Thanks Gary - very helpful and a good introduction. Have you read Ned Fletcher's "The English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi" - not light reading; indeed not for the faint-hearted. Ned's theory is well argues and supported by authority. His view is a contentious one but ideas from all points of the compass are going to be needed if we are to resolve issues about the status of the Treaty in future.
There are some who favour a literal interpretation - I suppose if they were in the USA they would be called originalists. My own view is that time, circumstances and the whole business of realpolitik are in a state of change and the Treaty should be seen as a living and adaptable document that speaks, nevertheless, some fundamental truths. I shall write about this when I have meditated on the subject and it may be that your forthcoming posts will help crystallise my thoughts.
I am concerned about the suggestion that the new Government is going to get rid of the Treaty and that is the effect of Seymour's proposed (leaked) Bill. As far as I know no one has said that the Teaty is going to be nullified or thrown in the dustbin. I think some elements are talking up a problem that doesn't exist.
Thank you! I hope you in subsequent articles give us in précis form the five judges’ opinions from 1987. In my view, that will nail the matter of a claimed “partnership”: they do not justify it one wit! So far, you only hint at this; better to clarify openly, as far too much weight has been hung on this wobbly peg. Thanks again.
Thanks Gary - very helpful and a good introduction. Have you read Ned Fletcher's "The English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi" - not light reading; indeed not for the faint-hearted. Ned's theory is well argues and supported by authority. His view is a contentious one but ideas from all points of the compass are going to be needed if we are to resolve issues about the status of the Treaty in future.
There are some who favour a literal interpretation - I suppose if they were in the USA they would be called originalists. My own view is that time, circumstances and the whole business of realpolitik are in a state of change and the Treaty should be seen as a living and adaptable document that speaks, nevertheless, some fundamental truths. I shall write about this when I have meditated on the subject and it may be that your forthcoming posts will help crystallise my thoughts.
I am concerned about the suggestion that the new Government is going to get rid of the Treaty and that is the effect of Seymour's proposed (leaked) Bill. As far as I know no one has said that the Teaty is going to be nullified or thrown in the dustbin. I think some elements are talking up a problem that doesn't exist.
Thank you! I hope you in subsequent articles give us in précis form the five judges’ opinions from 1987. In my view, that will nail the matter of a claimed “partnership”: they do not justify it one wit! So far, you only hint at this; better to clarify openly, as far too much weight has been hung on this wobbly peg. Thanks again.