This is a wonderful article by Samira. Essentially about the demise of reasoned debate in New Zealand, which appears to be dominated by those taking extreme socio-political positions for reasons that defy sane, defensible logic, hence resorting to ad hominem attacks and attempts to remove players from the field. On that latter I think what Samira eludes to is that there is little in the way of moral barriers standing in between such behaviour and that of those who operate murderous despotic regimes other than the practical ability to order heads to roll. For me the big worry for the nation is how we now seem to find it impossible to keep such people from occupying significant leadership roles and what that says about us as a society.
Very good to see Samira's article which is brilliant and extremely timely. I'm so pleased to see her demolish Khylie Quince, whose comments were shocking to me, coming from a Dean at the university.
A very commendable, and reasoned response. It remains disturbing that Ms Quince should have any governance over nascent legal minds, with the real irony of her "dinosaur" comment being that she is patently promoting something that truly derives from the Stone Age but certainly has no place in the rule of law, as so succinctly put by the principal of this blog.
What is amazing is that the previous parliament, for example, passed the Russia Sanctions Act unanimously, and also all sitting MPs refused to engage with the anti-mandates protestors who were camped in the parliament grounds.
How can it be that there were no variant viewpoints among 120? Actually there may well have been variant viewpoints, but they were suppressed, at least in the matter of the camping protestors.
But it seems that these phenomena are a function of the control exercised by the executive and party leaders, against which which there are few checks and balances. Note Geoffrey Palmer's recent comments on this too. And the example set by the political leaders does seem to influence the educators,
Thank you Samira for writing this. It needed saying. It is an excellent article. So Authentic coming from a person with your background, experience and wisdom.
Gary Judd KC typifies a person of reason and belief in freedom and free speech. His understanding/knowledge of jurisprudence is as good as it gets.
His critic from AUT did her own reputation damage. Her way of attacking views by attacking him is lazy and totally inappropriate from a person in her position.
The good thing about free speech is that people like her expose their shallowness and lack of ability to engage in reasoned debate.
If this typifies her legal ability with a moot I am sorry for her students.
Ad res argument has been displaced by Ad hominem argument. It is not just about civility and reasoned debate, as the writer well sets out, but there is an epistemological aspect. That is Marxists- of whatever hue- believe that have superior knowledge, know truly how the world works and they posses The TRUTH.. It is a form of belief that stems from possibly 7th C BC and certainly from the 1st C AD ff (Plotinus in the Enneads complains about the same type of argument style exhibited by Ms Quince. If you accept historian of ideas, Eric Voegelin's, analysis and Dr James LIndsay, then the knowledge is esoteric Gnostic epistemology. The fundamental precept is that this world is flawed and evil and by gaining woke knowledge (which is deductive see Hannah Arendt's last chapter in the Origins of Totalitarianism) to transition etc. The 20thC's unlearned, it seems lessons, are that utopia ends in totalitarian lunacy because it becomes emancipated from reality, experience and common sense.
To underline the point Robin DiAngelo & Another in Is There Equality posits 3 types of knowledge: common sense, traditional academic knowledge and that derived from Marxist Critical Theory. The book is for student teachers and opts from the CRT knowledge to train students, then school pupils, in social justice activism which is to be a lifelong commitment. It is a cult.
I do not share Samiras confidence in lawyers. Historically they feed the Guillotine in the French Revolution, the Russian Gulags 1919 to 1956- topping it off with Krylenko, who held that evidence and legal principle could be dispensed with - and the NAZI regime. Indeed the latter were scrupulously legalistic: viz show trials. My own experience of an NZLS Branch's setting aside of legal principles and forensic legal method has been lesson enough. The rule of law should never be the rule of lawyers.
The independence of our legal system is now under threat from Marxist (Fanon) racial decolonisation. The efficacy of our law has nothing to do with race but the utility of the principle. Hence it draws on the common law world. It is a system that is envied. It is alarming to note that freedom of conscience and the hall dignity of the person are being overwhelmed in this departure to Marxist racial iconoclasm. The HRC now seems to be given over the CRT objectives
This is a wonderful article by Samira. Essentially about the demise of reasoned debate in New Zealand, which appears to be dominated by those taking extreme socio-political positions for reasons that defy sane, defensible logic, hence resorting to ad hominem attacks and attempts to remove players from the field. On that latter I think what Samira eludes to is that there is little in the way of moral barriers standing in between such behaviour and that of those who operate murderous despotic regimes other than the practical ability to order heads to roll. For me the big worry for the nation is how we now seem to find it impossible to keep such people from occupying significant leadership roles and what that says about us as a society.
