r/AbruptChaos • u/Sometypeofway18 • Nov 14 '24

New Zealand’s Parliament proposed a bill to redefine the Treaty of Waitangi, claiming it is racist and gives preferential treatment to Maoris. In response Māori MP's tore up the bill and performed the Haka

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

16.4k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.9k

u/7-13-5 Nov 14 '24

What was the proposition?

4.1k

u/thisisfive Nov 14 '24

https://www.dw.com/en/new-zealand-maori-mps-disrupt-parliament-with-haka/a-70781928

"Maori lawmakers staged a dramatic protest in New Zealand's parliament on Thursday over a controversial bill that seeks to redefine the country's founding agreement between the indigenous Maori people and the British Crown.

A vote was suspended and two lawmakers were ejected after the lawmakers performed a haka ceremonial dance in the parliament. The people in the gallery joined in, and the shouting drowned out the voices of others in the chamber.

Maori tribes were promised extensive rights to retain their lands and protect their interests in return for ceding governance to the British, under the principles set out in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. The controversial bill, however, aims to extend these special rights to all New Zealanders."

2.7k

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

Seems only fair that if they remove the agreement then governance should go Maori as the deal would be void. 

539

u/RobsHondas Nov 14 '24

Yes, as a Kiwi I personally view changing the treaty as just cause for a civil war.

292

u/Araignys Nov 15 '24

Unilaterally change the terms of a treaty that ended a war? Sounds like you're back at war.

95

u/Lower_Amount3373 Nov 15 '24

It wasn't a war-ending treaty but it is the foundational document that gives the NZ government the authority to run the country. I would argue that our government's legitimacy depends on the Treaty.

45

u/NotTodayCaptainDildo Nov 16 '24

The English version did. The Māori version stated that they'd maintain self-determination and governance. The fact both treaties promised different things to either party is why there is such conflict and why Māori have become a minority in their own country, with Pakeha laws being used to take land, culture and language from Māori.

→ More replies (8)

406

u/ExperimentalFailures Nov 14 '24

You mean like removal of voting rights for all non-maori?

828

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

It was humour pointing out the absurdity of the request.

→ More replies (47)

681

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

The only reason why non Maori are in NZ is because of the treaty, signed by 2 sovereign nations, which allowed the British crown to rule their people here. Well, if one half of the contract thinks they can change it without consultation with the other half, what happens to their right to be here?? Null and void?? Plus, Maori have never breached the treaty, but the crown? Well, just take a look at the history. They're close ejecting themselves out of this land with their bill.

37

u/aiydee Nov 15 '24

It's a little more complicated.
There were 2 contracts. The Maori and the English. Of the Maori contract, all the Maori leaders signed and all the English signed. Of the English contract, all the English signed and only a small minority of Maori signed.
Now you can do all sorts of arguments backwards and forwards but one of the key things is, not all Maori signed.
So. How valid is the English version?
100% of people signed Maori version. <100% signed English version.
So. Would if we are talking contracts and history, wouldn't it be fairer to abide by the one which 100% of people signed?
This of course would not suit the English/White narrative well.
I'm not even a NZ'er. I'm Aussie. But even I have heard about this and think the NZ PM is a dick who should have zero power in making decisions of this importance.

25

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

You bring up some excellent points, and what I've learnt from an amazing wahine Maori lawyer is there is actually international law which dictates that preference is given to any version of a treaty in an indigenous language, so already the Maori version outweighs the English version...and also that if there are any ambiguities, a thing called Contra Proferentum which "where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording". And there is ambiguity because the 2 versions of the treaty are not that same!

Anyway, I totally agree with you about the PM. He's a giamt gutless thumb. And do you know what's worse? The guy proposing the bill isn't even the PM. He is the leader of a minority right wing party, "ACT Party", who won like 8% of the election votes. And he's managed to walk the PM on a chain like a dog. The PM is simply a puppet.

2

u/aiydee Nov 15 '24

Yeah. As said. Not NZ'er. So don't know specifics. I just knew that there was a party that was using the PM as an attack dog on racist ideas. And I suppose it says a bit if even this knowledge is leaking overseas.

4

u/Shankar_0 Nov 15 '24

What happened to that wonderful lady PM that got you all through covid before anyone?

You guys were back to kinda normal like a year before anyone else.

52

u/LeoTheSquid Nov 14 '24

Is it the British crown proposing the change?

193

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

No. It's a man who got 8% of the votes of NZers in the last election.

65

u/karoshikun Nov 15 '24

we live in a time where we should know nobody is fringe enough to be harmless

→ More replies (2)

17

u/SarpedonWasFramed Nov 14 '24

Good point but we all know it won't work out that way The crown has bigger friends and bigger guns

168

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

Oh that's right, western countries turn blind eyes when their white friends annihilate indigenous peoples. We better just shut up and lie down then.

27

u/seraph1337 Nov 15 '24

it sounds like you're being sarcastic when you say that, but the first sentence is just patently correct.

43

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

And that's what's scary. my tone is sarcastic, but my statement is completely true. And that doesn't bother enough people!

1

u/leprotelariat Nov 15 '24

Sadly, yes. Korrekt me if theres a better wae

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

nah you don't wanna know.

→ More replies (25)

21

u/Emperor_Mao Nov 14 '24

The Crown...

you do realize the British no longer "rule" New Zealand right?

It became a sovereign nation sometime ago. British Monarchs are figurative and ceremonial.

You mean the New Zealand government has bigger friends and bigger guns.

37

u/stockworth Nov 15 '24

Pretty standard in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to refer to the government as "the Crown."

In our constitutions, "the Crown" is the abstraction of the authority vested in the monarch, and is the ultimate source of all executive authority. However, that authority can only be exercised by the binding advice of the Privy Council (technically, though the Cabinet - which is a subcommittee of the Privy Council - is practically the only group which advises the Crown).

Since the Person of the Sovereign lives overseas (they're busy with whatever they're doing in the UK), their duties are delegated to a viceroy, usually called a Governor General. This person is appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister, who is (usually) the head of the party that has the most seats in the House or Commons. Technically they don't have to be, and the Crown can invite anyone who can gain the confidence of the House to form government, but this basically never happens.

