It’s simply unprofessional and unbecoming of an academic to attack another with huge experience an the highest professional recognition as nothing but a ‘racist dinassaur’ rather than engage in what is here an important issue of legal debate.
You do the country a great service with this column. Not only do you expertly confront small-minded abuse from the Dean of the AUT's Law School, Khylee Quince, but you show succinctly the lack of logic behind the activists' position—and all their positions.
That will rally people to the cause of reason, for sarcastic attacks like Quince's, though maybe hard to listen to, are empty of logic and do not persuade informed citizens, who will adopt your example by the thousands and swing the country behind you.
You set out your principal argument well:
Why did she not explain why tikanga IS law? Why did she not explain why a body of law built up over centuries for the purpose of testing whether a custom should be accorded the status of law must be jettisoned because tikanga cannot meet those standards? Why did she not answer other matters raised in my complaint to the regulations review committee? Responses like those could have been expected from a person holding a privileged leadership position. As it is not the response given, the inference may be drawn that she does not have answers which support her position.
That is the essence of the activists' weakness, as there is no reason to value tribal membership over New Zealand citizenship, nor to value Maori language over English, nor hold a Maori vote worth more than any other New Zealander's vote, nor consider the Maori essence as more intrinsically important than everyone else's essence.
So the argument that they deserve to rule New Zealand is without merit. As well, tikanga is different between tribes, so it cannot act as law. English common law, as ours, is identical in all parts of the realm. Not so tikanga—and it's an outrage that it should be exempt from normal judicial inquiry and cross-examination. Whatever the witness (to the tenets of tikanga) might say in court cannot be questioned. An utter disgrace.
In the present case, since Quince was referring to the undecided referendum on the undecided principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, it's obvious that electors cannot be polled for a decision but only an opinion. So altering the treaty is not an option, and people are objecting to it for no reason. Perhaps the activists are afraid that the Coalition might use their own ruse against them, and act constitutionally without permission from voters. I'm confident they won't, but let the reader judge that for himself.
It's beyond me how intellectually moribund toerags such as this Quince person appears to be, manage to inveigle themselves into positions of responsibility, particularly of academic thought leadership. Indeed increasing cases like this contribute to one's feeling of having been transported to some kind of alternate universe where the inmates really are running the asylum. The situation described is characteristic of a deep malaise of leftist intersectional oppression ideology that has spread throughout most Western democratic nations, whose proponents who often appear to have succumbed to righteous religious fervour, most frequently resort to childish ad hominem attacks rather than exposing themselves to forthright debating of whatever is at issue. Keep up the good work Gary.
Khylee Quince unoriginally blurts Maoist ressentiment and the discriminatory hated of the 4 Olds. Clearly, Ms Quince has no regard for civil discourse or human rights. To wish some dead because they hold a differing opinion is the sickness of ideological rapture.
That a Dean of an Auckland Law School would deem it appropriate to respond to your thoughtful reasoned arguments with a flippant derogatory personal attack, epitomizes the dire state that public discourse has sunk to in NZ. The last governments term was characterized by a radical and unmandated policy agenda, that they were unable to defend using reasoned arguments, and instead resorted to attacking the character of those who questioned, and criticized, by puerile name calling, designed to silence and intimidate.
Well written, good comment, amazing restraint shown. Toxic & deluded are terms that spring to mind. Scared too. And oh so many more adjectives the likes of which one should not be using to describe an academic leader in law school.
I'd love to know her definition of tikanga but I won't hold my breath.
I did some research on tikanga and it became clear to me that it is concept used in many traditions. Basically it means the right thing to do and it is a very deep concept worthy of a lot of contemplation. It is not restricted to religion but it is a core part of religion. In Islam it is called sharia law, in Judaism it is kosher, in Hinduism and Buddhism it is dharma, in Christianity it is God's will.
In Hinduism, for example, they have many rules about right and wrong but ultimately they readily admit that it is impossible to define dharma. Is it wrong to use plastic? There is no definitive answer to this question - ancestral or otherwise. Instead, determining the right thing to do falls to your own reasoning and conscience and intuition with sayings like, "Deep down you know when you are doing something wrong."
Reflecting on the right thing to do is vitally relevant to personal integrity and how you navigate the world but it is hard to turn it into written laws.
