I fear the constitutional theory behind B Johnson's letter ‘Madam. there is no partnership' (The Weekend Sun, December 9, 2016) went out with one King Charles and the 'therapeutic amputation” of the extremity - his head - that he was not in the habit of using. Then with the follow-on from the ‘Glorious Revolution' where the British Parliament found it easy to ignore ‘Wee Willy Winkie' - William of Orange, a short man: Parliament-aged children can be so cruel! And get on with whatever they wanted. Constitutional theory has moved on from the primitive and downright dangerous ‘Divine right of Kings' to one where power is exercised with the consent of the governed. The phrase ‘An Englishman's home is his castle' expresses it succinctly - the king himself cannot break and enter. He has to ask on reasonable grounds, and if denied on reasonable grounds, has to go away. So there is indeed a partnership, and it's no different from any other partnership entered into between the Crown and other entities. It just happens to be connected to the document that constituted New Zealand a nation state and not a civil war.
W Parish, Mount Maunganui.
4 comments
Idealogical claptrap...........
Posted on 04-01-2017 21:53 | By groutby
from W Parish, and the writer clearly has not gone to the extent of reading the treaty document, (flawed as it was when written).. and I am at a loss as to the reasoning behind even commenting aimlessly at King Charles (presumably the 1st in the 1600's) at such times things were what they were "at the time"...(for better or worse), such as when the treaty was agreed upon and signed.."we are one people"...(NOT two) ...if indeed we are to genuinely move forward as "one people" then the treaty needs to be upheld by one party, surprisingly W Parish not who you may think.....Redress agreed upon and implemented by the government of the time seems to be for ever ongoing and apparently never ending at this stage at least, dependent on the "new" claims at the time, irrational comments from you do not help.
groutby, claptrap it's not,
Posted on 06-01-2017 09:20 | By R. Bell
Mr Parish was responding to B Johnsons claim that sovereignty is held by the Queen. It is not, it is held by Parliament and ultimately by the people in our democracy. The signing of the treaty did not "create"one people, it created one nation, two peoples in partnership.Synonyms of Partnership include - association,collaboration, alliance,union, treaty, confederation, connection. e.t.c. The redress you refer to is NOT ongoing it is almost done. As long as injustice remains, redress is necessary. The injustice does not lie with you, but with those whose identity you wish to steal. Robin Bell.
Great letter Wesley Parish. Divine right of kings has long gone
Posted on 06-01-2017 11:49 | By Peter Dey
Answering Groutby's misunderstandings will take some time. Robin Bell has made an excellent start. The Treaty does not state "We are one people". Governor Hobson said "he iwi tahi tatou" which in the idiom of the time meant "we are all agreed here". He did not put that into the Treaty. So modern Pakeha who cannot speak Maori should stop pretending that they know what Hobson meant when he said it.
groutby,
Posted on 07-01-2017 09:16 | By R. Bell
it may be helpful for you if you google N.Z. racist Justice System a Stuff Circuit Investigation. Read it with an open mind if possible. You will, I believe see why we all need the Waitangi Tribunal and why institutional racism is a curse on this nation we all love so much. In fact everyone should read it and pause, and think and then say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Here's hoping. Robin Bell.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.