now, not imaginary one where the country is torn in two.

Haere ra

Where did I say it was all sorted?

For starters the settlement with Ngapuhi the largest iwi in NZ hasn't even happened yet.

There is land that the Government confiscated in WWII for strategic purposes that still hasn't been returned.

-----

You are disingenuously conflating the 'treaty settlement' process with the real crucial matter of whether Maori are to be governed by the government, or whether they are 'in partnership' with the government and jointly governing the rest of us.
On the sovereignty question, you've attempted to sweep it all under the carpet by claiming their was just a bit of overreach by Labour and now we can just go back to normal, with a couple of extraneous matters just needing to be ticked off for complete harmony to be reached. Absurdly you seem to think the 'co-governance' people will just pack it in and go away.

[Logen Ninefingers]

A referendum.

It's a real thing. I'd sooner 'the people' decide these matters than a cabal of colluding activists, judges, and politicians. Are we going to be one unified democratic country, or not?

[Daytr]

Without any references from you I don’t know what you are going on about.

My guess though is that I found it confusing when Te Reo and English were used in the same article without any differentiation in the font between the two languages. Also as my knowledge of Te Reo is not great, I need the Māori part of the text to be translated into English, so that I do not miss out on any of the information. I prefer it when there is both a Māori version and an English version of the same publication, then I have no issue with that. However your disparagement of my comments was unspecified.


Right back at you.

Kia ora Bjauck, my comment wasn't to you it was to Logen Ninefingers, you were refernced in it due to your prior comment to Logen NineFingers.
Imo you have been one of the most balanced posters on this thread.

[Bjauck]

I misunderstood your post. However no-one is perfect!

[Daytr]

So what are my racist comments with respect to the use of Te Reo?

There is some confusion here. I wasn't referring to you in regards ny racism.
I only referenced you as you said you would sift through Logen Ninefingers comments.

[Bjauck]

There is some confusion here. I wasn't referring to you in regards ny racism.
I only referenced you as you said you would sift through Logen Ninefingers comments.

That’s the trouble with a fast moving debate! I had already done the sifting before I made that post.
Kia pai.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Statements on who may or not be balanced are just versions of ad hominem attacks. If you say one person is balanced then the clear insinuation is that there are others who are not. As Maori ceded sovereignty to the British Crown in turn for certain important rights & privileges then discussion in this thread on this topic should be a very short one. How did we get into the situation of having these invented 'principles of the treaty', including one that says that Maori and the government are 'in partnership' together? This is the crux of the matter. There is the seed and the grwoing sprout of any division that exists.
A balanced person would say "what you state is demonstrably correct" and acknowledge that the matter needs to be cleared up if the country has any hope at all of moving forward as a unified whole. Instead we have the mixed approach of either suggesting that we must give in to the 'partnership' (co-governance) drive in the interests of peace, or alternatively that we must say that no issue actually exists.

I wonder if the 'balanced' people could advise on how the government is expected to govern when there is no clarity on whether the populace, the courts, and the bureaucracy can agree that they are in a co-governance partnership with another party. Please enlighten me on how they should proceed in the absence of such fundamental constitutional clarity.

[Daytr]

Where did I say it was all sorted?

For starters the settlement with Ngapuhi the largest iwi in NZ hasn't even happened yet.

There is land that the Government confiscated in WWII for strategic purposes that still hasn't been returned.

-----

You are disingenuously conflating the 'treaty settlement' process with the real crucial matter of whether Maori are to be governed by the government, or whether they are 'in partnership' with the government and jointly governing the rest of us.
On the sovereignty question, you've attempted to sweep it all under the carpet by claiming their was just a bit of overreach by Labour and now we can just go back to normal, with a couple of extraneous matters just needing to be ticked off for complete harmony to be reached. Absurdly you seem to think the 'co-governance' people will just pack it in and go away.

No I'm not they are separate issues and I have already stated on here more than once I agree Maori ceded sovereignty, however you keep suggesting I don't.

It's a real thing. I'd sooner 'the people' decide these matters than a cabal of colluding activists, judges, and politicians. Are we going to be one unified democratic country, or not?

Well that's your opinion, mine differs. Live with it & if it goes ahead, watch the carnage.

'Either way it's not Maori who didn't honour the Treaty.'

--------

Well that is interesting, because you claim to have read the words of Sir Apirana Ngata and agreed with them.....and then write something that totally contradicts that.

https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scho...-t1-g1-t1.html

CONFISCATED LANDS
In conclusion I would just like to say a word about the lands that were confiscated by past Governments. Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and that they contravened the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty and the authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This it self is a Maori custom—revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.

What we need to sort is whether Maori ceded sovereignty, or whether they entered into a co-governance partnership.
You are telling me that is all sorted now & what has transpired is just some 'overreach' by Labour, so lets all just be quiet about it cos it's all good now.
So go ask Tuku Morgan if that's correct, and he acknowledges Maori ceded sovereignty.
Go ask Willie Jackson the same question.
Go ask the history teachers teaching the new Aoteroa New Zealand history course at secondary school.
Go ask the Judges at the Supreme Court.
Go ask the academics at our Universities and Polytechs.
Go ask Rawiri Waititi.
Go ask Marama Jackson.

I bet if you go and ask the question, you'll find that it's far from 'all sorted out'. David Seymour did not get into politics to fight on this issue, but Rawiri Waititi did. So lets look closely at who foisted the 'co-governance' agenda on us, and lets find out what they intend to do next and how far they wish to take this, because if anything is causing 'division' then it is the germination & propogation of this clear revisionism by those seeking power and aggrandisement for themselves.

Here you go mis quoting me again. I said I agreed that Maori ceded sovereignty, nothing to do with land confiscations.
That is also one very selective element of land confiscations there are many others that were perpetrated by civilians and the Crown had a responsibility to protect Maori and they failed on a massive scale.