Thanks Gary. The simple statement "No-one appearing in a court of justice should be expected to participate in or be required to passively acquiesce in the cultural practices of another group." For me sums up the concern.
Karakia in courts and in other inappropriate circumstances, to me seems like cheap disingenuous, patronising virtue signalling to calm the natives and perhaps salve the conscience, particularly as few well educated people would actually believe in spiritual animism.
Well said Ron. I also think that the whole Karakia & blessing nonsense is a power play to control behaviour & exert leverage. Just like the Whangarei vs Fongaray vs Fong-ahhh-ray ever evolving game. Nothing happens publicly these days without the local Iwi being given a prime seat to lead the opening in ‘prayer’. The new royalty it would seem.
As a country we really do need to start having this conversation about karakia, both in and out of the court room. Well aware as I am that words contain extraordinary power, I learnt my six nieces and nephews were required to say karakia everyday at school. I explained to them the power of words and urged them to never speak words of which the meaning was unknown to them. They all assured me they would find out the meaning before uttering any words. I felt comforted, but I know to what degree social pressure compels our actions when we are young.
Recently I attended my nephew's assembly at New Plymouth Boys High where over 1200 boys recited a karakia in unison. I felt saddened as I sat and listened to those young men being compelled to utter words that were not necessarily from their own minds.
Waikato Law School Tikanga lectures open and close with karakia. Opening - invoking the world of light (Te Ao Marama) and closing - releasing the students back out into the world. In the final week it was announced the karakia was going to be done "differently today, because we are ALL going to say it together". I sat quietly, comfortable in my own beliefs, but the students around me all tried their best as the lecturer watched on. It is relevant that part of those lectures taught about Makutu, which is described as "witchcraft, sorcery, a spell, or incantation. A belief in malignant occult powers still relevant to Māori today. Traditionally used as a substitute for civil law to preserve order in the community" and described as "effective because it could be carried out in secret so that an element of uncertainty produced caution on the part of those who might break the laws of the community."
It's interesting isn't it... lawyers, judges, teachers are all people who know (or should know) the extraordinary power of words and yet when it comes to karakia few seem interested in knowing what is being spoken over their lives. There certainly is a growing (cult)ure.
I very much appreciate your posts and all your hard work Gary. Also a thank you to Warren on this occasion.
That expresses eloquently and clearly many of my own concerns about this trend. It also brings out a depth of historical resonances and power of explanation that one seldom hears; and into the bargain, has the added authority of authenticity, being spoken by someone obviously brought up in and well-trained in the Ratana faith - an original Maori tradition, which has from its inception urged the rejection of tohungaism and associated practices,
I'm very encouraged to learn that there are such souls in Ratana that have the knowledge, insight and authority to speak so clearly on this subject,
On the money again. Keep up the good fight Gary, it is a righteous cause.
Karakia are indeed often conflated with Christian prayer, but they most certainly are not. The Christian worldview, where the created universe obeys its own, consistent set of rules, facilitates such endeavours as science & justice. Tribal animism, obvious bunkum, is a realm where randomness & inconsistency would reign. Tohunga were simply witch doctors. Te Ao Maori is the nonsense that applies ‘tapu’ & ‘rahuis’, or precludes you carrying a cup of coffee into certain lifts at Auckland Hospital lest you offend a dead person’s spirit. Complete rot and it has no place in a modern world.
Karakia's nature is immaterial to the principle involved which is the essentiality of neutrality in the judicial system. Christian prayer or rites would be just as inimical to neutrality.
I mostly agree with you. Although one could make an argument that the western system of law & order which we enjoy, evolved as it did due to Christian beliefs. Swearing on the Bible, or starting Parliament with a prayer is at least defendable as symbolic gratitude to such. Karakia is pure animistic nonsense and it is its conflation with Christian prayer (deliberately, to soften the imposition) which I raise as a further issue. But despite Boris being an ardent theist, he certainly prefers a clear separation of Church & State and thus I do agree that the Courts are no place for religion.
What is interesting is that were we to request opening and closing court proceedings with The Lord's Prayer, the vitriolic shrieks of "Separation of Church and State" would be loudest from those who seek to impose Karakias on others.
You do seem to have a perpetual bee in your bonnet over this matter. On Tuesday I sat through a hearing in the High Court on Tuesday. A Family Court matter. Lo and behold the registrar or court taker ( sorry I’m not from te ao roia) offered some kind of whakatau which he read from a script. While I appreciated the effort, his pronunciation wasn’t the best. I did get the gist though which in English would be termed an introduction.
It wasn’t a karakia at all. Do you have a copy of the script used in the FC? Btw, a fellow pakeha lawyer doing a whinge about karakia isn’t an expert.