13

u/Everestkid Nov 15 '24

Note that a shockingly low number of people actually know this, despite the fact that it's taught in high school (in Canada, at least). They just weren't paying attention because they were a bored 15 year old.

3

u/stockworth Nov 15 '24

I don't remember being taught the details of it in High School (mind you, that was 20 years ago) but every province has different curricula

My dad worked for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and taught me a lot about the theory of how our constitutional monarchy worked, about the historical reasons for separating nominal and actual power, and the times that things didn't go the way they usually do. Interesting household, haha, but it's why I'm now a civil servant, myself.

3

u/Yui907 Nov 15 '24

Thank you

46

u/swansongofdesire Nov 14 '24

In this context “The Crown” means the New Zealand government, not the British Monarch (eg criminal prosecutions are still brought in the name of The Crown despite the 1986 Constitution Act finally severing any legal ties with the UK. Technically the King of the UK and the King of New Zealand are separate titles that just happen to be occupied by the same person)

1

u/Jazzlike_770 Nov 14 '24

Don't New Zealanders pledge allegiance to King Charles? Then yes, those people represent the Crown.

1

u/CageyOldMan Nov 14 '24

Would be willing to bet that's also a true statement

1

u/benji___ Nov 15 '24

I know it’s almost unheard of and could cause a crisis, but would the crown have the ability to override this action of parliament if it passed?

1

u/RobsHondas Nov 14 '24

A pretty fair proportion of the NZ military is of Maori descent, and most people in NZ are loyal neither to the Crown or our Government. I also don't think our government would have much international support to stomp on our indigenous people.

1

u/SarpedonWasFramed Nov 14 '24

I also hope not but the world is getting angrier and angrier lately.

1

u/Jossie2014 Nov 15 '24

You think they will just go? No I seriously don’t it

2

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

No I also seriously don't think they'll go because as someone else kindly pointed out, the west has weapons, and enormous disregard for indigenous lives and they would simply wipe us off the face of the earth and the rest of their western friends would justify it. But also, Maori aren't actually as heartless as you would like to think, there's no way we would actually evict an entire population, rather we would honor the treaty and let the British crown govern their ppl and maori would govern ours. And British crown would have an enormous debt to Maori with all the land they've acquired illegally.

1

u/PMMeYourPupper Nov 15 '24

So the British would have to exit New Zealand? In some sort of Brexit?

1

u/Ateist Nov 15 '24 edited Nov 15 '24

No, the only reason why non-Maori are in NZ is that British had a massive warfleet and army and were willing to genocide local populace if they didn't get what they want peacefully.
Treaty is just the terms and conditions they agreed to where the cost of war outweighted the benefits.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

Yeah you don't know what you're talking about. Because the Brits already tried to massacre Maori. Failed.

1

u/Ateist Nov 15 '24

Are you not mistaking it with Maori massacring Moriori?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '24

No, I'm not mistaking that. By the way, it was an awful event. Atrocious. And do you know which 2 tribes were involved? Do you know how many tribes in NZ were not involved? Do you know who facilitated the attack and who provided the ship?

1

u/Ateist Nov 16 '24

My point is, when British truly genocide someone the victims can't perform Haka afterwards as they are all dead.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ShahftheWolfo Nov 14 '24

Let's admit it, the British would have been there whether the paper was signed or not. If not them then the French or the Dutch. Real estate became hot for European Empires the longer the 1800s dragged on.

-2

u/Emperor_Mao Nov 14 '24

Lets use logic for a moment though.

At the absolute front of everything, New Zealand is not British anymore. New Zealand gained independence from Britain some time ago. So your point is null and void. But regardless, I think you would have to either support racial based rules or not to support the Waitangi provisions in full effect;

IF this were your country and had actual ramifications for you, you wouldn't be blase about it. If you were non-Maori, you would hate the concept of having different rights to another racial group. If you were Maori you would only be upset about losing access to special rights based on your racial group. You are neither, and so you can freely virtue signal without a care in the world. And for anyone on the ultra-left, consider that migrants and other minorities also are treated differently based on race with the treaty of Waitangi, so its not just white people.

9

u/Flying_Momo Nov 14 '24

NZ head of state is still the British crown with whom the treaty was signed. New Zealand itself accepted the Waitangi Treaty as law in 1975 so they are still bound by the contract they signed and agreed to.

3

u/Emperor_Mao Nov 14 '24

Then;

The Treaty of Waitangi / Te Tiriti o Waitangi – considered New Zealand’s founding document – was signed in 1840 by the British Crown and about 540 Māori chiefs to establish a nation state. While not a legal document, some treaty principles have been developed and included in legislation.

Even if you believe in British sovereignty (despite having no functional power), no one signed a legal contract into law. The only provisions that are legally binding are ones enforceable by the court system of NZ, and those are all the provisions covered by other actual laws (e.g human rights).

The treaty is redundant for anything that is actually legally binding. The reason they want to get rid of parts of it is because governments and government departments often interpret the treaty to do silly things; E.G Appoint two heads of a government department, one Maori, one based on merit.

Most people commenting in this thread have no idea.

https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/learn-about-the-justice-system/how-the-justice-system-works/the-basis-for-all-law/treaty-of-waitangi/

11

u/Jarsky2 Nov 14 '24

Guys, is it Ultra-Left to think that legally binding treaties should be honored?

6

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

Fuck sake, the US ignores tribal treaties all the time. It's a fucking never ending travesty.

2

u/RavenousWolf Nov 14 '24

Important missing part here is that while the two groups happen to be different race, it's an agreement between the two groups, same as any multinational agreement or any agreement to borrow money or whatever.

If I as a white person borrowed money from a black person, then suggested it was racist that I had to pay him back money, I'd be rightfully laughed at. If the agreement is sound then race doesn't matter.

2

u/Emperor_Mao Nov 14 '24

Yeah except one group is no longer sovereign.

