Comments by "" (@Kult365) on "Trick or Treaty? Indigenous rights, referendums and the Treaty of Waitangi" video.

Something sounding veeeery similar in the strategy being used here in NZ...
42
@schlookie the Treaty is your constitutional right to be in Aotearoa, tug on the threads at your own risk 😂
36
@explorerjlc1743 sorry but you can't just willy nilly go round changing a countries constitution... the insinuation alone is divisive.
35
It's our founding document so yes, that's a constitution. Read the preamble and try again ☺️
8
Read our NZ constitution, ie: Te Tiriti oo Waitangi. It is the document that gives you the right to be in this country 😂
6
Before who's law though? Maaori never ceded sovereignty so your argument is foreign in almost every sense of the word.
5
@waynekilgour393 sorry, who built the harbour bridge ?
5
@alanlee8645 " I know it’s triggering for some apostles of ‘One Treaty, One Nation’, but colonisation is the reason, demographically, that an entire race of people - Aotearoa’s first people - are over-represented below the poverty line, in material hardship, low-income households, unemployment, in state care, in prisons, on the housing register, in the lack of access to health, housing, education" - David Unwin
3
Your inventing words. It doesn't say responsibilities anywhere, that's just the latest buzz word from ACT 😂
2
@JohanThiart read the Treaty.
2
@andrewrushton1272 become informed about the content of the Treaty prior to forming an opinion
2
@JohanThiart okay thanks for your position, do you agree with the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal (last week) confirming what iwi have maintained from the start that sovereignty was not ceded in the Treaty?
2
@JohanThiart have you compared or contrasted senior tangata whenua legal experts considered opinions on the matter, or do you regard western academia as the standard?
2
@JohanThiart sorry but this sounds a lot like revisionist history. The Treaty is the founding document of unified NZ as much as any constitution. Also you're losing me when you claim convenience using English over NZs official language and I'm starting to sense you're good with language banning as well.
2
@davethewave7248 Why would 100k Maaori bend over for 2k settlers? You're in a fantasy world of settler tropes and myths.
2
@stephenc8956 says the NZ Paakehaa to the Maaori 😆
2
Maori and Crown. Two parties. Not "one". Partnership, not amalgamation.
2
@j6077xxd given that you have recently realised te Tiriti doesn't say "responsibilities" leads me to assume that you haven't read the Treaty very carefully, although I'm glad you have had a bit of a closer look. As for "special"... please enlighten me as to what you see as "special" privileges that Maaori receive...
1
@schlookie if you do not protect and uphold the Treaty, it does not apply to you, meaning you have no say and should leave. ✈️👋🏼
1
@bobsemple07 said like someone who just lost an argument 😂
1
@ThomasMorunga-y6l what's not easy?
1
@schlookie imagine Maaori people telling Indians they have no rights in their own land... You are totally incredulous
1
@davethewave7248 They bastardise the name for Thier own gain. Hobo's Pledge is 100% racist political funders.
1
@JohanThiart may I ask what basis you have to dispute the findings of the best informed body NZ has to resolve those issues?
1
@JohanThiart America, Norway, Africa... all examples of cultures using legal opinion in national context to base legislation within. Are you claiming the legal scholars you refer to do not belong to a culture?
1
@JohanThiart so you don't consider the Treaty as tacitly NZs constitution, in the same way that English is an official language?
1
@JohanThiart I would say the same for you e hoa. Also, thank you for engaging without ad-hominem, you're doing much better than others in this
1
@JohanThiart you can't just go changing the Treaty for your convenience I'm afraid.
1
@JohanThiart your refusal to admit the fact that sovereignty was never ceded means you will find it challenging to progress further in any respectful conversation.
1
@JohanThiart Actually no, you have offered no reference to authentic Maaori leaders claiming sovereignty was ceded. When our founding NZ document was signed there were 80,000 Maaori and around 2000 British subjects here. It's incredulous and ridiculous to suggest that Maaori gave Paakehaa sovereignty over Maaori when Maaori were the clear majority. Some arguments presented by you seem reminiscent of politically low-browed eurocentric tropes and there is a very high likelihood that you have never set foot on a Marae to speak with Iwi about this topic. Adding to this, it is becoming obvious that you have not read the Tiriti because if you had, Article 2 would quite clearly show you that Mana Motuhake and Rangatiratanga is held and ratified by the Crown.
1
@JohanThiart what specifically was ad-hominem in what I wrote?
1
@JohanThiart Let's see... ad-hominem ..."Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument". It seems like you're grasping at straws and inventing victimhood. I suggest that you: - get invited to a Marae - speak with actual Maaori about your understanding - inform your friends upon your enightenment Also, if you want to defend Maaori being "insulted", stop espousing the benefits of destroying all things Maaori including language, practice and the enshrined jurisprudence of Te Tiriti.
1
@andrewrushton1272 except the Treaty doesn't mention "individual equality" at all, anywhere. The revisionist Right attempting to reinterpret our nations constitution are leading us down a path of destruction and division.
1
@JohanThiart Weird flex... So let me get this straight, you pretended I used ad-hominem to distract from the fact that you have no personal understanding of the Treaty outside of colonial right wing talking points? That was the long way around TBF, I dare you to go to a Marae and begin your learning journey ☺️
1
@JohanThiart It's strange because although you seem somewhat intelligent, your grasp of the Treaty appears anchored in political talking points and doesn't take the pre-amble or article 2 into account. It's fair to say that this is probably not your fault but again, if you want a well-rounded opinion, do go to a Marae and speak with the people you are talking about.
1
@JohanThiart am I right to assume that's the one time you set foot on a Marae? Although a great first step, the qualification depends on your reason for being there?
1
@waynekilgour393 euw, why are you talking about war dude? We need to tighten immigration laws to weed this mindset out 😆
1