Finally some some airtime for this topic presented on Newstalk ZB today (8th May 2024) in an excellent interview with Gary by Mike Hosking. A pity that there was no proper follow up discussion or talk back.
For me the main point is that whilst it is reasonable to some extent to take into account cultural and religious beliefs when considering legal remedies, there would need to be a very clear, well considered reason, as with any other legislative rule, to incorporate such beliefs into sovereign law, which is clearly not the case for tikanga Maori. Indeed this is particularly unlikely with Maori tribal society hardly being a model one from which it might be useful to adopt some of its societal rules.
The other argument is based on Maori self-determination, notion of the right of that people to live according to their own "law", which is hardly law in the sense of understanding of our modern Western society. In any case this latter argument is hardly relevant with Maori having ceded sovereignty, agreeing to abide by sovereign law. with the same limited self-determination as every other NZ citizen.
So the crux of the matter for me depends on whether or not one is an advocate of the false treaty that attributes to the Treaty of Waitangi several "principles" that were never agreed or intended that lean towards self determination. A reason why a Treaty Principles Bill is so important and also why New Zealand should withdraw its signature from the UN Declaration of Right of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Although Maori clearly aren't indigenous to NZ, the UN has hijacked the term so that under its definition (which makes no reference to the core meaning of no known other origin) UNDRIP does effectively apply to Maori.
I find the idea that tikanga is a form of law very puzzling. H. L. A Hart, for instance, argued that law comes into existence only when the "primary rules of obligation" that all societies have are combined with secondary rules that enable the primary rules to be spelled out clearly, deliberately altered, and systematically applied. Something like this seems to be essential to any concept of law, but tikanga does not have these features. How can these presumably learned judges be forgetting this?
Yes, you are correct. A natural reaction to take advantage of a potential revenue stream, especially if you are looking for work from government bureaucracies.
By 1840 many Māori leaders had realized that times had changed and that tikanga could not prevent the devastation of what we now call the "musket wars". The rule of law, with which many were familiar from visits to Sydney, seemed preferable. That's why they signed the Treaty. This was the law (te ture) to which the first Māori King encouraged his followers to hold fast (kia mau), even when the governor violated it. I have enormous respect for the wisdom of those Māori leaders.
I note that already some of the large law firms are promoting their tikanga capabilities. It is a potential gravy train for lawyers. These judges are blowing the whistle so it can leave the station.
Finally some some airtime for this topic presented on Newstalk ZB today (8th May 2024) in an excellent interview with Gary by Mike Hosking. A pity that there was no proper follow up discussion or talk back.
For me the main point is that whilst it is reasonable to some extent to take into account cultural and religious beliefs when considering legal remedies, there would need to be a very clear, well considered reason, as with any other legislative rule, to incorporate such beliefs into sovereign law, which is clearly not the case for tikanga Maori. Indeed this is particularly unlikely with Maori tribal society hardly being a model one from which it might be useful to adopt some of its societal rules.
The other argument is based on Maori self-determination, notion of the right of that people to live according to their own "law", which is hardly law in the sense of understanding of our modern Western society. In any case this latter argument is hardly relevant with Maori having ceded sovereignty, agreeing to abide by sovereign law. with the same limited self-determination as every other NZ citizen.
So the crux of the matter for me depends on whether or not one is an advocate of the false treaty that attributes to the Treaty of Waitangi several "principles" that were never agreed or intended that lean towards self determination. A reason why a Treaty Principles Bill is so important and also why New Zealand should withdraw its signature from the UN Declaration of Right of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Although Maori clearly aren't indigenous to NZ, the UN has hijacked the term so that under its definition (which makes no reference to the core meaning of no known other origin) UNDRIP does effectively apply to Maori.
I find the idea that tikanga is a form of law very puzzling. H. L. A Hart, for instance, argued that law comes into existence only when the "primary rules of obligation" that all societies have are combined with secondary rules that enable the primary rules to be spelled out clearly, deliberately altered, and systematically applied. Something like this seems to be essential to any concept of law, but tikanga does not have these features. How can these presumably learned judges be forgetting this?
Yes, you are correct. A natural reaction to take advantage of a potential revenue stream, especially if you are looking for work from government bureaucracies.
By 1840 many Māori leaders had realized that times had changed and that tikanga could not prevent the devastation of what we now call the "musket wars". The rule of law, with which many were familiar from visits to Sydney, seemed preferable. That's why they signed the Treaty. This was the law (te ture) to which the first Māori King encouraged his followers to hold fast (kia mau), even when the governor violated it. I have enormous respect for the wisdom of those Māori leaders.
I note that already some of the large law firms are promoting their tikanga capabilities. It is a potential gravy train for lawyers. These judges are blowing the whistle so it can leave the station.