The Treaty Of Waitangi, Article 2, Part 3

In my previous two videos on Article 2, we discovered that in the first sentence of this Article, the British: Confirmed that Maori owned all the land in New Zealand, apart from what they had sold to settlers and land speculators before the Treaty was signed.

Referred to Maori as “the people of New Zealand”.

We also discovered that the final English draft of the Treaty (also known as the Littlewood draft) and the Treaty in Maori are an almost a perfect match. That is to say if you want to know what the Treaty in Maori says, just read the final English draft.

The Littlewood draft is crucially important because it tells us what the British intended the Treaty to mean, and what it did mean. I can’t emphasise this point enough.

We discovered too that activists use what’s known as the Rogue James Freeman Version (RJFV) of the Treaty as the treaty in English. The RJFV is very diRerent from the Treaty in English.

This has opened the door for activist to tell us that Henry Williams in 1840 (he was the guy who translated the final English draft into Maori) did a very bad job on the translation. This then leads on to them telling that we need them to do a back translation for us. In this way, they can make the Treaty say what they want it to say. It’s been a cunning plan that they have been running for nearly 50 years.

So here again is the first sentence of Article 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.”

What this is saying is that the British guaranteed Maori the possession or ownership of their land, dwellings, and property.

We could swap out the word ‘possession’ for ‘ownership’. When we do this, what the British intention becomes even more clear.

Now here is a crucial consideration.

If the British were going to protect the Maori ownership or possession of their land, they (i.e. the British) needed to define the boundaries of the land which each chief owned.

The British could not protect what was undefined.

So top of mind for the British was surveying the land that each chief claimed they owned.

The best way to explain it is like this.1 Imagine a map of NZ. In the middle of the North Island, draw a red square 1cm x 1cm.

Let’s say this square represents the land owned by a particular tribe at the 6th of February 1840, after the land was surveyed.

The British considered that everything on that piece of land – including the land itself – dwellings, chattels, rivers, mountains, forests – everything – was literally ‘owned’ by that tribe. The British promised to protect that tribes ownership of everything inside that 1cm square. This is all that article 2, sentence one, promised.

Today we’d call it ‘house and chattels’.

Roughly 540 chiefs signed the Treaty.

So in eRect, we could say, there were 540 x 1cm² all over New Zealand, each square representing the land owned by each tribe. Not all the squares were 1cm². Some were smaller, some larger, depending on the size of the tribe and the size of the land they owned.

Many of the 1cm² were had a coastal boundary. You’d expect this, as NZ is made up of Islands!

Eminent New Zealand historian, and former professor of History at Otago University G.S Parsonson contends that Maori in the early contact period each had their own fishing spots.

He writes: “In the early contact period, the hapu were still hunter-gatherers.

That is, they lived on birds, rats, shellfish, and fish and fern root.

What they laid claim to (owned) was birds, trees, rat runs or rat roads, pa tuna or eel weirs and specific fern root patches.

The ‘salt-water’ hapu similarly claimed specific shellfish beds, and specific shellfish spots - where they knew they could catch snapper etc.”

(Cited in Stuart C. Scott. The Travesty of Waitangi. Towards Anarchy. Caxton Press, 1995. p. 27) What I want us to notice is that Maori tribes had coastal fishing spots, which they marked out with sticks. These sticks designated tribal boundaries for fishing. There is never any mention of tribal fishing areas extending “miles out to sea.”

Why would there be?

The sea was teeming with fish in 1840. Anyone could catch an abundance of fish oR the beach or the rocks.

Now this is where it gets interesting. The Rogue James Freeman (RJFV) version of the Treaty mentions “Fisheries” whereas both the authentic final English draft of the Treaty,

the Littlewood draft, and the Treaty in Maori, do not. Activists hold up the RJFV of the Treaty and cry “See you promised us all the fisheries of NZ in the Treaty!” Answer? The Treaty does not promise Maori the fisheries. This is precisely why the James Freeman version is rogue. Not only this, but the activist’s claim to the foreshore and seabed, and now all the beaches – these are also not in the Treaty (neither the Treaty in Maori nor the final English draft). So who owns the seabed and foreshore?

Dr Hugh Barr writes “That all New Zealanders “own” the foreshore and seabed, the water and air in a Western Society “was a principle first written down, as far as records exist, by the Roman Emperor Justinian the Great, about 530 AD. He is famous for compiling and rewriting Roman law, which is still the basis of civil law in many modern states. His law of public commons states (in English) “By natural law itself these things are the common property of all: air, running water, the sea, and with it the shores of the sea.”

Ok, back to Article 2, sentence 1.