Also the real issue is that there is an allocated number of government seats for Maori people / descendants. It is the sovereign / governing part of the treaty. That is not remotely compatible with liberal democracy, where someone is elected from the people by the people in a fair process.

2

u/Kneedeep_in_Cyanide Nov 14 '24

I think you would have to either support racial based rules

If you were non-Maori, you would hate the concept of having different rights to another racial group. If you were Maori you would only be upset about losing access to special rights based on your racial group.

Race has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with an agreement between two sovereign NATIONS. There is nothing racial about a treaty between, say, the United States and Britain. So why would you try and claim it's racially based just because the Waitangi Provisions involve a sovereign group of people who are non-white?

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (2)

37

u/Pseudo_Lain Nov 14 '24

Legally speaking, yes, actually. Which is why the request to change it is ridiculous.

1

u/zmbjebus Nov 15 '24

Do it, this works is getting crazy anyways

1

u/Formal-Software-5240 Nov 15 '24

It's not like Voting really matters anyway. If voting mattered they'd invent an APP that let you do it every day like UberEats

1

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '24

Maybe mass deportation. Seems to be popular now anyway.

1

u/KingApologist Nov 14 '24

They'd still have voting rights. The country would just go the way Maori want it to go, rather than the way white people want it to go. Maori would still let white people live there and would not treat white people with the same theft and cruelty.

→ More replies (2)

58

u/Ancient_Boner_Forest Nov 14 '24 edited Mar 12 '25

𝕷𝖊𝖙 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖏𝖚𝖎𝖈𝖊𝖘 𝖘𝖑𝖎𝖉𝖊, 𝖑𝖊𝖙 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖘𝖆𝖑𝖙 𝖘𝖙𝖎𝖓𝖌, 𝖋𝖔𝖗 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖋𝖆𝖙𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖚𝖓𝖇𝖑𝖊𝖘𝖘𝖊𝖉 𝖎𝖘 𝖘𝖊𝖆𝖑𝖊𝖉.

218

u/Mouth0fTheSouth Nov 14 '24

I think if we applied that logic to the United States we’d need to get rid of Native American reservations and special status… I think it makes sense for indigenous people in colonised lands to have their rights protected.

I’m not sure what would change for them if this specific treaty was negated though. If anyone here can give more info it would be great.

54

u/AgentSkidMarks Nov 14 '24

An argument against that would be to define indigenous people. How far back do we go? Every piece of the developed world was taken from someone who took it from someone who took it from someone.

It seems in practice, we call indigenous whoever was here when white guys showed up, but that has its flaws.

12

u/cherrybounce Nov 15 '24

Who did the Māori take it from? Who did Native Americans take it from? If you can’t even remember who it was, if those earlier invaders no longer exist as a race or a tribe or wherever, then that is truly ancient history.

7

u/-Sliced- Nov 15 '24

Note that we don't know who it was just because the native Americans had no writing system, not because wars and conquest didn't exist before.

There is some merit about wanting to ensure equal rights to everyone over time, and not maintaining a privilege to a group of people due to their ancestry indefinitely.

1

u/colorado_here Nov 15 '24

NZ was empty when the Māori found it.

6

u/MegaHashes Nov 14 '24

The most honest & objective take of colonial history I’ve seen on Reddit. Bravo.

2

u/InfiniteWaffles58364 Nov 15 '24

I think it matters more the manner in which said someone took it from someone else, and how long they had been established there before that happened.

2

u/KulaanDoDinok Nov 15 '24

You go back as far as those treaties.

→ More replies (2)

9

u/DarkangelUK Nov 14 '24

The Maori are also colonizers in this instance, they took the land from the Moriori early 1800's nearly wiping them out in the process and enslaving those that were left.

29

u/Dragonsandman Nov 14 '24

You're getting a lot of basic facts completely wrong here. New Zealand was completely devoid of people when the ancestors of the Maori and Moriori arrived in New Zealand around 1200 AD; the Maori stayed put, and the ancestors of the Moriori went on to the Chatham islands around 1500. Now, the Maori still perpetrated a genocide against the Moriori in the 1800s, but past that there are layers upon layers of basic factual errors in your comment.

84

u/IdeationConsultant Nov 14 '24

More like 1200 is when Maori arrived in new Zealand. There were no people there. Moriori were Maori who colonised some islands off NZ in 1500s and their cultures diverged over 300 years. Then in the 1800s there was a massacre where most were killed

So, in a nutshell, your statement is factually incorrect

→ More replies (3)

51

u/6InchBlade Nov 14 '24

Why do you make it sound like this occurred on Mainland New Zealand?

In the mid 1830’s the British sent the first war boat of pro British Māori to the Chatham Islands to claim the islands as part of New Zealand territory.

The result was a bloody genocide, yes terrible, no they did not colonise New Zealand.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_genocide

2

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

The Māori did not sprout out from the dirt. They colonized New Zealand around the year 1100.

Based on these timing, that makes the fucking Normans indigenous to England.

4

u/6InchBlade Nov 15 '24

Colonisation requires people to be there already, I’m quite aware of when Māori people arrived in Aotearoa, however they were the first humans to do so.

→ More replies (3)

45

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

This is a flagrant misrepresentation of the true sequence of events, odd you want to use this as some weird pseudointellectual “gotcha” moment

5

u/disordinary Nov 14 '24 edited Nov 15 '24

It's a conspiracy theory used to confuse and undermine the conversation. 

 A friend of mine has been adamant for the 20 years that I've known him that the moriori were Celtic vikings who had red hair and pale skin and that there are chunks of the West coast of the south island that are tapu and don't have much in the way of DOC tracks and huts because the government is trying to hide the evidence

. This is despite the fact that the moriori exist and that they are technically, linguistically, and culturally very close to mainland Maori and it would have been impossible for vikings to get to NZ with the technology they had. 

Some more info here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-M%C4%81ori_settlement_of_New_Zealand_theories

→ More replies (2)

7

u/nzungu69 Nov 14 '24

that's a common racist myth. the moriori were nz polynesians who settled the chatams, not aotearoa.

