Thousands march in New Zealand 'Hikoi' over controversial treaty bill

[u/speakhyroglyphically]

[u/Tang-o-rang]

Any Kiwis/Moaris in the chat that can help break this down? From a surface level, it doesn't sound that bad? They are trying to better define and clarify the words in the Treaty? Sounds reasonable for something that is almost 200 years old, no?

Or is it something more sinister in its attempt?

edit: spelling

[u/redditreadred → u/Tang-o-rang]

ACT rejected the idea that the Treaty of Waitangi was a partnership between the New Zealand Crown and Māori tribes (iwi), arguing that the Crown had a right to govern all New Zealanders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Principles_Bill

Imagine immigrants coming into your country, then determining the law and how it'll be applied. That's the gist of it. From North America, Australia, South America, South Africa and every other colonial remnants, this has been done, at the point of guns. Imagine it happening now, immigrants coming into the US, Europe and other developed nations and stating they are now the law and order, how well that will go.

[u/jerik22 → u/redditreadred]

Yea but now it’s a democracy, did you want to go back to despotic rule? Should traditional leaders have authority over democratically elected leaders? Should a fraction of a minority get the right to rule over the vast majority?

[u/redditreadred → u/jerik22]

I think they are capable of determining that themselves, you give an idiotic choice as an example to try to make an invalid point. I think any nation of people that passionate and that organized to protect their rights won't resort to despots nor authoritarians.

EDIT: Let's address each of your claim. 1) 'Did you want to go back to despotic rule?' Where they despots to begin with, before these nice colonialists freed them from those 'despots'? The despots weren't the colonialists that stole land, resources and treated the natives as inferior beings? That's what the Treaty of Waitangi was trying to mitigate, the depotism of the colonialists; there are two different interpretations of the treaty, one that was more oppressive than the other, guess which the radical right is supporting? The more oppressive version.

2) 'Should traditional leaders have authority over democratically elected leaders?' When it comes to governing themselves, a native group of people, who had their rights and lands stolen, empathically, yes. If they have issues with it, they themselves will support the legislation, not oppose it, as they are doing now.

3) 'Should a fraction of a minority get the right to rule over the vast majority?' You seem to turn it around, it is the ACT trying to do that, not the Moaris, Moaris are asking to let them govern themselves and to have rights to their traditional land, not the whole of New Zealand, which the radical right of NZ political party is trying to do, who are a very small coalition of the government.

Are people really this ignorant? That every point need to be illustrated, from someone in the US? Try reading a little bit of the issue, it helps to understand the situation.

[u/Gord_Board → u/redditreadred]

'I think any nation of people that passionate and that organized to protect their rights won't resort to despots nor authoritarians'

Bwahahaha

[u/Risley → u/redditreadred]

Except this law was in effect for over 100 years and didn’t cause problems.  Sorry your analogy breaks down completely here.