Constitutional Advisory Panel, Treatygate

When did we vote to change our name to Aotearoa New Zealand?

Constitutional Advisory Panel - email - Aotearoa NZ
Email from the Constitutional Advisory Panel,
arrogantly assuming you support a national name change. 

In its first email of the year, the Constitutional Advisory Panel has already concluded that you want to change the name of your country.

When did you vote on that, you may well ask?

You didn’t? Tough.

In lock-step with all mesmerised Maoriphiles who infest our academo-bureaucratic complex, this faux-neutral, fawningly racist panel has airily decided that the nation founded and known for 370 years as ‘New Zealand’ is now ‘Aotearoa New Zealand’.

The Duplicitous Dozen have nailed their colours to the mast, and those colours are brown.

It’s a decision dripping with irony.

After all, shouldn’t a group of constitutional advisors be the very first people to insist that any tinkering with the most sacred parts of a nation’s identity — such as its name — must first be signed off by a majority of voters?

Shouldn’t the appropriate constitutional vehicle for such a momentous change be a referendum?

Not an email?

So who are these constitutional con artists who want to engage with you with a steamroller?

CONstitutional Advisory Panel - IN ON THE

The rigged panel of Griever Maori and Appeaser Pakeha
charged by the National-Maori alliance with misrepresenting
your desire for a Treatyfied constitution.

They are, from left: Dr Leonie Pihama, Hinurewa Poutu, Emeritus Professor Dr Ranginui Walker, Hon. John Luxton, Deborah Coddington, Sir Tipene O’Regan, Emeritus Professor Dr John Burrowes QC, Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Peter Tennent, Peter Chin, Bernice Mene, and Sir Michael Cullen.

And this is their first progress report on what they amusingly refer to as The ‘Conversation’ So Far.

These people believe in skirting the courtesies of democracy.

In holding themselves in contempt of the court of public opinion.

In overriding the will of the people whose views they are charged with seeking.

And why are they afraid to talk openly with us, the pesky majority?

Because these unelected, unrepresentative political stooges know full well that the vast non-Maori majority do not share their enthusiasm for such things as ditching the only name this country has ever had.

About which I must briefly digress…

New Zealand was Nu Tirani in 1840

Before the arrival of the British, Maori had no collective name for the country as a whole.

In fact, they didn’t even think of it as a country. Because it wasn’t.

These islands were simply a battleground for dozens of violently independent, crypto-communist cannibal dictatorships, whose shared a common hobby:  butchering, enslaving, and eating each other.

When, in 1840, the chiefs very sensibly decided to bury their hatchets and let the British run a proper country, they called it ‘Nu Tirani’ — the closest a language with no Zs, Ls or Ds could get to ‘New Zealand’.

‘Aotearoa’ was the Maori name for the North Island until well into the twentieth century. Apirana Ngata referred to it as that in his brilliant Treaty of Waitangi — An Explanation in 1922.

As Matthew Dentith helpfully confirmed on this blog recently, the proper Maori way of saying New Zealand is ‘Aotearoa Me Te Wai Pounamu’ — ‘North Island and South Island’.

Some (though not Matthew) would say that was a bit of a mouthful for the name of a country.

Repeat, repeat, repeat

But back to the Constitutional Steamroller Panel.

The change management strategy of these and other name-changers is to publish their unauthorised name whenever they can get away with it. Like Hitler, they know that if  they repeat the Big Lie often enough, it will sink into the public mind as fact.

(They know this trick works. They’ve been using it for decades to embed their twisted history of the Treaty.)

Telling evidence of this name-change-by-stealth strategy is provided in the book Scooped: The Politics and Power of Journalism in — you guessed it — Aotearoa New Zealand.

Here’s a sample page where authors Sean Phelan, Verica Rupar and Martin Hirst use the name Aotearoa New Zealand seven times and New Zealand twice.

Aotearoa New Zealand x 7 - Sean Phelan et al

Seven ANZs and two NZs. Mesmerised Maoriphiles
trying to change the name of our country by stealth.

A good analogy for the incremental name change is the ‘merger’ of the ANZ and National banks. (Really a takeover by the ANZ.)

In the beginning, there were two separate banks: ANZ and National — just as there are two (Maori and English) names for our country: Aotearoa and New Zealand.