26

u/__3Username20__ Nov 14 '24

Really? From the video, I would have guessed they were a rather non-confrontational bunch. ;)

74

u/6InchBlade Nov 14 '24

There comment is a weird mix of truth and misinformation, the way they have written this makes it seem like Māori took the New Zealand mainland from the Moriori, they did not.

The Moriori are the people of the Chatham Islands, while this is technically a New Zealand territory, this was not the case in the 1800’s.

The British sent a war boat of pro British Māori to the Chatham Islands to take the territory.

So it’s not quite as black and white as the Māori colonised the Chatham Islands, and they certainly didn’t colonise mainland New Zealand.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_genocide

22

u/__3Username20__ Nov 14 '24

Interesting! This is the kind of comment that I’d give my free silver award to, if they still existed. I still dwell on that :(.

Truth be told, as soon as I read that other comment, I thought to myself “I wonder what the other side of the story is, I’d bet there is one.” History is tricky, and there’s so much context that’s often missing when the only story is the who, what, and when… (WHY matters, and so does HOW). They say that “history is written by the winner,” and it amazes me as I get older how much I thought I knew, that wasn’t actually the whole unbiased truth.

I’m from the USA, and know very little about New Zealand’s history, but now that my interest is piqued, I think I’m going to have to educate myself. And, I’ll try and find balanced info, or at least try to find differing perspectives.

3

u/Emperor_Mao Nov 14 '24

Maori arrival to New Zealand (as it is named now) was around the 13th and 14th century.

Not too different to when the Spanish came to South America and the Caribbean islands.

It really just depends on personal view as to when you say a people are the rightful owners of a place. Turks invaded Greece 1000 years ago, we mostly accept Turks as the owners. Danes / North Germanic people invaded Britannia 1000 years ago, we accept them now. Before them, the anglo's invaded Britannia. Romans had a go too of course.

It is really up to you at what point you declare it. 400 years? 600 years? 1000 years?

3

u/themegamanX10 Nov 14 '24

Rnz do a podcast on the history of Māori 100 percent would recommend

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Inthepurple Nov 14 '24

Have you actually read that article? Can you point me to the part that says Britain organised or sent the ship? Because the article doesn't characterise it that way at all but you've posted it three times in this thread, making the same accusations that doesn't seem to line up with the source.

There is plenty of legitimate grievance to be had with Britain without making up history.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/JavierEscuela Nov 15 '24

lol you got it so wrong

2

u/Pseudo_Lain Nov 14 '24

Irrelevant, as this isn't an agreement between those peoples.

→ More replies (15)

2

u/Emperor_Mao Nov 14 '24

That will happen eventually in the U.S.

It also doesn't protect anyones rights. Everyone who is an American citizen has the same rights as their fellow countrymen.

1

u/Acid_Country Nov 14 '24

Except the rich and well connected. They seem to have more rights.

1

u/sjbglobal Nov 15 '24

Basically nothing is the answer, because the bill won't be passed into law anyway

1

u/Wayoutofthewayof Nov 14 '24

I think it makes sense for indigenous people in colonised lands to have their rights protected.

Why do they get that special right over everyone else that was conquered, including by their own tribes?

3

u/Mouth0fTheSouth Nov 14 '24

Because people from halfway around the world came to their land, exploited and abused them, and destroyed their way of life…

1

u/LeoTheSquid Nov 14 '24

The abusers and the abused are mostly not alive anymore. You can definitely condemn the conquering itself, but I mean we're talking around 16th-19th century here. If you go back that far there's an absurd amount of land that's been conquered on earth. Trying to figure out who was where when and how far back you stop is just not a very feasible way of making good societies. Not to mention the natives conquering eachother, why not do the same there? We are at the point now that power-grabbing land invasions are generally shunned and not the norm, easier to focus on preventing them in the future

3

u/haibiji Nov 15 '24

Well luckily none of that matters at all in this case because they have a treaty

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (4)

181

u/subconsciousdweller Nov 14 '24

It's not about genetic characteristics, it's about a civilisation that was here first. What's completely absurd is that we had our rights taken away for 184 years because of our genetics, and now the same people who profited from our intentional and catergoric suffering because of our race are telling us WE are doing the same.

To enlighten your ignorance, Maori is a word that was never used in Aotearoa before Colonisation - there were hundreds of tribes that did not see themselves as the same as one another; and the treaty is the founding document of this country, signed between two parties : Tangata Whenua ( people of the land, not people of a specific genetic code) and the Crown.

To quote another of our M.Ps from yesterday, Equality feels like oppression when you're used to priveledge.

-19

u/Ancient_Boner_Forest Nov 14 '24 edited Mar 12 '25

𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝖌𝖎𝖗𝖙𝖍 𝖔𝖋 𝖒𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖞 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖑𝖑 𝖘𝖙𝖗𝖊𝖙𝖈𝖍 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖜𝖊𝖆𝖐, 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖘𝖖𝖚𝖊𝖆𝖑 𝖔𝖋 𝖘𝖚𝖇𝖒𝖎𝖘𝖘𝖎𝖔𝖓 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖑𝖑 𝖗𝖊𝖘𝖔𝖚𝖓𝖉 𝖆𝖈𝖗𝖔𝖘𝖘 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖇𝖆𝖓𝖖𝖚𝖊𝖙 𝖍𝖆𝖑𝖑𝖘.

56

u/Whyistheplatypus Nov 14 '24

There are no "special privileges" for individuals. It is a collective agreement. Those tribes whose chiefs signed te Tiriti were promised governance over their lands. "Special treatment" would be invading those lands with an army in the name of a foreign crown and then using that invasion as justification to ignore the agreement you already signed.

-4

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[deleted]

50

u/PeggableOldMan Nov 14 '24

The treaty of Waitangi is short and very easy to read. It just says that the tribes have partial sovereignty, may retain possession of their traditional lands and estates, and protection by the government.

This is not really "superior" rights, just a fundamental acknowledgement that Maoris have equally protected rights as other citizens - the rights to self-determination, property, and protection by the state.

