I welcome a case where Te Reo Maori affirms our bilingual status and all official business is conducted with both versions. However Te Reo Maori should always be headed first as a mark of respect for all the people of Nai Nu Tireni and the spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand and its tangata whenua .
The idea we should call our selves Aotearoa therefore has several problem including;
1. The Maori name for New Zealand is not Aoteroa which at best just describe the North Island (with Te Waipounamu being the South Island) and even their the linguistic claim is dubious. NZ’s Maori name as listed in the Maori version of the treaty (the one the government uses for official duties and government business) is Nai Nu Tireni. NOT Aotearoa.
2. Has any one considered or researched what the legal ramification of a name change are by the way?
My understanding is that in law name changes are actually a big deal. Be it a simple contract or nation changing its name. And if were not known legally as Nai Nu Tireni then what exactly does that do to things like the treaty and other historic land deals done in the official treaty version for NZ/Nai Nu Tireni.
3. This seems on par with a set pattern which now includes;
A: The legally dubious move to shift the Privy Council to the Supreme Court.
B: The demininting of official documents, seals, coast of arms, official vehicles, as all reference to the Crown get removed off our currency over the past decade (with the exception of the twenty dollar note -which I am sure well soon go too).
C: The omission from the 2013 Constitutional Review of any mention of Article 29 of the Magna Carta which next to the electoral legislation is about as close to entrenched legislation as you get in NZ. Article 29 in NZ not only recognises the Courts (Laws of the land) as the highest authority but is the basis of habeus corpus in NZ; ‘the right of justice for every one’.
D; the failed Flag referendum which sought to remove the Union Jack off the flag with the help of a panel who were paid $600 a day. Which also includes, in at least two case, panellists who also sat in the 2013 Constitutional Review panel.
The origins of the Union Jack on our flag are best outlined by the reason given for why the Union Jack appears on the Australia flag. Namely that in 1877 freed convicts sick of being bulling by landed squatters petition England to have English law applied to Australia. An act commemorated by the copy of the Magna Carta being hung in the Federal parliament. Previously listed on the NZ parliamentary website (until the flag debate when it was removed), as “a reminder of our democratic traditions”. It is a symbol of the sovereign authority of our nation and laws which apply to all equally and fairly and not simply our loyalty to inbreed toffs.
I pointed that out during the flag debate and tied it to part of the TPPA long term strategy. And I promptly got a roasting from left and right media outlets. Who however remained strangely quiet when in 2017 the Canadian Inuit managed to slow down the TPPA ISSD clause (the bit that lets corporation sue us for not letting them poison us). Why?
Will because it was deemed in fact to be breaching Canadian ad Common wealth constitutional law and indigenous rights. Specifically in relation to Canada’s terms of supreme sovereignty and it being shown to supersede section 35 of Canada Constitution which recognise the ISSD breached the clause provision that made the right of First Nation tribes “to make decision over their land an resources the highest law in the land”.
E; Proposed change of head of state from Governor General to President.
Bit by bit with the classic cunning of neo-liberalism strategist were being moved towards a version of republicanism (which removes our constitutional protections and sovereignty). A version which open us wide to abuse by those who deem profits more important than people.
This is being done via a cunning marketing and lobbying campaign. It does this by ironically seek to appeal to our altruism by wrapping the sting in the tail in a seeming liberal Trojan horse.
One in which the TPPA need not worry that its right to sue us in tribunals sit above the court of our land (article 29). Or that it breaches the Bill of Rights, or the Treaty of Waitangi.
I don’t welcome a land in which we adopt a mock Maori name which has no legal precedent past or present. This reeks of a set up and that so many pro TPPA corporations are selling that same puppy only make me even more suspicious.
It as dubious as the currently shelved Maori Land Court reform. A liberal sounding bit of legislation which sought to give Corporate pro TPPA iwi, (headed by Patriarch with old school ties and honkey surnames) more power along with their business partners than local hapu. On that point think Ihumato Fletchers, think Ōtautahi Fetchers rebuild, think the Kaikoura highway POU – Protect Our Unique Coastline protest.
I welcome it as much as a dumping of the Crown (who signed the treaty as opposed to the state), under the mistake belief this means were simply dumping Queen Elizabeth and her pooping Corgis.
As oppose to loosing the constitutional protection afforded to us via our Common Law Magna Carta based Westminster form of democracy. One that has shaped democracies inside and outside the Commonwealth for over eight hundred years. To do so would be and is simply moronic.
Without those both iwi, hapu and individual Maori and Pakeha alike remain highly vulnerable to things like the TPPA interpretation of intellectual property ownership. ‘Trade Deals’ which recognises corporate rights legally while in contrast corporate recognition of the public’s own intellectual property rights is deemed non binding.
4. That this comes as the USA is running a program called Operation Wahine Toa, which seeks to groom and befriend Maori women (with access to iwi funds), so as to help the USA protect their Pacific Reset program and regional strategic interests, only confirms a picture of Machiavellian backdoor cultural appropriation of Maori values for some one else agenda.
And that it comes as Microsoft is building in NZ, a giant data system to store corporate and government data and electronic knowledge, as simultaneously NZ’s own Library Museum and Art Galleries content (especially in relation to technical knowledge) are being culled or digitised, worries the hell out of me.
Ditto that it is taking place as the Murdoch media empire seek full Pacific media knowledge dominance, with assistance from the governments of USA Australia NZ, in return for Murdoch promotion of the USA’s Pacific Reset propaganda seem a bit too pat.
Their more power in a name than you might think at first glance. So if your going to change them do take the time to study what the consequences of change will be.
Interesting. I just did a blog a few days ago questioning the validity of renaming Christchurch “Otautahi”. Yours takes things to a national level. It would appear it is time to start highlighting the hidden agendas behind dubious attempts to “re-brand” our country!
Another good bit of detective work Ben.