From Hobson's pledge.
"A few nights ago, Parliament struck down a regulation that said tikanga must be taught as part of every core legal course for students and aspiring lawyers.
I am particularly pleased to share this news with you as it is something Hobsons Pledge has been involved in and also because I added my voice into the
original complaint alongside Gary Judd KC. I am a lawyer myself and I care about what my future colleagues are taught at university!
This is a small but still significant win and our thanks goes to National MP Joseph Mooney, who moved what is called a disallowance motion that is, a motion in the Parliament to strike down regulation. That this motion was successful is very encouraging.
As background to understand why this happened, last year, Gary Judd KC filed a
complaint to the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament regarding the Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Maori Requirements) Amendment Regulations 2022. This committee of MPs reviews regulations to ensure they are
fit for purpose and reflect the intention of the legislation that enabled such
regulations to be made.
These new legal regulations, passed by the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, required all law students and aspiring lawyers to complete a compulsory course in tikanga MaoriMaori laws, beliefs, and philosophyalongside the truly core legal subjects like contract law, criminal
law, and torts.
In my view, the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, like so many of our public institutions, has been quietly captured by Treatyist ideologystacked with judges, law deans, and insiders who think its their place to impose their
values and worldview on others through law and policy.
I was inspired by Garys brave move and joined him to argue that the regulations violated fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Actincluding freedom of thought, conscience, belief, expression, and academic
freedom. Gary and I appeared before the Regulations Committee in October last year and argued this case.
In effect, the regulation mandated a cultural indoctrination course as a precondition to joining the legal profession. While the Committee ultimately dismissed the majority of our complaint, it did find that one provisionthe requirement that tikanga be compulsorily assessed within every core legal subjectwas an unusual and unexpected use of regulatory power.
That part of the regulation was formally disallowed in Parliament last evening,
thanks to Joseph Mooney MP moving the motion. Former Hobsons Pledge trustee and now New Zealand First MP, Casey Costello, also spoke powerfully in the House, stating what many know to be true: tikanga is not law. And shes right.
Its a small victory, but a victory nonethelessand it proves that when we stand up for whats right, victory is possible. It reminds us why Hobsons Pledge exists: to oppose the creeping racialisation of law and policy, and to stand for a New Zealand where every citizen is treated equallywhere no one gets to force their cultural practices and beliefs on any other person. I am encouraged, and I hope you are too.
Sincerely, Thomas Newman Trustee Hobsons Pledge"
A small but significant victory. For those who believe this is in some weird way racist please remember that it is exactly the opposite - it is the removal
of a racist regulation. Striking down a regulation in parliament is rsre and welcome. There needs to be more of this because there are several other racist
professional bodies. If Tikanga is to be compelled then so must the teaching of
the culture of all communities that exist in this country - not just one. Tikanga is not law!
On 26 May 2025 00:23:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:So you, as usual, attack the people that wrote the article and fail to address the content., No surprise there.
On 2025-05-25, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
From Hobson's pledge.
"A few nights ago, Parliament struck down a regulation that said tikanga >>>must
be taught as part of every core legal course for students and aspiring >>>lawyers.
I am particularly pleased to share this news with you as it is something >>> Hobson?s Pledge has been involved in and also because I added my voice into >>>the
original complaint alongside Gary Judd KC. I am a lawyer myself and I care >>> about what my future colleagues are taught at university!
This is a small but still significant win and our thanks goes to National >>>MP
Joseph Mooney, who moved what is called a disallowance motion ? that is, a >>> motion in the Parliament to strike down regulation. That this motion was >>> successful is very encouraging.
As background to understand why this happened, last year, Gary Judd KC >>>filed a
complaint to the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament regarding the >>> Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Maori Requirements) Amendment
Regulations 2022. This committee of MPs reviews regulations to ensure they >>>are
fit for purpose and reflect the intention of the legislation that enabled >>>such
regulations to be made.
These new legal regulations, passed by the New Zealand Council of Legal
Education, required all law students and aspiring lawyers to complete a
compulsory course in tikanga Maori?Maori laws, beliefs, and
philosophy?alongside the truly core legal subjects like contract law, >>>criminal
law, and torts.