While I find your continuing whinge rather tedious, I’m not a proponent of karakia for the sake of it, especially in hostile places which courts are. I’m in favour of making courts less hostile, places where lawyers battle points of law, precedents that leave ye ordinary kiwi completely baffled.
Certainly that’s a common notion of those we have interviewed thus far for our TVNZ documentary on the state of the FC.
But yes, do carry on with your points of law and what not re karakia.
Yes, I do have a bee in my bonnet about this. A court must be a place of complete neutrality which is impartial in relation to all religions and beliefs. That's because courts decide cases involving anyone who comes before them irrespective of who they are, what they believe, what their religion is.
The introduction of a ritual springing from a group's religious or cultural background indicates lack of neutrality and partiality to the group whose ritual it is. Neutrality, impartiality and the appearance of both are essential requirements for a judicial system to enjoy public confidence.
In my many decades of practice in the courts, including before the Privy Council in the UK on appeals from NZ, and some appearances in Samoa, neutrality, impartiality and the appearance of both have always prevailed. We now see New Zealand departing from those core values of a functioning judicial system.
If you have a rational argument for departure from those values, let's hear it.
Argument? You want me to enter a debate on something I don’t necessarily disagree with, but not from your perspective. The sum total of your posts which I have only once before responded to is that you detest anything Māori making its way in the toxic environs that are our courts. Tell me, what harm befalls you when you are “confronted” with karakia or whakatauki? Do you feel your power and the status quo usurped somehow? I bet you imagine we’re all equal too.
Too many negatives so I rephrase. You are evading the issue by raising false red herrings. Do you accept that courts must be places of complete neutrality? If you not, what are your reasons for thinking they do not need to be completely neutral?
False red herrings? Touched a nerve have I? That lawyer thing you do, arguing a point, save it for your own. I live in the real world and make documentaries reflecting that. The one that’s coming (documentary) isn’t about one upmanship which is what you’re doing as per lawyer strut.It’s about what can be proven with real data.
The data collated thus far within NZ and offshore from within the industry you work overwhelmingly supports the continuation and perpetuation of the status quo. Good money to be made out of litigation and other types of misery. Would that I could release some findings of our qualitative research beforehand. What I can say is that ROI to the community from your industry is negative.
Yet here you are nutting off about karakia supported by chook and co.
If I didn’t make it clear, let me do so now. I don’t care about your views on karakia, and neither the 134 participants in our documentary sample range. Karakia is furtherest from my/ their minds and world.
What is at the fore is the extraordinary amount of tax payer money invested in to our justice system and in particular Judges, lawyers, lawyers for child, child psychologists and all supporting services.
You haven't touched any nerves. The effectiveness and efficiency of the current judicial system are worthy topics for empirical research, and many, including I, would agree that there's considerable room for improvement, but they are topics irrelevant to the issue concerning neutrality of the judicial system unless you are intending to propose a system which is not neutral. If you are, you need to explain why neutrality is unnecessary.
The judicial system exists because when people in dispute cannot agree, there needs to be a trusted mechanism for resolving the dispute. That trust comes from neutrality.
Historically people within a society which did not have a trusted dispute resolution system who were unable to agree resorted to force. It was to avoid resort to force that judicial systems developed.
This was no less the case in New Zealand than elsewhere although New Zealand following the signing of Te Tiriti adopted the British system which had already developed over a thousand years or more.
The British system and its New Zealand offspring have continued to develop since then, divergently to some extent. But both have recognized the critical importance of neutrality, except that New Zealand is now departing from that understanding with the introduction of karakia being an example.
What a lame-o and condescending reply to a perfectly reasonable article. ‘Oh your bee-in-your-bonnet is just so tedious’? Seriously? If it grates so much, just tune out. Personally, I am very grateful to Gary for his fight against these absurd practices. You may enjoy typically verbose Maori introductions, but I and many others do not. English is the main language understood by New Zealanders, & should be used for all public comms. And who really gives a rat’s arse what tribe someone comes from? Elitist bollox much. As for ‘Karakia’ per se…. If you don’t find it too tedious, see my other comment.
Ouch, it burns, it burns. I got me reasons love, but sweet that you care. Anyhoo, instead of having a crack at my required anonymity (be nice if I didn't need it, hopefully we agree on that?), feel free to articulate your defense of what are intellectually and morally egregious impositions on the rest of us who choose to live in a modern, scientific world. 'Te Ao Maori is a crock', there is a starter for you. Or I am interested in where you are going with your 'equality' quip to Gary above.
Thanks Gary. The simple statement "No-one appearing in a court of justice should be expected to participate in or be required to passively acquiesce in the cultural practices of another group." For me sums up the concern.
