When a military institution whose sole purpose is the defence of a modern democratic nation begins flirting with the inclusion of mythological cosmologies and spiritual frameworks as part of its internal doctrine, sensible people are naturally going to ask a very simple question: what on earth is going on? The reported pause placed on the initiative by Defence Minister Judith Collins only underscores the fact that something had clearly gone too far.
Let’s be perfectly blunt about the deeper issue.
New Zealand is not a bicultural country. It hasn’t been for a very long time. It is a multicultural society made up of people from Europe, Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East, Africa, and dozens of other backgrounds. The idea that the entire legal and institutional framework of the nation should be interpreted through a rigid “bicultural” lens is not a neutral description of reality—it is an ideological claim.
And it is a claim that is increasingly being used as a vehicle to insert particular spiritual or metaphysical worldviews into public institutions.
The manoeuvre is clever, in a bureaucratic sort of way. Instead of openly presenting these concepts as belonging to a specific spiritual tradition—which would immediately trigger legitimate questions about the secular nature of state institutions—they are wrapped in softer language: frameworks, values, perspectives, knowledge systems. The terminology sounds harmless enough. But the underlying content often carries unmistakably spiritual assumptions.
That is precisely how such ideas begin appearing in places where they have absolutely no business being—government departments, state schools, and now, apparently, even military doctrine.
At some point the country has to decide whether its institutions are secular civic bodies or vehicles for the quiet advancement of particular cosmological beliefs. They cannot honestly be both.
This is why the word “bicultural” in legislation is becoming increasingly problematic. It functions less as a descriptive term and more as a policy lever—one that steadily expands the reach of a specific worldview throughout the machinery of the state.
If New Zealand wishes to remain a genuinely pluralistic democracy, the solution is straightforward: the law should reflect what the country actually is—a multicultural society governed by secular institutions.
Continuing to pretend otherwise merely invites more episodes like the current Army controversy. And frankly, the public is starting to notice.
John Robertson is a patriotic New Zealander who frequently posts on Facebook.
New Zealand is not a bicultural country. It hasn’t been for a very long time. It is a multicultural society made up of people from Europe, Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East, Africa, and dozens of other backgrounds. The idea that the entire legal and institutional framework of the nation should be interpreted through a rigid “bicultural” lens is not a neutral description of reality—it is an ideological claim.
And it is a claim that is increasingly being used as a vehicle to insert particular spiritual or metaphysical worldviews into public institutions.
The manoeuvre is clever, in a bureaucratic sort of way. Instead of openly presenting these concepts as belonging to a specific spiritual tradition—which would immediately trigger legitimate questions about the secular nature of state institutions—they are wrapped in softer language: frameworks, values, perspectives, knowledge systems. The terminology sounds harmless enough. But the underlying content often carries unmistakably spiritual assumptions.
That is precisely how such ideas begin appearing in places where they have absolutely no business being—government departments, state schools, and now, apparently, even military doctrine.
At some point the country has to decide whether its institutions are secular civic bodies or vehicles for the quiet advancement of particular cosmological beliefs. They cannot honestly be both.
This is why the word “bicultural” in legislation is becoming increasingly problematic. It functions less as a descriptive term and more as a policy lever—one that steadily expands the reach of a specific worldview throughout the machinery of the state.
If New Zealand wishes to remain a genuinely pluralistic democracy, the solution is straightforward: the law should reflect what the country actually is—a multicultural society governed by secular institutions.
Continuing to pretend otherwise merely invites more episodes like the current Army controversy. And frankly, the public is starting to notice.
John Robertson is a patriotic New Zealander who frequently posts on Facebook.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.