STOP CO-GOVERNANCE

Morgan Godfery
In yesterday’s blog, I asked you to read this article in the British Newspaper The Guardian. 

Today, I offer an analysis of Godfery’s piece. 

Really, his perspective is so dishonest it’s shameful. 

The Guardian’s Summary of Godfery’s piece reads like this:

“Instead of ripping apart the fabric of society, co-governance arrangements are already in place and largely pass without notice”

My commentary:

As I said, this is the Guardian’s summary of Godfery’s piece. If Godfery’s piece is riddled with lies, spin, and half truths, then the editor of the Guardian has nothing else to go on to make this summary. The truth is, according to recent polls, co-governance is a major concern to Kiwis. They are worrying about it. Watch the video on this news item. 

Godfery:

“…..few politicians can agree on quite what our founding document means.”

My commentary: 

The truth of the matter is that politicians since 1975 have been lobbied and bullied by Maori activists to accept fraudulent interpretations of the meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi. 

Recently, David Seymour, leader of ACT, has resisted this bullying and lobbying and has come out strongly against co-governance. In his arguments he quotes the parts of the Treaty which guarantee that all New Zealanders will be treated equally. He points out that in 1840 Maori chiefs ceded sovereignty of their country to the Queen “entirely and forever”. There is absolutely no mention of ‘partnership’ in the Treaty. 

Throughout this article, Godfery is trying to downplay the reality that co-governance is ripping apart the very fabric of New Zealand society. Thus his article is largely spin. He’s trying to lull his readers into a false sense of security i.e. “Relax. Co-governance is cool. It’s OK. You have nothing to worry about. It’s been going on for years and no one has worried, so stop worrying now.”

The message is clear. “Let co-governance roll on, and don’t oppose it.”

The uninitiated and naïve will be taken in by this, which is what Godfery intends. 

Godfery:

“At one end, Te Pāti Māori (the Māori party) and the Greens pursue the textual meaning of Te Tiriti, the Māori language version reaffirming Māori sovereignty while carving out modest powers for the crown.”

My commentary: 

This is an outright lie. When he refers to Te Tiriti, he is referring to the English draft of the Treaty which was translated into Maori for signing by the chiefs of February 6th, 1840. There is no ‘textual meaning’ of Te Tiriti. 

Here are the three clauses of the Treaty in English. 

1. The chiefs of the confederation of united tribes, and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England forever the entire sovereignty of their country.

2. 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. But the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the others chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them. 

3. In return for the cession of their sovereignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.

This is what the final English draft says. This is what Hobson and the British intended. Hobson and co were absolutely insistent that no chief was to sign the treaty unless they fully understood:

· What they were signing, and the full implications of what they were signing.

· That they knew what ‘cede’ meant, and what ‘sovereignty’ meant. 

· That they knew what ‘lands, dwellings, and all their property’ meant. It meant the land the chiefs felt they owned as at February 6th 1840 which they had won by conquest from other tribes. 

· ‘Dwellings’ were any structures on their land which they used for accommodation. 

· ‘Property’ means household items and farm implements i.e. house and contents. 

· ‘People of New Zealand’ means everyone in New Zealand. From 1840 onwards, everyone in New Zealand would be treated equally. 

Henry Williams and his son, the pair who translated the Treaty into Maori, were British. They were absolutely proficient in Maori, and the best translators in New Zealand. 

After the Treaty had been read to the chiefs in Maori on February 5th, the chiefs were given as long as they wanted to discuss its meaning and implications before they signed. Henry Williams and his son were in the tent during this time to answer questions and clarify meaning for the chiefs. 

To everyone’s surprise, the chiefs were ready to sign, and eager to sign, on the 6th of February which they did. They signed THE TREATY which was written in Maori. 

OK, back to the quote from Godfery. Seriously, can you see ANYTHING in the three clauses of the Treaty quoted here “reaffirming Māori sovereignty while carving out modest powers for the crown.”

This is nothing less than a shameless lie, designed to deceive. 

So what’s the lesson for us? We need to know the Treaty and how it came about so that we can speak intelligently into these lies and rubbish freely cascading from the pens and mouths of shameless Maori activists like Godfery. 

Godfery

“At the other end, ACT and the National party pursue the textual meaning of the English language treaty where the chiefs who sign apparently surrender their sovereignty to Her Majesty.”

My commentary

This is just another shameless lie. The English language draft of the Treaty (The Littlewood version) and the Maori language Treaty (i.e. Ti Tiriti)  are identical in meaning. They say exactly the same thing. We have both today. However, what Maori activists did in 1989 was pour scorn on the 1840 translation of the Treaty in Maori. 

Maori activists are extremely cunning and deceitful, but politicians view them as lovely people who have been hard done by. 

Activists were desperately trying to find a way to wriggle out of the fact that the chiefs in 1840 had ceded sovereignty to the Queen entirely and forever. So they hatched a plan. 

They wanted ‘an expert’ to ‘examine’ Ti Tiriti, the Treaty in Maori, and to postulate ‘what it might have meant’ to the chiefs in 1840. 

Foolish, naïve, and easily bullied politicians at the time caved into to the demands of activists. 

Enter Hugh Kawharu. He was a Maori, and a claimant, so there was a glaring conflict of interest. It ought never have been allowed to happen, but it did happen. He was invited by the government to do this hatchet job on the translation work of Henry Williams and his son. 