When Khylee Quince and others assert that tikanga has a place in NZ law I find myself somewhat agreeing. Maybe there is a place for lawyers to learn the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law, even a Maori view on it. If you only learn the letter of the law then you miss the law's true intention. You risk becoming clever but not wise. It may be legal to dump toxic waste into the ocean but is it the right thing to do? These kinds of moral questions are probably found more often in the philosophy department but IMO they are relevant to lawyers too - or at least they ought to be.
Unfortunately, tikanga is not presented as a deep moral searching but rather as a cultural cudgel to reposition Maori in society. This is plainly evidenced by Khylee Quince's words which reveal the lack of integrity in her and her argument.
Peter, that is the most thoughtful comment, and I thank you for it.
Having said that, I cannot agree that tikanga has a place in NZ Law. You give the reason, yourself, when you derive the common denominator from the contents of various religions, what they consider to be the right thing to do. What is “the right thing to do” is a personal decision, to guide your own actions.
The irrational attempt to insert tikanga into New Zealand law by our judges and others is motivated in many if not most cases by their desire to do the “right thing”, but when you proceed in that way, you subvert the rule of law by substituting your own views and making the rule of law become the rule of the women and men of the judiciary.
Yes, I agree - tikanga as presented has no place in NZ law. I am horrified that judges are acting on it for all the reasons you point out so intelligently.
However, this issue points to a deeper and more difficult problem. If the law was working well and serving everyone in society then everyone would be happy with it and there would be no appetite to change it. But the push for tikanga in the law is strong and the resistance to it is weak. Judges who are smart enough to understand the problem are being defeated by it. How is that possible? Why are they so weak?
It makes me think of a husband and wife. If the wife is emotional and irrational and he tries to fix her with logic and reason then he's going to have problems. A more sympathetic ear, some accommodation, some genuine empathy would go a long way. In the case of the law it would be easy to be like Spock and say "that does not compute" to those advocating the legalisation of tikanga. But there is a human tendency to not be like Spock, especially in the face of strong emotion, and I think that is showing in the judges.
The push for tikanga in law has, I suspect, some deep, intense emotions behind it. Maybe poverty and inequality among Maori, mixed with social media, are stirring revolutionary impulses. Maybe the Enlightenment values of the West are like a spinning top that is beginning to wobble as society reaches for more right-brain values. Maybe Maori are asserting themselves before their influence is lost in an increasingly multicultural NZ.
Anyway, I think these are problems for the lawmakers in parliament to wrestle with. At the end of the day I suspect (and hope) that NZers will reject race-based laws and address problems by need instead - and keep church (tikanga) and state separate. But in addition to that I hope the legitimate complaints and needs and unrest of Maori can be addressed in an appropriate way.
Yeah, nah. With respect, I think you’re trying to be way too Cindy-kind. It is a fool’s errand that one. As per Gary, it has no place in law due to its wispy nature and the fact that it is mostly a load of complete crap. Tree spirits & superstition? Not the bedrock upon which I’d build a society. The strength of our legal system is that it is based on solid Christian values, but stands mostly independent from subjective religious interpretation.
I also think you’re wrong that the ‘push for tikanga’ is driven by ‘emotion’. I believe it’s driven by greed and a thirst for power.
I'm now thinking that tikanga basically means values. Analysing values quickly becomes unintelligible:
>The strength of our legal system is that it is based on solid Christian values, but stands mostly independent from subjective religious interpretation.
So our legal system is based on objective religious values independent of subjective religious values? Slavery was a Christian value until it wasn't. What about abortion and war? Countries with Christian values sell the most weapons. What is this bedrock you speak of? I think you will have as hard a time explaining Christian tikanga as Khylee has with Maori tikanga.
I agree that there is Maori greed and power grabbing. It's like the generous settlements in the 1990s never happened. When does the grievance grift end? It's easy to criticise the surface problems but it's hard to see the undercurrents. Simon Bridges who calls himself a white Maori and was at the top of the political food-chain was best placed to see these race-relation problems but admitted this week that he didn't. That's very telling IMO and ought to be looked at very closely rather than casually dismissed.
The more I think about the apparent clash between Christian tikanga and Maori tikanga the more I think it is a problem not localised to NZ but a worldwide renegotiation between left and right brain values. The irrationality of a 6'4" man competing in a women's swimming race is indicative of a change of thinking in the West as a whole, not just the USA. There is something going on with our values and I suspect social media is facilitating it.
It’s simply unprofessional and unbecoming of an academic to attack another with huge experience an the highest professional recognition as nothing but a ‘racist dinassaur’ rather than engage in what is here an important issue of legal debate.
