By Redbaiter- in the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low.

,

Maori Author Claims Many Grievance Cases False and “Without Legal Standing”

The following news item is something I saved from a NZ newspaper in 1998. I don’t have an up to date web reference for the article, and I don’t have the name of the book that is the subject of the article. Anyone who does is welcome to leave the information in a comment. The thrust of the book, written by Jean Jackson a Ngai Tahu descendant, is that double dealing Maori chiefs conned the Crown and cheated early settlers.

Author Jean Jackson, granddaughter of 1800s Maori chief Tare Weteri (Charles Wesley) Te Kahu, has written a new book wherein she claims many Maori grievance cases are false and without legal standing.

Jackson believes the result of 20 years of intensive research are so sensitive that she keeps all her records at a safe house. She suggests the $ 170 million Ngai Tahu settlement was wrong. In the full and final settlement that has been accepted by Ngai Tahu the Crown apologises to the tribe for more than 100 years of “unconscionable” behaviour and trampling on their rights. But Jackson contradicts Maori claims that they were tricked into giving up land by lying, fraud and bad faith on the part of European settlers or the Crown.

Her radical claims include:

  • Maori were themselves the tricksters who sold land sometimes TWO or THREE times – before and after the Treaty of Waitangi was signed.
  • NGAI Tahu chiefs queued up to sell South Island lands.
  • Waitangi Tribunal hearings did not use cross-examinations, a move criticised by London Privy Councillor Lord Robin Cooke for” making it impossible to test adequately some of the material.”
  • Maori held power over their tribes by private courts which followed the law of the day.
  • Maori often sold land to payoff debts run up by their desire to be “socially acceptable” and have European clothes and possessions, for themselves and their wives.
  • In some cases, Maori owe the Crown compensation for killing many early European settlers.
  • Maori chiefs who agreed to sign a private treaty not to unofficially sell land reneged on the deal and, alter selling quarter of the South island, sold a further half In February 1840.
  • Maori have already been compensated by the Crown through the Land Commissioner’s Courts which ruled that settlers who had bought land must be register land claims with the Land Commission Court; and,
  • The court was fastidious in checking the deals were fair and honest and if there was any doubt the land had to be returned to Maori, who got to keep the land AND the money.

Jackson admits her extremist views are likely to cause uproar, “Lots of people know of my findings but they’re keeping very quiet.”

“It distresses me to think what my grandfather, one of the chiefs who sold half the South Island in the 1840s, would think or all this carryon. He was a preacher in the Wesleyan Church and would be mortified to see land being given back and valid contracts he helped make being frustrated and overturned.”

Jackson also believes Ngai Tahu chiefs sometimes GAVE land to settlers. “Our chiefs were in debt to foreign banks and merchants and in 1844 Taiaroa sold millions of acres with other chiefs to quit his debts.” She says national archives show South Island chiefs were indebted to the National Bank of Australia for £ 2’400 and sold Otago land for the THIRD time to cover the dept.

6 responses to “Maori Author Claims Many Grievance Cases False and “Without Legal Standing””

  1. Kris K Avatar

    Funny how most of this sort of information never gets presented to the public via our usual main stream news sources.
    Anyone would think there was a conspiracy being perpetrated jointly by Maori and government[s] (especially this one) … but surely not, the government always has the best interests of the people at heart.

    Hang on, a herd of pink elephants just flew by my window …

    Like

  2. Lucia Maria Avatar

    Wow. Serious wow.

    I’m just going to sit back and absorb that, having today read that our new local pool is having stones buried under it for “life force” for the project, the land and the iwi ancestors. Will probably need to be exorcised some time in the future.

    Like

  3. dad4justice Avatar

    Ngai Tahu chiefs surely must own racetracks in Christchurch because they are always in attendance. Rik Tau and others should be in prison! Oh that’s right, they own the cop shop and courthouse. What a sick country.

    Like

  4. Redbaiter Avatar

    The third point is the crux of the issue-

    “Waitangi Tribunal hearings did not use cross-examinations, a move criticised by London Privy Councillor Lord Robin Cooke for” making it impossible to test adequately some of the material.” “

    Like

  5. Sika Avatar

    Interesting how if you’re a shareholder in a private company with valuable assets you get means tested for the dole etc.
    If you’re the part owner of massive valuable tracts of land, and white, same deal……if you are the part owner of massive valuable tracts of land and maori……a miracle happens, no means test for benefits applies.

    NZ the land of racially selected national sporting teams, racial qualifications to vote in racially exclusive seats and racially reserved govt board sinecures……..might as well have a racially determined tax code just to round it out.

    If the maori plebs could access their wealth their entitlement welfare bonanza based on Other People’s Money would be fixed.

    Like

    1. Simon Mill Avatar
      Simon Mill

      I am a descendent of the Ngati Porou and even though my Iwi have gained their land back from the Government and compensation from the Government. I do not own any land or receive any money from my Iwi. The only income I have at the moment is the Job Seeker’s benefit with medical deferral until I can get a Job. Although my mum and eldest brother co-owns my real dad’s farm on the east cape, I do not receive any profit from that land. My mum is Scottish-English so has not Maori blood though.

      If a pakeha has a parent that has shares in a land, the same principle would apply to him. I have never heard of a Pakeha being means tested for land that their parents co-own. Nor have I heard of Pakeha’s being means tested for their Parents wealth, when applying for the benefit and over 18.

      Like

Navigation