All the British intended in the first sentence of Article 2, was to guarantee Maori their ownership of their 1cm² area of land, and anything on that land (e.g. forest, rivers, mountains, lakes etc), plus their houses, plus chattels like waka’s, implements, and tools.

If their 1cm² happened to have a coastal boundary, it was implicit in the Treaty that Maori would continue to be able to fish, as they had always done, and the British would protect them in that right, because of British common law.

Remember, Maori became British citizens in Article 3.

So their gathering seafood and fishing were protected by the Law of Public Commons.

They were not given any special ‘customary rights’ in the Treaty.

As British citizens, they had the same rights as all other citizens to access and use the seabed, foreshore, and beaches.

Maori were made equal with everyone else before the law by virtue of becoming British citizens. If the British had given Maori ANY special rights for ANYTHING, the British would have been creating inequality, or an apartheid state, which would have been unthinkable to the British.

Therefore their demand today to be given special customary rights to the seabed, foreshore, and coastline is a scam.

Why is there no record, anywhere, in any book on New Zealand history, recording how Maori sold part of the seabed, or foreshore, or coastline to settlers – or to anyone for that matter. Why is this? The answer is obvious. They never ‘owned’ the foreshore and seabed or the coastline in the first place. Land? Yes. The seabed, foreshore, and coastline? No. Never. It’s a modern day Maori activist invention that they did. It’s a scam.

OK, that’s enough for today.

What I want you to remember from today is: The British surveyed the land each chief owned – their 1cm² squares.

If a chief’s land had a coastal element, Maori could still fish those waters and gather their seafood.

Each tribe had carefully marked out fishing spots that were ‘no go’ area for other tribes.

However, Maori did not ‘own’ the beach or coastline on the boarder of their land.

According to The Law Of British Commons, the beaches belonged to all the citizens of the country.

And since Maori had ceded sovereignty (Article 1) and become British citizens (Article 3), this law applied to them as well.

-----------------------------------------------------Now, go back to Article two sentence one again and focus on the word “property”.

In the Maori version of the Treaty, the word property translates as “taonga”.

In 1840 this word meant “property procured by the spear”2. In other words, tribes went on raids against other tribes pre-1840 and they used spears as weapons as they did so.

When they entered the pa site of another tribe, they killed and ate the inhabitants, or enslaved them, and stole their possessions. Those possessions were said to be “procured by the spear.”

In 1989, the word “property” in Article 2 was translated by Hugh Kawharu as “treasures.”

This widened the meaning of the word “taonga” to mean anything Maori treasure.

At this point, Treaty fraud really ramped up.

By changing the original meaning of this word, Maori started to “claim” things that were not in their 1cm² in 1840. An example would be awarding part of the 5G cell phone network in New Zealand to Maori “because the Treaty promised this”.3 Another example would be the claim by Maori that the Treaty “promised” to protect and promote the Maori language. Another would be that Maori own all the foreshore and seabed, or all the water. I can’t, now, think of one government department which does not require their institution to “Give eRect to Te Tiriti O Waitangi and its principles” supposedly “promised” in the Treaty?

How should we view these ‘awards’ or ‘settlements’ or ‘treaty claims / promises’ or ‘treasures’? In a word they are outright fraud. There is absolutely nothing in the Treaty about the British ‘guaranteeing’ these things to Maori.

Go back to the 1cm² analogy.

2

(1) Bruce Moon. NZ The Fair Colony. P5 (2) https://stopcogovernance.kiwi/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Taonga-by-Gary-Judd-KC-Thoughts-from-theNorth.pdf 3 https://stopcogovernance.kiwi/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Maori-set-to-receive-quarter-of-key-5G-spectrumband-and-57m-under-Crown-deal-Stuff.pdf

Re: gifting Maori the 5G network. It’s impossible to procure a 5G network with a spear.

For a start, the 5G network did not exist in 1840 so it was not inside a tribes 1cm².

Re: the seabed and foreshore, and the water. That all New Zealanders “owned” the foreshore and seabed, the water and air in a Western Society “was a principle first written down, as far as records exist, by the Roman Emperor Justinian the Great, about 530 AD. He is famous for compiling and rewriting Roman law, which is still the basis of civil law in many modern states.

His law of public commons states (in English) “By natural law itself these things are the common property of all: air, running water, the sea, and with it the shores of the sea.”4 What is this saying? It’s saying that according to British law, “the air, running water, the sea and with it the shores of the sea” are owned by the government, managed by them for the benefit of all New Zealanders. And because British law was installed here in 1840 via the cession of sovereignty in Article 1 of the Treaty, the same law applied here as well. It was implicit in the Treaty i.e. it didn’t need to be spelt out in the Treaty because it was embedded in British law.

