The Law Association of New Zealand’s LawNews today published my Why we have the right to freedom of expression and belief. This post is an edited version.
Thanks Gary. Surely forced indoctrination should be, although I'm unclear whether it is, contrary to the Bill or Rights, but if not perhaps it is time there was new legislation making it so. That is prohibiting forced indoctrination of political, religious or sociological ideology onto those who are effectively a captive audience without a realistic option not to listen or walk away without negatively impacting their employment, career or professional standing. That includes employees, members of professional and trades associations and students. Furthermore it should be unlawful to discriminate against those who choose not to participate. This would surely be no more difficult to introduce and enforce than say employment legislation that addresses unfair dismissal.
Thanks, Ron. In my view indoctrination is prohibited by s 13's right to hold and adopt opinions *without interference* and may be permitted only if it is a justified limitation, i.e., if it is shown to be such a reasonable limit prescribed by law "as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" (s 5).
Thanks Gary, thinking that might have been your reply, which makes sense. The issue I suppose is those that would call indoctrination enlightenment, although such enlightenment still equates to interference when it is political, religious or sociological and is unwanted and forced.
I too believe the answer lies in section 13 of the NZBORA. I am a second year student of the law who sat through 12 hours of Tikanga lectures at the beginning of my first year of study. I felt I was being subjected to a form of religious indoctrination of which I was not a willing participant. A quick glance at any legitimate dictionary definition of 'religion' set alongside the university's Tikanga teaching materials will confirm to all and sundry that it is in actual fact compulsory religious education under the guise of 'cultural training' and 'first law'.
My offered feedback was that the lectures appeared to be too dogmatic to be considered appropriate outside a place of worship.
Judicial considerations of Tikanga into common law are celebrated - I can only observe this as a blurring of the lines between church and state (all over again.)
I personally grew up with a foundation of christian belief, turned athiest in my early twenties, enjoyed buddhist practices in my late twenties, took up with my now Moroccan muslim partner and returned to christianity in recent years with a deeper understanding than I held as a child. My point is... I've been everywhere. We should all have the freedom to explore our own conscience and belief systems, as and when our own hearts desire.
I agree with you wholeheartedly Gary. The idea that Tikanga as a world view is encompassed by all with a degree of Maori ancestry is a ridiculous statement of claim. People practise their own private beliefs and to suggest that my friends with Maori lineage collectively all think and feel the same would be deeply insulting to anyone's sense of personal sovereignty.
With regard to Tikanga in state-funded schools, or, Tikanga as common law considerations in our courts, or compulsory Tikanga in our universities (partially state-funded).... surely, once Tikanga is officially defined as a religion we will be able to draw the line once more between church and state?
Perhaps section 13 of the NZBORA is able to renew our personal sovereignty. I am grateful to Janet for the very real and brave battle she is undertaking. I will be following your journey closely and wishing you both all the very best.
Kind regards
Johanna Herbert
The link below is worth a look for anyone interested.
Johanna, thank you for sharing your own experiences which are a graphic illustration of what I was trying to convey. Thank you in particular for the link which is very useful. I see the meaning of karakia — "Karakia are the way people communicate with the gods. Te Rangi Hīroa (Peter Buck) suggested a karakia was ‘a formula of words which was chanted to obtain benefit or avert trouble.’ Karakia were not used to worship or venerate gods. One type of karakia, a tūā, was a spell."
Good post. It is indeed religious indoctrination, dressed up as cultural understanding. From a religious worldview perspective it is also deeply flawed dogma that is not allowed to be challenged. Compare this to the robust religious debates in synagogues or other biblical study environments. Faith is indeed a private thing, but a society has to be based on a dominant worldview. It just so happens that NZ’s model is a functional one which empowers science & a secular State. (Well, I’d aver it’s a necessary basis rather than just a fortunate one!). Welcome ‘back’ to Christian theism, I am yet to find a better understanding of our world and despite its many unanswered questions, it sure as shit works better than a tribal/pagan animism.
Well maybe it is to be decided by commissars that attendance to indoctrination is compulsory, but surely embracing it is not. Let's say that was forced to attend, but as a science and technology person of 55+yrs, and a card carrying skeptic, I would challenge every bit of mythology or belief without evidence. My constant demand would be for excellent evidence, derived from the scientific method, mathematics, or the gold standard experimental proof, that is based on randomized, double blinded, high quality and peer review. Let's recall the directions from David Hume and Prof Richard Feynman. I would expect to graduate near the top of the class.