Then ANZ took over the National — just as the Aotearoans would like to take over New Zealand.

And for a time, to appease the customers of the National,  the ANZ owners considerately shared double billing as ANZ National — just as the appeasers (if not the grievers) now speak of Aotearoa-New Zealand.

ANZ National

As with ANZ National, so with Aotearoa New Zealand?

But then, the inevitable end game.

After everyone had got used to the takeover, the ANZ quietly dropped the National Bank name, Suddenly, it was just ANZ.

And so it will happen with New Zealand, if the Treatygaters have their way.

First, Aotearoa-New Zealand. Then simply Aotearoa.

Look at this stamp, in which our official name has been downgraded to an afterthought. Clear evidence that this process is already underway…

Stamping out New Zealand

Stamp - Aotearoa taniwha

The downgrading of New Zealand has already begun.

Look, I won’t object if we decide to call our country Aotearoa, or Aotearoa Me Te Wai Pounamu, or even John Keyland for that matter.

(I didn’t say I’d like it. But I won’t object.) Not if the change is decided by referendum.

And that’s my point. We, the people — not they, the elite — must decide.

After announcing its new name for the country, the Constitutional Advisory Panel’s email continues with its pretence that it actually cares what you think…

Constitutional Advisory Panel - email - seek range of views

A “broad range of views”?
Not if the Te Papa Treaty ‘Debates’ are any guide.

We’ve got until the end of June to make sure they hear our views — whether they want to or not.

I’ll be contacting them to see if they’re honest enough to front up to a public meeting, as co-chair John Burrowes told me they “almost certainly” would.

I, for one, would engage with them civilly, provided they do the same.

But of that I can’t be confident, given the tweetings of Panellist Leonie Pihama after my appearance on Native Affairs with Joris de Bres and Ella Henry last year…

 Leonie Pihama - racist tweet

After watching me advocating racial equality on Maori TV,
Constitutional Advisory Panellist Leonie Pihama condemned
me as a right wing redneck and racist

Add to that Deborah Coddington, who has been lauding the Treaty ‘Debate’ speech of Matthew Palmer on her Facebook page, and being sarky to anyone who doesn’t favour the Palmer plan to put the Treaty into law.

Meanwhile, I hope you Wellingtonians will join me at the latest Te Papa Treaty ‘Debate’ — this one specifically about the Constitutional Review — this Thursday at 6.30pm.

Those planning to bear witness to the latest farce — and perhaps chat to an Advisory Panellist or two — might like to email me at john@johnansell.co.nz.

Advertisements

178 thoughts on “When did we vote to change our name to Aotearoa New Zealand?

  1. Or better still Martin you wouldn’t have Dr. Parkinson’s email address available would you? There’s nothing like person-to-person contact. JA as administrator of this blog should have my email address for a reply.

  2. In regards to the question of the Littlewood document being the original english version or a back translation, it is clear from Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives that it is absolutely the original version. See below for the specific section i have copied:

    “So long as everyone agreed that the sense of both versions was really the same, and that the rights guaranteed to the Natives by the Maori version were substantially what the English text assured to them, it was never worthwhile to enquire into the rather curious fact of the difference between them. The matter becomes for the first time of importance, when an attempt is made to give an interpretation of the Maori version at variance with the English text; still more, when an interpretation is given to the Maori version inconsistent with itself. It must be remembered that the Maori is a translation from the English, not the English a translation from the Maori. At the time the treaty was in contemplation, Governor Hobson was ill on board H.M.S. “Herald,” and the Treaty was prepared by Mr. Busby, who for seven years before had been British Resident in New Zealand. ”

    Ref: AtoJs, 1861, Session I, E-02, page 45.

  3. Another very interesting fact that seems to support the 5th Feb 1840 as the date the Littlewood document was constructed is in the missive from William Hobson to one of Her Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State:

    PROCLAMATION,
    In the name of Her Majesty, Victoria., Queen of
    the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
    by William Hobson, Esq. a Captain in
    the Royal Navy, Lieutenant-Governor of New
    Zealand.