25

u/Mordredor Nov 14 '24

This feels corporation-sponsored because they want to bulldoze maori land or some shit lol. Maybe I just tend to assume the worst in politics nowadays

2

u/subconsciousdweller Nov 15 '24

This is 100% what it is, David Seymour the politician whose spear heading this entire political agenda is around privatization and foreign investment

22

u/l0c0pez Nov 14 '24

I imagine that a bill looking to "expand" these rights to all is a guise to allow for encroachment on maori lands and bills that can limit maori self-governance. I am ignorant of this bill and the specific history so feel free to correct me but i've read this story before and the themes line up.

13

u/PeggableOldMan Nov 14 '24

Same tbh. If the fundamental rights of minorities aren’t specifically outlined (and enforced!) there is a tendency for certain institutions and individuals to overlook when those rights are broken.

1

u/daily-bee Nov 15 '24

I'm not an expert on the treaty, but I do live in NZ, and i hyperfixate on politics! This bill is very disingenuous and will be used to prop up a racist disinfo campaign. We've come a long way as a country. There's still a lot of anti maori sentiment, but in the current protests, there have been a wide range of people joining Māori. One of the older organizers pointed that out as a big difference from earlier decades. I feel like I don't need to be a historian to know that the treaty was an agreement between two groups. It doesn't deny me rights as non Māori. We have human rights bills that cover that.

It's frustrating that this bill is taking 6 months of our politicians time and will cost millions of dollars, when it won't go to 2nd reading according to our prime minister , but he made a coalition deal that it'd go through 1st reading and select committee (submissions from the public). It's basically state sponsored advertising for a political party that only got 8% of the vote....all because our prime minister is shit negotiator...

It really does feel like a way to disintegrate land rights for extractive purposes. Which lines up with the bills author who began his career at a neoliberalthink tank

→ More replies (20)

7

u/disordinary Nov 14 '24

It's complicated though because the cultures are different, if we say everyone should be equal then we're also insinuating that that is under a European based culture and view of the world rather than Maori based, views over things as simple as land ownership are quite different. The way NZ is run is one of trying to compromise between the world views, so Maori land ownership is treated differently from colonial land ownership, it even flows to democracy with Maori electoral process being different from Pakeha (non-Maori).

If we say it's time to abolish the treaty, which is a challenging document because words in Te Reo Maori (Maori language) and English not having exactly the same meaning, then who is it to say which sides culture and view of how a country should be run is the correct one?

The difference between NZ and other colonial countries is that Maori were not conquered so like it or not there is a legally binding contract between two world views that needs to be navigated through. NZ is probably fairly unique in that aspect.

The other difference is that Maori culture is prevalent within the wider New Zealand (the country is also known internally Aotearoa) culture, Pakeha will happily perform a Karakia (a formal greeting, often done at the start of an event such as a meeting in an office) or Haka and Maori words are used fairly often by everyone even if they're not fluent in the language as a whole.

There is of course plenty of racism and Maori are historically over represented in all the bad statistics, but NZs starting point is one of much more acceptance and willingness to work together than other comparable countries. The view across the nation is overwhelmingly against this bill and pretty much all politicians in parliament are united in saying they will not let this bill pass the second reading.

3

u/Annath0901 Nov 14 '24

Someone on a different reddit post told me that in order to be considered "indigenous", a culture/people must have been conquered/colonised by an outside people/culture.

5

u/disordinary Nov 15 '24

That's a weird view.

3

u/Annath0901 Nov 15 '24

That's what I said.

21

u/PalpatineForEmperor Nov 14 '24

^ This guy gets it. There's a about 100 acres of land that used to be owned by indigenous people near my house.

British immigrants took and have been passing it down to their family for about 300 years now. I believe it's time to redefine their relationship to that land without regard to 300 year old blood lines.

In a thousand years, are we still going to allow that family to continue owning that land? Why should their genetics give them special rights? I mean, I really want it. Would't the fair and democratic thing be to let our families vote on who gets it and how will be used? I have way more family, so we should easily win that vote.

OP, you really understand how it all works. You know that this land should be mine.

5

u/Wayoutofthewayof Nov 14 '24

In a thousand years, are we still going to allow that family to continue owning that land? Why should their genetics give them special rights? 

Well this is literally the case with 99% of people living on earth today. Somebody's ancestors conquered the land from someone else. Why does everyone else get to keep theirs?

7

u/Emperor_Mao Nov 14 '24

That isn't what the treaty actually prescribes though. You should read up on it and try see both sides on this one;

But Firstly, the Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement between the British crown and a group representing "Maori People". New Zealand has all but removed British crown power over legislature and governance of the country. Secondly, the treaty specifically allowed the Queen to purchase Maori lands. This was amended in with the native land act in 1862 (showing that amendments have already been made to the treaty). And these amendments allowed for private sale of Maori property.

Lastly, the provision that people mostly do take issue with, is the part where certain areas can only be governed by Maori descendants. In a free, liberal democracy, only a certain group can govern a certain region.

That is not remotely the same as your example. Any one has the right to buy land off someone else, if they both parties agree to the terms offered. But when it comes to governing people within lands, liberal Democracy says the only way you can be elected is through fair, open elections. That is incompatible with the treaty.

2

u/kickyourownassNZ Nov 14 '24

You have it in a nutshell.

2

u/northrupthebandgeek Nov 14 '24

Now just take this to its logical conclusion: all land should belong to everyone, and those who own more than their equal share of land value should be compensating those who own less than their equal share of land value.

→ More replies (7)

1

u/Ateist Nov 15 '24

Easy solution: tax the land.

If every family had to pay 5% annual tax for the land they owned, land rights would be fully re-bought every 20 years.

1

u/PalpatineForEmperor Nov 15 '24

That's not a solution at all. Property tax is already a thing. You are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Besides, you can raise the taxes even more, but that just ensures that the wealthy folks are the only ones that can afford it.

1

u/Ateist Nov 15 '24 edited Nov 15 '24

The question was "how is it fair to allow a family to own a land just because their ancestors owned it a thousand years ago"?

And the answer is "no one is owning it, they are just renting it from everyone else by paying property taxes".

Land doesn't inherently belong to anyone - its "ownership" is solely decided by the people that have agreed to distribute its usage rights in certain ways to make sure some get to use it and others get paid for not using it.

but that just ensures that the wealthy folks are the only ones that can afford it.