You are right, Barry, you do not need to accept the truth of what you are being indoctrinated with. However, if you challenge the indoctrinators, you are unlikely to graduate near the top of the class, even if you are objectively correct.
I’m not sure what the problem is here with this entry level kakano course?? It’s very basic and at the very least will give the participant an insight in to a culture whose combined economic base is substantial. I’ve looked at the content. No where does it say these teachings have to be implemented. You’re correct that some Māori don’t speak for all Maori. But neither do you. Weaponising blood quantum not a good look at any time, but that’s what you’re doing in parts of your whakaaro here.
By all means your client and you should continue if you feel your rights are impinged upon with this entry level course. Perhaps when the ka-Ching becomes more obvious, you both might get out Te Kakano and have a crack.
I do not purport to speak for anyone other than myself. What I am trying to do is by reasoned argument to persuade my readers that it is morally reprehensible to *compel* another person to engage with matters of thought, conscience, religion or belief that they don't want to engage with. It is a mistake to say, I think this is okay so you should not object to being compelled to engage with it. By contrast, it is perfectly acceptable to say I think this is good because of x, y and z, and I urge you to try it.
Indeed it is as my forbears have attested since colonisation. Force is a terrible thing. As such I understand your argument but my sympathy is limited.Freedom of choice is not without consequences. The conditions imposed on RE agents is a matter for the regulatory body to decide surely, and for those opposing as you have done with your client to put a solid case as to why this beginner Te Kakano course should be withdrawn. I’m not sure why you imagine that engaging others in debate online will achieve change?
It doesn't need to be withdrawn. It just needs to be voluntary. It is the compelled element that is wrong.
As to engaging in debate - nothing is lost and everything may be gained including a deeper understanding of the problem and a possible way through to a solution. That is the joy of an exchange of ideas.
Gary has composed an excellent piece here on the importance of 'freedom' which is the very basis of our society. What he has not done is to extend the argument against such 'courses', to simply rail against what is clearly an attempted indoctrination of a conflicting and dysfunctional worldview against the prevailing cultural model that underpins our modern society. 'Te Ao Maori' and 'tikanga' are essentially being rammed down people's throats, without any degree of public mandate. Like it or not, New Zealand is a society founded upon Judeo-Christian values and a Westminster political system of democracy. Prior to this, there was no society. There were of course disparate Maori tribes living here and any fractional descendants thereof are fully entitled (under this wonderful Judeo-Christian based democracy) to embrace any worldview they like. Such tribal, sacralised and animistic worldviews do not however provide the same degree of functionality that a desacralised worldview such as the JC one provides. Scientific reality has been accepted for many years and Te Ao Maori is simply not compatible with even the most fundamental axioms thereof.
So by all means, run optional courses if people wish to learn about tribal religions, and people can personally buy into Te Ao Maori, but to force it onto what has hitherto been a very functional and prosperous society is like some kind of reverse Darwinism power play wrapped up in waffly terms such as 'cultural safety'. That is why mandating such courses is both stupid and evil.
Sorry but it just doesn't ring true that this course is devoid of political intent despite claims to the contrary. If the course was more general, encompassing multiple peoples and their cultures, addressing the different substantial nationalities residing here, then that might be a more compelling argument that it was apolitical. Even so mandatory cultures courses for adults would still be questionable.
The problem is that it is compulsory for ALL first year courses, from engineering, physics to arts & humanities.No element of choice, and if you don't pass you can't go on to second year study.
And yet with all that happened to me and my family we were told directly NOT to speak about it publicly after I was released. 😳🕵️♂️ a direct attack on free speech and an attempt to silence me. That was never going to happen. Our story impacts on everyone. 👀
Our supreme court and other activist judiciary have strayed far from their authority in this (and some other) field by supporting indoctrination into "Maori ways".
John, it seems to be implicit in what you say that there is truth, and you know it. Whilst you abjure coercion, and it is right for you to do so, I am concerned about "if people hold false beliefs they must be prevented from harming others," because in the context of the earlier paragraphs it implies that as what you consider to be a falsehood has negative consequences for society (and is therefore harming others) so the holder of what you consider to be the false belief should not be tolerated.
Thanks Gary. Surely forced indoctrination should be, although I'm unclear whether it is, contrary to the Bill or Rights, but if not perhaps it is time there was new legislation making it so. That is prohibiting forced indoctrination of political, religious or sociological ideology onto those who are effectively a captive audience without a realistic option not to listen or walk away without negatively impacting their employment, career or professional standing. That includes employees, members of professional and trades associations and students. Furthermore it should be unlawful to discriminate against those who choose not to participate. This would surely be no more difficult to introduce and enforce than say employment legislation that addresses unfair dismissal.
