If you’re considering posting these on X as well, it may be worth buying a domain name from freeparking.co.nz which you can use to redirect readers to your Substack, seeing as X chokes anything with a Substack link.
Anne Salmond made her claim about needing to be able to read te reo to have a worthwhile opinion on Te Tiriti in her submission to the select committee and has done the same at least five times on Newsroom over the past 18 months.
At the end of October, in a column titled “Iwi, Kiwi and Te Titiriti”, she opined: “[The Treaty Principles Bill] is... inaccurate, based on a selective, distorted reading of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. You shouldn’t try to instruct others about the basic principles in a document you can’t read.”
What about the world’s 2.3 billion Christians who can’t read the New Testament in the original Greek or those among the 1.9 billion Muslims who can’t read the Koran in classical Arabic but rely on translations?
According to Salmond, billions of religious people and leaders have no right to comment on their holy scriptures. It's a completely absurd argument.
It is a silly argument and one that is intentionally meant to exclude 'undesirables' from the conversation. Around 3-4% of the New Zealand population can speak and understand te reo to a conversational level. That makes for a pretty small conversation if Dame Salmond's rules apply.
3 to 4% - is that all? In light of the well made point raised in your writing that really would place the decision making powers and decisions on how the rest of us get to live our day-to-day lived in the hands of a very small number of Treaty Elitists (or “Trealetists”).
What I don't get is that she keeps on making the same stupid claim. Are her editors at Newsroom too frightened of her not to point out she is bringing their site into disrepute?
Or maybe they also think it is a winning argument.
Good commentary Ani and you have said what needs to be said about Dame Anne's position. She is quite relentless with lengthy posts on LinkedIn and on the Newsroom not only on the Treaty but also on the Regulatory Standards proposals - I have critiqued her approach on that issue (see https://djhdcj.substack.com/p/the-regulatory-standards-bill-proposals-102)
It may be time for an wider critique because her issues seem to be with Seymour and ACT as posing an existential threat to a society that is "bound together" (read social cohesion) while respecting differences. Problem is that Dame Anne certainly does NOT respect the differences that are put forward by those with whom she disagrees.
Wonderful article. Anne Salmond rather shoots herself in the foot when she asserts that only those with superior knowledge of the Treaty are capable of commenting on it. What about those Maori chiefs in 1840 who could neither read nor write? Admittedly some could read and understand English, courtesy of Christian missionaries , but one assumes the majority couldn’t. That is evident because most signed the Treaty document by ‘making their mark’ with a thumbprint or an X next to their name and the tribe they represented. It is obvious the intent of the Treaty was debated and explained orally, with translation provided by Henry Williams and others who were fluent in te reo. We will never know what was said and explained, but those who contend that sovereignty was never ceded need to ask themselves who actually drafted the Treaty and what was the background and intent of this simple agreement? It’s abundantly obvious what the British expected and they did their best to explain it to the natives via translation. Arguing that some Maori words within the document change the whole meaning of the Treaty is just nonsense and disingenuous.
New Zealand is a liberal parliamentary democracy, where sovereignty resides with us voters. If you want to make something change, then get out there and persuade the rest of us. We are all in this together.
In New Zealand people with minority views have the opportunity to do this. Members of groups who have high profiles, like Salmond, would be most effective if they used their platforms for suasion, not huffy grumpiness imo. Then we could all learn.
Good commentary, Ani - I’ll look forward to more.
If you’re considering posting these on X as well, it may be worth buying a domain name from freeparking.co.nz which you can use to redirect readers to your Substack, seeing as X chokes anything with a Substack link.
Great advice. Will set up this weekend.
Anne Salmond made her claim about needing to be able to read te reo to have a worthwhile opinion on Te Tiriti in her submission to the select committee and has done the same at least five times on Newsroom over the past 18 months.
At the end of October, in a column titled “Iwi, Kiwi and Te Titiriti”, she opined: “[The Treaty Principles Bill] is... inaccurate, based on a selective, distorted reading of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. You shouldn’t try to instruct others about the basic principles in a document you can’t read.”
What about the world’s 2.3 billion Christians who can’t read the New Testament in the original Greek or those among the 1.9 billion Muslims who can’t read the Koran in classical Arabic but rely on translations?
According to Salmond, billions of religious people and leaders have no right to comment on their holy scriptures. It's a completely absurd argument.
It is a silly argument and one that is intentionally meant to exclude 'undesirables' from the conversation. Around 3-4% of the New Zealand population can speak and understand te reo to a conversational level. That makes for a pretty small conversation if Dame Salmond's rules apply.
3 to 4% - is that all? In light of the well made point raised in your writing that really would place the decision making powers and decisions on how the rest of us get to live our day-to-day lived in the hands of a very small number of Treaty Elitists (or “Trealetists”).
The ultimate “Nanny state”.
What I don't get is that she keeps on making the same stupid claim. Are her editors at Newsroom too frightened of her not to point out she is bringing their site into disrepute?
Or maybe they also think it is a winning argument.
Good commentary Ani and you have said what needs to be said about Dame Anne's position. She is quite relentless with lengthy posts on LinkedIn and on the Newsroom not only on the Treaty but also on the Regulatory Standards proposals - I have critiqued her approach on that issue (see https://djhdcj.substack.com/p/the-regulatory-standards-bill-proposals-102)
It may be time for an wider critique because her issues seem to be with Seymour and ACT as posing an existential threat to a society that is "bound together" (read social cohesion) while respecting differences. Problem is that Dame Anne certainly does NOT respect the differences that are put forward by those with whom she disagrees.
Wonderful article. Anne Salmond rather shoots herself in the foot when she asserts that only those with superior knowledge of the Treaty are capable of commenting on it. What about those Maori chiefs in 1840 who could neither read nor write? Admittedly some could read and understand English, courtesy of Christian missionaries , but one assumes the majority couldn’t. That is evident because most signed the Treaty document by ‘making their mark’ with a thumbprint or an X next to their name and the tribe they represented. It is obvious the intent of the Treaty was debated and explained orally, with translation provided by Henry Williams and others who were fluent in te reo. We will never know what was said and explained, but those who contend that sovereignty was never ceded need to ask themselves who actually drafted the Treaty and what was the background and intent of this simple agreement? It’s abundantly obvious what the British expected and they did their best to explain it to the natives via translation. Arguing that some Maori words within the document change the whole meaning of the Treaty is just nonsense and disingenuous.
New Zealand is a liberal parliamentary democracy, where sovereignty resides with us voters. If you want to make something change, then get out there and persuade the rest of us. We are all in this together.
In New Zealand people with minority views have the opportunity to do this. Members of groups who have high profiles, like Salmond, would be most effective if they used their platforms for suasion, not huffy grumpiness imo. Then we could all learn.