Another great reflection on a subject I encounter most days through my spiritual care work in health where navigating a variety of spiritual or religious perspectives is crucial. It is important in that work to always encourage the individual to express what matters in their own way and never force compliance on them with a tradition that is not their own. That tends not to work for staff who find themselves having to comply with one religious approach in a secular workplace.
I reflected on this in an essay I wrote for a post grad paper in theology and pastoral supervision, which is not published but percolating away. Maybe I'll work up the courage now that you and Garry Judd have written so eloquently about these matters. In that piece I said,
Although arguments abound in the public square about whether Māori is a religion, Manuka Henare is clear. “Māori religion is a belief in spiritual beings, and is both a way of life and a view of life. lt is found in rituals, ceremonies, religious objects, sacred places and sites, in art forms and carvings, in songs and dances, proverbs, wise sayings, and riddles, in the naming of people and places, in myths and legends, and in customs, beliefs, and practices.”
Henare, Manuka. “Tapu, Mana, Mauri, Hau, Wairua: A Māori Philosophy of Vitalism and Cosmos.” Pages 197–221 in Indigenous Traditions and Ecology. Harvard Press for the Center for the Study of World Religions, Harvard Divinity School, 2001.
We do need to have a gracious conversation about what being secular means and the importance of secularity in public spaces. Having secular public space is not to stop people having religious or spiritual traditions but to ensure everyone has the ability and freedom to think and belief what has become important to them without state interference or control. Without this conversation we may find ourselves back in Tudor times, or we may already be there.
Thank you for writing this David and for putting your head above the parapet. I am so glad that wiser heads than mine are willing to articulate these concerns. As former council staff I have had to endure numerous karakia, with no explanation or translation and now as a grandparent, every school event I attend starts and ends with some sort of karakia, again no translations are offered . People treat it like a religious prayer, standing respectfully and closing their eyes, so I can only conclude the karakia speaker is invoking some spiritual being. Karakia in law courts seems the height of irony, given that NZ is a secular state.
In addition Liz - putting my head above the parapet - no problem. After years of silence as an aspect of my former job, it is nice to have freedom top express a point of view.
Thanks for your comment Liz. In addition to the respectful standing and they eyes closed to avoid being blinded by the deity is the use of "Ameni" at the end.
I always treated Court as a secular space.
Litigants were free to do their prayers to the deity out in the foyer.
Thank you, David, for synthesising the issues and placing them in a historical context.
You begin with prayer and end with the Lord's Prayer, which brings to mind a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which held that the practice of a Town Council and the Mayor, of commencing meetings by asking the councillors to rise and recite the Lord's Prayer infringed the appellant's Charter right to freedom of conscience and religion. The appellant was not a member of the Council but simply a resident who regularly attended Council meetings.
Very well summarised Sir. Gary has been incredible with his persistence on what is a most noble cause. We have allowed ourselves to have a worldview imposed upon us that is, in technical terms, total bullshit. Rahui, Karakia, tapu etc, these are all pagan beliefs based on an animistic worldview. The idea of inanimate objects possessing any kind of spirit was throughly debunked about 5,000 years ago, seems someone forgot to tell Maori. For their worldview is not the functional one of Judeo-Christian belief, but rather one that is simply not compatible with scientific thought and common sense.
Your arguments re preserving secularity & BORA freedoms are all sound and I agree. The utter stupidity of this so-called spirituality simply reinforces why it must be opposed with vigour.
Thanks for this. I appreciate the clarity with which the matter and it's arguments are laid out. I absolutely agree with almost all of it and appreciate GaryJudd's efforts to push back on the attempts to erode New Zealanders' rights. There is one small part of it, originally discussed by Gary, that has niggled at me, but I haven't spoken up previously. This is in the matter of Janet Dickson, the real estate agent. I supposed that employee participation in the tikanga Maori course by real estate agents would have been required, not to inculcate them with Maori spirituality, but to upskill employees to more respectfully and effectively interact with potential Maori clients. During my working life as a health professional, I objected (silently) to imposed karakia such as that discussed in the article, but not to the training meant to upskill us to work more effectively with Maori and Pasifika clients.
The Janet Dickson case is quite nuanced in that she was well schooled in aspects of tikanga gleaned from other sources so the "training" was not necessary. It was the compelled aspect that was the problem. I suggest that tikanga requirements and sensitivities in health are significantly different from those attached to commercial dealings.
Thanks for your response David. I'm not too worried about “compelled” when it comes to work requirements that relate to upskilling and professional development but I take your points.
But Sheryl, real estate agents would, I imagine, have quite a range of clients. Our last home was sold to a Chinese lady who couldn't speak English (she head a helper/interpreter). I would be v surprised in agents were forced to learn Chinese or other languages that their clients may speak/prefer, let alone their religions.