Thanks, Ron. In my view indoctrination is prohibited by s 13's right to hold and adopt opinions *without interference* and may be permitted only if it is a justified limitation, i.e., if it is shown to be such a reasonable limit prescribed by law "as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" (s 5).
Thanks Gary, thinking that might have been your reply, which makes sense. The issue I suppose is those that would call indoctrination enlightenment, although such enlightenment still equates to interference when it is political, religious or sociological and is unwanted and forced.
Indoctrination forced upon a person by the state is in contravention of s 13.
Sincerely hoping that the courts see it as indoctrination Gary. Best of luck.
Thank God for you Gary Judd.
I too believe the answer lies in section 13 of the NZBORA. I am a second year student of the law who sat through 12 hours of Tikanga lectures at the beginning of my first year of study. I felt I was being subjected to a form of religious indoctrination of which I was not a willing participant. A quick glance at any legitimate dictionary definition of 'religion' set alongside the university's Tikanga teaching materials will confirm to all and sundry that it is in actual fact compulsory religious education under the guise of 'cultural training' and 'first law'.
My offered feedback was that the lectures appeared to be too dogmatic to be considered appropriate outside a place of worship.
Judicial considerations of Tikanga into common law are celebrated - I can only observe this as a blurring of the lines between church and state (all over again.)
I personally grew up with a foundation of christian belief, turned athiest in my early twenties, enjoyed buddhist practices in my late twenties, took up with my now Moroccan muslim partner and returned to christianity in recent years with a deeper understanding than I held as a child. My point is... I've been everywhere. We should all have the freedom to explore our own conscience and belief systems, as and when our own hearts desire.
I agree with you wholeheartedly Gary. The idea that Tikanga as a world view is encompassed by all with a degree of Maori ancestry is a ridiculous statement of claim. People practise their own private beliefs and to suggest that my friends with Maori lineage collectively all think and feel the same would be deeply insulting to anyone's sense of personal sovereignty.
With regard to Tikanga in state-funded schools, or, Tikanga as common law considerations in our courts, or compulsory Tikanga in our universities (partially state-funded).... surely, once Tikanga is officially defined as a religion we will be able to draw the line once more between church and state?
Perhaps section 13 of the NZBORA is able to renew our personal sovereignty. I am grateful to Janet for the very real and brave battle she is undertaking. I will be following your journey closely and wishing you both all the very best.
Kind regards
Johanna Herbert
The link below is worth a look for anyone interested.
https://teara.govt.nz/en/traditional-maori-religion-nga-karakia-a-te-maori/print
Johanna, thank you for sharing your own experiences which are a graphic illustration of what I was trying to convey. Thank you in particular for the link which is very useful. I see the meaning of karakia — "Karakia are the way people communicate with the gods. Te Rangi Hīroa (Peter Buck) suggested a karakia was ‘a formula of words which was chanted to obtain benefit or avert trouble.’ Karakia were not used to worship or venerate gods. One type of karakia, a tūā, was a spell."
Good post. It is indeed religious indoctrination, dressed up as cultural understanding. From a religious worldview perspective it is also deeply flawed dogma that is not allowed to be challenged. Compare this to the robust religious debates in synagogues or other biblical study environments. Faith is indeed a private thing, but a society has to be based on a dominant worldview. It just so happens that NZ’s model is a functional one which empowers science & a secular State. (Well, I’d aver it’s a necessary basis rather than just a fortunate one!). Welcome ‘back’ to Christian theism, I am yet to find a better understanding of our world and despite its many unanswered questions, it sure as shit works better than a tribal/pagan animism.
Do Maori real estate agents have to do a course in Christianity ? Just asking.
Not yet, so far as I am aware
Well maybe it is to be decided by commissars that attendance to indoctrination is compulsory, but surely embracing it is not. Let's say that was forced to attend, but as a science and technology person of 55+yrs, and a card carrying skeptic, I would challenge every bit of mythology or belief without evidence. My constant demand would be for excellent evidence, derived from the scientific method, mathematics, or the gold standard experimental proof, that is based on randomized, double blinded, high quality and peer review. Let's recall the directions from David Hume and Prof Richard Feynman. I would expect to graduate near the top of the class.
You are right, Barry, you do not need to accept the truth of what you are being indoctrinated with. However, if you challenge the indoctrinators, you are unlikely to graduate near the top of the class, even if you are objectively correct.
