Dating agencies auckland new zealand
The staggeringly foolish policy by the fourth Labour government to look into grievances back to 1840 invited claimants to get cash-for-grievance top-ups on 19th century sale and purchase agreements.Once "rangatiratanga" is understood to translate "possession", Morgan's pompous assertion about the "all-important aspirations encompassed in rangatiratanga" is reduced to the nonsensical concept of aspirations to asserting possession over property already sold.The newly rich tribal corporations pay little or no tax and two entities, Waikato-Tainui and Ngai Tahu, are entitled to repeated top-ups as a percent of the increasing grand total.Morgan’s assertion that making it up as they (Crown and claimants) go along was necessary because "the original documents aren’t very useful” shows that he has not looked closely at the texts of either Te Tiriti or the official English and has ruled out the Busby February 4 draft, also known as the Littlewood treaty.Comment: Since he cashed up, Gareth Morgan has become a wilful idiot in attaching himself to half-baked topics such as man-made global warming and killing cats.This is the latest of his fumbling attempts to find some relevance.
If he had read the treaty he would know that article 1 clearly states “the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovereignty of their country”.
Morgan has either forgotten or has not thought about the fact that the treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori, which means the meaning and intent is clear in the source document, the original English.
That source document is quite likely the Busby February 4 draft that has only four words that differ from Te Tiriti, one of which is the date.
Also; as an astute reader pointed out: "There is one element you should be aware of, which is in the minds of those who sold the land, no one can actually own the land, as the land is here before us and will be here after us.
We are care takers of the land, which is a completely different mindset to the western way of thinkng and the His conclusion that the treaty process is a success because the “treaty is now taken to mean whatever Maori leaders and the Crown, as the public’s representatives, agree it means” ignores the elephant in the room by way of a racial faultline that came into existence with the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975.” If he had looked at the English source draft to see what the word “rangatiratanga” translated in Article 2, he would have seen that it translated the English word “possession”, as in “the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property.” Morgan is also wrong to buy into land-loss rhetoric when he writes “justice and reparations have been a long time coming and, as generous as they might look to non-Maori, they’re just cents in the dollar for what Maori lost in terms of property”.