In my approach to this I'm thinking that Maori would be viewed as tangata whenua and therefore owed a duty of respect. This view (of the special standing of Maori in NZ) has at times been widely accepted in NZ, and at other times not so much. Or perhaps it applies in some things but not others. I think that's why karakia have been imposed in various settings - as an acknowledgment of the special standing of Maori in NZ. (But I don't agree with the imposition of karakia, mainly because the settings it's imposed in are secular).
Acknowledging it's a bit late Sheryl, but can you please justify this "I'm thinking that Maori would be viewed as tangata whenua and therefore owed a duty of respect"? It's now reasonably certain there were others here B4 Maori arrived (as invaders) and annihilated those people. I think they reserved respect, as do all NZers, but not special privileges, esp considering there are so few full-blooded Maoris now.
My answer is really in my comment Noel. For as long as I can remember (and I am a good age), I've heard and read Maori referred to as "tangata whenua" - by authorities, officials, ordinary people, the media - the latter even before these days of wokedom. So I think the argument for karakia and professional courses people have to do in their workplaces, is that Maori are believed to have that special standing. And therefore (the thinking goes) the rest of us should do these courses, karakia etc. to honour and respect that standing. And it's not required for any other race or ethnicity because they have no special standing in NZ. I'm not saying I believe all this, and I'm aware of the discussion about Moriori having been here before Maori. For the record I'm opposed to karakia happening in workplaces.
So well said; impressive work, thanks David. Your knowledge of history , and what Elizabeth I imposed is impressive by itself! My meagre knowledge of that time was that the Anglican religion was effectively imposed onto English people. Were the Scots stubborn in creating the Presbyterian religion in response? I did not know that some Catholics paid the ultimate price for adhering to their religion....
If frightens me to contemplate we might be at the start of a similar journey; I ask, who gives any organisation, esp a public sector one, the "right" to impose like this. Courts should be the last entity to contemplate entertaining ANYTHING that impedes their already appalling productivity. I don't know why the Govt doesn't act decisively to insist that all cases are heard within (say) 3 months of filing (it's up to 3 years now, isn't it?).
I am aware that the Rodney Local Board has adopted the practice, as has InternetNZ; it's become quite pervasive without the general public knowing or being consulted.
My PhD was in legal history although I have preferred to be an historian most of the time.
Part of my PhD research involved searching through the Privy Council records of the reign of the first Elizabeth. When Mary Queen of Scots started to be a problem and from about the 1570's Walsingham (Elizabeth's spymaster) and Cecil (Lord Burghley) began a crackdown on Catholic recusants. At the same time there was a persecution of Jesuit priests who had surreptitously crossed the border to whip up Catholic oppposition to the heretic Queen. The Privy Council recorsd contain accounts of who was arrested and who should be torured "let him be racked a little more" is one quote that has stayed with me. Some of the Jesuits were caught and suffered a traitor's death - hanging, drawing and quartering. Relgious conformity was fiercely enforced. The Puritans avoided much of the ire of the authorities - Walsinham himself was pretty dour. It was during the Stuart reigns that the Puritans were suppressed as non-Conformists.
As to timing of cases in Court - well, we tried to get them through but there are procedures and processes and ineviatble delays when one side hasn't done what it should have. With present procedures it would be impossible to get a case to trial by jury in 3 months. Even guilty pleas which require a considered sentence can take a couple of months.
Wow David, you do know an awful lot of interesting detail! Would I be right to assume that, throughout most of history, it is the most brutal/ruthless who end up assuming leadership roles (with the odd notable exception)?
I won't forget this either "let him be racked a little more".......
In relation to Court "processing times", I accept that it's reasonable for Jury Trials to take a bit longer. But I still feel the delays for High Court cases are totally unacceptable. I have an interest in a particular case, and it seems there is no timeline/timetable; all one can do is check the Court Lists every couple of days... And there was only one case on the Wed B4 Easter (16 Apr), then nothing until Mon 28th !*!
And accolades to Gary Judd; I hadn't appreciated the v significant contribution he made to ASB. Back in the day when I moved to Auck from ChCh, it was v much just an Auckland savings bank.
Why does the system - the flat-foot bureaucrats - always have to reach for compelling this stuff. Why can’t they come up with solutions such as participants could request permission from the court to say a karakia? And opt-in tikanga training? Jobs for HR, more bureaucracy...
Another great reflection on a subject I encounter most days through my spiritual care work in health where navigating a variety of spiritual or religious perspectives is crucial. It is important in that work to always encourage the individual to express what matters in their own way and never force compliance on them with a tradition that is not their own. That tends not to work for staff who find themselves having to comply with one religious approach in a secular workplace.
