I endorse [my reader's] response to your request for comments, “New Zealand is a secular country and as such there is no place for a Karakia, or any other sort of prayer, in any State activity.”
Even more importantly, because the participants in the Court’s business of the day have no option but to be present during the karakia, this proposal represents an infringement of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and hold opinions without interference, in contravention of s 13 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The NZBORA applies to the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the government of New Zealand (s 3(a)). As it applies to the judicial branch, and there is interference with the right to adopt and hold opinions without interference, the proposal infringes the judicial branch's obligations under s 13.
By way of illustration of the application of the principle, I refer to the Privy Council's decision in Commodore of Royal Bahamas Defence Force and others v Laramore [2017] 3 LRC 645, [2017] UKPC 13.
The Bahamas Constitution provided:
By way of illustration of the application of the principle, I refer to the Privy Council's decision in Commodore of Royal Bahamas Defence Force and others v Laramore [2017] 3 LRC 645, [2017] UKPC 13.
The Bahamas Constitution provided:
22. (1) Except with his consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, and for the purposes of this Article the said freedom includes freedom of thought and of religion, freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others, and both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
It is therefore very similar to s 13 of the NZBORA. In particular the requirement that "no person shall be hindered" correlates with "the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference," because interfere means to interpose in a way that hinders or impedes.
The facts were summarised.
Colours parades had been a tradition in the Royal Bahamian Defence Force since its creation. From 1993 to 2006, members of religious beliefs other than Christianity were given the opportunity to excuse themselves by falling out during the prayers and falling back in immediately thereafter.
On 9 November 2006, [these arrangements were changed and new arrangements] stated that, effective immediately, all personnel were to remain present for the conduct of prayers (which were always Christian in form) during ceremonial parades and morning and evening colours parades, that parade commanders and duty officers were to give orders for 'Parade off Caps' and 'Parade on Caps' before and after prayers during parades, and that members of the Defence Force who were not Christian would no longer be permitted to fall out during the prayers and fall back in when they had been said.
In 2007, the plaintiff [Mr Laramore], a petty officer in the Force who was a Muslim, requested to be exempted from all Christian activity in the Force and some days later he left a parade during colours ceremonies when prayers were about to take place. He was charged with disobedience, but before the resulting disciplinary proceedings were concluded, he brought proceedings in the Bahamas Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the 2006 Memorandum and claiming damages. …
The plaintiff contended that he was 'hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience' under art 22(1) of the Constitution of The Bahamas, ('the Constitution') which included his 'freedom … of religion' and freedom 'to manifest … his religion' in public and in private, by having to stand on parade during Christian prayers when in his view doing so breached his religious faith.
The Chief Justice upheld the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the 2006 Memorandum violated the plaintiff's freedom of religion, contrary to art 22 of the Constitution, and made the declaration sought. The Chief Justice also awarded the plaintiff $B10,000 damages for the breach of his constitutional rights. The defendants' appeal to the Bahamas Court of Appeal was dismissed. They appealed to the Privy Council, contending that art 22 protected freedom of conscience only in a limited manner, that there was nothing in the arrangements for Christian prayers during colours parades that impinged on or affected the plaintiff's personal inner freedoms, that judged objectively there had been no hindrance 'in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience', and any hindrance of the plaintiff's freedom of conscience was 'reasonably justifiable in a democratic society' under art 22(5) of the Constitution because it was in the interests of maintaining good order and discipline in the Defence Force that there was uniformity of behaviour.
The Defence Force's appeal to the Privy Council was dismissed. It was held:
Freedom of conscience was in its essence a personal matter and whether there had been a hindrance of a person's enjoyment of freedom of conscience was to be judged by reference to his particular subjective beliefs rather than by what a particular religion prescribed.
A requirement to take part in an activity could be incompatible with a particular person's conscience, however much his internal beliefs were otherwise unaffected and unchallenged. It was not what the Islamic religion said that mattered; what mattered was the person's religiously-based beliefs and conscience and whether they were hindered by a restriction on his freedom of religion.
'Hindrance' was not the same as being prevented or forbidden because of a religious belief from taking part in a certain activity. The 'caps off' order could not be understood as a mere gesture of respect towards Christians, for whom it would have a deeper significance.
Having actively to participate in a Christian ceremony, in a way to which he in conscience objected, hindered the plaintiff in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, for the purposes of art 22 of the Constitution, because it was against his conscience to take part in the prayers which were part of regular colours parades and it hindered his enjoyment of his freedom to live, by his words and conduct, in a way which was compatible with his Muslim conscience ….
An example of the New Zealand's judicial system's respect for the importance of a person's enjoyment of freedom of conscience is the ability of a witness to confirm that the witness will tell the truth by either oath or affirmation (s 77 of the Evidence Act 2006).
This karakia proposal is therefore entirely inappropriate and in conflict with the judicial branch's duty to uphold the rights and freedoms contained in the NZBORA.
I do not imagine it is your decision to modify the courts' procedure in this way. Would you please pass this email on to whoever is responsible.
I received a prompt acknowledgement thanking me and saying that my email would be passed on.
Gary Judd KC is a King's Counsel, former Chairman of ASB and Ports of Auckland and former member APEC Business Advisory Council. Gary blogs at Gary Judd KC Substack where this article was sourced.
14 comments:
The karakia thing is already happening in courts around the country, and in many other meetings in the public service. Unfortunately human rights in NZ applies to only some people.
