No, your law is not superior

DPF blogs on the Takamore case:

There may be a clash of laws. I have no problem at all with saying a law which respect the wishes of the individual deceased and then the person that individual chose to marry should trump a customary law which robs the deceased and their chosen family of their rights to decide place of burial. Of course in a cross-cultural situation, individuals should try and compromise to agree on something palatable to all – but if agreement is not achieved, then the law should be followed and there should be penalties for body stealing.

There is a clash of laws. In New Zealand, and elsewhere, the common law position is that the executrix of the will (Miss Clarke) will prevail. Under Maori law, a majority opinion in the whanau will prevail. The wishes of the deceased and the deceased’ partner are, in most cases, subordinate to the wishes of the wider whanau.

The question then is, what law should prevail? In this particular case, I am comfortable with the common law position (or the western position) prevailing. Why? Well, because the deceased made it clear he wanted to lay in Otautahi (Christchurch) as did his children. However, in a situation where there is no explicit wish and the deceased is Maori, I think Maori law must prevail. These situations are rare and should be decided on a case by case basis.

The Takamore case is an unfortunate one. It has been characterised by bad faith on the part of Mr Takamore's extended whanau and staggering cultural ignorance from his immediate whanau.

Going back to what law should prevail, it is arrogant to suggest that a law you approve of should trump a, quote, “customary law”. As if a customary law is some sort of lesser law. Why should the western position prevail where the deceased is Maori? I doubt most New Zealanders appreciate the depth of feeling Maori attach to burial. Approaching this situation from a Maori perspective, the Takamore case was not a body snatching case. It was an example of legitimate Maori practise and, I should add, a mana-enhancing practise. People without an understanding of Maori culture see this as a body snatching case. If they cannot widen their perspective beyond the scope of what their own cultural practises and values are then that is their problem. But it’s wrong to say 'my' values and notions of what are right and wrong should prevail. That is cultural imperialism, and that’s a practise this country has seen enough of. For once, maybe just for once, New Zealanders should give appropriate respect to Maori law. 


In the end it is too late to exhume Mr Takamore. Doing so is just retributive. Restorative justice should occur and that should be the end of the matter. Ultimately, as Tuhoe and as a Maori, Mr Takamore should rest with his tupuna in his ancestral homeland.   

Holmes: morally repugnant and deeply racist

I don’t read Paul Holmes – the man has no credibility, little sense and somehow, god knows how, his arrogance jumps off the page and strangles anyone in sight. With that in mind, I wasn’t going to give this piece the time of day, but someone needs to call Holmes on his racism.

In the vilest column I’ve ever seen, Holmes comes out swinging against Maori. The column is undeniably racist. At several points Holmes slurs the entire Maori race. For example, Holmes taints Maori as “loony” and “irrational”. The offensive and unfair language he deploys and the overall message of the piece encourages discrimination. Take this, my favourite passage in which Holmes asserts the following:

“No, if Maori want Waitangi Day for themselves, let them have it. Let them go and raid a bit more kai moana than they need for the big, and feed themselves silly, speak of the injustices heaped upon them by the greedy Pakeha and work out new ways of bamboozling the Pakeha to come up with a few more millions”.

Initially, I was furious with this. Well, I was furious with the whole piece actually, but this paragraph really rarked me up for some reason. After stewing on it, I just found it sad. Sad that someone would say something so nasty, hate filled and utterly unfair. This would go unnoticed in private, but this was published in New Zealand’s leading daily – the Herald. It was totally irresponsible for the Herald to publish Holmes’ hate speech. And that’s what it is, hate speech. Holmes, in the most blatant terms I’ve ever seen, disparages and vilifies Maori, thus encouraging prejudice against Maori. That satisfies the definition of hate speech for me.

Sadly, Holmes doesn’t distinguish between individuals and Maori as a race. Although Holmes’ bases his hate on the actions of a few individuals, he taints the entire Maori race. It’s unfair and it’s racist. What also annoys me is that Holmes is furthering highly offensive and unfair stereotypes.

There is no place for racism in the media. Of course, some people are going to rush to Holmes defence. This is the saddest part. No doubt some people will prasie Holmes for ‘telling it like it is’, but he isn’t telling like it is. Holmes is basing his claims on spurious grounds. He isn’t taking into account the deeper meaning of Waitangi day, he isn’t taking into account the socio-political context and, quite simply, he is misinterpreting the actions of Maori at Waitangi. Waitangi protest needs to be interpreted taking into account the history of the day, the history of Crown-Maori relations and the contemporary political situation. You can’t boil it down to lunacy or irrationality. I guess it goes to show that Holmes mind operates on a very, very shallow level.

Others will defend Holmes right to free speech. A right he undeniably has. However, free speech does not extend to hate speech. The line is drawn when ones speech incites prejudice or disparages another. There is international consensus that hate speech is irrelevant to free speech. Importantly, hate speech is also illegal under both domestic and international law.

Unsurprisingly, Holmes also makes a number of factual errors. For example, he speaks of the “never defined principles of the Treaty”. This is a ridiculous claim. The principles of the Treaty are well defined and are, to quote a legal expert, not vague and unknowable. After over two decades of judicial refinement, the principles are unambiguous.

Holmes then takes aim at breast feeding advocates. This part of the column was just as nauseating as the beginning. No mean feat may I add. Holmes then tops it off with a crude and simplistic reading on the situation in Syria.

He must be in a bad place, old Paul Holmes. I tend to think his column was an attempt to comfort and confirm his own self righteousness. Pretty sad really. If the Herald had any sense (or dignity), they’d sack Holmes. The rubbish he produces is unbecoming of our major daily. You can make comparisons with Michael Laws, but Laws knows where to draw the line – and at least he’s literate. I suspect Holmes is not. He must go.

Over the next few days I’ll be laying a complaint with the Editor of the Herald, Tim Murphy, I’ll also be laying a complaint with the Race Relations Commissioner. Lastly, I’ll be boycotting the Herald as long as Holmes remains. I encourage you to do the same. Send the message that there’s no place for Holmes and his hate in our public discourse.

As an aside, it's interesting to compare the contrast between Holmes piece and this from John Roughan. Where Holmes is offensive, ill considered and rude, Roughan is sober, analytical and fair (even though I don't really agree with what he says, but that's for a post on Monday).

(You can, I think, complain to Tim Murphy at tim.murphy@nzherald.co.nz)

(You can also lodge a complaint with the Human Rights Commission here)

(For another perspective see this at Reading the Maps, this from TW.com and Danyl writes here)