I reflected on this in an essay I wrote for a post grad paper in theology and pastoral supervision, which is not published but percolating away. Maybe I'll work up the courage now that you and Garry Judd have written so eloquently about these matters. In that piece I said,
Although arguments abound in the public square about whether Māori is a religion, Manuka Henare is clear. “Māori religion is a belief in spiritual beings, and is both a way of life and a view of life. lt is found in rituals, ceremonies, religious objects, sacred places and sites, in art forms and carvings, in songs and dances, proverbs, wise sayings, and riddles, in the naming of people and places, in myths and legends, and in customs, beliefs, and practices.”
Henare, Manuka. “Tapu, Mana, Mauri, Hau, Wairua: A Māori Philosophy of Vitalism and Cosmos.” Pages 197–221 in Indigenous Traditions and Ecology. Harvard Press for the Center for the Study of World Religions, Harvard Divinity School, 2001.
We do need to have a gracious conversation about what being secular means and the importance of secularity in public spaces. Having secular public space is not to stop people having religious or spiritual traditions but to ensure everyone has the ability and freedom to think and belief what has become important to them without state interference or control. Without this conversation we may find ourselves back in Tudor times, or we may already be there.
Thanks Sandra for your thoughtful comment. By all means publish your paper and thanks for the selection.
I studied mythologies years ago and clearly from your observation Maori beliefs are atavistic.
Thank you for writing this David and for putting your head above the parapet. I am so glad that wiser heads than mine are willing to articulate these concerns. As former council staff I have had to endure numerous karakia, with no explanation or translation and now as a grandparent, every school event I attend starts and ends with some sort of karakia, again no translations are offered . People treat it like a religious prayer, standing respectfully and closing their eyes, so I can only conclude the karakia speaker is invoking some spiritual being. Karakia in law courts seems the height of irony, given that NZ is a secular state.
In addition Liz - putting my head above the parapet - no problem. After years of silence as an aspect of my former job, it is nice to have freedom top express a point of view.
And after all - what can "they" do to me.....
Thanks for your comment Liz. In addition to the respectful standing and they eyes closed to avoid being blinded by the deity is the use of "Ameni" at the end.
I always treated Court as a secular space.
Litigants were free to do their prayers to the deity out in the foyer.
Thank you, David, for synthesising the issues and placing them in a historical context.
You begin with prayer and end with the Lord's Prayer, which brings to mind a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which held that the practice of a Town Council and the Mayor, of commencing meetings by asking the councillors to rise and recite the Lord's Prayer infringed the appellant's Charter right to freedom of conscience and religion. The appellant was not a member of the Council but simply a resident who regularly attended Council meetings.
Very well summarised Sir. Gary has been incredible with his persistence on what is a most noble cause. We have allowed ourselves to have a worldview imposed upon us that is, in technical terms, total bullshit. Rahui, Karakia, tapu etc, these are all pagan beliefs based on an animistic worldview. The idea of inanimate objects possessing any kind of spirit was throughly debunked about 5,000 years ago, seems someone forgot to tell Maori. For their worldview is not the functional one of Judeo-Christian belief, but rather one that is simply not compatible with scientific thought and common sense.
Your arguments re preserving secularity & BORA freedoms are all sound and I agree. The utter stupidity of this so-called spirituality simply reinforces why it must be opposed with vigour.
Thanks Boris
I stand on the shoulders of giants like Gary Judd KC and Warren Pyke.
Thanks for this. I appreciate the clarity with which the matter and it's arguments are laid out. I absolutely agree with almost all of it and appreciate GaryJudd's efforts to push back on the attempts to erode New Zealanders' rights. There is one small part of it, originally discussed by Gary, that has niggled at me, but I haven't spoken up previously. This is in the matter of Janet Dickson, the real estate agent. I supposed that employee participation in the tikanga Maori course by real estate agents would have been required, not to inculcate them with Maori spirituality, but to upskill employees to more respectfully and effectively interact with potential Maori clients. During my working life as a health professional, I objected (silently) to imposed karakia such as that discussed in the article, but not to the training meant to upskill us to work more effectively with Maori and Pasifika clients.
Thanks Sheryl
The Janet Dickson case is quite nuanced in that she was well schooled in aspects of tikanga gleaned from other sources so the "training" was not necessary. It was the compelled aspect that was the problem. I suggest that tikanga requirements and sensitivities in health are significantly different from those attached to commercial dealings.
Thanks for your response David. I'm not too worried about “compelled” when it comes to work requirements that relate to upskilling and professional development but I take your points.
But Sheryl, real estate agents would, I imagine, have quite a range of clients. Our last home was sold to a Chinese lady who couldn't speak English (she head a helper/interpreter). I would be v surprised in agents were forced to learn Chinese or other languages that their clients may speak/prefer, let alone their religions.
