|
|
Post by bingbong on Jul 6, 2007 0:23:52 GMT 12
"principles of the treaty" ?
Does any one know where this came from?
|
|
|
|
Post by hps on Jul 6, 2007 13:06:21 GMT 12
I'm probably just adding to the confusion, but didn't it come out of an audit done for the Waitangi Tribunial? At one time someone was trying to come up with a set of Principles taken from the articles that could be adhered to? It was kinda like we can't follow the articles because it's impossible so what can we come up with that we can follow...like I said I'm probably just adding to the confusion...  |
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Jul 6, 2007 13:19:00 GMT 12
Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1975 (I believe). Focus went on the Govt. defined "principles" of the Treaty and they bound the Court to use them. After that, there's been all sorts of discussions on what the "principles" mean (i.e. partnership, participation and protection). I want to know why we need to use the principles when we have articles in the Treaty?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Jul 6, 2007 16:55:36 GMT 12
Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1975 (I believe). Focus went on the Govt. defined "principles" of the Treaty and they bound the Court to use them. After that, there's been all sorts of discussions on what the "principles" mean (i.e. partnership, participation and protection). I want to know why we need to use the principles when we have articles in the Treaty? Just a load of crapola, to get out of/delay proceedings. I've never taken any notice of the principles, just gobbilygook to confuse the issues. Politic speak...cowdung.  |
|
|
|
Post by seeker23 on Jul 6, 2007 21:12:00 GMT 12
A group of officials came up with the Crown principles that represented the Crown view of what the treaty actually meant in policy terms. These goobilygook (thanks lux hehe) represented the Crowns bottom line , below which it would not negotiate with Maori. It was the Crowns way of saying what the Treaty meant to the Crown....The Crown was also saying what the Treaty must mean for Maori.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Jul 7, 2007 11:26:48 GMT 12
A group of officials came up with the Crown principles that represented the Crown view of what the treaty actually meant in policy terms. These goobilygook (thanks lux hehe) represented the Crowns bottom line , below which it would not negotiate with Maori. It was the Crowns way of saying what the Treaty meant to the Crown....The Crown was also saying what the Treaty must mean for Maori. Couldn't agree more and the reasons "why" the Crown uses the principles (to give more weight and meaning to the Articles, and because of the textual differences between the Treaty) is a load of old bollocks - because the contested meanings have already been decided through the Waitangi Tribunal. |
|
|
|
Post by bingbong on Jul 8, 2007 21:02:05 GMT 12
I provided this thread topic as an exercise. The "principles of the treaty" were developed by the then Minister of Justice or Attorney General, Geoffrey Palmer. In about 1987/88 there was a document, a shiny one produced for the Crown and it was the Crown's attempt to redefine, using the term principles. Of course like how guidelines are used, one should always go back to the original source as the Treaty has articles not principles.
The Crown's use as it peddled it out, then became [in some quarters] the appearance as a fact [although an illusion] by those who are trusting and don't know. So a maladjusted process starts to develop.
I think there was a simplistic thinking by the Crown and others around the Treaty as though there was only one way to interprate and take over the knowledge base through the Crown usurping its role and creating a dominance affect.
|
|