    Whereas by a Treaty, bearing date the fifth day
    of February, in the year of our Lord, one thousand
    eight hundred and forty, made and executed by me,
    William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal
    Navy, Consul, and Lieutenant-Governor in New
    Zealand, vested for this purpose with full powers
    by Her Britannic Majesty, of the one part, and
    the Chiefs of the Confederation of the United
    Tribes of New Zealand, and the Separate and
    Independent Chiefs of Nev Zealand, not members
    of the Confederation, of the other; and further
    ratified and confirmed by the adherence of the
    Principal Chiefs of this island of New Zealand,
    commonly called the Northern Island, all rights and
    powers of Sovereignty over the said Northern Island
    were ceded to Her Majesty the Queen of Great
    Britain and Ireland, absolutely and without reservation
    ;
    Now, therefore, I, William Hobson, Lieutenarit-
    Governor of New Zealand, in the name and on
    the behalf of Her Majesty, do hereby proclaim and
    declare to all men, that, from and after the date of
    the above-mentioned Treaty, the full Sovereignty of
    the Northern Island of New Zealand vests in Her
    Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors,
    for ever.
    Given under my hand, at Government-house,
    Russell, Bay of Islands, this twenty-first day of
    May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand
    eight hundred and forty;

    (Signed) WILLIAM HOBSON,
    Lieutenant-Governor^
    By His Excellency’s command,
    (Signed) WILLOUGHBY SHORTLAND,

    Ref: London Gazette. 2nd October, 1840 (page 2179)

  4. “He(Parkinson) agreed with Martin that it most likely was the final draft”.

    Stop twisting the facts JA. Dr. Parkinson in his letter to Martin Doutre dated 23rd December 2003 did not make the above statement instead what he said is as follows;

    “It (Littlewood Document) is not of course, either a draft of the treaty(of which there are two extant in Busby’s own hand), nor a copy of the official back translation(from the Maori text back into English)”.

    The only thing that Parkinson did was to contradict himself later in his 2004 book where he stated that the LD was a back-translation from Maori into English.

  5. NN, this is also from Dr. Parkinsons letter to Mr Doutre:

    “We know from Colenso’s account of the proceedings at Waitangi, that on the 5th Hobson read out a text of the Treaty in English and that this was translated phrase by phrase by Williams.”

    The Littlewood document was read out by Hobson on the evening of the 5th………then translated into Maori.

    So far there is NO evidence of a back translation, just an opinion expressed by Dr. Parkinson. Seems to me to be considerably more evidence to support the logical progression of an english draft translated into Maori.

  6. Nicko, just like JA you’re making assumptions of what Dr. Parkinson said in his letter to Martin Doutre. I quote from Parkinson’s letter: “Although nothing can be proven I think that what Hobson read was not the ‘Her most gracious Majesty’ text, but rather the simpler less formal Littlewood one….”

    Dr. Parkinson is expressing an opinion, not stating a fact. So it doesn’t prove that the LD was the final draft.

  7. haha NN its laughable, you just pick and choose whatever quotes will support your side, one moment you’re grabbing something Parkinson said as the Bible truth, next moment if something he says you don’t quite agree with you’re saying oh hes just expressing an opinion.

  8. Ngamoko is very determined to invalidate the so-called Littlewood treaty draft that is recognised by most historians as a genuine document. His claim is that the document is unimportant and has no legal standing or relevance to treaty interpretation.
    Referring to the Vienna Treaty Convention it would appear that the Littlewood document has a very important part to play in Tiriti interpretations:
    (Article 32. Supplementary means of interpretation)
    “Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty, and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of Article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to Article 31:
    (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or
    (b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable”
    The Littlewood document is an authentic part of the ‘preparatory work’ of the treaty and as such must be included in treaty interpretations.
    As to Moon’s dismissal of the legality of the document on the grounds that it was unsigned – that is nonsense, as Busby signed on behalf of an unwell Hobson. Surely no rational person could expect any Maori signatures to be appended on a preparatory draft for a document yet to be translated into the native tongue.
    As for it being a back-translation from the Maori version – it is very difficult to back-translate a document that has not yet been written.
    Supposing, for amusements sake, that it was a back-translation we would now have a clearly stated British understanding of the contents from the Crown’s point of view at that time.
    The treaty certainly qualifies for both (a) and (b) above, as later interpretations are definitely ambiguous, obscure, manifestly absurd and unreasonable.
    The only true English rendition of the treaty lies in the preparatory document known as the Littlewood Treaty signed by Busby – the only document that aligns almost word for word with the contents of the one legal treaty that was written in Maori and signed by both Maori and the Crown.

