On the whining and treason of David Seymour

Written By: - Date published: 10:27 am, November 20th, 2024 - 12 comments
Categories: act, david seymour, Politics, treaty settlements - Tags:

In recent days, David Seymour has been whining that no-one is seriously debating his stupid little bill to supposedly try to redefine what the Treaty of Waitangi means. The problem is that it is not the Treaty of Waitangi that this bill attacks. It is the constitutional arrangements of this country. The bill is essentially treasonous.

The bill attempts to directly negate and sideline one of the three branches of the Crown – the Courts. It also attempts to diminish the efficacy of our representative government of Parliament, by making it subject to PR manipulable referendums. The overall effect is to increase the power of the Executive and make it easier to form a dictatorial Executive. Moreover it does so by overthrowing by redefinition of the foundation document that formed our countries legal basis.

At one level it is a completely pointless bill that trades on basic racism and rapacious greed. The racist or rapacious view would require that I’d believe that Seymour and his supporters simply doesn’t understand our constitution.

That is possible. Neither Seymour nor any Act supporter have ever impressed me with their intelligence or wide-ranging level of deep knowledge. I tend to regard them as simpletons. I have no idea if this is simply ignorance, dumb laziness or just deliberate maliciousness. But I also really don’t care. The motivations are irrelevant in treason. It is only the cations that count.

This isn’t a debate about the treaty. After reading the bill, I’m more likely to start arming myself with semi-automatic weapons (easily to upgrade my more familiar fully-automatic weapons) to deal with the inevitable revolt that will be triggered by a undeclared constitutional takeover. Because the select committee would start throwing out my arguments about this bill because they don’t deal with the words of the bill. They deal with its obvious intent.

The Courts are a crucial part of our constitutional setup because they constrain the rapacious stupidity that has so often a feature of of the Executive and Parliament branches since 1840.

The treaty wasn’t between “new zealanders” and the NZ Parliament or even the British Parliament of 1840. It was between the Crown and Māori. Something like 98% of ‘new zealanders’ in 1839 and 1840 were Māori, and Māori were the ones who signed a treaty with the British Crown in the form of Queen Victoria.

The treaty wasn’t presented in written English to the vast majority of those who signed it. It was presented in spoken Māori, probably in a variety of dialects. The written English version was a translation device and has, as the courts have pointed out many times, should not been regarded as legally being the treaty as signed and agreed to.

If Seymour was serious about this stupid and ignorant bill, then he would have at least written in it in Te Reo – one of our official languages rather than the on-official de facto language of our kiwi pidgin English variant. The treaty was signed in two versions, English and Māori, with different meanings for the words used in each. Around 500 Māori signed the Māori version, while only 39 signed the English version. It clearly wasn’t a treaty made in English. But I digress…

Constitutionally we still operate under the same Crown as in 1840. The NZ Parliament is a subsidiary entity of it. They exist alongside of other Crown entities like the Courts, and a Executive that operate the military, police, customs, and a variety of other Crown organisations. Parliament may finance those other two branches, but they do not operate nor do they control them.

For the fools who keep stating that the NZ Parliament is ‘sovereign’, this separation of the Crown powers is deliberate. There is a simplified explanation at justice “New Zealand’s constitutional system“, that should be clear to even the most ignorant. The concept of ‘The Crown’ is discussed in this video by Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Rt Hon Dame Sian Elias who probably know it better than most. Even the simpletons who support Act in this bill should be vaguely able to understand the subtleties of the way that the Crown runs New Zealand after they get through this primer.

The courts, whom David Seymour seems to want to pretend have been ‘making law’ independent of the NZ Parliament, have in fact been doing their job.

As a branch of the Crown powers, they balance the legislation of parliament against other Crown legal obligations, like treaties, common law, international law, and other legislation. If Parliament tries to or has previously usurped the role of the Crown and its legal obligations through legislation, then the courts will eventually correct that. The treaty settlement process since the 1970s has been forced by the courts to correct the previous stupidities where rapacious servants of the Crown like governors and parliament have used unlawful means to seize property and resources in violation of the obligations of the Crown.

These have repeatably wound up in the courts who have then pointed out the legal flaws in their judgements. The Executive ministers of the Crown (ie not members of parliament) have then had to negotiate settlements primarily to ensure that the courts did not make the settlements in accordance with the judgements.

The problem that probable rapacious carpetbaggers like David Seymour and the Act parties clearly have not dealt with in this daft legislation is that they are clearly trying to rewrite an agreement made between the Crown and Māori. However the wording of the treaty is not something that is subject to rewriting by the NZ Parliament. As an equivalent, this is like trying to rewrite the laws and rules that govern warfare that have been built up over the centuries between nations. Or for the NZ Parliament to try to redefine the UN charter.