In my view, the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, like so many of our >>> public institutions, has been quietly captured by Treatyist >>>ideology?stacked
with judges, law deans, and insiders who think it?s their place to impose >>>their
values and worldview on others through law and policy.
I was inspired by Gary?s brave move and joined him to argue that the
regulations violated fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of >>>Rights
Act?including freedom of thought, conscience, belief, expression, and >>>academic
freedom. Gary and I appeared before the Regulations Committee in October >>>last
year and argued this case.
In effect, the regulation mandated a cultural indoctrination course as a >>> precondition to joining the legal profession. While the Committee >>>ultimately
dismissed the majority of our complaint, it did find that one provision?the >>> requirement that tikanga be compulsorily assessed within every core legal >>> subject?was an unusual and unexpected use of regulatory power.
That part of the regulation was formally disallowed in Parliament last >>>evening,
thanks to Joseph Mooney MP moving the motion. Former Hobson?s Pledge >>>trustee
and now New Zealand First MP, Casey Costello, also spoke powerfully in the >>> House, stating what many know to be true: tikanga is not law. And she?s >>>right.
It?s a small victory, but a victory nonetheless?and it proves that when we >>> stand up for what?s right, victory is possible. It reminds us why Hobson?s >>> Pledge exists: to oppose the creeping racialisation of law and policy, and >>>to
stand for a New Zealand where every citizen is treated equally?where no one >>> gets to force their cultural practices and beliefs on any other person. I >>>am
encouraged, and I hope you are too.
Sincerely, Thomas Newman Trustee Hobson?s Pledge"
As many are coming to expect from the dishonest Hobson's Pledge
organisation that is close to the dishonest and deceptive ACT Party,Once more, as above.
the law change may go further than was justified by the Regulations >Committee. It is not clear from the above whether there was a separate >compulsory course in tikanga Maori, or whether tikanga wasSo still not addressing the content.
compulsorily assessed within every legal subject - but either way it
has been removed entirely. I believe that excluding tikanga Maori
entirely from the education of law courses seems to be going too far -
an important contract that many say forms the basis of our system of >government is the Tiriti o Waitangi, and an understanding of that
Treaty requires some understanding of tikanga Maori. Based on Academic >research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed
significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that
sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example.
So while many lawyers will learn about the Treaty as part of theirSo you, as usual, attack the people that wrote the article and fail to address the content., No surprise there.
work or through general knowledge, it is a shame that the deliberate >misunderstanding of that important agreement between the Crown and
Maori is still being pushed for partisan political purposes - in
effect Hobson's Pledge and the ACT Party are being deliberately
misleading.
Yet again we have the tail wagging the dog - ACT have captured theSo you, as usual, attack the people that wrote the article and fail to address the content., No surprise there.
"think tanks" that once supported the more moderate views of the
National Party - they have been taken over by the far-right and racist
Atlas Network - there was a good video / radio programme on that
recently; but Atlas have taken over the Business Roundtable (now the
NZ Initiative) - they provided Nicola Willis with advice regarding the
recent Budget; but there are other ACT-supporting organisations as
well designed to pretend that there are more people supporting those
policies than there actually are.
A small but significant victory. For those who believe this is in some >>>weird
way racist please remember that it is exactly the opposite - it is the >>>removal
of a racist regulation. Striking down a regulation in parliament is rsre >>>and
welcome. There needs to be more of this because there are several other >>>racist
professional bodies. If Tikanga is to be compelled then so must the >>>teaching of
the culture of all communities that exist in this country - not just one. >>> Tikanga is not law!
The victory also sets a precedence and signals that things have gone too far >>off the path.
On 2025-05-25, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
From Hobson's pledge.
"A few nights ago, Parliament struck down a regulation that said tikanga must
be taught as part of every core legal course for students and aspiring lawyers.
I am particularly pleased to share this news with you as it is something
Hobson?s Pledge has been involved in and also because I added my voice into the
original complaint alongside Gary Judd KC. I am a lawyer myself and I care >> about what my future colleagues are taught at university!
This is a small but still significant win and our thanks goes to National MP >> Joseph Mooney, who moved what is called a disallowance motion ? that is, a >> motion in the Parliament to strike down regulation. That this motion was
successful is very encouraging.