In my approach to this I'm thinking that Maori would be viewed as tangata whenua and therefore owed a duty of respect. This view (of the special standing of Maori in NZ) has at times been widely accepted in NZ, and at other times not so much. Or perhaps it applies in some things but not others. I think that's why karakia have been imposed in various settings - as an acknowledgment of the special standing of Maori in NZ. (But I don't agree with the imposition of karakia, mainly because the settings it's imposed in are secular).
Acknowledging it's a bit late Sheryl, but can you please justify this "I'm thinking that Maori would be viewed as tangata whenua and therefore owed a duty of respect"? It's now reasonably certain there were others here B4 Maori arrived (as invaders) and annihilated those people. I think they reserved respect, as do all NZers, but not special privileges, esp considering there are so few full-blooded Maoris now.
My answer is really in my comment Noel. For as long as I can remember (and I am a good age), I've heard and read Maori referred to as "tangata whenua" - by authorities, officials, ordinary people, the media - the latter even before these days of wokedom. So I think the argument for karakia and professional courses people have to do in their workplaces, is that Maori are believed to have that special standing. And therefore (the thinking goes) the rest of us should do these courses, karakia etc. to honour and respect that standing. And it's not required for any other race or ethnicity because they have no special standing in NZ. I'm not saying I believe all this, and I'm aware of the discussion about Moriori having been here before Maori. For the record I'm opposed to karakia happening in workplaces.
So well said; impressive work, thanks David. Your knowledge of history , and what Elizabeth I imposed is impressive by itself! My meagre knowledge of that time was that the Anglican religion was effectively imposed onto English people. Were the Scots stubborn in creating the Presbyterian religion in response? I did not know that some Catholics paid the ultimate price for adhering to their religion....
If frightens me to contemplate we might be at the start of a similar journey; I ask, who gives any organisation, esp a public sector one, the "right" to impose like this. Courts should be the last entity to contemplate entertaining ANYTHING that impedes their already appalling productivity. I don't know why the Govt doesn't act decisively to insist that all cases are heard within (say) 3 months of filing (it's up to 3 years now, isn't it?).
I am aware that the Rodney Local Board has adopted the practice, as has InternetNZ; it's become quite pervasive without the general public knowing or being consulted.
Thanks Noel. You are too kind.
My PhD was in legal history although I have preferred to be an historian most of the time.
Part of my PhD research involved searching through the Privy Council records of the reign of the first Elizabeth. When Mary Queen of Scots started to be a problem and from about the 1570's Walsingham (Elizabeth's spymaster) and Cecil (Lord Burghley) began a crackdown on Catholic recusants. At the same time there was a persecution of Jesuit priests who had surreptitously crossed the border to whip up Catholic oppposition to the heretic Queen. The Privy Council recorsd contain accounts of who was arrested and who should be torured "let him be racked a little more" is one quote that has stayed with me. Some of the Jesuits were caught and suffered a traitor's death - hanging, drawing and quartering. Relgious conformity was fiercely enforced. The Puritans avoided much of the ire of the authorities - Walsinham himself was pretty dour. It was during the Stuart reigns that the Puritans were suppressed as non-Conformists.
As to timing of cases in Court - well, we tried to get them through but there are procedures and processes and ineviatble delays when one side hasn't done what it should have. With present procedures it would be impossible to get a case to trial by jury in 3 months. Even guilty pleas which require a considered sentence can take a couple of months.
Wow David, you do know an awful lot of interesting detail! Would I be right to assume that, throughout most of history, it is the most brutal/ruthless who end up assuming leadership roles (with the odd notable exception)?
I won't forget this either "let him be racked a little more".......
In relation to Court "processing times", I accept that it's reasonable for Jury Trials to take a bit longer. But I still feel the delays for High Court cases are totally unacceptable. I have an interest in a particular case, and it seems there is no timeline/timetable; all one can do is check the Court Lists every couple of days... And there was only one case on the Wed B4 Easter (16 Apr), then nothing until Mon 28th !*!
And accolades to Gary Judd; I hadn't appreciated the v significant contribution he made to ASB. Back in the day when I moved to Auck from ChCh, it was v much just an Auckland savings bank.
Why does the system - the flat-foot bureaucrats - always have to reach for compelling this stuff. Why can’t they come up with solutions such as participants could request permission from the court to say a karakia? And opt-in tikanga training? Jobs for HR, more bureaucracy...
Thanks again David. But on a complete tangent where do you source the wonderful illustrations you've been heading with?
Thanks for your comment and thanks for the remark about the illustrations.
They are word pictures.
After I have written a piece I try to imagine the main theme(s) as an image.
The trick is whether can I verbally convey those requirements to an AI tool to get what I want.
Sometimes it takes a while.
Oh my - perhaps AI has some uses after all!
😄
David, this needs to be in Law News and to be forwarded to Heemi.