  9. yeah well NN, a bit hard when you live in another city. On an aside you were pontificating about Maori being a political force to be reckoned with now, well remember that a lot of kiwis from all walks of life are waking up to this whole travesty. All these treaty settlements and payouts don’t come from the British government but from your neighbour, the average hardworking kiwi, people are sick of the greed.

  10. Mitch, the authenticity of the LD is still unproven as evidenced by Dr. Parkinson’s letter to Martin Doutre and furthermore it was unsigned. Because it was unsigned the Articles that you have quoted from the International Law on Treaties don’t apply. Keep trying Mitch!

  11. It doesn’t say anything about having to be signed to qualify as preparatory work, although in this case it was by Busby. Keep trying NN!

  12. Ngamoko on his usual round of contradictions last night I see. The other day he sang Claudia Orange’s praises and advised me to read her work as it is of exceptionally high quality.
    When I mentioned her shocked, dismayed reaction to the Littlewood Treaty and how she has tried desperately to bury it he said “well who cares about her anyway”.

  13. NN you seem to have totally ignored my first post. So i will copy the relevant sentence here again.

    “It must be remembered that the Maori is a translation from the English, not the English a translation from the Maori.”

    This is from official government papers, not an opinion, not a theory but FACTUAL information.

    It is also illogical for someone who is a native english speaker to construct a document in their second language and then back translate it. If you have had anything to do with migrants whose second language is english you will understand that for some considerable period of time they will think in their native language and then translate that mentally into english and then verbalise. It is far more logical for the Littlewood document to have been constructed in the writers native language and then translated into Maori.

  14. The Littlewood document is dated the 4th of February 1840 and that’s the date the final draft was written.

    Here’s what our very “down-in-the-mouth”, grievance-industry historians have been obliged to begrudgingly admit:

    1. ‘The Busby / Littlewood document of 4 February is not a translation of the Maori text of the treaty because that translation was written on 5 February, by Henry Williams.’ (see: Letter response from Dr. Phil Parkinson to Martin Doutré, 25507 Doutre, AT 13/19/4, 24th of December 2003).

    2. Dr. Loveridge observes how Dr. Claudia Orange, ‘was not entirely satisfied with my proposition that the “4th Feb. 1840” date on the Littlewood document was likely to have been the result of a copying error…’

    3. ‘Archivist and historian Graham Langton said the Littlewood Treaty had “no status whatsoever” but unlike Dr. Parkinson’s view, said it was “very likely” it was documentation from before the signing of the treaty on February 6.
    Mr. Langton said “it was probably a draft version and it was possible it was the final draft but added: So what?” (see National Business Review, pg. 13, March 4, 2005).

    4. ‘I agree that the Littlewood document is dated 4 February 1840, and that there was almost certainly no subsequent drafting of the Treaty’s English text’ (See excerpt from Dr. Paul Moon’s letter to treaty researcher, Ross Baker, 30/08/2004 and posted onto the O.N.Z.F. website).

    5. ‘On 30th March, US Commodore Charles Wilkes, Antarctic explorer, arrived in the Vincennes to join his other ships Porpoise and Flying Fish. Damaged after their bruising exploration of the icy land, they reprovisioned and repaired their ships till late April. As he left Clendon gave him a further despatch containing a hand-written copy of the Treaty in English copied from Busby’s copy of the final draft. It is believed that Clendon then retained Busby’s copy of the Treaty’ (see The Treaty and Its Times, by Paul Moon & Peter Biggs, chpt. 9, pg. 213).

    So, our so-called treaty experts are on record from as early as 1992 as accepting that the Littlewood document existed before the Waitangi assembly of the 5th of February 1840 and, over the years, the evidence for this has mounted, not lessened.

    That being the case, it’s the last draft written and the one handed to Reverend Henry Williams at 4 pm on the 4th of February 1840 for translation overnight into the Maori language.

    It is the only pre-treaty “English Draft” ever written that is complete in all sections, with a Preamble, Article I, Article II, Article III, Affirmation Section & Signing Section.

