2 ms·
How am I “not right”?
by te_chris 5y ago
How am I “not right”?
- mdoms 5y agoWell for one your certainty about the constitutional basis of our nation, which has been in dispute since the signing of the treaty.
- te_chris 5y agoYour certainty that it's in disupte is misguided. It's not. There's a treaty signed which establishes joint soverignty over Aotearoa and it was signed in good faith by both parties. The crown and the NZ govt. have ignored it since it was signed, but that doesn't mean the foundation isn't there. https://aucklanduniversitypress.co.nz/tears-of-rangi/ https://aucklanduniversitypress.co.nz/tears-of-rangi/ I'd recommend reading this, it covers the history of the period of the signing of the the Treaty of Waitangi in a lot of depth.
- postingawayonhn 5y ago> There's a treaty signed which establishes joint soverignty over Aotearoa and it was signed in good faith by both parties. It's a fairly flawed 1 page document with two incompatible translations signed 181 years ago. There's certainly still plenty of debate over how much sovereignty Maori are granted by the treaty, how that would be implemented, and how relevant it is in the modern context.
- te_chris 5y agoDispute over what it means, yes, like all legal documents. But my initial reply was to a poster describing it as 'fringe'. It is anything but.
- mdoms 5y agoYou don't think the treaty is in dispute? There's literally an entire tribunal whose only remit is to adjudicate treaty disputes. Treaty disputes have been in the news on a regular basis for decades.
- te_chris 5y agoSee my other comment. It very much exists and is very much the basis for NZ law. You said it was 'fringe': it isn't.