From a legal / criminal perspective, it was an inside job. A ruse. The activists got what they wanted. 

As you’d expect, surprise surprise, Kawharu came back to report:

· That in the Treaty Maori chiefs didn’t cede sovereignty to the Queen. That the Queen allowed them to retain their chieftainship over New Zealand. 

· That ‘Property’ didn’t mean property, it meant ‘treasures’ and so on. 

Politicians brushed with tar of woke were completely sucked in. They were weak and stupid. 

Add a heavy dose of activist bullying and intimidation into the mix, and hey presto, they accepted Hugh Kawharu’s ‘findings’ and swallowed them hook, line, and sinker. 

But this is not all. In 1975 politicians accepted a rogue James Freeman English version of the Treaty as “the official” English version of the Treaty. 

Let me explain. James Freeman was Hobson’s secretary. Hobson (the man appointed by the Queen to take charge of everything happening in New Zealand around 1840) fell very ill after the initial signing of the Treaty in Maori on February 6th, 1840. 

Unauthorised, James Freeman began producing his own English versions of the Treaty. 

While the cat was away, the mouse did play. 

Really, he was showing off, wanting to demonstrate how he could write a better English version of the Treaty than the original bone fide English draft (i.e the Littlewood English version).

Unfortunately, one of these versions inserted the words ‘forests and fisheries’ into the clauses of the Treaty. Freeman’s rogue version was used by mistake by Hobson’s officials to gather the signatures of some of the Waikato chiefs well after the 6th February Waitangi  signing. 

Even though it was written in English, Maori activists jumped on this rogue Freeman version exclaiming ‘See, the Queen promised us that we were given the right to retain forests and fisheries!” 

This Freeman version was given sacred status by activists, akin to the sacred status of the books of the Bible, and has retained this status ever since. 

So there you have it – the James Freeman rogue / fraudulent Treaty, and the rogue Hugh Kawharu fraudulent translation. These were two steps on the road to Maori takeover of New Zealand.

But this is still not all. 

In 1986, once again under pressure and being bullied by activists, the then Attorney General Geoffrey Palmer decided to construct what he called ‘the principles of the Treaty’. These gave activists a huge leg up. Why? ‘Principles’ can mean literally anything, which is what activists wanted. From then on, they could say ‘What you are doing contradicts the principles of the Treaty so you have to stop!’ or “In denying us such and such (i.e. state owned assets and cash), you are not adhering to the principles of the Treaty!’ 

In other words, ‘the principles of the Treaty’ were like a magic genie which activists could rub anytime, anywhere to get what they wanted. 

Now here is the point I want you to grasp – take the rogue Freeman Treaty in English and combine it with Hugh Kawharu’s new interpretation of the Treaty in Maori, and Palmer’s ‘principles’ and you have the perfect recipe for Maori takeover of New Zealand.  Maori and the media call it co-governance, but really it’s a coup. 

Essentially, Freeman’s rogue version of the Treaty was a fraud. Everyone knows it. Why? It varies from the final English draft and it varies from the Treaty in Maori. 

Hugh Kawharu’s ‘new translation’ was also a fraud. Everyone knows it too. Why? It blatantly and obviously contradicts how the chiefs in 1840 understood the Treaty. How do we know this? Extensive notes were taken in 1840 at the signing. Questions and answers and the conversations of the chiefs were meticulously recorded. These notes are in the public domain, and none of the notes taken of what the chiefs said would support Kawharu’s ‘translation’. Furthermore, Hobson gave strict instructions to his staff that no chief was to sign unless his staff had made absolutely sure each chief knew EXACTLY what they were signing up to. 

Godfery

What ACT and parts of the National party ignore, of course, is that few chiefs signed the English language version, rendering “the Treaty of Waitangi” a dead document.

My commentary.

This is completely nonsensical. What on earth is Godfery meaning? 

Godfery:

Few historians and legal scholars would disagree that the relevant language version is the Māori Te Tiriti.

Fewer still would disagree on what that text means. “Rangatiratanga”, or sovereignty for iwi (tribes) and hapū (subtribes), and a subordinate power, or “kāwanatanga” (governorship), for the crown. On this reading, Te Tiriti o Waitangi promises nothing short of a constitutional revolution.

My commentary:

Here Godfery is referring to Hugh Kawharu’s fraudulent interpretation of Ti Tiriti, the Maori version of the Treaty. If Kawharu’s ‘interpretation’ was a fraud, and it was, then Godfery’s analysis here must be nonsense, which it is. 

Notice what he says the end. “On this reading, Te Tiriti o Waitangi promises nothing short of a constitutional revolution.”

This is the ultimate goal of activists – “constitutional revolution”, which is code for Maori having complete legal control of New Zealand.

This would mean not just total disaster, but the end of New Zealand as we know it. 

Now you can see why I have left my job to stop co-governance! 

The rest of Godfery’s piece is not worth commenting on as it’s just a rambling attack on Seymour, Brash, Judith Collins, and Luxon. 

This is classic ‘activist talk’ (really bullying) where they denigrate anyone who speaks against them. 

Interestingly, he twice mentions, in a very condescending way, David Seymour’s (i.e ACT) polling at 5%. 

In the latest poll, David and ACT were running at 11%. 

This inaccuracy pretty much sums up Godfery’s entire lie / half-truth-riddled / spin article. 

My advice? 

Learn from it, for sure, but then screw it up and throw it where it belongs, in file 13.