As background to understand why this happened, last year, Gary Judd KC filed a
complaint to the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament regarding the
Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Maori Requirements) Amendment
Regulations 2022. This committee of MPs reviews regulations to ensure they are
fit for purpose and reflect the intention of the legislation that enabled such
regulations to be made.
These new legal regulations, passed by the New Zealand Council of Legal
Education, required all law students and aspiring lawyers to complete a
compulsory course in tikanga Maori?Maori laws, beliefs, and
philosophy?alongside the truly core legal subjects like contract law, criminal
law, and torts.
In my view, the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, like so many of our >> public institutions, has been quietly captured by Treatyist ideology?stacked >> with judges, law deans, and insiders who think it?s their place to impose their
values and worldview on others through law and policy.
I was inspired by Gary?s brave move and joined him to argue that the
regulations violated fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights >> Act?including freedom of thought, conscience, belief, expression, and academic
freedom. Gary and I appeared before the Regulations Committee in October last
year and argued this case.
In effect, the regulation mandated a cultural indoctrination course as a
precondition to joining the legal profession. While the Committee ultimately >> dismissed the majority of our complaint, it did find that one provision?the >> requirement that tikanga be compulsorily assessed within every core legal
subject?was an unusual and unexpected use of regulatory power.
That part of the regulation was formally disallowed in Parliament last evening,
thanks to Joseph Mooney MP moving the motion. Former Hobson?s Pledge trustee >> and now New Zealand First MP, Casey Costello, also spoke powerfully in the >> House, stating what many know to be true: tikanga is not law. And she?s right.
It?s a small victory, but a victory nonetheless?and it proves that when we >> stand up for what?s right, victory is possible. It reminds us why Hobson?s >> Pledge exists: to oppose the creeping racialisation of law and policy, and to
stand for a New Zealand where every citizen is treated equally?where no one >> gets to force their cultural practices and beliefs on any other person. I am >> encouraged, and I hope you are too.
Sincerely, Thomas Newman Trustee Hobson?s Pledge"
A small but significant victory. For those who believe this is in some weird >> way racist please remember that it is exactly the opposite - it is the removal
of a racist regulation. Striking down a regulation in parliament is rsre and >> welcome. There needs to be more of this because there are several other racist
professional bodies. If Tikanga is to be compelled then so must the teaching of
the culture of all communities that exist in this country - not just one.
Tikanga is not law!
The victory also sets a precedence and signals that things have gone too far >off the path.
I believe that excluding tikanga Maori entirely from the
education of law courses seems to be going too far -
On 26 May 2025 00:23:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-05-25, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
From Hobson's pledge.
"A few nights ago, Parliament struck down a regulation that said tikanga must
be taught as part of every core legal course for students and aspiring lawyers.
I am particularly pleased to share this news with you as it is something >>> Hobson?s Pledge has been involved in and also because I added my voice into the
original complaint alongside Gary Judd KC. I am a lawyer myself and I care >>> about what my future colleagues are taught at university!
This is a small but still significant win and our thanks goes to National MP
Joseph Mooney, who moved what is called a disallowance motion ? that is, a >>> motion in the Parliament to strike down regulation. That this motion was >>> successful is very encouraging.
As background to understand why this happened, last year, Gary Judd KC filed a
complaint to the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament regarding the >>> Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Maori Requirements) Amendment
Regulations 2022. This committee of MPs reviews regulations to ensure they are
fit for purpose and reflect the intention of the legislation that enabled such
regulations to be made.
These new legal regulations, passed by the New Zealand Council of Legal
Education, required all law students and aspiring lawyers to complete a
compulsory course in tikanga Maori?Maori laws, beliefs, and
philosophy?alongside the truly core legal subjects like contract law, criminal
law, and torts.
In my view, the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, like so many of our >>> public institutions, has been quietly captured by Treatyist ideology?stacked
with judges, law deans, and insiders who think it?s their place to impose their
values and worldview on others through law and policy.
I was inspired by Gary?s brave move and joined him to argue that the
regulations violated fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights
Act?including freedom of thought, conscience, belief, expression, and academic
freedom. Gary and I appeared before the Regulations Committee in October last
year and argued this case.