Karakia in courts and in other inappropriate circumstances, to me seems like cheap disingenuous, patronising virtue signalling to calm the natives and perhaps salve the conscience, particularly as few well educated people would actually believe in spiritual animism.
Well said Ron. I also think that the whole Karakia & blessing nonsense is a power play to control behaviour & exert leverage. Just like the Whangarei vs Fongaray vs Fong-ahhh-ray ever evolving game. Nothing happens publicly these days without the local Iwi being given a prime seat to lead the opening in ‘prayer’. The new royalty it would seem.
Thanks Gary, that was very informative.
As a country we really do need to start having this conversation about karakia, both in and out of the court room. Well aware as I am that words contain extraordinary power, I learnt my six nieces and nephews were required to say karakia everyday at school. I explained to them the power of words and urged them to never speak words of which the meaning was unknown to them. They all assured me they would find out the meaning before uttering any words. I felt comforted, but I know to what degree social pressure compels our actions when we are young.
Recently I attended my nephew's assembly at New Plymouth Boys High where over 1200 boys recited a karakia in unison. I felt saddened as I sat and listened to those young men being compelled to utter words that were not necessarily from their own minds.
Waikato Law School Tikanga lectures open and close with karakia. Opening - invoking the world of light (Te Ao Marama) and closing - releasing the students back out into the world. In the final week it was announced the karakia was going to be done "differently today, because we are ALL going to say it together". I sat quietly, comfortable in my own beliefs, but the students around me all tried their best as the lecturer watched on. It is relevant that part of those lectures taught about Makutu, which is described as "witchcraft, sorcery, a spell, or incantation. A belief in malignant occult powers still relevant to Māori today. Traditionally used as a substitute for civil law to preserve order in the community" and described as "effective because it could be carried out in secret so that an element of uncertainty produced caution on the part of those who might break the laws of the community."
It's interesting isn't it... lawyers, judges, teachers are all people who know (or should know) the extraordinary power of words and yet when it comes to karakia few seem interested in knowing what is being spoken over their lives. There certainly is a growing (cult)ure.
I very much appreciate your posts and all your hard work Gary. Also a thank you to Warren on this occasion.
Appreciate.
That expresses eloquently and clearly many of my own concerns about this trend. It also brings out a depth of historical resonances and power of explanation that one seldom hears; and into the bargain, has the added authority of authenticity, being spoken by someone obviously brought up in and well-trained in the Ratana faith - an original Maori tradition, which has from its inception urged the rejection of tohungaism and associated practices,
I'm very encouraged to learn that there are such souls in Ratana that have the knowledge, insight and authority to speak so clearly on this subject,
Excellent piece (thank you), but who is sanctioning this nonsense and how do we stop it?
Only by calling it out and mobilising public opinion. Johanna's comment contains great material for sharing with your friends and contacts.
On the money again. Keep up the good fight Gary, it is a righteous cause.
Karakia are indeed often conflated with Christian prayer, but they most certainly are not. The Christian worldview, where the created universe obeys its own, consistent set of rules, facilitates such endeavours as science & justice. Tribal animism, obvious bunkum, is a realm where randomness & inconsistency would reign. Tohunga were simply witch doctors. Te Ao Maori is the nonsense that applies ‘tapu’ & ‘rahuis’, or precludes you carrying a cup of coffee into certain lifts at Auckland Hospital lest you offend a dead person’s spirit. Complete rot and it has no place in a modern world.
Karakia's nature is immaterial to the principle involved which is the essentiality of neutrality in the judicial system. Christian prayer or rites would be just as inimical to neutrality.
I mostly agree with you. Although one could make an argument that the western system of law & order which we enjoy, evolved as it did due to Christian beliefs. Swearing on the Bible, or starting Parliament with a prayer is at least defendable as symbolic gratitude to such. Karakia is pure animistic nonsense and it is its conflation with Christian prayer (deliberately, to soften the imposition) which I raise as a further issue. But despite Boris being an ardent theist, he certainly prefers a clear separation of Church & State and thus I do agree that the Courts are no place for religion.
What is interesting is that were we to request opening and closing court proceedings with The Lord's Prayer, the vitriolic shrieks of "Separation of Church and State" would be loudest from those who seek to impose Karakias on others.
You do seem to have a perpetual bee in your bonnet over this matter. On Tuesday I sat through a hearing in the High Court on Tuesday. A Family Court matter. Lo and behold the registrar or court taker ( sorry I’m not from te ao roia) offered some kind of whakatau which he read from a script. While I appreciated the effort, his pronunciation wasn’t the best. I did get the gist though which in English would be termed an introduction.
It wasn’t a karakia at all. Do you have a copy of the script used in the FC? Btw, a fellow pakeha lawyer doing a whinge about karakia isn’t an expert.