It is an attempted usurpation by Parliament of something that they have no say over. Not only of the Treaty of Waitangi, but also any other legal obligations that have previously been made by the Crown.

In effect it transfers all powers to the Executive and away from the Courts. This is made explicit in section 6 of the Principles of Treaty of Waitangi Bill, principle 1 when you look at the primary statement…

The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws […]

The qualifications to that statement merely extend the scope to potentially cover the whole world and everyone in it. Which is ridiculous.

But in effect it is the Executive branch of government, trying to use another branch – the NZ Parliament, to restrict the third branch, the Courts from performing oversight of the pre-existing or inherent legal obligations that currently restrict the Executive.

If I wanted a dictatorship like Seymour and his backer so obviously would like, then this is exactly the way that I’d proceed down to set it up.

Sideline the courts and make them ineffectual at balancing pre-existing obligations. Make our representative democracy in parliament completely subject to referendums that are easy to manipulate by PR campaigns and hate speech that Act and similar pre-paid subsidiaries puppets like the Taxpayers union and the ‘free speech’ hand-pieces.

This is an explicit attempt to remove the balance of powers, and to remove the courts from overseeing any injustices.

What is pretty obvious from the whining of Seymour is that the treasonous prick simply isn’t listening and is unlikely to ever do so.

Time to start thinking about getting a gun license. Or to build a well-equipped workshop. Just in case. Not a time to engage with a parliament and executive who are overstepping their apportioned powers, again extending the New Zealand land wars.

My family have mostly been in NZ shortly before or soon after the signing of the Treaty. I really dislike that my Māori cousins feel the need to live in Australia, because the racism is way less hypocritical there. I’m a reluctant socialist, volunteered for our military, a well-paid geek, and a well-educated activist in my limited spare time. I live in NZ because I have long since made a commitment to do so. No idiot like Seymour will drive me out.

12 comments on “On the whining and treason of David Seymour ”

  1. mike 1
    20 November 2024 at 11:14 am

    The six month select committee process is simply a six month window for corporates to advertise pro bill propaganda, leveraging off the Three Waters stunt they paid for a year or so back.

    It's only Te Triti o Waitangi that protects us all from corporate dictatorship.

    Reply
    • lprent 1.1
      20 November 2024 at 11:50 am

      That was pretty much my impression. It was designed to waste as much time as was required for a long PR campaign. Also carefully muffled by running over Xmas.

      The challenge haka in Parliament was a direct an appropriate answer. The hikoi is also an effective answer.

      I wanted to point out exactly how I felt as a non-Maori military geek exactly what I thought of the underlying presumption of the bill, how it affects our core constitutional arrangements and where I think that path is destined to lead towards.

      Reply
  2. Adrian 2
    20 November 2024 at 11:46 am

    Thanks LPrent, that will be the basis for my submission. Plus a little "follow the money "dig about who is most likely to benefit from another deceptive land grab.

    Reply
  3. Dennis Frank 3
    20 November 2024 at 11:48 am

    Yeah, pretty much how I see the situation except I'm not into getting a gun. smiley

    Seymour Principle 1: The Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and Parliament has full power to make laws. They do so in the best interests of everyone, and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society. https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/54SCJUST_SCF_227E6D0B-E632-42EB-CFFE-08DCFEB826C6/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-bill

    His first sentence is an executive governance principle that appears to tell us what we already know, yet fails to ground it in the paramount principle of state sovereignty – which is how international law & the UN operate. Govt, parliament & the state are 3 different things in constitutional law yet he conflates them into 1 power principle. That misleads the public, right? Incorrect, inaccurate, mark it maybe 2 out of 10.

    His second sentence is even more wacko. Pure idealism. Reality has always bound the performance of govt & parlt into a cage, where such aspirations are confined by party loyalty and conformity to minority interests. Anyone who disagrees, your homework is to list all the occasions National and Labour agreed to act in solidarity with our common interests. Bet you can't.

    So when you see a politician trying to change reality and being unable to get the basics right, you ain't far away from seeing them establish a reputation for incompetence.

    Reply
    • lprent 3.1
      20 November 2024 at 12:17 pm

      …except I'm not into getting a gun.

      I grew up using them as a tool and never for just fun, both on farms and in the military. They are a dangerous tool, like a other tools like having a working knowledge of chemistry and physics. I've also done 7.5 years of my civilian working life building military software to train soldiers how to use weapons more effectively. I don't make that statement lightly.