In effect, the regulation mandated a cultural indoctrination course as a >>> precondition to joining the legal profession. While the Committee ultimately
dismissed the majority of our complaint, it did find that one provision?the >>> requirement that tikanga be compulsorily assessed within every core legal >>> subject?was an unusual and unexpected use of regulatory power.
That part of the regulation was formally disallowed in Parliament last evening,
thanks to Joseph Mooney MP moving the motion. Former Hobson?s Pledge trustee
and now New Zealand First MP, Casey Costello, also spoke powerfully in the >>> House, stating what many know to be true: tikanga is not law. And she?s right.
It?s a small victory, but a victory nonetheless?and it proves that when we >>> stand up for what?s right, victory is possible. It reminds us why Hobson?s >>> Pledge exists: to oppose the creeping racialisation of law and policy, and to
stand for a New Zealand where every citizen is treated equally?where no one >>> gets to force their cultural practices and beliefs on any other person. I am
encouraged, and I hope you are too.
Sincerely, Thomas Newman Trustee Hobson?s Pledge"
As many are coming to expect from the dishonest Hobson's Pledge
organisation that is close to the dishonest and deceptive ACT Party,
the law change may go further than was justified by the Regulations >Committee. It is not clear from the above whether there was a separate >compulsory course in tikanga Maori, or whether tikanga was
compulsorily assessed within every legal subject - but either way it
has been removed entirely. I believe that excluding tikanga Maori
entirely from the education of law courses seems to be going too far -
an important contract that many say forms the basis of our system of >government is the Tiriti o Waitangi, and an understanding of that
Treaty requires some understanding of tikanga Maori.
Based on Academic
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed
significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that
sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example.
So while many lawyers will learn about the Treaty as part of their
work or through general knowledge, it is a shame that the deliberate >misunderstanding of that important agreement between the Crown and
Maori is still being pushed for partisan political purposes - in
effect Hobson's Pledge and the ACT Party are being deliberately
misleading.
Yet again we have the tail wagging the dog - ACT have captured the
"think tanks" that once supported the more moderate views of the
National Party - they have been taken over by the far-right and racist
Atlas Network - there was a good video / radio programme on that
recently; but Atlas have taken over the Business Roundtable (now the
NZ Initiative) - they provided Nicola Willis with advice regarding the
recent Budget; but there are other ACT-supporting organisations as
well designed to pretend that there are more people supporting those
policies than there actually are.
A small but significant victory. For those who believe this is in some weird
way racist please remember that it is exactly the opposite - it is the removal
of a racist regulation. Striking down a regulation in parliament is rsre and
welcome. There needs to be more of this because there are several other racist
professional bodies. If Tikanga is to be compelled then so must the teaching of
the culture of all communities that exist in this country - not just one. >>> Tikanga is not law!
The victory also sets a precedence and signals that things have gone too far >>off the path.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 16:16:31 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 26 May 2025 00:23:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-05-25, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
From Hobson's pledge.
"A few nights ago, Parliament struck down a regulation that said tikanga must
be taught as part of every core legal course for students and aspiring lawyers.
I am particularly pleased to share this news with you as it is something >>>> Hobson?s Pledge has been involved in and also because I added my voice into the
original complaint alongside Gary Judd KC. I am a lawyer myself and I care >>>> about what my future colleagues are taught at university!
This is a small but still significant win and our thanks goes to National MP
Joseph Mooney, who moved what is called a disallowance motion ? that is, a >>>> motion in the Parliament to strike down regulation. That this motion was >>>> successful is very encouraging.
As background to understand why this happened, last year, Gary Judd KC filed a
complaint to the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament regarding the >>>> Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Maori Requirements) Amendment >>>> Regulations 2022. This committee of MPs reviews regulations to ensure they are
fit for purpose and reflect the intention of the legislation that enabled such
regulations to be made.
These new legal regulations, passed by the New Zealand Council of Legal >>>> Education, required all law students and aspiring lawyers to complete a >>>> compulsory course in tikanga Maori?Maori laws, beliefs, and
philosophy?alongside the truly core legal subjects like contract law, criminal
law, and torts.