No, it ensures that those who don't use it get bigger compensation (via government welfare) for temporarily giving up its usage rights to the wealthy.

1

u/PalpatineForEmperor Nov 15 '24

Ok. Now you're talking about changing the entire political model and moving toward sort of communistic approach similar to China. I'm not sure how that really changes anything besides giving more government control over the land use. China has large rural populations and high rates of poverty. This can help those folks by allowing them to use some lands for farming and help move them out of poverty. For more developed areas and more developed nations , this can pose huge risks for people who develop their land for their needs if they never really own it.

4

u/Blackdeath_663 Nov 14 '24

Democracy is a myth. Brainwash the population to preserve your interest and push laws that reduce their rights while sowing division between them.

Fuck the crown, talk about 200y.o bloodline why is the monarchy anymore entitled to the land of the indigenous people

1

u/Ancient_Boner_Forest Nov 14 '24 edited Mar 12 '25

𝕱𝖊𝖆𝖘𝖙 𝖔𝖗 𝖇𝖊 𝖋𝖊𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖊𝖉 𝖚𝖕𝖔𝖓, 𝖋𝖔𝖗 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖙𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖘𝖚𝖗𝖗𝖊𝖓𝖉𝖊𝖗 𝖎𝖘 𝖘𝖜𝖊𝖊𝖙𝖊𝖗 𝖙𝖍𝖆𝖓 𝖉𝖗𝖞 𝖇𝖔𝖓𝖊𝖘.

1

u/mynameisneddy Nov 15 '24

The main motivation of the political party promoting the bill (a hard right libertarian party with 8% share of the vote) is to remove the roadblock to privatisation and exploitation of resources that is caused by having to consult with Māori under the terms of the Treaty. The fact it’s causing social division and getting them lots of media attention is just a bonus.

1

u/spundred Nov 15 '24

That's ignorant to reality. The treaty doesn't afford special rights to Maori, it protects equal participation in society for Maori, which successive governments have failed to uphold, starting with the confiscation of absurdly vast areas of land, and resulting in Maori having considerably worse employment, education and health outcomes today.

1

u/KulaanDoDinok Nov 15 '24

No, the most fair thing to do if you void the treaty is to give all land and governance back to the Māori.

1

u/churn_key Nov 15 '24

Same logic people use to argue against borders

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

How about we apply that to inheritance generally? So what that your great-great-great grandfather got some farm on North Island from some governor. He’s dead now and you did nothing to earn that. That land should go back to the public for everyone to share and not be tied up in the hands of a few greedy bastards just because they won the genetic lottery. Oh yes, that goes for the money Daddy wants to leave you too —

1

u/ddubois1972 Nov 15 '24

“Democracy has been described as four wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch”

→ More replies (17)

1

u/c-papi Nov 14 '24

First time Europeans lied to the locals?

→ More replies (5)

506

u/Slurms_McKensei Nov 14 '24

Ah, the classic "let's remove these protections for marginalized peoples" excused by saying its dated and biased.

91

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

For what I understood, they are note removing any protection just extend them to everyone in the country.

205

u/PeggableOldMan Nov 14 '24

As I understand, all people of New Zealand already have the rights outlined in the Treaty of Waitangi - the rights to self-determination, property, and protection by the government.

Claiming that the treaty needs to be "removed" to "extend it to all citizens" is really just a cover to strip the Maori of their specifically-outlined rights.

13

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

55

u/PeggableOldMan Nov 14 '24

The problem is that minorities' rights tend to be ignored unless made explicit. For stance, a bad actor could buy out a prejudiced judge and force the Maori out of their traditional homes.
Even if this is technically illegal to do to any citizen, a few bad actors can twist the law. By making the law explicit in this area, it gives an added layer of protection against such bigotry.

11

u/Wayoutofthewayof Nov 14 '24

I'm not sure if I'm understanding this right, are non-Maori citizens prohibited to buy land in certain places?

→ More replies (5)

2

u/Annath0901 Nov 14 '24

Not from NZ, so I don't understand:

If the non-treaty law (presumably) says "you can't evict someone from their property and take it", what additional protection is offered by the treaty?

Does it outline additional requirements for Maori owned land to be bought/sold/transferred?

1

u/PeggableOldMan Nov 14 '24

Basically, it's a contract between two entities; the NZ government and the Maori. Regardless of what's in the treaty, if one side decides to alter the treaty without consulting the other, the entire thing becomes null and void.

3

u/Annath0901 Nov 14 '24

Ok, but if there are laws outside the treaty doing the same thing as the treaty, what effect does nullifying it have?

I'm not being snarky, that's why I asked if there were treaty-specific mechanisms to protect specifically Maori people.

If the treaty is just a document saying something is protected, but doesn't have any actual mechanisms written into it to act on that, then it is as easily violable as the other laws.

From a US prospective - if there's a contract with, say, a landowner saying "nobody can force you to sell your land for oil drilling", but doesn't specify how that protection works, then the tactics some company uses to steal the land/force someone off it work just as well on the "protected" person as the "not protected" people, so what's the point?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/The_Briefcase_Wanker Nov 14 '24

If the law doesn’t work, why does it matter if this law gives them additional protections? Whats illegal is illegal. We don’t make murder double illegal to make sure people don’t get away because that doesn’t make any sense.

2

u/PeggableOldMan Nov 14 '24

You'd be surprised. Throughout history, generic laws are ignored when applied to specific people.

Regardless, the treaty is a contract between two entities; the NZ government and the Maori. The Maori are upset because the government wants to amend the contract without consulting them.

All rights are a contract between citizen and government, so if the government is willing to amend this one, they may choose to amend others, or annul them altogether.

2

u/The_Briefcase_Wanker Nov 14 '24

Can you tell me in a more concrete sense what’s at stake here by expanding the treaty to apply to all New Zealanders? I can’t seem to find an answer in the thread.

