Comments
1 - 20 of 81 Comments Last updated Oct 19, 2012
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

“Educating Utus”

Since: Aug 10

Palmerston North, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Sep 8, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

The NZCPR are collecting signatures to be presented to Parliament.
The declaration is as follows

There shall be one law for all:

We refuse to accept any reference to the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles in any constitutional document.
We require that such references be removed from all existing legislation.
We require that race-based Parliamentary seats be abolished.
We require that race-based representation on local bodies be abolished.
We require that the Waitangi Tribunal, which has outlived any usefulness it may have had, be abolished.

http://www.nzcpr.com/petition_EqualRights.php

“Educating poor IQ Sepians”

Since: Aug 12

Wellington

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Sep 8, 2012
 
a good read

“KFC has got nuffink on me”

Since: Aug 12

Apia, Samoa or w/e the KFC is

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Sep 8, 2012
 
Awesome and signed.

“KFC has got nuffink on me”

Since: Aug 12

Apia, Samoa or w/e the KFC is

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Sep 8, 2012
 
Going to email this to every member of the hori party.
Must_be_joking_m e

Leichhardt, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Sep 9, 2012
 
This needs to be publicized more so enough signatures get collected.

“Educating Utus”

Since: Aug 10

Palmerston North, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Sep 9, 2012
 
NESIAN QUEEN wrote:
Going to email this to every member of the hori party.
I emailed them and every other MP prior to the Foreshore and Seabed repeal and I got replies from every one of them except Key.
Turia's reply was brief and off topic, so I sent the witch another and tried smaller words. Never heard from her again.
Harawira relied, "Listen here buddy, if you're going to use in your header names like "You racist dog" then don't expect any courtesy from me" Most of them rambled on about "oppressed indigenous" shite, but I was surprised at the response.
Tweeter

Auckland, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Sep 9, 2012
 
Singed, sealed , delivered. About time we stod up for what is right.

“Educating Utus”

Since: Aug 10

Palmerston North, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Sep 9, 2012
 
Read what David Round has to say about our impending constitution.

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest302.htm

“Sawadee Ka”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Sep 10, 2012
 
another peice of paper fighting another piece of paper made from the same source. its more like oops we fcuked this one up. lets make a new paper.

Since: May 11

Hastings, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Sep 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Torqueing Heads wrote:
The NZCPR are collecting signatures to be presented to Parliament.
The declaration is as follows
There shall be one law for all:
We refuse to accept any reference to the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles in any constitutional document.
We require that such references be removed from all existing legislation.
We require that race-based Parliamentary seats be abolished.
We require that race-based representation on local bodies be abolished.
We require that the Waitangi Tribunal, which has outlived any usefulness it may have had, be abolished.
http://www.nzcpr.com/petition_EqualRights.php
So all in all what i read from your links is the abolishment of the treaty?
Where does the default get setback to? should the treaty and all that has been referenced from it be abolished. Do we default all land and its treasures back to their rightful owners pre-signing of the treaty?

Does the associative legislation of
1863 Legislation passed authorising massive confiscation of Māori land especially in the Waikato.
become redundant and all confiscations are therefore handed back to their rightful owners?

Does this remove sovereignity from her majesty? as this is a declaration of her protection from lawlessness

Since there is an upheaval on the fact the maori party called themselves the maori party are they entitled to renaming themselves the "people" party and can maori people be a representative in parliament?

There will still be room for debate here it will not entirely clear up any misinterpretations of the treaty. As far as i can see people would see it as a fair trade. I bought it you sold it thats that right?
If that is so, just like how you would buy something from a shop and it doesn't work, where is the receipt as proof of purchase?

There will and still can be an appeal for land under contractual guidelines and appeal many times through law of equity.

What exactly is this one law for all? As far as i am concerned i can be prosecuted for stealing in new zealand and be in the position to receive the same penalties as you and Magber Nahasapimapetolon down the road.

There are in simplicity two types of law.

The public law which applies to everyone including those who plead ignorant
The private law which acts on a companies behalf to specialize contracts for employees and other.

Are the 50% of male/female maori prison population rates not enough for you or something? Or is one law for all not exclusively aimed at maori?

“Educating Utus”

Since: Aug 10

Palmerston North, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Sep 11, 2012
 
