Littlewood, the true original version of the treaty

If this link does not work then google the Littlewood Treaty.

http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/index.html

I actually thought that Don Brash in one of his speeches said “”He Iwi Tahi Tatou” – We are now one people”
In a way I thought he had knowledge of the Littlewood Treaty, the original English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi and carried the original intentions as written by James Busby. It makes perfect sense with the Littlewood Treaty . It is not a version, it is the intent of the Queen Victoria and Governor Hobson that was drafted by James Busby then translated by Rev Henry Williams into Maori and fully and openly discussed and debated so they knew what they were signing.
*
It is not strange that when this copy came to light that it has not been refuted by historians such as Claudia Orange, and government paid Dr Donald Loveridge but just inferred against and side lined as the bureacracy gravy train had just left the station and so many with vested interests in the 1869 translations and now seeming to be locked into NZ law.
It is just not being exposed and our media is does little in learning about this version and importantly what are the differences and what it means.

This what has to be opened up and becomes the English Language version of the Treaty ! !, particularly if this constitutional ideas go ahead.

Please read and consider your “original draft documents” of the Treaty with tremendous care, as you’ll find that the English version being used in all of our legislation is the wrong text. The true Treaty Of Waitangi, in both English and Maori, clearly states that the “customary rights” referred to in Article II are for “all the people of New Zealand” collectively and not for any singular ethnicity.

Their forum there is now closed, either lack of funds? or just too many obnoxious comments from absolutely rattled objectionists which I noticed a few years ago and then became plague like.

Too me it would be a win/win, as another front opens up and it is the truth, then the old “tow” would and should not be a part of the constitution, or if it is as per “Littlewood version”, then those imortal words, “He Iwi Tahi Tatou”"We are now one people” would have real meaning as said by Hobson referring to the English final draft treaty written by Busby if it is part of the constitution.

I also am reluctant to see a constitution written by any of our bureacracy, and led by the current media, but where we can hold out such as the raising the profile of the Littlewood version may cause much more disquiet to the ones with vested interests when they see a real can of worms and a loss, and give them reason to stop this constitutional idea, and if not well we can concede with the Littlewood version which amounts to

the chiefs consenting that they fully understood the words of the Treaty and that they would become one people with one law under British Sovereignty.

“We are one people”
------------------------------
Definetly a wall of silence, or aggression as shown to Don Brash in his Orewa speech in January 2004. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0401/S00220.htm where his grasp of early European Maori and the treaty, for me showed that he had got it and seemed to hint at quite understandingly of the treaty set up, but of course he had to be politically circumspect.

Winston Peters actually mentioned the “Littlewood” version on 18th of March 2004 in the Bay of Plenty and in the main edition of the New Zealand Herald it was just called the English version of the 1840 Treaty.

It is worth looking at the differences http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/TheLittlewoodTreaty5.html
The BOP readers got a lot more information than what was told to the rest of NZ

Mr Peters said he wanted a commission to “address the controversial subject of exactly which version of the Treaty of Waitangi is official”
” The last English version has the most credibility as it was set out to include all New Zealanders”
He was referring to what is known as the “Littlewood ” version of the treaty which is claimed to be the final English draft from which the Maori version was translated.
It is distinct from the the recognized English version in that in the second article , the Queen of England confirms and guarantees the protection of lands, dwellings and property to “all the people of New Zealand” as well as the chief and tribes.
But proponents of the Littlewood version argue that those words eliminate any notion of special protection for Maori.

I am no fan of Winston Peters and it seems he used this as a political angle to get and keep his baubles, perhaps one of those things he held over the government. Unfortunately it was only for his benefit, as he never kept making it an issue for the good of the country, which he could have done.

Again just one of many being well bought off

Any one who tries to raise and discuss this is heavily denigrated with all the resources of government and aided by the media.
However for all the noise they make the local paid govt experts have not been able to refute the “Littlewood” version, and Winston is right, it deserves an open Commission of Inquiry.
---------------------------------------------
A Commission of Inquiry into the Littlewood version of the Treaty of Waitangi should be demanded before designing any Constitution. That will surely “put the cat amongst the pigeons”. and after all they are the ones who look to be pushing the “principles” (what principles?) of the Treaty of Waitangi into every thing.

So it is about time the true and correct translation of the maori language Treaty is well pointed out, that many things so claimed can not even be in the maori version ! ! Probably even a commission of inquiry into the maori version would suffice and show what is not there in translating to English.

Update:- the link as suggested by  Bree in comments, to the video .  It runs through the history of the treaty and makes some good points. The last 2 minutes is a photo collage and through out the whole video is only background music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PE-j9ZOhrg&feature=youtu.be

Update, with more including from Sir Apirana Ngata plus an insert regarding the Littlewood Treaty.
http://treatygate.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/the-treaty-beautifully-explained-by-a-wise-and-honest-maori-leader/

Rightandleft (540 comments) says: 
January 27th, 2014 at 8:38 pm

Jack,

The problem with using the Maori text is that the British never would have signed it if they understood its English meaning. People often complain the Maori would not have signed the English version had they understood its meaning (and they’re right) but they seem to forget the reverse is just as true. There is no way the Victorian era British would have agreed to a partnership with a people they viewed as their inferiors. There is no other case in the British Empire where they agreed to such a thing. We are trying to apply the enlightened ideals of the modern era retrospectively onto a document that had no such meaning at the time.

Personally I agree with Professor Elizabeth Rata’s argument that biculturalism has been an absolute failure in terms of improving the lot of Maori and has become something of a religion for its adherents because they continue to believe in it despite all the evidence against it. My favourite Rata quote: “What other developed country has taken the Orwellian step of treating tribalism as progressive?”