In this edition: Is Turia Chicken? - Things Are Not Quite What They Seem- Photo-Essay 1: Death and Casualty From Iraq -
Your $64 Billion Question - What were they thinking?
Scoop welcomes reader feedback. Send your news & views to editor@scoop.co.nz
**********
Is Turia Chicken?
Are those chicken feathers I see growing under Associate Maori Affairs Minister Tariana Turias' arms? After weeks of
making out that she will stand against her own governments foreshore and seabed proposal like some "Maori martyr", she
opts to "abstain" from the upcoming vote. Like all bullies, when the odds are stacked against her, she proves she has no
stomach for a fight, and once again kow-tows to Mistress Clark, just as Ashraf Choudhary did when the Prostitution Law
Reform Bill was voted on (co-erced once again by the Prime Minister). Perhaps Tariana Turia needs to be reminded of the
fact that choosing not to choose is also a choice, and that silence denotes consent. Goodness me, with an election
coming up in 18 months, maybe the new Labour Party rallying cry should be "Cock-A-Doodle-Do"!
Yours faithfully
Stephen D. Taylor Onehunga Auckland
**********
Things Are Not Quite What They Seem
Sir,
Gordon F Copeland, List MP, United Future Party in his analysis of Don Brash's approach to Treaty issues (30 Jan) raises
a number of interesting points.
Most significant among these (and I will only deal with this one), is that his comments are based on the English
translation of the Maori text of the Treaty as interpreted by Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu.
This translation has been accepted by the Court of Appeal, the Crown and the NZ Maori Council. It is also given
precedence over the English version in international law.
There is no doubting the credentials of Sir Hugh. However, in everything I have read about the circumstances of his
translation it was not until the decision by the Court of Appeal that it had ever been accepted as anything more than
"an attempt to bridge that divide between the contemporary English version and the Maori version, which had (has)
provided fertile ground for arguments over nuance and meaning" or, "an attempt at a reconstruction of the literal
translation"
.My question then is, since the original Treaty was drafted in English with a Maori translation appended and both the
English and Maori versions being signed by all party's to it, why has it been deemed necessary to recognise, for the
purposes of Law, only the English translation of the Maori text as "interpreted" by Sir Hugh?
We all know that, even with the best will in the world, it is very easy not to be influenced by ones own pre-conceived
notions and ideas of what was intended and therefore unconsciously reflect these in the "translation" being prepared.
Also, by coming from the original Maori version, I have no doubt there will have been all manner of interpretational
blunders because of the lack of familiarity of both the Europeans and Maori drafting it in each others language.
To reinforce this, take an often used reference to The Treaty itself as being "The Maori Magna Carta".
Not so. Writing from Paihia on 12th July 1847 to Bishop Selwyn in response to several issues raised by the "Charter of
1846" developed by The New Zealand Company as a means of getting around The Treaty obligations, Henry Williams (one of
the earliest and, it would appear, most influential missionaries) stated: "My view of the Treaty of Waitangi is, as it
ever was, that it was the Magna Charta of the aborigines of New Zealand". How and when did it suddenly become "The Maori
Magna Carta"
See my point?
Therefore, the sooner we revert to having the Original unambiguous English version as the source and definitive document
and, if deemed necessary for accuracy, a newly interpreted Maori version the better.
Mirek Marcanik
Wellington NZ
**********
Photo-Essay 1: Death and Casualty From Iraq
It's high time SOMEBODY had to show things the way they are. Kudos to your organization for having some balls! Please
keep up your efforts. Thank you for showing the truth,
An Ashamed American
sevvo73
**********
What were they thinking?
Sir,
New Zealand First law and order spokesperson, Ron Mark, is appalled that the New Zealand Legal Services Agency has
granted a top Czechoslovakian academic and a noted botanist legal aid to defend charges of smuggling native plants and
orchids out of New Zealand.
I too am appalled.
Reviewing a brief resume of Mr Cihalik (from the web) it is obvious he is well capable of bearing the cost of his own
defence.
Dean of Faculty of the Medical Faculty for Pedagogical Activities in both the Czech and English languages, a member of
both the Czech and European Cardiological Societies and author of an extensive ECG atlas, this gentleman (along with his
associate) has no need to resort to New Zealand legal aid for his alleged crimes .
Having Czech origins myself, I am bitterly disappointed at the lapses in judgement these two gentlemen appear to have
made, the fact they have seen fit to seek and accept legal aid from a country that has hosted them and finally, the
shame these acts are bringing on what are a proud, industrious and honest people.
Mirek Marcanik,
Wellington NZ
**********
Your $64 Billion Question
RE: Sludge Report #161 – A $64Bn Gorilla At The Fed - Thursday, 27 November 2003, 11:35 am - Column: C.D. Sludge
Hi,
I live in america and also like to follow markets. To me, there’s an obvious simple answer to your question but it
amazes me that no one is willing to ask it. The GOP owns the goverrnment and they have no problem with doing whatever it
takes to stay in power. They have spent well over a billion plus the past decade gaining power and they aren’t about to
let a small thing like numbers from the Fed (and people’s preception) stand in their way. We all know Bush’s propensity
to lie. What makes you think they would be reluctant to lie about this? The answer is obvious. Why are the GDP numbers
so rediculuously out of sync with other indicators? It’s easy:
They cook the books. The numbers are questionable at best. Call it deinal. Call it conspiracy theory. Call it whatever
you want. But when so much is at stake (do you remember Bush's popularity ratings in Sept?), do you think the department
that puts those numbers together would be immune from GOP pressure? I think not. Hell Enron got away with it for years
and they weren’t even a major political party. What makes you think the GOP wouldn’t pull the same stunt?
B
****ENDS****