This is the fourth video on sentence one of Article two of the Treaty of Waitangi which reads :
“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.”
We have discovered so far that:
• In 1840, the British considered that New Zealand was a sovereign Maori nation.
• This is why they came to ask Maori to cede sovereignty.
• ‘The people of New Zealand’ in this Article is a reference to Maori.
• Each chief had their land surveyed and titles were issued. In the previous video, we talked about their surveyed land being their 1cm²s.
• The British promised to protect Maori in the ownership of their land, dwellings, and property
• The foreshore, seabed, and beaches belonged to all the citizens of the country.
• This was because according to British law, the The Law of Public commons: “the air, running water, the sea, and with it the shores of the sea” belonged to all the citizens of a country. And since Maori had become British citizens, and this was a British law, and British law was imported into New Zealand, it applied to Maori.
• The word ‘possession’ in this article meant simply that – possession. ‘Ownership’ is an accurate alternative to ‘possession.’
It’s worth noting at this point that by signing the Treaty the Declaration of Independence 1835 was superceded by the Treaty. All the those who signed this declaration were sought out by the British, and they all signed the Treaty in 1840. In eWect, this meant the Treaty cancelled out the 1835 Declaration.
Historian Dr Matthew Wright says “The declaration was accepted by the Colonial O5ice to the extent that its signatories were sought [and collected] for the Treaty of Waitangi, which superseded it.”
(Matthew Wright. Illustrated History of New Zealand. David Bateman Press. 2013. p51)
Ok, back to Article 2, sentence one:
“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.”
There is another word of great interest here, and it’s the word ‘property.’
Henry Williams translated it this word as ‘taonga’ in Maori.
Historian Bruce Moon says the word ‘taonga’ has an interesting history. In 1820 while assisting Kendall and Lee of Cambridge in compiling the first Maori dictionary, Hongi Hika had defined it as “property procured by the spear – tao”. In an appeal for protection by 13 Ngapuhi chiefs to King William in 1831, they said “We are a people without possessions. We have nothing but timber, flax, pork and potatoes.” And their word for “possessions” was “taonga”. In other words, it just means
‘chattels’ - things like wakas, implements, weapons, pots, pans, and so on. (Bruce Moon. NZ The Fair Colony. P5)
We could say at this point that the meaning of Article 2, sentence one is very very clear. So clear in fact, that activist detested that clarity. They set out to change the meaning.
Enter Hugh Kawharu in 1989.
He said the word ‘possession’ (in Maori ‘tino rangatiratanga’) did not mean possession or ownership. He said it meant ‘unqualified exercise of chieftainship’
What does this mean? Kawharu said the Treaty guaranteed Maori the right to be chiefs over all of New Zealand forever
Ridiculous isn’t it, but this is what he said.
How can Maori today be chiefs over all NZ when those chiefs sold 92% of their land?
One can’t be a chief over land one doesn’t own. Doh!
I have never heard such a stupid idea, but activists wallow in these ideas without thinking them through.
He also said the word property meant ‘treasures’. He said this: “‘taonga’ refers to all dimensions of a tribal group’s estate, material and non-material – heirlooms and wahi tapu (sacred places), ancestral lore and whakapapa (genealogies), etc.”
In other words, the Treaty, he said, guaranteed to protect and promote anything that Maori in 2024 treasure.
When this happened, Treaty fraud exploded.
Kawharu’s ‘interpretations’ of these key words gave Maori activists the idea that dual sovereignty was in the Treaty i.e. Maori doing their thing (being chiefs over New Zealand and operating according to tribal rule), the rest of us doing our thing (running a democracy).
This too, is an impossible and stupid concept. Two governments can’t run a country.
A whole galaxy of new words were spawned and bandied around by activists: Selfdetermination, sovereignty, autonomy, self-government, domination, rule, control, power. Highest chieftainship.
Māori started to say things like ‘Maori are in charge of their land & resources, and aspirations. Māori are not going to start acting with authority and independence over
their own aWairs. Tino rangatiratanga is a practice: Maori living according to tikanga lore (Maori beliefs / superstitions / customs.)
They have started to say things like Maori did not cede sovereignty after all (even though Kawharu said they did), and that the Treaty is a business partnership between Maori and the Crown.
Another ridiculous idea. Why? “Sovereignty ” and “partnership” are mutually exclusive concepts. That is to say, if Britain was a partner with the Maori chiefs, then Britain was not sovereign.
Anything activists ‘treasured’ could be demanded from the government because ‘it was in the Treaty.’
When one merges histor y ignorant low IQ politicians with very slipper corrupt seasoned activists, disaster results, and this is what we are seeing today.