Thanks Gary - Samira writes powerfully and her experience makes her article even more significant. It needs a wide readership.
An excellent response, an enjoyable read
Very good to see Samira's article which is brilliant and extremely timely. I'm so pleased to see her demolish Khylie Quince, whose comments were shocking to me, coming from a Dean at the university.
I cannot find words good enough adequately to describe what a joy it was to read Samira’s piece.
A very commendable, and reasoned response. It remains disturbing that Ms Quince should have any governance over nascent legal minds, with the real irony of her "dinosaur" comment being that she is patently promoting something that truly derives from the Stone Age but certainly has no place in the rule of law, as so succinctly put by the principal of this blog.
What is amazing is that the previous parliament, for example, passed the Russia Sanctions Act unanimously, and also all sitting MPs refused to engage with the anti-mandates protestors who were camped in the parliament grounds.
How can it be that there were no variant viewpoints among 120? Actually there may well have been variant viewpoints, but they were suppressed, at least in the matter of the camping protestors.
But it seems that these phenomena are a function of the control exercised by the executive and party leaders, against which which there are few checks and balances. Note Geoffrey Palmer's recent comments on this too. And the example set by the political leaders does seem to influence the educators,
Yes, I agree, example from leaders is an important factor. All round the world leaders are setting appalling standards.
Thank you Samira for writing this. It needed saying. It is an excellent article. So Authentic coming from a person with your background, experience and wisdom.
Gary Judd KC typifies a person of reason and belief in freedom and free speech. His understanding/knowledge of jurisprudence is as good as it gets.
His critic from AUT did her own reputation damage. Her way of attacking views by attacking him is lazy and totally inappropriate from a person in her position.
The good thing about free speech is that people like her expose their shallowness and lack of ability to engage in reasoned debate.
If this typifies her legal ability with a moot I am sorry for her students.
The article is excellent. May I add?
Ad res argument has been displaced by Ad hominem argument. It is not just about civility and reasoned debate, as the writer well sets out, but there is an epistemological aspect. That is Marxists- of whatever hue- believe that have superior knowledge, know truly how the world works and they posses The TRUTH.. It is a form of belief that stems from possibly 7th C BC and certainly from the 1st C AD ff (Plotinus in the Enneads complains about the same type of argument style exhibited by Ms Quince. If you accept historian of ideas, Eric Voegelin's, analysis and Dr James LIndsay, then the knowledge is esoteric Gnostic epistemology. The fundamental precept is that this world is flawed and evil and by gaining woke knowledge (which is deductive see Hannah Arendt's last chapter in the Origins of Totalitarianism) to transition etc. The 20thC's unlearned, it seems lessons, are that utopia ends in totalitarian lunacy because it becomes emancipated from reality, experience and common sense.
To underline the point Robin DiAngelo & Another in Is There Equality posits 3 types of knowledge: common sense, traditional academic knowledge and that derived from Marxist Critical Theory. The book is for student teachers and opts from the CRT knowledge to train students, then school pupils, in social justice activism which is to be a lifelong commitment. It is a cult.
I do not share Samiras confidence in lawyers. Historically they feed the Guillotine in the French Revolution, the Russian Gulags 1919 to 1956- topping it off with Krylenko, who held that evidence and legal principle could be dispensed with - and the NAZI regime. Indeed the latter were scrupulously legalistic: viz show trials. My own experience of an NZLS Branch's setting aside of legal principles and forensic legal method has been lesson enough. The rule of law should never be the rule of lawyers.
The independence of our legal system is now under threat from Marxist (Fanon) racial decolonisation. The efficacy of our law has nothing to do with race but the utility of the principle. Hence it draws on the common law world. It is a system that is envied. It is alarming to note that freedom of conscience and the hall dignity of the person are being overwhelmed in this departure to Marxist racial iconoclasm. The HRC now seems to be given over the CRT objectives