      Govt, parliament & the state are 3 different things in constitutional law yet he conflates them into 1 power principle.

      And manages to miss the crucial role of the local and international legal systems completely. That has to have been deliberate and identifies him as either malicious danger to our society or the complete idiot who is being a danger to our society.

      That triggers my Smith's Dream / Sleeping Dogs responses that, in part, was caused me to volunteer for the military in the first place. Along with reading a lot of military and social history that identified the complete folly of being a untrained pacifist.

      So when you see a politician trying to change reality and being unable to get the basics right, you ain't far away from seeing them establish a reputation for incompetence.

      Still uncertain if it is incompetence or carefully deliberate and trying to mask as incompetence. The displayed Seymour pattern at present could go either way.

      If you think about almost any dictatorial pattern (apart from a few like Lenin), there are long periods of perceived incompetence before the pattern morphs into something more dangerous. I remember having a look at press treatment of completely unsane arseholes like Hitler or Mussolini in the 1920s and 1930s.

      Reply
      • Incognito 3.1.1
        20 November 2024 at 12:53 pm

        No matter how you apply Hanlon’s razor, the result is a clean shave 😉

        All one needs is a large enough group of people who prefer to think less critically about their own actions and consequences thereof [for others]. In other words, one doesn’t need an evil leader or evil people for evil deeds to occur [cf. Hanah Arendt].

        Reply
  4. Christopher Randal 4
    20 November 2024 at 12:46 pm

    My question is: Is it possible to petition King Charles III to dissolve Parliament and, if so, how likely is he to do it?

    Reply
  5. Tiger Mountain 5
    20 November 2024 at 12:54 pm

    A thought provoking piece by lprent. Seymour and Act did not just dream this stuff up, they have an ideological support system via Atlas and local sycophants like the Tax Payers Union and Groundswell. They want disruption one way or another–ultimately in the service of capital. Māori intellectual property rights, dominion and claims over wai and whenua is a major roadblock to big paydays for various corporates.

    Examples are there in multiple countries as to what can happen in near and actual civil war situations. January 6 attempted coup in the US showed what the nutters and reactionaries can do–and it may get much worse now.

    A lot of us are not keen on guns, I learned to use and clean a single barrel shot gun with a small magazine, at 10 years of age! thanks to my brother whose school ran Military Training as some did in the 60s. I just used to scare Pheasants in the hedgerow and blast a few rabbits, which were turned into pies…would not do it now unless it really turns bad, but lprent is right to be concerned. In the North I have always thought that the gunslingers will be looking for the likes of me before they ever go for the Torys.

    As I say to an old friend who has a metal cabinet full of guns (he handed some in)…you will run out of ammo eventually mate…

    Reply
  6. higherstandard 6
    20 November 2024 at 12:57 pm

    I feel quite agnostic about the "debate" over Te Tiriti.

    I do, however, believe that changes to any contractual agreement (and let's accept it is a contractual arrangement) can only be made by consent of the parties to that agreement.

    In this case consent of Maori and the Crown.

    No single party, parliament or nation through a referendum can unilaterally change that agreement.

    That being I can't see what the fuss is about when the bill will be voted down early next year.

    Reply
    • Incognito 6.1
      20 November 2024 at 1:15 pm

      What I can’t understand is that you’ve been commenting here on a political blog site for more than 16 years and make that comment without a hint of irony and using that user handle!?

      You seem to be generally ‘agnostic’, politically speaking, or you’re simply trolling.

      Reply
    • lprent 6.2
      20 November 2024 at 1:19 pm

      That being I can’t see what the fuss is about when the bill will be voted down early next year.

      The fuss is what probably what will cause it to be voted down. Since National has gotten into the routine of breaking promises, especially over the last year on matters like their definition of front-facing vs back-office, I’m not really interested in trusting them.

      Plus of course, it should not only need to be voted down. It needs to definitely opposed and staked down. This was repeats the main campaign of 2015 with the disgusting race baiting by Don Brash on the same topic. Repeated attempts by him (Hobsons choice) and Act to raise similar race baiting in damn near every election since.

      I’m tired of it popping up like Shane Jones wanking his ego in politics. I am tired of bloody kiwi Republicans who cannot seem to define a position of the treaty in any future constitutional relationships. I have gotten to the point where I am now a firm monarchist. Not because I like being in the monarchy. But because I can’t see a republic being able to work in NZ because of the dickhead racists and their puppets.

      Reply

Leave a Comment

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.