While I find your continuing whinge rather tedious, I’m not a proponent of karakia for the sake of it, especially in hostile places which courts are. I’m in favour of making courts less hostile, places where lawyers battle points of law, precedents that leave ye ordinary kiwi completely baffled.
Certainly that’s a common notion of those we have interviewed thus far for our TVNZ documentary on the state of the FC.
But yes, do carry on with your points of law and what not re karakia.
Yes, I do have a bee in my bonnet about this. A court must be a place of complete neutrality which is impartial in relation to all religions and beliefs. That's because courts decide cases involving anyone who comes before them irrespective of who they are, what they believe, what their religion is.
The introduction of a ritual springing from a group's religious or cultural background indicates lack of neutrality and partiality to the group whose ritual it is. Neutrality, impartiality and the appearance of both are essential requirements for a judicial system to enjoy public confidence.
In my many decades of practice in the courts, including before the Privy Council in the UK on appeals from NZ, and some appearances in Samoa, neutrality, impartiality and the appearance of both have always prevailed. We now see New Zealand departing from those core values of a functioning judicial system.
If you have a rational argument for departure from those values, let's hear it.
Argument? You want me to enter a debate on something I don’t necessarily disagree with, but not from your perspective. The sum total of your posts which I have only once before responded to is that you detest anything Māori making its way in the toxic environs that are our courts. Tell me, what harm befalls you when you are “confronted” with karakia or whakatauki? Do you feel your power and the status quo usurped somehow? I bet you imagine we’re all equal too.
Too many negatives so I rephrase. You are evading the issue by raising false red herrings. Do you accept that courts must be places of complete neutrality? If you not, what are your reasons for thinking they do not need to be completely neutral?
You are evading the issue by raising false red herrings. Do you not accept that a court must be a place of complete neutrality? If not, why not?
False red herrings? Touched a nerve have I? That lawyer thing you do, arguing a point, save it for your own. I live in the real world and make documentaries reflecting that. The one that’s coming (documentary) isn’t about one upmanship which is what you’re doing as per lawyer strut.It’s about what can be proven with real data.
The data collated thus far within NZ and offshore from within the industry you work overwhelmingly supports the continuation and perpetuation of the status quo. Good money to be made out of litigation and other types of misery. Would that I could release some findings of our qualitative research beforehand. What I can say is that ROI to the community from your industry is negative.
Yet here you are nutting off about karakia supported by chook and co.
If I didn’t make it clear, let me do so now. I don’t care about your views on karakia, and neither the 134 participants in our documentary sample range. Karakia is furtherest from my/ their minds and world.
What is at the fore is the extraordinary amount of tax payer money invested in to our justice system and in particular Judges, lawyers, lawyers for child, child psychologists and all supporting services.
You haven't touched any nerves. The effectiveness and efficiency of the current judicial system are worthy topics for empirical research, and many, including I, would agree that there's considerable room for improvement, but they are topics irrelevant to the issue concerning neutrality of the judicial system unless you are intending to propose a system which is not neutral. If you are, you need to explain why neutrality is unnecessary.
The judicial system exists because when people in dispute cannot agree, there needs to be a trusted mechanism for resolving the dispute. That trust comes from neutrality.
Historically people within a society which did not have a trusted dispute resolution system who were unable to agree resorted to force. It was to avoid resort to force that judicial systems developed.
This was no less the case in New Zealand than elsewhere although New Zealand following the signing of Te Tiriti adopted the British system which had already developed over a thousand years or more.
The British system and its New Zealand offspring have continued to develop since then, divergently to some extent. But both have recognized the critical importance of neutrality, except that New Zealand is now departing from that understanding with the introduction of karakia being an example.
What a lame-o and condescending reply to a perfectly reasonable article. ‘Oh your bee-in-your-bonnet is just so tedious’? Seriously? If it grates so much, just tune out. Personally, I am very grateful to Gary for his fight against these absurd practices. You may enjoy typically verbose Maori introductions, but I and many others do not. English is the main language understood by New Zealanders, & should be used for all public comms. And who really gives a rat’s arse what tribe someone comes from? Elitist bollox much. As for ‘Karakia’ per se…. If you don’t find it too tedious, see my other comment.
What’s lame o chook is your inability to front under your own name.
Ouch, it burns, it burns. I got me reasons love, but sweet that you care. Anyhoo, instead of having a crack at my required anonymity (be nice if I didn't need it, hopefully we agree on that?), feel free to articulate your defense of what are intellectually and morally egregious impositions on the rest of us who choose to live in a modern, scientific world. 'Te Ao Maori is a crock', there is a starter for you. Or I am interested in where you are going with your 'equality' quip to Gary above.
Mr Chook.
K chook. If that’s all you’ve got under anonymity , ya ain’t got much.