You do the country a great service with this column. Not only do you expertly confront small-minded abuse from the Dean of the AUT's Law School, Khylee Quince, but you show succinctly the lack of logic behind the activists' position—and all their positions.
That will rally people to the cause of reason, for sarcastic attacks like Quince's, though maybe hard to listen to, are empty of logic and do not persuade informed citizens, who will adopt your example by the thousands and swing the country behind you.
You set out your principal argument well:
Why did she not explain why tikanga IS law? Why did she not explain why a body of law built up over centuries for the purpose of testing whether a custom should be accorded the status of law must be jettisoned because tikanga cannot meet those standards? Why did she not answer other matters raised in my complaint to the regulations review committee? Responses like those could have been expected from a person holding a privileged leadership position. As it is not the response given, the inference may be drawn that she does not have answers which support her position.
That is the essence of the activists' weakness, as there is no reason to value tribal membership over New Zealand citizenship, nor to value Maori language over English, nor hold a Maori vote worth more than any other New Zealander's vote, nor consider the Maori essence as more intrinsically important than everyone else's essence.
So the argument that they deserve to rule New Zealand is without merit. As well, tikanga is different between tribes, so it cannot act as law. English common law, as ours, is identical in all parts of the realm. Not so tikanga—and it's an outrage that it should be exempt from normal judicial inquiry and cross-examination. Whatever the witness (to the tenets of tikanga) might say in court cannot be questioned. An utter disgrace.
In the present case, since Quince was referring to the undecided referendum on the undecided principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, it's obvious that electors cannot be polled for a decision but only an opinion. So altering the treaty is not an option, and people are objecting to it for no reason. Perhaps the activists are afraid that the Coalition might use their own ruse against them, and act constitutionally without permission from voters. I'm confident they won't, but let the reader judge that for himself.
Keep up the good work.
It's beyond me how intellectually moribund toerags such as this Quince person appears to be, manage to inveigle themselves into positions of responsibility, particularly of academic thought leadership. Indeed increasing cases like this contribute to one's feeling of having been transported to some kind of alternate universe where the inmates really are running the asylum. The situation described is characteristic of a deep malaise of leftist intersectional oppression ideology that has spread throughout most Western democratic nations, whose proponents who often appear to have succumbed to righteous religious fervour, most frequently resort to childish ad hominem attacks rather than exposing themselves to forthright debating of whatever is at issue. Keep up the good work Gary.
Khylee Quince unoriginally blurts Maoist ressentiment and the discriminatory hated of the 4 Olds. Clearly, Ms Quince has no regard for civil discourse or human rights. To wish some dead because they hold a differing opinion is the sickness of ideological rapture.
Beyond disgraceful conduct.
This person is obviously a classic Marxist, these people only use cancel culture when they have no answer to anything, Stalin used it to great effect
What a disgrace to AUT.
That a Dean of an Auckland Law School would deem it appropriate to respond to your thoughtful reasoned arguments with a flippant derogatory personal attack, epitomizes the dire state that public discourse has sunk to in NZ. The last governments term was characterized by a radical and unmandated policy agenda, that they were unable to defend using reasoned arguments, and instead resorted to attacking the character of those who questioned, and criticized, by puerile name calling, designed to silence and intimidate.
Well written, good comment, amazing restraint shown. Toxic & deluded are terms that spring to mind. Scared too. And oh so many more adjectives the likes of which one should not be using to describe an academic leader in law school.
I'd love to know her definition of tikanga but I won't hold my breath.
I did some research on tikanga and it became clear to me that it is concept used in many traditions. Basically it means the right thing to do and it is a very deep concept worthy of a lot of contemplation. It is not restricted to religion but it is a core part of religion. In Islam it is called sharia law, in Judaism it is kosher, in Hinduism and Buddhism it is dharma, in Christianity it is God's will.
In Hinduism, for example, they have many rules about right and wrong but ultimately they readily admit that it is impossible to define dharma. Is it wrong to use plastic? There is no definitive answer to this question - ancestral or otherwise. Instead, determining the right thing to do falls to your own reasoning and conscience and intuition with sayings like, "Deep down you know when you are doing something wrong."
Reflecting on the right thing to do is vitally relevant to personal integrity and how you navigate the world but it is hard to turn it into written laws.