In my view, the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, like so many of our
public institutions, has been quietly captured by Treatyist ideology?stacked
with judges, law deans, and insiders who think it?s their place to impose their
values and worldview on others through law and policy.
I was inspired by Gary?s brave move and joined him to argue that the
regulations violated fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights
Act?including freedom of thought, conscience, belief, expression, and academic
freedom. Gary and I appeared before the Regulations Committee in October last
year and argued this case.
In effect, the regulation mandated a cultural indoctrination course as a >>>> precondition to joining the legal profession. While the Committee ultimately
dismissed the majority of our complaint, it did find that one provision?the
requirement that tikanga be compulsorily assessed within every core legal >>>> subject?was an unusual and unexpected use of regulatory power.
That part of the regulation was formally disallowed in Parliament last evening,
thanks to Joseph Mooney MP moving the motion. Former Hobson?s Pledge trustee
and now New Zealand First MP, Casey Costello, also spoke powerfully in the >>>> House, stating what many know to be true: tikanga is not law. And she?s right.
It?s a small victory, but a victory nonetheless?and it proves that when we >>>> stand up for what?s right, victory is possible. It reminds us why Hobson?s >>>> Pledge exists: to oppose the creeping racialisation of law and policy, and to
stand for a New Zealand where every citizen is treated equally?where no one
gets to force their cultural practices and beliefs on any other person. I am
encouraged, and I hope you are too.
Sincerely, Thomas Newman Trustee Hobson?s Pledge"
As many are coming to expect from the dishonest Hobson's Pledge >>organisation that is close to the dishonest and deceptive ACT Party,
the law change may go further than was justified by the Regulations >>Committee. It is not clear from the above whether there was a separate >>compulsory course in tikanga Maori, or whether tikanga was
compulsorily assessed within every legal subject - but either way it
has been removed entirely. I believe that excluding tikanga Maori
entirely from the education of law courses seems to be going too far -
an important contract that many say forms the basis of our system of >>government is the Tiriti o Waitangi, and an understanding of that
Treaty requires some understanding of tikanga Maori.
It seems clear to me that it is the compulsory nature of this training
that has been removed. The training itself can still be made
available - it has not been banned.
For those who available themselves of this training it seems that
assessment of knowledge will still be possible - meaning that those
who do the training can have their proficiency tested.
It would be interesting to know if any assessment of the profession
has been done in respect of how many lawyers practice in any area
requiring the proficiency that this training delivers.
Based on Academic
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed
significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that
sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example.
So while many lawyers will learn about the Treaty as part of their
work or through general knowledge, it is a shame that the deliberate >>misunderstanding of that important agreement between the Crown and
Maori is still being pushed for partisan political purposes - in
effect Hobson's Pledge and the ACT Party are being deliberately
misleading.
Yet again we have the tail wagging the dog - ACT have captured the
"think tanks" that once supported the more moderate views of the
National Party - they have been taken over by the far-right and racist >>Atlas Network - there was a good video / radio programme on that
recently; but Atlas have taken over the Business Roundtable (now the
NZ Initiative) - they provided Nicola Willis with advice regarding the >>recent Budget; but there are other ACT-supporting organisations as
well designed to pretend that there are more people supporting those >>policies than there actually are.
A small but significant victory. For those who believe this is in some weird
way racist please remember that it is exactly the opposite - it is the removal
of a racist regulation. Striking down a regulation in parliament is rsre and
welcome. There needs to be more of this because there are several other racist
professional bodies. If Tikanga is to be compelled then so must the teaching of
the culture of all communities that exist in this country - not just one. >>>> Tikanga is not law!
The victory also sets a precedence and signals that things have gone too far >>>off the path.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 16:16:31 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:
I believe that excluding tikanga Maori entirely from the
education of law courses seems to be going too far -
Why? What use is it?
What purpose does it serve?
Bill.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:No, Maori did not. If you think that really is the case then prove it,
On 26 May 2025 00:23:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:So you, as usual, attack the people that wrote the article and fail to address >the content., No surprise there.
On 2025-05-25, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
From Hobson's pledge.
"A few nights ago, Parliament struck down a regulation that said tikanga >>>>must
be taught as part of every core legal course for students and aspiring >>>>lawyers.