Every single one of these ideas coming out of the activists camp were not in the Treaty.
What we must hang on to is the fact that the British would never have set up an apartheid state in New Zealand, with some citizens having superior rights over others.
It’s fanciful isn’t it, but this is what activist believe happened.
By changing the original meaning of this word property, changing it to ‘treasures’, Maori started to “claim” things that were not in their 1cm² in 1840
An example would be awarding part of the 5G cell phone network in New Zealand to Maori “because the Treaty promised this”. (https://stopcogovernance.kiwi/wpcontent/uploads/2024/09/Maori-set-to -receive- quarter- of-key-5G-spectrum-bandand-57m-under-Crown- deal-StuW.pdf )
Another example would be the claim by Maori that the Treaty “promised” to protect and promote the Maori language.
I can’t, now, think of one government department which does not require their institution to “Give eWect to Te Tiriti O Waitangi and its principles” supposedly “promised” in the Treaty?
How should we view these ‘awards’ or ‘settlements’ or ‘treaty claims / promises’ or ‘treasures’? In a word they are outright fraud. There is absolutely nothing in the Treaty about the British ‘guaranteeing’ these things to Maori.
Go back to the 1cm² analogy. Re: gifting Maori the 5G network. It’s impossible to procure a 5G network with a spear. For a start, the 5G network did not exist in 1840 so it was not inside a tribes 1cm²
Re: the seabed and foreshore, and the water. We’ve talked about this and the Law Of Public Commons which stated : “the air, running water, the sea, and with it the shores of the sea” belong to all the citizens of a country.
Re: the Treaty promising to protect and promote the Maori language. Just read the Treaty and see if you can see this promise. It’s not there. The British understood that the Maori language, culture, and customs were to be preserved and promoted by Maori themselves as they went about their lives inside their 1cm² squares. Really, it’s a ridiculous idea that one culture (i.e. the British) would be made responsible for preserving and promoting the language, culture, customs of another culture (i.e. the Maori).
Image the Indians in NZ having to fund and promote the Chinese language and culture? Never have I heard such a stupid idea but Maori activists today say this is what the British agreed to in 1840.
With every other cultural group in New Zealand, each cultural group is responsible to preserve and promote their own language, culture, and customs. In short, they delight to preserve and promote their culture because it’s ‘in them’ to do so. It’s part of their very DNA. When Maori put the onus on the government to promote Maori language and culture, things don’t add up.
Think about it – if Maori language, customs, and culture were really valuable to Maori, wouldn’t they want to take responsibility to pay for and promote their own culture, customs and language? So why have they not done this?
In New Zealand today, there are 160 cultures. One of those is the Maori culture. Maori are the only one of the 160 who demand that the government be responsible for promoting their language, culture, and customs. The other 159 want to fund and promote their own language and culture, but Maori want to be paid to do it. Doesn’t that seem odd?
There must be other motivations at play here. It does not require much eWort to see what they are.
Think about it - Maori boast that they have a $70B Maori economy1 , so why aren’t they using their own money to develop their language and culture? There is no valid reason to use taxpayers money, when they have plenty of their own. So just what is the reason?
Playing the ‘you promised to promote Maori language, customs, and culture through the Treaty’ card has proved to be a wonderful cash cow. It’s lucrative. To view just one example of the money going to Maori for the development of their language, customs, and culture, click HERE.
How should we summarise these four videos on Article 2, sentence 1?
1 https://stopcogovernance.kiwi/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/The-Maori-economy-is-booming-and-will-beworth-100-billion-by-2030-says-Willie-Jackson-NZ-Herald-x.pdf
The British intention for the Treaty was so superbly simple, that even a child could understand it. They said “We’ll protect your ownership of your land, dwellings, and property but the beaches belong to everyone.”
That was it!
But as soon as the activists got involved, they began to screw the scrum and the result has been an absolute mess and total confusion.
What’s the solution?
Go back to what the British first intended and make it law. That is “We’ll protect your ownership of your land, dwellings, and property but the beaches belong to everyone.”
Funnily enough, this is exactly what David Seymour is trying to do with this Treaty Principles Bill. His original 3 principles were a perfect summary of the original meaning and intent of the Treaty.
His original three principles were:
1. That the Government has the right to govern for all New Zealanders.
2. That the Government will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and all their property.
3. That all New Zealanders are equal under the law with the same rights and duties. They need to become law.
We’ve had enough of the activist’s Treaty manipulations.
Their distortions have exchanged British clarity and simplicity for tears, corruption, fraud, and confusion.
Enough is enough.
Fight, fight, fight.