Erana Monika wrote:
<quoted text>
So all in all what i read from your links is the abolishment of the treaty?
Where does the default get setback to? should the treaty and all that has been referenced from it be abolished. Do we default all land and its treasures back to their rightful owners pre-signing of the treaty?
Does the associative legislation of
1863 Legislation passed authorising massive confiscation of M&#257;ori land especially in the Waikato.
become redundant and all confiscations are therefore handed back to their rightful owners?
Does this remove sovereignity from her majesty? as this is a declaration of her protection from lawlessness
Since there is an upheaval on the fact the maori party called themselves the maori party are they entitled to renaming themselves the "people" party and can maori people be a representative in parliament?
There will still be room for debate here it will not entirely clear up any misinterpretations of the treaty. As far as i can see people would see it as a fair trade. I bought it you sold it thats that right?
If that is so, just like how you would buy something from a shop and it doesn't work, where is the receipt as proof of purchase?
There will and still can be an appeal for land under contractual guidelines and appeal many times through law of equity.
What exactly is this one law for all? As far as i am concerned i can be prosecuted for stealing in new zealand and be in the position to receive the same penalties as you and Magber Nahasapimapetolon down the road.
There are in simplicity two types of law.
The public law which applies to everyone including those who plead ignorant
The private law which acts on a companies behalf to specialize contracts for employees and other.
Are the 50% of male/female maori prison population rates not enough for you or something? Or is one law for all not exclusively aimed at maori?
Yes abolish all references to the treaty in all legislation.
The rightful owners of the land are the current ones, the ones that bought it and developed it.
Maori tribes were warned that if they broke the treaty and rebeled their land would be confiscated.
Sovereignty was passed from Britain to the NZ Parliament in the 1950s.
The Maori Party can do what they like, they are unelected slugs, they attracted 1.5% of the popular vote, without the Maori saets they could not form a party and be in govt.
Any misinterpretations of the treaty will be totally irrelevant.
The cession of sovereignty and land ownership are seperate issues.
One law for all means one law for all regardless of race, it's really quite simple.

Since: May 11

Hastings, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Sep 11, 2012
 
Torqueing Heads wrote:
The NZCPR are collecting signatures to be presented to Parliament.
The declaration is as follows
There shall be one law for all:
We refuse to accept any reference to the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles in any constitutional document.
We require that such references be removed from all existing legislation.
We require that race-based Parliamentary seats be abolished.
We require that race-based representation on local bodies be abolished.
We require that the Waitangi Tribunal, which has outlived any usefulness it may have had, be abolished.
http://www.nzcpr.com/petition_EqualRights.php
^^ These are just the holes i could pick out after reading the articles
http://www.nzcpr.com/ConstitutionalReviewBACK...
I think all in all the arguments are fair but the outline of the agenda
speaks a different tone.

I hope the 8000 people so far took their time to read exactly what it is they are signing into and not just praying for a revolution through blind signing.

I think in order for this to actually BE about equal rights, it actually has to be ABOUT equality instead of shifting goal posts. This declaration of equality has to be positioned so that I AND magber Nahasapimapetolon (2nd gen indiain) down the road would feel that this does indeed apply and not impose on him.

I personally do not agree with maori party views which are maoricentric indeed
and has failed to gain any seats based on narrow views. Should maori have been represented fairly in parliament in the first place maybe this would have never happened. Chieftainship and Iwi stakeholders are apart of blatant declaration of maori practicing democracy.
The argument of land claims is that it goes only to the elite and Rangi Huata from Taupo will see nothing of this.
The current aggression to claims is a mere response to keep new zealand for new zealand. the sale of new zealand land to china is bound to cause an uproar for a people who have been fighting for it for years

I sit on the fence on whether or not New Zealand should have a constitution.

I do agree that there is a slight imbalance that exists in New Zealand society and I can agree that there is a race based contribution to this imbalance.

“Educating Utus”

Since: Aug 10

Palmerston North, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Sep 11, 2012
 
Erana Monika wrote:
<quoted text>
^^. Should maori have been represented fairly in parliament in the first place maybe this would have never happened.
Part Maoris have a vote like the rest of us. Where the problems begin is when seats in Parliament are allocated on the basis of race.
Nowhere in the treaty or our current constitution is there a requirement for racially selected representation in Parliament or local bodies.

“Educating Utus”

Since: Aug 10

Palmerston North, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Sep 11, 2012
 
Part Maoris represent slightly less than 15% of the population, 19% of members of Parliament are of Maori descent, therefore part Maoris are over-represented in govt.

Since: May 11

Hastings, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Sep 12, 2012
 
Torqueing Heads wrote:
<quoted text>Part Maoris have a vote like the rest of us. Where the problems begin is when seats in Parliament are allocated on the basis of race.
Nowhere in the treaty or our current constitution is there a requirement for racially selected representation in Parliament or local bodies.
OK you said "current" good save. This too was in the context of the treaty and the agreements within.
1867
The M&#257;ori people were allocated four seats in the House of Representatives, elected by universal adult male suffrage. The purpose was to prevent M&#257;ori from gaining political dominance from the extension of the franchise for the general seats in areas where they were the majority of the population.
http://eitonline.eit.ac.nz/course/view.php...
The link is here for the information but you need to be a student in order to enter, just showing you I did not pull this out of thin air.
Note: these notes were extracted from educational material and is for demonstration purposes only.
Law for business to be exact.

“Tino Rangatiratanga”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Sep 12, 2012
 
Erana Monika wrote:
<quoted text>
So all in all what i read from your links is the abolishment of the treaty?
Where indeed! The Treaty was signed in good faith and there is nothing in it that suggests it was to be a temporary arrangement. If it should be abolished, then it should by mutual agreement by both parties to the Treaty, not by unilateral decision which is what these people want.

Since the legal right of parliament to exist rests upon the sovereignty of the Crown, and the right of Crown sovereignty upon the Treaty, then by abolishing the Treaty you abolish with it the right of parliament to exist, making the 1835 Declaration of Independence the prior constitutional document.

