Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jun 28, 2021 11:09:41 GMT 12
TIKANGA IN LAW: WHAT DOES IT MEAN? - John Robinson.
A friend has brought to my attention a recent article, written from a radical Maori perspective, on the legal force of tikanga[1] and the court case on which it is based.[2] Since I have written a book on tikanga[3], he suggested that I prepare a response.
This is just one of many recent examples of the increasing division of New Zealand society, governance, law, and much more based on ‘tikanga’ and ‘matauranga Maori’ (Maori culture, ‘Maori concepts, knowledge, values and perspectives’), where features of pre-contact Maori society have been written into law.
The extension of racial differentiation is proceeding at a rapid pace, in law as in local government, education and health, and I have added a significant chapter on ‘Ad hoc law’[4] to the second edition of my tikanga book (2021). That chapter included reference to the application of tikanga to the Peter Ellis case, with the recognition of mana after death. The judgment considered here is that of judge Peter Churchman concerning an application for an order recognising customary marine title and protected customary rights. Both legal decisions were influenced considerably by the opinions of Justice Joe Williams, the Supreme Court’s first Maori judge. Williams “described tikanga Maori as Aotearoa’s first law” in a 2013 speech, titled ‘Lex Aotearoa’, which is quoted by Churchman.
What is this ‘tikanga’? The meaning today is deliberately confused, with no clarity as to whether tradition Maori ways are implied (which would include inter-tribal warfare, cannibalism, slavery and other primitive customs) or whether it is a modern version, transformed around 1840 by the widespread shift to Christianity and further cultural development since. Further confusion comes from the recent rewriting of history (the ‘revisionist’ approach) and the invention of new meanings to words. The resulting confusion allows Maori authorities to claim that they alone can interpret and explain New Zealand common law; we are required to sit silently on the side-line and accept whatever they pronounce: the meaning of the law belongs to this minority alone.
I have been deeply concerned by what I have learned from my research.[5]
“The vagueness of tikanga and the impossibility of combining it with common law would create a lawyers’ nightmare – or, perhaps, a lawyers’ gravy train.”.....
Continue reading John’s NZCPR guest commentary here > www.nzcpr.com/tikanga-in-law-what-does-it-mean/#more-35072
A friend has brought to my attention a recent article, written from a radical Maori perspective, on the legal force of tikanga[1] and the court case on which it is based.[2] Since I have written a book on tikanga[3], he suggested that I prepare a response.
This is just one of many recent examples of the increasing division of New Zealand society, governance, law, and much more based on ‘tikanga’ and ‘matauranga Maori’ (Maori culture, ‘Maori concepts, knowledge, values and perspectives’), where features of pre-contact Maori society have been written into law.
The extension of racial differentiation is proceeding at a rapid pace, in law as in local government, education and health, and I have added a significant chapter on ‘Ad hoc law’[4] to the second edition of my tikanga book (2021). That chapter included reference to the application of tikanga to the Peter Ellis case, with the recognition of mana after death. The judgment considered here is that of judge Peter Churchman concerning an application for an order recognising customary marine title and protected customary rights. Both legal decisions were influenced considerably by the opinions of Justice Joe Williams, the Supreme Court’s first Maori judge. Williams “described tikanga Maori as Aotearoa’s first law” in a 2013 speech, titled ‘Lex Aotearoa’, which is quoted by Churchman.
What is this ‘tikanga’? The meaning today is deliberately confused, with no clarity as to whether tradition Maori ways are implied (which would include inter-tribal warfare, cannibalism, slavery and other primitive customs) or whether it is a modern version, transformed around 1840 by the widespread shift to Christianity and further cultural development since. Further confusion comes from the recent rewriting of history (the ‘revisionist’ approach) and the invention of new meanings to words. The resulting confusion allows Maori authorities to claim that they alone can interpret and explain New Zealand common law; we are required to sit silently on the side-line and accept whatever they pronounce: the meaning of the law belongs to this minority alone.
I have been deeply concerned by what I have learned from my research.[5]
“The vagueness of tikanga and the impossibility of combining it with common law would create a lawyers’ nightmare – or, perhaps, a lawyers’ gravy train.”.....
Continue reading John’s NZCPR guest commentary here > www.nzcpr.com/tikanga-in-law-what-does-it-mean/#more-35072