I am particularly pleased to share this news with you as it is something >>>> Hobson?s Pledge has been involved in and also because I added my voice into
the
original complaint alongside Gary Judd KC. I am a lawyer myself and I care >>>> about what my future colleagues are taught at university!
This is a small but still significant win and our thanks goes to National >>>>MP
Joseph Mooney, who moved what is called a disallowance motion ? that is, a >>>> motion in the Parliament to strike down regulation. That this motion was >>>> successful is very encouraging.
As background to understand why this happened, last year, Gary Judd KC >>>>filed a
complaint to the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament regarding the >>>> Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Maori Requirements) Amendment >>>> Regulations 2022. This committee of MPs reviews regulations to ensure they >>>>are
fit for purpose and reflect the intention of the legislation that enabled >>>>such
regulations to be made.
These new legal regulations, passed by the New Zealand Council of Legal >>>> Education, required all law students and aspiring lawyers to complete a >>>> compulsory course in tikanga Maori?Maori laws, beliefs, and
philosophy?alongside the truly core legal subjects like contract law, >>>>criminal
law, and torts.
In my view, the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, like so many of our
public institutions, has been quietly captured by Treatyist >>>>ideology?stacked
with judges, law deans, and insiders who think it?s their place to impose >>>>their
values and worldview on others through law and policy.
I was inspired by Gary?s brave move and joined him to argue that the
regulations violated fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of >>>>Rights
Act?including freedom of thought, conscience, belief, expression, and >>>>academic
freedom. Gary and I appeared before the Regulations Committee in October >>>>last
year and argued this case.
In effect, the regulation mandated a cultural indoctrination course as a >>>> precondition to joining the legal profession. While the Committee >>>>ultimately
dismissed the majority of our complaint, it did find that one provision?the
requirement that tikanga be compulsorily assessed within every core legal >>>> subject?was an unusual and unexpected use of regulatory power.
That part of the regulation was formally disallowed in Parliament last >>>>evening,
thanks to Joseph Mooney MP moving the motion. Former Hobson?s Pledge >>>>trustee
and now New Zealand First MP, Casey Costello, also spoke powerfully in the >>>> House, stating what many know to be true: tikanga is not law. And she?s >>>>right.
It?s a small victory, but a victory nonetheless?and it proves that when we >>>> stand up for what?s right, victory is possible. It reminds us why Hobson?s >>>> Pledge exists: to oppose the creeping racialisation of law and policy, and >>>>to
stand for a New Zealand where every citizen is treated equally?where no one
gets to force their cultural practices and beliefs on any other person. I >>>>am
encouraged, and I hope you are too.
Sincerely, Thomas Newman Trustee Hobson?s Pledge"
As many are coming to expect from the dishonest Hobson's Pledge
organisation that is close to the dishonest and deceptive ACT Party,Once more, as above.
the law change may go further than was justified by the Regulations >>Committee. It is not clear from the above whether there was a separate >>compulsory course in tikanga Maori, or whether tikanga wasSo still not addressing the content.
compulsorily assessed within every legal subject - but either way it
has been removed entirely. I believe that excluding tikanga Maori
entirely from the education of law courses seems to be going too far -
an important contract that many say forms the basis of our system of >>government is the Tiriti o Waitangi, and an understanding of that
Treaty requires some understanding of tikanga Maori. Based on Academic >>research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed
significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that
sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example.
And they did cede sovereignty as we all actually know.
So you, as usual, attack the people that wrote the article and fail to address >the content., No surprise there.
So while many lawyers will learn about the Treaty as part of their
work or through general knowledge, it is a shame that the deliberate >>misunderstanding of that important agreement between the Crown and
Maori is still being pushed for partisan political purposes - in
effect Hobson's Pledge and the ACT Party are being deliberately
misleading.
So you, as usual, attack the people that wrote the article and fail to address >the content., No surprise there.
Yet again we have the tail wagging the dog - ACT have captured the
"think tanks" that once supported the more moderate views of the
National Party - they have been taken over by the far-right and racist >>Atlas Network - there was a good video / radio programme on that
recently; but Atlas have taken over the Business Roundtable (now the
NZ Initiative) - they provided Nicola Willis with advice regarding the >>recent Budget; but there are other ACT-supporting organisations as
well designed to pretend that there are more people supporting those >>policies than there actually are.