Maori are the original people of the land. Pakeha and all other immigrants are people of the Treaty, meaning they NZers by right of the Treaty.

Therefore, the Treaty is NZ’s original bill of rights for all New Zealanders.

“Tino Rangatiratanga”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Sep 12, 2012
 
Erana Monika wrote:
<quoted text>
So all in all what i read from your links is the abolishment of the treaty? Where does the default get setback to?
Where indeed! The Treaty was signed in good faith and there is nothing in it that suggests it was to be a temporary arrangement. If it should be abolished, then it should by mutual agreement by both parties to the Treaty, not by unilateral decision which is what these people want.

Since the legal right of parliament to exist rests upon the sovereignty of the Crown, and the right of Crown sovereignty upon the Treaty, then by abolishing the Treaty you abolish with it the right of parliament to exist, making the 1835 Declaration of Independence the prior constitutional document.

Maori are the original people of the land. Pakeha and all other immigrants are people of the Treaty, meaning they NZers by right of the Treaty.

Therefore, the Treaty is NZ’s original bill of rights for all New Zealanders.

“Educating Utus”

Since: Aug 10

Palmerston North, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Sep 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

That Maori Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Where indeed! The Treaty was signed in good faith and there is nothing in it that suggests it was to be a temporary arrangement. If it should be abolished, then it should by mutual agreement by both parties to the Treaty, not by unilateral decision which is what these people want.
Since the legal right of parliament to exist rests upon the sovereignty of the Crown, and the right of Crown sovereignty upon the Treaty, then by abolishing the Treaty you abolish with it the right of parliament to exist, making the 1835 Declaration of Independence the prior constitutional document.
Maori are the original people of the land. Pakeha and all other immigrants are people of the Treaty, meaning they NZers by right of the Treaty.
Therefore, the Treaty is NZ’s original bill of rights for all New Zealanders.
"Mutual agreement by both parties" would suggest there are two seperate institutions, and there are not, the whole purpose of the Treaty was to bring two races together.
The Treaty in itself is not a founding document or a constitution and does not give Parliament sovereignty. It is a necessary preliminary to royal acquisition and has no legal status.

“Tino Rangatiratanga”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Sep 12, 2012
 
Torqueing Heads wrote:
<quoted text>"Mutual agreement by both parties" would suggest there are two seperate institutions, and there are not, the whole purpose of the Treaty was to bring two races together.
The Treaty in itself is not a founding document or a constitution and does not give Parliament sovereignty. It is a necessary preliminary to royal acquisition and has no legal status.
Even if I agree that the purpose of the Treaty was to “bring two races together” as you put it, then this still means it set out to establish something that didn’t already exist. This is why we use the verb ‘found’ as in ‘founding document’ to describe what it did.

But how could it “bring two races together” unless there was some agreement about such an arrangement in the first place? Clearly, mutual agreement at some level does factor in there somewhere.

The Treaty absolutely gave parliament the right to exist and make laws because the institution of parliament itself could not exist with out the assumption of Crown sovereignty, which in turn did not exist prior to the Treaty.

It’s a simple matter of precedent. If you work your way backward from our current constitutional arrangement through the preceding constitutional documents you will eventually arrive at the Treaty – the founding document of New Zealand.

Even by your own use of “necessary preliminary”, it must be seen as founding to the acquisition you mention because ‘preliminary’ itself refers to something that comes before the principal subject of consideration.

Duh!

“Educating Utus”

Since: Aug 10

Palmerston North, New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Sep 12, 2012
 
Part Maori Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Even by your own use of “necessary preliminary”, it must be seen as founding to the acquisition you mention because ‘preliminary’ itself refers to something that comes before the principal subject of consideration.
Duh!
You make a reasonably good point [for a dumb Maori] you should get down on your knees and thank your dad for choosing a European wife. The CPR is made up of retired judges, constitutional lawyers and others and I would imagine they have considered the legality of scrapping the Treaty and left no stone unturned. I'd suggest the Treaty is subsequent to the main event of royal acquisition or annexation which is the source of sovereignty. As I understand it the Treaty is a small cog in the machine, but I'll be honest I don't fully understand the process, I will do some research and return at some stage to educate you and when I do be sure to eat your humble pie!
I doubt any govt would be prepared to resurrect the DOI and hand sovereignty to Maori tribes, but then who would've thought they'd buckle to part Maoris over the ownership of water?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

41 Users are viewing the New Zealand Forum right now

Search the New Zealand Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Jamie Whyte and TREATY SETTLEMENTS 4 min Adam Rangiaho 22
coons stop old people getting on trains 18 min Helpful Hori Hints 7
African languages to be taught at school instea... 23 min Helpful Hori Hints 4
Public nudity 30 min sophia 16
"Genocide Is Permissible" - Times Of Israel 46 min Tarris 2
Another Stinkape Murder 55 min Tarris 3
Why do Kiwi women like black african men so much ? 1 hr Tarris 7
Israeli "military tactics" 1 hr James Sands 28
Abolish the MAORI SEATS 2 hr antiNat 244
•••
•••