What’s wrong with that? you may well ask. Nothing at all, the answer is, except: “REAA, it is none of your business; mind your own, not the licensees’”.
Thanks Gary for your well considered commentary on this matter.
Presumably there is no equivalent course requirement to understand the nation's predominantly Anglo Western democratic culture? Clearly a rhetorical question. Even though it would probably make some sense for more recent immigrants. Or perhaps even more appropriate for the profession, a course in Chinese culture.
What puzzles me is how the leadership of such organisations, with REAA being one of many, including the legal profession and judiciary, have allowed themselves to be drawn into an obsessive compulsion to force adoption of CRT and DEI ideology, including promotion of what is essentially the remnants of a pre-industrial tribal culture.
Followers of Dr James Lindsay's New Discourses website will know of his view on DEI- Maoist ideas dressed up in seemingly innocuous terms but run in a "Motte and Bailey" dynamic. Mr Segal's point above as to how the REAA succumbed, as has the law and education, is well made. In a word institutional capture.
Mr. Judd's point on section 13 NZBORA 1990 applies with equal force to those who disagree with Marxist ideology. But there is in my view no recourse to a remedy,
I was working in a national charity, ostensibly Christian, that compelled conformity via HR with DEI and compelled speech. The advocates for the DEI programme and senior management, in this instance, had no regard nor respect for ss13 and 14 NZBORA 1990. The DEI cause trumps the rule of law.
I was also told that: " There is a new order and white haired white old men need to clear out."
I took the view that recourse to the Human Rights Commission would be futile. Although, Mr Judd is right to say "REAA none of your business" and refer to s 13 (freedom of conscience) management doesn't care owing to HR, one's income is on the line and no real remedy is possible.
It certainly is a problem, Graham. Bill of Rights is no help in your situation because the Bill of Rights applies only to acts done — (a) by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the government of New Zealand; or (b) by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law.
NZBORA S 3 (b) caught the entity concerned viz public function. I believed, and I am a former lawyer, that I have the wrong 'identity credentials' for the HRC. The overarching issue I was wanting to make is exemplified in the recent destruction of Lord Balfour's portrait at Cambridge. That there exists on the part of the DEI and Woke brigade (and protestors e.g The Posie Parker protest) fiat by way of an unjustified 'entitlement' of the cause or the as the Former FBI Director, James Comey, put it in his book, a "higher calling" that justifies and side steps the rule of law (equality under the law). There is an element of compulsion on the apart of the public because those possessing "the higher calling" don't care a jittery jot for the majority or others. Indeed, the Cambridge Museum's spokesperson noted that Judges won't treat this type of offence seriously. Noting Stop Oil's campaign on Art or the recent defacement of Captain Cook's statue in Christchurch. The Realtor in your article made a s 13 claim, as I had in my employment, which engages through s 105 (1) (c) (d) the Human Rights Act 1993 also noting the s 112 election. There does seem to be a lack of legal efficacy of law and the profession.
Thanks Gary for your well considered commentary on this matter.
Presumably there is no equivalent course requirement to understand the nation's predominantly Anglo Western democratic culture? Clearly a rhetorical question. Even though it would probably make some sense for more recent immigrants. Or perhaps even more appropriate for the profession, a course in Chinese culture.
What puzzles me is how the leadership of such organisations, with REAA being one of many, including the legal profession and judiciary, have allowed themselves to be drawn into an obsessive compulsion to force adoption of CRT and DEI ideology, including promotion of what is essentially the remnants of a pre-industrial tribal culture.
Followers of Dr James Lindsay's New Discourses website will know of his view on DEI- Maoist ideas dressed up in seemingly innocuous terms but run in a "Motte and Bailey" dynamic. Mr Segal's point above as to how the REAA succumbed, as has the law and education, is well made. In a word institutional capture.
Mr. Judd's point on section 13 NZBORA 1990 applies with equal force to those who disagree with Marxist ideology. But there is in my view no recourse to a remedy,
I was working in a national charity, ostensibly Christian, that compelled conformity via HR with DEI and compelled speech. The advocates for the DEI programme and senior management, in this instance, had no regard nor respect for ss13 and 14 NZBORA 1990. The DEI cause trumps the rule of law.
I was also told that: " There is a new order and white haired white old men need to clear out."
I took the view that recourse to the Human Rights Commission would be futile. Although, Mr Judd is right to say "REAA none of your business" and refer to s 13 (freedom of conscience) management doesn't care owing to HR, one's income is on the line and no real remedy is possible.
It certainly is a problem, Graham. Bill of Rights is no help in your situation because the Bill of Rights applies only to acts done — (a) by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the government of New Zealand; or (b) by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law.
NZBORA S 3 (b) caught the entity concerned viz public function. I believed, and I am a former lawyer, that I have the wrong 'identity credentials' for the HRC. The overarching issue I was wanting to make is exemplified in the recent destruction of Lord Balfour's portrait at Cambridge. That there exists on the part of the DEI and Woke brigade (and protestors e.g The Posie Parker protest) fiat by way of an unjustified 'entitlement' of the cause or the as the Former FBI Director, James Comey, put it in his book, a "higher calling" that justifies and side steps the rule of law (equality under the law). There is an element of compulsion on the apart of the public because those possessing "the higher calling" don't care a jittery jot for the majority or others. Indeed, the Cambridge Museum's spokesperson noted that Judges won't treat this type of offence seriously. Noting Stop Oil's campaign on Art or the recent defacement of Captain Cook's statue in Christchurch. The Realtor in your article made a s 13 claim, as I had in my employment, which engages through s 105 (1) (c) (d) the Human Rights Act 1993 also noting the s 112 election. There does seem to be a lack of legal efficacy of law and the profession.
Thanks Gary. Another well presented piece that hits the nail on the head.