Dickbot has completely failed to address the article. And demonstrates his >racism. Clear as the proverbial bell.
A small but significant victory. For those who believe this is in some >>>>weird
way racist please remember that it is exactly the opposite - it is the >>>>removal
of a racist regulation. Striking down a regulation in parliament is rsre >>>>and
welcome. There needs to be more of this because there are several other >>>>racist
professional bodies. If Tikanga is to be compelled then so must the >>>>teaching of
the culture of all communities that exist in this country - not just one. >>>> Tikanga is not law!
The victory also sets a precedence and signals that things have gone too far >>>off the path.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 21:12:23 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>Which has nothing to do with Tikanga.
wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 16:16:31 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:
On 26 May 2025 00:23:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-05-25, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
From Hobson's pledge.
"A few nights ago, Parliament struck down a regulation that said tikanga >>>>>must
be taught as part of every core legal course for students and aspiring >>>>>lawyers.
I am particularly pleased to share this news with you as it is something >>>>> Hobson?s Pledge has been involved in and also because I added my voice >>>>>into the
original complaint alongside Gary Judd KC. I am a lawyer myself and I >>>>>care
about what my future colleagues are taught at university!
This is a small but still significant win and our thanks goes to National >>>>>MP
Joseph Mooney, who moved what is called a disallowance motion ? that is, >>>>>a
motion in the Parliament to strike down regulation. That this motion was >>>>> successful is very encouraging.
As background to understand why this happened, last year, Gary Judd KC >>>>>filed a
complaint to the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament regarding the >>>>> Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Maori Requirements) Amendment >>>>> Regulations 2022. This committee of MPs reviews regulations to ensure >>>>>they are
fit for purpose and reflect the intention of the legislation that enabled >>>>>such
regulations to be made.
These new legal regulations, passed by the New Zealand Council of Legal >>>>> Education, required all law students and aspiring lawyers to complete a >>>>> compulsory course in tikanga Maori?Maori laws, beliefs, and
philosophy?alongside the truly core legal subjects like contract law, >>>>>criminal
law, and torts.
In my view, the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, like so many of >>>>>our
public institutions, has been quietly captured by Treatyist >>>>>ideology?stacked
with judges, law deans, and insiders who think it?s their place to impose >>>>>their
values and worldview on others through law and policy.
I was inspired by Gary?s brave move and joined him to argue that the >>>>> regulations violated fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of >>>>>Rights
Act?including freedom of thought, conscience, belief, expression, and >>>>>academic
freedom. Gary and I appeared before the Regulations Committee in October >>>>>last
year and argued this case.
In effect, the regulation mandated a cultural indoctrination course as a >>>>> precondition to joining the legal profession. While the Committee >>>>>ultimately
dismissed the majority of our complaint, it did find that one >>>>>provision?the
requirement that tikanga be compulsorily assessed within every core legal >>>>> subject?was an unusual and unexpected use of regulatory power.
That part of the regulation was formally disallowed in Parliament last >>>>>evening,
thanks to Joseph Mooney MP moving the motion. Former Hobson?s Pledge >>>>>trustee
and now New Zealand First MP, Casey Costello, also spoke powerfully in >>>>>the
House, stating what many know to be true: tikanga is not law. And she?s >>>>>right.
It?s a small victory, but a victory nonetheless?and it proves that when >>>>>we
stand up for what?s right, victory is possible. It reminds us why >>>>>Hobson?s
Pledge exists: to oppose the creeping racialisation of law and policy, >>>>>and to
stand for a New Zealand where every citizen is treated equally?where no >>>>>one
gets to force their cultural practices and beliefs on any other person. I >>>>>am
encouraged, and I hope you are too.
Sincerely, Thomas Newman Trustee Hobson?s Pledge"
As many are coming to expect from the dishonest Hobson's Pledge >>>organisation that is close to the dishonest and deceptive ACT Party,
the law change may go further than was justified by the Regulations >>>Committee. It is not clear from the above whether there was a separate >>>compulsory course in tikanga Maori, or whether tikanga was
compulsorily assessed within every legal subject - but either way it
has been removed entirely. I believe that excluding tikanga Maori >>>entirely from the education of law courses seems to be going too far -
an important contract that many say forms the basis of our system of >>>government is the Tiriti o Waitangi, and an understanding of that
Treaty requires some understanding of tikanga Maori.