When Khylee Quince and others assert that tikanga has a place in NZ law I find myself somewhat agreeing. Maybe there is a place for lawyers to learn the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law, even a Maori view on it. If you only learn the letter of the law then you miss the law's true intention. You risk becoming clever but not wise. It may be legal to dump toxic waste into the ocean but is it the right thing to do? These kinds of moral questions are probably found more often in the philosophy department but IMO they are relevant to lawyers too - or at least they ought to be.
Unfortunately, tikanga is not presented as a deep moral searching but rather as a cultural cudgel to reposition Maori in society. This is plainly evidenced by Khylee Quince's words which reveal the lack of integrity in her and her argument.
Peter, that is the most thoughtful comment, and I thank you for it.
Having said that, I cannot agree that tikanga has a place in NZ Law. You give the reason, yourself, when you derive the common denominator from the contents of various religions, what they consider to be the right thing to do. What is “the right thing to do” is a personal decision, to guide your own actions.
The irrational attempt to insert tikanga into New Zealand law by our judges and others is motivated in many if not most cases by their desire to do the “right thing”, but when you proceed in that way, you subvert the rule of law by substituting your own views and making the rule of law become the rule of the women and men of the judiciary.
Gary
Yes, I agree - tikanga as presented has no place in NZ law. I am horrified that judges are acting on it for all the reasons you point out so intelligently.
However, this issue points to a deeper and more difficult problem. If the law was working well and serving everyone in society then everyone would be happy with it and there would be no appetite to change it. But the push for tikanga in the law is strong and the resistance to it is weak. Judges who are smart enough to understand the problem are being defeated by it. How is that possible? Why are they so weak?
It makes me think of a husband and wife. If the wife is emotional and irrational and he tries to fix her with logic and reason then he's going to have problems. A more sympathetic ear, some accommodation, some genuine empathy would go a long way. In the case of the law it would be easy to be like Spock and say "that does not compute" to those advocating the legalisation of tikanga. But there is a human tendency to not be like Spock, especially in the face of strong emotion, and I think that is showing in the judges.
The push for tikanga in law has, I suspect, some deep, intense emotions behind it. Maybe poverty and inequality among Maori, mixed with social media, are stirring revolutionary impulses. Maybe the Enlightenment values of the West are like a spinning top that is beginning to wobble as society reaches for more right-brain values. Maybe Maori are asserting themselves before their influence is lost in an increasingly multicultural NZ.
Anyway, I think these are problems for the lawmakers in parliament to wrestle with. At the end of the day I suspect (and hope) that NZers will reject race-based laws and address problems by need instead - and keep church (tikanga) and state separate. But in addition to that I hope the legitimate complaints and needs and unrest of Maori can be addressed in an appropriate way.
Yeah, nah. With respect, I think you’re trying to be way too Cindy-kind. It is a fool’s errand that one. As per Gary, it has no place in law due to its wispy nature and the fact that it is mostly a load of complete crap. Tree spirits & superstition? Not the bedrock upon which I’d build a society. The strength of our legal system is that it is based on solid Christian values, but stands mostly independent from subjective religious interpretation.
I also think you’re wrong that the ‘push for tikanga’ is driven by ‘emotion’. I believe it’s driven by greed and a thirst for power.
I'm now thinking that tikanga basically means values. Analysing values quickly becomes unintelligible:
>The strength of our legal system is that it is based on solid Christian values, but stands mostly independent from subjective religious interpretation.
So our legal system is based on objective religious values independent of subjective religious values? Slavery was a Christian value until it wasn't. What about abortion and war? Countries with Christian values sell the most weapons. What is this bedrock you speak of? I think you will have as hard a time explaining Christian tikanga as Khylee has with Maori tikanga.
I agree that there is Maori greed and power grabbing. It's like the generous settlements in the 1990s never happened. When does the grievance grift end? It's easy to criticise the surface problems but it's hard to see the undercurrents. Simon Bridges who calls himself a white Maori and was at the top of the political food-chain was best placed to see these race-relation problems but admitted this week that he didn't. That's very telling IMO and ought to be looked at very closely rather than casually dismissed.
The more I think about the apparent clash between Christian tikanga and Maori tikanga the more I think it is a problem not localised to NZ but a worldwide renegotiation between left and right brain values. The irrationality of a 6'4" man competing in a women's swimming race is indicative of a change of thinking in the West as a whole, not just the USA. There is something going on with our values and I suspect social media is facilitating it.
So interesting that she'd insult a KC. Who is this woman? Good Lord.
She shouldn't insult anyone, Seann. If she has a case, she should just state it.
I'll read up on her history.