Re: the Treaty promising to protect and promote the Maori language. Just read the Treaty and see if you can see this promise. It’s not there. The British understood that the Maori language, culture, and customs were to be preserved and promoted by Maori themselves as they went about their lives inside their 1cm² squares. Really, it’s a ridiculous idea that one culture (i.e. the British) would be made responsible for preserving and promoting the language, culture, customs of another culture (i.e. the Maori).

With every other cultural group in New Zealand, each cultural group is responsible to preserve and promote their own language, culture, and customs. In short, they delight to preserve and promote their culture because it’s ‘in them’ to do so. It’s part of their very DNA. When Maori put the onus on the government to promote Maori language and culture, things don’t add up.

Think about it – if Maori language, customs, and culture were really valuable to Maori, wouldn’t they want to take responsibility to pay for and promote their own culture, customs and language? So why have they not done this?

In New Zealand today, there are 160 cultures. One of those is the Maori culture. Maori are the only one of the 160 who demand that the government be responsible for promoting their language, culture, and customs. The other 159 want to fund and promote their own language and culture, but Maori want to be paid to do it. Doesn’t that seem odd?

There must be other motivations at play here. It does not require much eRort to see what they are.

4

Hugh Barr. Twisting The Treaty. The Tribal Grab For Wealth and Power. Tross Publishing. 2014. Page 196

Think about it - Maori boast that they have a $70B Maori economy5, so why aren’t they using their own money to develop their language and culture? There is no valid reason to use taxpayers money, when they have plenty of their own. So just what is the reason?

Playing the ‘you promised to promote Maori language, customs, and culture through the Treaty’ card has proved to be a wonderful cash cow. It’s lucrative. To view just one example of the money going to Maori for the development of their language, customs, and culture, click HERE. The 440 Church leaders are endorsing this corruption, this fraudulent understanding of the word ‘taonga’ which has been used by activists to get everything and anything.

Ok, back to the 1cm² squares.

One of the first tasks the British undertook in the early 1840s was to establish the size and boundaries of each tribe’s ‘square’. As I said, some were larger than others, depending on the size of the tribe. Once established, titles were issued.

The practice of surveying land and issuing title was described by Lord Normanby (i.e.

Hobson’s superior in London) as “that system of sale [i.e. in anticipation of buying land from Maori] which experience has proved the wisdom, and the disregard of which has been so fatal to the prosperity of other British settlements.”6 In New Zealand today, 2024, the British system of surveying the land and issuing titles has been preserved. Every property in NZ today has to be surveyed, boundaries established, and a title issued.

----------------------------------So here is my main point – over the past 50 or so years, from 1974 onwards, activists have slowly moved the goal posts. The British only ever intended, and the Treaty only ever mandated, to protect the possession / ownership of Maori “land, dwellings, and property” inside their 1cm² squares. The activists now say the British “promised”, via the Treaty, to protect the Maori possession / ownership of all of the natural resources of all New Zealand forever. This is a gross and fraudulent interpretation of what the Treaty promised. It’s pure fantasy. It’s akin to a magicians trick - putting a rose into a black bag and pulling out a rabbit.

It's like someone today owning a 50 acre farmlet with a stream running through the property.

5

https://stopcogovernance.kiwi/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/The-Maori-economy-is-booming-and-will-beworth-100-billion-by-2030-says-Willie-Jackson-NZ-Herald-x.pdf 6 https://issuu.com/esisite/docs/lord_normandby_s_instructions_to_hobson?fr=xKAE9_zU1NUJGQ00GO3U6B uAJGohu_msIQAjBQDvIdVBhwSY7FgbhCsH_BDIwMjTB_wIwN8H_A1NDR8gWBjoGyAocWEHIGAZAC cj-Mm47VA

They tell everyone who visits that they own the water running through their property i.e. their 1cm². This is the truth.

Over time the story changes to “we own all the water in our entire district.” This is not the truth.

Over more time the story changes further.

It becomes “We own all the water in the entire country.” This is not the truth.

Can you see the goal post shift? From 50 acre farmlet, to the whole district, to the whole country.

To describe this “we own all of New Zealand” idea, activists use words “tino rangatiratanga” or “ mana motuhake” to bamboozle the public. The public don’t know what these words mean, so they switch oR, and exit the debate.

So when they use these words, you now know what they are talking about. They are talking about their supposed right, via the Treaty, to own all the resources of the whole country.

Can you see how ridiculous this has become? Yet this is what Maori activists’ believe and their ideas are going unchallenged.