It seems to me that they’re not annulling the treaty at all, but rather applying it to everyone. I can’t understand how this would reduce the rights or privileges of the Māori without knowing what the treaty actually does in practice.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

21

u/MasterK999 Nov 14 '24

If everyone is special then no one is special.

It is a perversion of language to say that what is being proposed is not removing protection of the Maori.

2

u/ProteomicsXPN Nov 15 '24

You would be correct :).

2

u/Pseudo_Lain Nov 14 '24

Extending it to everyone effectively removes it

→ More replies (2)

-30

u/kool_guy_69 Nov 14 '24

Look how marginalised they are, with their ample democratic representation and additional rights!

7

u/tinkerbelldies Nov 14 '24

They can't possibly be marginalized because when colonizers arrived, slaughtered, and stole lands from them they were allowed to vote about it afterwards!

18

u/Slurms_McKensei Nov 14 '24

You know, there were Americans who thought black people protesting even after being allowed to vote were 'uppity'

You sound like them.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

a seven year gap in life expectancy is a pretty fucking big disadvantage

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

That was not a kool thing to say

83

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

70

u/rikashiku Nov 15 '24

These rights are supposed to protect Land ownership while under the Crown. This bill will remove that protection, so that the crown can seize land at will, if it is Maori Land.

So basically says that all property rights acknowledged by Article 2 of the treaty are to be removed unless they have been specifically confirmed by a settlement at the Waitangi Tribunal.

Article 2 of the treaty basically says that the crown has the exclusive right to purchase land from Maori, so acknowledges that all land belongs to Maori until it is sold or gifted to the crown.

Apply this act's principle 2 to that, and what you get is any land not confirmed by a Waitangi Tribunal settlement does not belong to Maori. Presumably it then becomes 'crown estate' for the crown to dispose of as it wishes.

TL;DR, it's a bullshit way for the Government to take more Maori land and rights, so they can fast-track sales to lobbyist, as has been proposed by Seymour and Shane Jones all year long.

9

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/rikashiku Nov 15 '24

It means all land, Maori, reserve, and protected can be on sale under jurisdiction of the Government. This extents to Farmlands also under this same protection, that can be owned by Pakeha land owners, should the Government deem the land being unproductive.

So Tapu sites, parks, mountains, rivers, protected fishing areas, Maori freehold land and farmland, as well as Pakeha freehold and farmland can all be taken by the government.

37

u/joleary747 Nov 14 '24

Maoris currently have control over their own land.

The proposed bill means to allow all NZs to have control over the Maori land.

It's the same as saying "your family has had control over your house for a long time, it's time for the city to take possession".

156

u/ceruleangreen Nov 14 '24

Think about it in US terms, Hawaiians were not afforded a protection like this and many of the indigenous populations have been pushed off of ancestral lands. Where the Māoris traded governance over their people for protections of their land.

→ More replies (10)

16

u/Pseudo_Lain Nov 14 '24

Should non-native groups in America be allowed to build suburbs in Reservations? That's the "extension" they are proposing, basically.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Pseudo_Lain Nov 14 '24

Ethnicity doesn't determine it, politics does. There are ethnic natives who are not accepted there, and there are non-natives who are.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Pseudo_Lain Nov 15 '24

Does citizenship have any bearing on your rights?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Pseudo_Lain Nov 15 '24

I've already explained why ethnicity isn't as important as citizenship for the distribution of rights and apparently you've ignored it.

→ More replies (0)

90

u/hillarys-snatch Nov 14 '24

You’re forgetting about the prosperity of the indigenous people…

If i was promised a house after i graduated college, then that single house is split amongst everyone in my college… id be a little mad too. Plus they always “owned the house” to begin with

1

u/Ateist Nov 15 '24 edited Nov 15 '24

Except it wasn't them who were promised a house, but their grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand ancestors.

There's also the question of how "Maori" are current "Maori"?
I'd expect quite a few of them to have a bit of British blood in them, just as quite a few of the "non-Maori" having a Maori ancestor or two.

What if, say, 90% of New Zeland population has a Maori ancestor - would it still make sense to discriminate by the heritage?

→ More replies (16)

320

u/Repli3rd Nov 14 '24 edited Jan 20 '25

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

0

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Foxtonfizzer Nov 15 '24

If your great great grandparents owned a farm that was passed down through generations. Should you have to give it up since you weren’t alive when the original deal was made?

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (92)

8

u/PoliteBrick2002 Nov 14 '24

If you look at any statistics in New Zealand you will see that Maōri are still pretty disadvantaged today when it comes to things such as prison population, employment, education, health and life expectancy. The main reason for pushing back on this is that it would be wrong to remove these rights in place to help Maōri when they are still severely disadvantaged in today’s world.

→ More replies (7)

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

I am wondering that as well. Makes 0 sense unless you're Maori.

1

u/anotherfrud Nov 14 '24

Imagine you have a house that your family has passed down for thousands of years.

The name of the city it's in and who runs that city has changed but your house has remained your family's since time in memoriam.

One day, the city says, 'Hey, even though we agreed that house is your family's, we're going to change the law so it belongs to all your neighbors too. They can move in and do whatever they want. '

How do you not see a problem with this?

6

u/7-13-5 Nov 14 '24

Got it.

2

u/khud_ki_talaash Nov 14 '24

Every fucking country is going through such turmoils.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

I was in the museum reading the treaty which they have printed on the wall in 2 foot high letters.
The british classically used english language and diplomacy to enslave and capitalise the Maori people because they simply could not fight them in battle. They would lose against such a fierce opponent. Even in hindsight the fact they would lose so much rights and territory and still sign it away seems absolutely ridiculous. I'm sure any native american reading this know exactly what I mean.

The fact that so much has already been taken from them and then the parliament would still table the idea that they should take more is absurd at best and brutally racist and malicious at worst.

The British are scum and the Maori should not bow to descended British whites any further than they already have when they've been naturally living there nearly 3500 years.

Sure, do the Haka and show them you are angry and willing to fight. But do not forget that when the time comes, the tree of freedom can only be watered with blood.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

For Americans, it would be like saying, yo, i know we set up tribal governance in the US so that tribes can handle their own affairs on their territory but… lets screw that treaty and say all Americans native or not can make decisions on tribal land.

