Superseding the Treaty with something objective called "good law"

Waitangi Day is rushing down upon us, so it's worth re-posting Nick Kim's cartoon demonstrating what the mythical Treaty Principles are doing to our law (cartoon courtesy The Free Radical):

The cartoon also nicely accompanies a discussion about the Treaty in the comments section below following a question from Berlin Bear. As I say there, in my view the Treaty is insufficiently comprehensive to be a founding document of a nation and should be superseded and made an historical nullity by an objectively written constitution. The gravy train has to be derailed, and justice put back in its seat.

When palpable injustices have taken place then the Treaty of Waitingi is both unnecessary and unhelpful. If proveable injustice has taken place, then no matter the race of those involved the mainstream courts can deal with it under the principles established by that objectively written constitution. If there is no injustice, there is nothing that can be or should be done. If there truly is, then it should be dealt with justly, and seen to be dealt with justly. Further, the mainstream courts acting under an objective constition would be and should be colour-blind -- this cannot be said of the racist Waitangi Tribunal. If theft or injustice has truly taken place then the colour of the victim is irrelevant; you don't need the Treaty to repair the injustice. If theft has not taken place then the colour of the claimant is still irrelevant, and the Treaty serves only to obfuscate, and in fact to produce injustice.

The Treaty itself is now irrelevant, divisive, and a meal ticket for those riding its gravy train. It is also insufficiently comprehensive to be a true founding document of a country, and should be replaced with a constitution that is.

Linked Articles: Treaty Out, Constitution In - Lindsay Perigo
A Constitution for New Freeland - Libertarianz