I’m not sure what the problem is here with this entry level kakano course?? It’s very basic and at the very least will give the participant an insight in to a culture whose combined economic base is substantial. I’ve looked at the content. No where does it say these teachings have to be implemented. You’re correct that some Māori don’t speak for all Maori. But neither do you. Weaponising blood quantum not a good look at any time, but that’s what you’re doing in parts of your whakaaro here.
By all means your client and you should continue if you feel your rights are impinged upon with this entry level course. Perhaps when the ka-Ching becomes more obvious, you both might get out Te Kakano and have a crack.
https://www.wananga.ac.nz/media/2gqlvpwe/te-kakano-update-v3.pdf
I do not purport to speak for anyone other than myself. What I am trying to do is by reasoned argument to persuade my readers that it is morally reprehensible to *compel* another person to engage with matters of thought, conscience, religion or belief that they don't want to engage with. It is a mistake to say, I think this is okay so you should not object to being compelled to engage with it. By contrast, it is perfectly acceptable to say I think this is good because of x, y and z, and I urge you to try it.
Indeed it is as my forbears have attested since colonisation. Force is a terrible thing. As such I understand your argument but my sympathy is limited.Freedom of choice is not without consequences. The conditions imposed on RE agents is a matter for the regulatory body to decide surely, and for those opposing as you have done with your client to put a solid case as to why this beginner Te Kakano course should be withdrawn. I’m not sure why you imagine that engaging others in debate online will achieve change?
It doesn't need to be withdrawn. It just needs to be voluntary. It is the compelled element that is wrong.
As to engaging in debate - nothing is lost and everything may be gained including a deeper understanding of the problem and a possible way through to a solution. That is the joy of an exchange of ideas.
Gary has composed an excellent piece here on the importance of 'freedom' which is the very basis of our society. What he has not done is to extend the argument against such 'courses', to simply rail against what is clearly an attempted indoctrination of a conflicting and dysfunctional worldview against the prevailing cultural model that underpins our modern society. 'Te Ao Maori' and 'tikanga' are essentially being rammed down people's throats, without any degree of public mandate. Like it or not, New Zealand is a society founded upon Judeo-Christian values and a Westminster political system of democracy. Prior to this, there was no society. There were of course disparate Maori tribes living here and any fractional descendants thereof are fully entitled (under this wonderful Judeo-Christian based democracy) to embrace any worldview they like. Such tribal, sacralised and animistic worldviews do not however provide the same degree of functionality that a desacralised worldview such as the JC one provides. Scientific reality has been accepted for many years and Te Ao Maori is simply not compatible with even the most fundamental axioms thereof.
So by all means, run optional courses if people wish to learn about tribal religions, and people can personally buy into Te Ao Maori, but to force it onto what has hitherto been a very functional and prosperous society is like some kind of reverse Darwinism power play wrapped up in waffly terms such as 'cultural safety'. That is why mandating such courses is both stupid and evil.
Sorry but it just doesn't ring true that this course is devoid of political intent despite claims to the contrary. If the course was more general, encompassing multiple peoples and their cultures, addressing the different substantial nationalities residing here, then that might be a more compelling argument that it was apolitical. Even so mandatory cultures courses for adults would still be questionable.
I feel for you all, but have no sympathy whatsoever. Ye reap what ye sow.
The problem is that it is compulsory for ALL first year courses, from engineering, physics to arts & humanities.No element of choice, and if you don't pass you can't go on to second year study.
Yes, the Waipapa Taumata Rau course is far worse than Te Kakano (the seed) because it affects all students.
And yet with all that happened to me and my family we were told directly NOT to speak about it publicly after I was released. 😳🕵️♂️ a direct attack on free speech and an attempt to silence me. That was never going to happen. Our story impacts on everyone. 👀
https://www.reputationguardian.nz/#book
Pleased to see that , in every respect, you are on the case, Gary.
A superb post thanks Gary
Our supreme court and other activist judiciary have strayed far from their authority in this (and some other) field by supporting indoctrination into "Maori ways".
Thanks, Peter.
John, it seems to be implicit in what you say that there is truth, and you know it. Whilst you abjure coercion, and it is right for you to do so, I am concerned about "if people hold false beliefs they must be prevented from harming others," because in the context of the earlier paragraphs it implies that as what you consider to be a falsehood has negative consequences for society (and is therefore harming others) so the holder of what you consider to be the false belief should not be tolerated.