TREATIES BILL SEES BISHOPS IN BED WITH TPM AND GREENS

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X (Twitter).

Faithful NZ Catholics must be singularly unedified by the spectacle of Cardinal John Dew, Archbishop Paul Martin and the hippy generation, Vat II bishops snuggled up in bed with socialist crackpots.

They and certain priests, religious and lay people already known for their socialist bent have aligned themselves with Te Pati Maori and the Green Party on David Seymour's Treaty Principles Bill. How come? When socialism was "utterly rejected" by Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum? The bishops et al have been misled by the Novus Ordo Mass - as it was designed to mislead them. Once again, it's the Novus Ordo effect.

Genesis tells us that "God created man to his own image" - basically all the same, with the same awesome privilege of likeness unto God. God didn't specify any race or colour, only "Male and female He created them". So what are +Dew et al thinking of, objecting to a Bill seeking to ensure equal rights for all Kiwis?

Historian and ex-Labour Minister Michael Bassett points out that the hierarchy are keeping company with a bunch of lefties and weirdos. Kiwis have common sense and a nose for nonsense: 61% want the Treaty Principles Bill. Many still suffer from the "she'll be right" affliction but one hopes the regime of Jacinda the Jackboot showed us that unless we speak out against evil, things will go dreadfully wrong.

It’s amazing to see the energy being invested in attacks on David Seymour and ACT over the proposed bill, that no one has yet seen, on the Principles of the Treaty. Four hundred religious leaders ... 

Note that Bassett doesn't call them 'Christian'. Because in this context they're not Christian. 

... Radio NZ, TV, the New Zealand Herald’s Julia Gabel, the newly unhinged Matthew Hooton, the Labour Party that should know better, the seriously weird Greens, and the unintelligible Maori Party are all piling on to Seymour with arguments that vary between the specious and the absurd.

 

It’s for a reason. They all know that a majority of New Zealanders are sick to their back teeth of the never-ending new Treaty claims that are being advanced every day. One poll showed that 61% of Kiwis wanted Seymour’s bill, and many others weren’t yet sure.

 

If a referendum were to be held it’s clear the game would be up. No more absurd rulings by the courts who have taken to reinterpreting what Parliament intended with legislation. As the late King Tuheitia said “There’s no principles. The Treaty has been written and that’s it!”

In 1890 when the Treaty was fifty years old, then at its centennial in 1940, and at the 150th anniversary of the signing in 1990, the Treaty that was celebrated was the original three clause translation of the Maori version signed by the chiefs. Sovereignty was passed for ever to Queen Victoria; in return she promised to guarantee Maori ownership of their lands, villages and treasures unless they had sold by an agreed process; and the Queen promised to protect Maori and give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of Britain.

 

The Treaty is a contract between the Crown and Maori, not a ‘partnership’. Treating it as a partnership was not only “absurd”, but doing so would result in the introduction of profoundly “undemocratic” rights and entitlements (David Lange).

 

In other words, New Zealand was founded on an agreement between Maori and Pakeha. It was not based on colonial conquest or any illegitimate invasion of settlers.

The current debate about the Treaty wouldn’t be occurring if it weren’t for those who have been reinterpreting the Treaty. To serve their own interests some jump up and down about the ills of colonialism; others argue that the Crown made an ongoing promise to provide special advantages for Maori.

 

At least 400 have convinced themselves that the Crown owes Maori more than equal opportunities, and must guarantee the impossible – equal outcomes in life - no matter whether many fail to take the health and educational opportunities placed right under their noses. Others argue that the Treaty gives Maori the right to co-governance, and even to a Maori parliament, despite Article One. 

Right now, there is a growth industry in Maori bush lawyers arguing that, notwithstanding the fact that tribes or hapu sold land under the system outlined in the second article of the Treaty, the descendants of the original sellers still retain rights over that same land.

 

In the Waikato, the Gore District, the Queenstown Lakes District Council and other parts of the country, stand-over tactics are being employed by iwi demanding monetary payments for “cultural impact assessments” to be performed by the iwi on any plans that a council or an individual owner might have for the development of the land long-since sold out of Maori ownership.

 

The Treaty is being waved about in a menacing fashion, and councils and owners are expected to grease the palms of those who are using these mafia-like tactics. This was never anticipated in the original Treaty. Once sold, the application of Article Two to that land ceases to exist.

Not surprisingly, the handful of Maori self-servers currently getting away with highway robbery want the status quo to continue, and don’t want David Seymour’s bill. It threatens their significant income stream. It is not clear to me that the additional words Seymour recently announced that he intends to add to his bill will clarify this issue, although they certainly should.

It’s my observation that many new claims are becoming repetitive and nonsensical, and are parroted by people – Maori and Pakeha - who usually haven’t bothered to read the Treaty. In the case of the Mainstream Media they are being promoted for political purposes.

 

TV One and Radio NZ never miss an opportunity to quote wrong or misleading statements from Labour spokespeople. These days the New Zealand Herald might as well wave Labour’s flag from its masthead.

 

Kiwis who just want to get on with their lives are sick of it, and they perceive in Seymour’s bill an opportunity to restrain extremism while also reminding our courts about what, precisely, the Treaty means and what it doesn’t mean. When push comes to shove, legislation can always over-rule any contracts made between robbers and councils, or anyone else.

Meantime, both National and New Zealand First wobble in the wind. They know that the status quo is wrong. But because they didn’t think the issue of the Treaty through carefully enough before stating their positions they are left looking like by-standers, with their eyes closed to rorts that are being perpetrated in plain sight.

 

Oh God, come to our aid; O Lord, make haste to help us.