    The so-called “Official English” version (one of the Formal Royal Style versions, earmarked solely for overseas despatch as pretentious memorial documents) was cobbled together from obsolete, rough draft notes.

    Many bits & pieces within those rough-notes were never included.

    ALL of the general wording found in these 7 variable versions (except some linking text to tie passages together), is likewise found in the “obsolete” rough draft notes (16-pages, still preserved in our archives) written between Hobson’s arrival on the 29th of January and terminating on the 3rd of February 1840.

    To see “ALL” of these rough, superceded notes, go to:
    http://www.celticnz.org/TreatyBook/Chapter05a.htm
    (then push the “NEXT” button for 5b, 5c, 5d, & 5e).

    The “Final English Draft” was written on the 4th of February, by Busby, and bears both his handwriting and that date.

    It was handed to Rev. Henry Williams at 4pm on the 4th of February 1840 and was translated overnight into the Maori language for presentation to the chiefs on the 5th.

    The very first of James Freeman’s 7 Formal Royal Style versions (officially called “compositites”) did not exist until after the presentation of the 5th of February 1840.

    The Littlewood document is definitely the “Final English Draft” and the only pre-treaty, complete draft that has ever existed.

  15. That’s your opinion Martin but as I read Dr. Parkinson’s letter, he uses words such as; “Although nothing can be proven….” and “I think….” whilst describing whether it was the Littlewood Document that Hobson read out on the evening of the 5th February. With the use of such words Parkinson is expressing an opinion. Even if it is the “Final English Draft” it has no constitutional meaning because Freeman’s English version has been signed by Hobson and 40 Maori chiefs. That to me is the end of the argument.

  16. What a lot of gumbashing about something that people will never agree with each other over. And it is not important any more. The most important statement I believe, in this thread was by Hamish McCrae.
    His statement has a lot of truth, it is a reality at this point in time, of all the people who I have asked their opinion on any constitutional changes, most have no idea this is being considered, but the vast majority have come up with the sentiments expressed by Hamish in his post of 31 Jan 11:38 repeated here
    “On an aside you were pontificating about Maori being a political force to be reckoned with now, well remember that a lot of kiwis from all walks of life are waking up to this whole travesty. All these treaty settlements and payouts don’t come from the British government but from your neighbour, the average hardworking kiwi, people are sick of the greed.”

    If the part maori think that the majority are going to put up with this crap forever, and with all the repeat full and final payments being made,and it would appear some do, then this country is in for a rough time.

  17. But what are they doing about it Owen? Nothing that’s what. After reading JA’s brief comment regarding last nights debate at Te Papa he expressed disappointment that the under 30 year old generation do not share his view so therefore he has to rely on the over 60 year olds. What does that tell you Owen? So, I must have done a pretty good job as a social studies and history teacher in NZ secondary schools.

  18. NN
    You say “But what are they doing about it Owen?”

    At this point in time very little, for the most part our population is a pretty docile lot when if comes to politics, but hit them in the pocket often enough and that will very likely change.

    One very good point Kim Hill made about us having a written constitution based on the TOW was that Syria has a written constitution promising all sorts of good things to the population, did not work there, or perhaps the Fijian constitution that some of our experts? helped them write, did not last there long either. Perhaps when enough people get to know what is in store the Egyptians might be a good example of the actions needed, who knows, maybe Tama Iti’s style politics will be legal for others as well..

  19. Do you two clowns know what you’re talking about? Is it Hobson’s handwriting or Busby’s signature? The Official English TOW has Hobson’s signature plus the marks of 40 chiefs on it. I reckon that about seals it. Don’t you?

    JA: The bogus “official” English Treaty has a very spidery left-handed pale imitation of Hobson’s signature – consistent with him having been cajoled into signing it after his stroke by his incompetent and verbose secretary James Freeman.

    For a display at Te Papa, Dame Claudia’s mob replaced this spidery signature with the signature of a healthier Hobson from the Waitangi signing of Te Tiriti.

    What does that suggest to you?

    And of course the Littlewood document is in Busby’s handwriting because he was deputised to write out the final draft.

    It was not officially signed because it was a draft – only meant for the eyes of the translator.

    (But then I think we’ve been there a few dozen times before, Ngamoko :-))

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s