Thanks to Gary for airing this, the insidious creep of this is appalling. Couple of points, Gary does not reveal the source of this "proposal" but methinks it needs Minister Judith Collins to intervene, pronto! Secondly, a personal experience: In 1968 I joined the Royal Air Force. Stood in front of a clerk Sergeant, I was asked my religion. I replied honestly "Atheist". Sgt then asked "What is your Father's religion? As a young 16 year old I again replied truthfully that he was Church of England but that he was no longer practising. Sgt recorded me as C of E and said "You don't get out of Church Parade that easily!" Who was I to argue?
"NZ is a secular country" BUT the Head of State is also the head of the Church of England. Doesn't quite ring true, does it?
I thought Charlie has been trying be all things to all religions of late - guess there is nothing like an each way bet.
Marine and Coastal High Court hearings have karakia and song first and maori introduction of the Judge entering and leaving . As a NZer I couldnt understand a thing and there was no interpretation .
Evidence is also presented with a word salad of English and Maori.
A formerly great Country being run on mumbo jumbo
This tutae is also bleeding over into the private sector.
Many government departments, state owned enterprises, Quangos,, large corporates, and large recruitment companies, are requiring their employees to attend compulsory cultural indoctrination sessions whereby they will have their noses shoved into the turd regarding the alleged evils of colonisation and told they should feel guilty for being white.
Employees are required to attend organisational meetings that open with karakia. They are required to open emails with “Kia Ora” and “Tena Koe” and close them with “Nga Mihi.”
Job ads for these organisations are riddled with the brown supremacist part-Māori pidgin hobby language, and references to “[brown supremacist part-] Māori aspirations” and a stated organisational commitment to “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”
Stamping out this tendentious public virtue-signalling and woke gobshite starts at the top with government.
One thing Judge Willy missed is the necessity to hold a binding public referendum on whether the brown supremacist part-Māori pidgin hobby language should continue to be an official language of this country.
The way in which this was accomplished in the first place did not follow due political process.
To protect a common standard of citizenship for all New Zealanders all public discourse must be required to be in English.
The Fourth Labour Government never sought a public mandate to make Maori an official language.
Labour never revealed this plan when running for office. It simply used its Parliamentary majority to ram through the Maori Language Act 1987.
Proper process would have been to pass the Act, then hold it over for implementation pending ratification by binding public referendum, as was done with the End of Life Choice Act 2019 in conjunction with the General Election of 2020.
The New Zealand public must be given a belated referendum opportunity to decide if it wants to retain Maori (in which fewer than 4% of New Zealanders can conduct an everyday conversation)—as well as the ridiculous sign language (understood by around half of one percent of New Zealanders)—as official languages.
I suppose one thing anyone can do is to not join in, not partake in any inappropriate rituals.
If it happens, just wait it out, do something else until it’s finished with. Passive resistance eventually worked (Gandhi).
My experience being inducted in the NZ army in 1954 was similar to the second anonymous above except my father was Presbyterian which the clerk could not spell so most of us were C.of E.
When is a language not a language ? The true Māori language consisted of less than 2000 words. Now it is called Te Reo, 177,000 made up words have been added to the mix. Māori were a stone-age tribal people, who after a claimed 800yrs of living in this country, they had not so much as invented the wheel. Yet here we are being bullied into respecting all things supposedly Maori, including the worship of their Pagan God's and because they had no science, we are to accept their myths & legends as science. Wake up Nzers. is it not time that they should be told that the free ride is over. Time to join the 21st century, or pay for the privilege of being part of it, or go back to your grass skirts and dirt floored huts.
not my culture, , not my taxes. dont waste my time.
We should focus on making New Zealand a better place for all Kiwis. Let New Zealand's praise be heard around the world. Instead, we get distracted by Karakia at the beginning and end of meetings, which are meaningless gibberish for the people compelled to say them.
Over the years, as I have read through successions of blogs and comments in the ‘Breaking Views’ website, one thing becomes evident and that is: we talk and talk and talk but yet the Maori political steam-roller rolls on, flattening all in its path. Democracy has been vanquished. I have been as guilty as the next person with writing blogs and comments, but now I realize that all this energy is missing the target and has been futile against the steam-roller.
The change of government has failed to effectively stop the Maori Agenda (He Puapua) from being fulfilled by Maori activists who have infiltrated the Government departments. The Ministers of the various portfolios have failed to weed-out and neutralize these Maori Activists who are taking over control of the country from within. I saw it in the education sector when I was teaching. Employees are too vulnerable to oppose these moves, but citizens outside the various government departments can pressurize the Ministers to ‘clean house’ and put in place directives that clearly prevent a continuance of the imposition of Maori Culture and religion upon a Public Service that is supposed to be secular.
The time for venting steam into the atmosphere is over. Pick up the phone or pen, as I do, and communicate directly with MPs and the Ministers of Government Departments, instead of ‘belly-aching’ on forums. Forums are merely steam vents which members of Parliament may or may not read. Hit the target by directing your steam directly at the Ministers in a letter or email specifically to them.
Attend court and when the karakia is being recited, suffer a prolonged coughing spasm that disrupts proceedings. Organize colleagues to continue their coughing spasms when you are ejected from the court-room. A mass stamping of feet can drown-out the karakia, or a willow-the-wisp stamping strategy will make it hard to ascertain who the phantom stamper is.
The Maoris are cocky, use their own tactics against them. That’s what Von Tempsky did.
If Maoris can disrupt Parliament with hakas, then Pakehas can stamp their feet in court. Same tactic and just as cocky.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.