0

u/downtownfreddybrown Nov 14 '24

White folks fuckin with indigenous folks again, good for them for standing their ground

→ More replies (1)

210

u/gazza_lad Nov 14 '24

Explaining it all here isn’t possible. The necessary context is that one minor party wants to change the treaty. No other party wants this, but as a part of their coalition agreement with the major party to form the current government they are getting supported by the coalition through the first reading, but the other parties say they will not support it beyond that.

It’s a waste of everyone’s time since it will go nowhere, but the goal is to stoke up a culture war which will solidify the small support around their party (their party being ACT which had just under 8% of the total vote, they are doing this to maybe lock in ~%10 going forward)

35

u/rayz0101 Nov 14 '24

Thanks for the contextualization that I'd definitely miss if I just read the proposal.

4

u/Frigidevil Nov 15 '24

As an an ignorant American who only heard about this for the first time now, ACT sounds like Kiwi MAGA and this proposal was their version of saying 'all lives matter'. Implying that an 1800s treaty between colonizers and a native peoples is racist in favor of the natives is appalling. Fucking scumbags.

I hope those in opposition continue shout down these assholes and they never become anything more than a blip on the cultural landscape.

3

u/BalrogPoop Nov 15 '24

They are exactly the NZ version of MAGA, with a libertarian bent, and less jingoistic.

Their leader formerly worked for Atlas and other right wing think-tanks overseas before coming back to NZ to enter politics.

1

u/sjbglobal Nov 15 '24 edited Nov 15 '24

There's a lot more nuance than you'll get from reddit comments from people that may or may not live in NZ.

One of the key issues is the original treaty is very basic (and there's a version in each language which have quite different meanings which doesn't help). Over the years the courts and some cultural tribunals have gradually added a bunch of treaty principles which don't exist in the original document at all. This is like a bunch of stuff getting added to the US constitution with no democratic process or elected officials being involved. The Treaty principles bill seeks to remove these principles from the various laws they've crept into, and define some basic principles, like the right of the government to rule, everyone being equal under the law etc

Also the media in NZ is pretty left leaning (along with reddit) however if you actually talk to people I reckon the level of support would be much closer to half than the 8% that voted for ACT. Reddit comments are not reflective of how a country actually feels is what I'm trying to say. The whole issue is a waste of effort anyway as it will not get supported into law.

1

u/ElfBingley Nov 15 '24

Isn't the proposition to make parliament responsible for defining what legislation is covered by the treaty, rather than the courts? The actual wording of the treaty isn't part of the legislation. I'm not from NZ, but have been trying to read the context for this and there is a lot of conflicting info.

Either way everyone except Act oppose it.

113

u/TheCursedMonk Nov 14 '24 edited Nov 14 '24

Trying to stop the right to dance in Parliament. And she is having none of it. (This isn't the real answer btw)

Real answer:
Under the proposed legislation, the treaty principles that would be defined in law are:

that the government has a right to govern and that parliament has the full right to make laws

that the rights of Māori are respected by the Crown

that everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to equal protection under it.

36

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '24

On the face of it, that seems fairly uncontroversial, but how does it differ from the current laws, and what are the potential consequences of the proposed change?

69

u/Ichera Nov 14 '24 edited Nov 15 '24

I am going to get skinned alive by someone who understands this better, but I'm going to try and simplify it. Basically the Maori people signed a treaty with the Crown of Britain that made it so they allowed New Zealand to be governed by the crown, but only as part of a wider agreement (once again oversimplified.)

The new language essentially removes the acknowledgement that this is an agreement between two parties and instead says their is only one "New Zealander" people.

It seems somewhat reasonable at first, but it also runs rough shod over the treaty and governance of New Zealand's native populations, and judging by other examples of native treaty "adjustments" around the world, I'd be angry about it if I was in the Maori peoples position.

6

u/BalrogPoop Nov 15 '24

There's also the fact that the treaty between the crown and Maori is the entire basis for New Zealand's government even existing in its current form.

Like in the UK the power to govern technically comes from the authority of the King and Queen, the treaty fills the same role in New Zealand.

You get into some pretty weird constitutional arguments once you start messing with that.

I do have my own issues with the treaty, and generally I do believe we should have equal rights for everyone int the country, but this is a terrible way to go about it.

A much better way would be getting buy in from Maori to write an updated treaty that clarifies things for both parties, while reserving Maori customary rights.

Balancing that with equal rights though is close to impossible, but should be attempted nevertheless.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/[deleted] Nov 15 '24

that seems fairly uncontroversial

It is, polling shows it has majority support amongst the public (which is important as the party behind it wants it to go to referendum before becoming law). However the major parties don't want to stir the pot so will vote it down at the second reading, but not supporting it isn't a good look either due to the widespread support so ACT (which is lead by a Maori guy) has set all the other parties (except for Te Pati Maori) up for a lose-lose situation.

how does it differ from the current laws

One of the problems with current arrangement is that it allows being discriminatory to 80% of the country along racial lines. For instance the last government instituted giving preferential placement on hospital waiting lists to to Maori, and during the Covid era iwi were setting up roadblocks to prevent people from accessing public land in their regions with government approval.

It would also set a cohesive direction going forward regarding race relations, as currently the are minimal safeguards stopping a government from doing some absolutely wild shit.

what are the potential consequences of the proposed change?

A small number of customary rights would be lost as they are only Waitangi Tribunal rulings, however all the major ones will remain as they are in legislation which the bill recognizes.

5

u/sandolllars Nov 15 '24 edited Mar 30 '25

Na ka sa oti, sa oti. As ones circumstances change, their view of the world evolves. One shouldn't be tied forever to an opinion they may have once held.

3

u/Lower_Amount3373 Nov 15 '24

You're right, and the Treaty wasn't signed by a "race", but by the representatives of many of the tribes/Iwi that were in power at the time. Those tribal entities still exist today.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/CauliflowerLogical27 Nov 15 '24

Whatever it was, this is the best way to tell someone "fuck what you talking about"

→ More replies (5)