Typical 'effing greenie hypocrites.
An aside, I note, via the Bush Telegraph, that the tree hugger's co-leading clothes horse was again over-indulging. In Dannevegas she was an invited guest at the recent native shindig at the Town Hall celebrating rorting the taxpayer in a "once in a lifetime event" over the upcoming handsome tens of millions payout for ill-perceived injustices of long ago.
She took part in a debate suggesting that the words on a certain piece of paper signed back in 1840 should be reworked for 2015. As if it has not been misinterpreted enough to date. Happily her motion for change was soundly rejected. It appears the modern native is happy with his 2015 beads and blankets, always with the proviso that they can always go back for more full and final settlements.
Posts
1 comment:
The treaty issue is very simple. Either the Maori understanding of their translated copy was the same as the British version (I.e. They ceded sovereignty for British protection) OR the Maori understanding was different - in which case the treaty is invalid because there's no agreement. There are no other options.
A third option, widely promulgated, it that the Maori version and subsequent understanding is "correct". This assumes the treaty was instigated by Maori and that the two parties were considered equal. This is clearly NOT the case.
Post a Comment