It seems clear to me that it is the compulsory nature of this training
that has been removed. The training itself can still be made
available - it has not been banned.
For those who available themselves of this training it seems that >>assessment of knowledge will still be possible - meaning that those
who do the training can have their proficiency tested.
It would be interesting to know if any assessment of the profession
has been done in respect of how many lawyers practice in any area
requiring the proficiency that this training delivers.
An increasing number probably, as Maori are increasing as a percentage
of our population, and in addition there is quite a bit of legal work
that relates to management of Maori assets, including money and
property arising from Treaty Settlements.
Based on Academic
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed
significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example.
So while many lawyers will learn about the Treaty as part of their
work or through general knowledge, it is a shame that the deliberate >>>misunderstanding of that important agreement between the Crown and
Maori is still being pushed for partisan political purposes - in
effect Hobson's Pledge and the ACT Party are being deliberately >>>misleading.
Yet again we have the tail wagging the dog - ACT have captured the
"think tanks" that once supported the more moderate views of the
National Party - they have been taken over by the far-right and racist >>>Atlas Network - there was a good video / radio programme on that >>>recently; but Atlas have taken over the Business Roundtable (now the
NZ Initiative) - they provided Nicola Willis with advice regarding the >>>recent Budget; but there are other ACT-supporting organisations as
well designed to pretend that there are more people supporting those >>>policies than there actually are.
A small but significant victory. For those who believe this is in some >>>>>weird
way racist please remember that it is exactly the opposite - it is the >>>>>removal
of a racist regulation. Striking down a regulation in parliament is rsre >>>>>and
welcome. There needs to be more of this because there are several other >>>>>racist
professional bodies. If Tikanga is to be compelled then so must the >>>>>teaching of
the culture of all communities that exist in this country - not just one. >>>>> Tikanga is not law!
The victory also sets a precedence and signals that things have gone too far
off the path.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 17:35:08 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:That is a lie. Never proven and cannot be proven because it is a lie.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 16:16:31 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:
I believe that excluding tikanga Maori entirely from the
education of law courses seems to be going too far -
Why? What use is it?
What purpose does it serve?
Bill.
As I said: "an important contract that many say forms the basis of our
system of government is the Tiriti o Waitangi, and an understanding of
that Treaty requires some understanding of tikanga Maori. Based on
Academic research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed >significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that
sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example."
On Mon, 26 May 2025 04:31:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 26 May 2025 00:23:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:So you, as usual, attack the people that wrote the article and fail to >>address
On 2025-05-25, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
From Hobson's pledge.
"A few nights ago, Parliament struck down a regulation that said tikanga >>>>>must
be taught as part of every core legal course for students and aspiring >>>>>lawyers.
I am particularly pleased to share this news with you as it is something >>>>> Hobson?s Pledge has been involved in and also because I added my voice >>>>>into
the
original complaint alongside Gary Judd KC. I am a lawyer myself and I >>>>>care
about what my future colleagues are taught at university!
This is a small but still significant win and our thanks goes to National >>>>>MP
Joseph Mooney, who moved what is called a disallowance motion ? that is, >>>>>a
motion in the Parliament to strike down regulation. That this motion was >>>>> successful is very encouraging.
As background to understand why this happened, last year, Gary Judd KC >>>>>filed a
complaint to the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament regarding the >>>>> Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Maori Requirements) Amendment >>>>> Regulations 2022. This committee of MPs reviews regulations to ensure >>>>>they
are
fit for purpose and reflect the intention of the legislation that enabled >>>>>such
regulations to be made.
These new legal regulations, passed by the New Zealand Council of Legal >>>>> Education, required all law students and aspiring lawyers to complete a >>>>> compulsory course in tikanga Maori?Maori laws, beliefs, and
philosophy?alongside the truly core legal subjects like contract law, >>>>>criminal
law, and torts.
In my view, the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, like so many of >>>>>our
public institutions, has been quietly captured by Treatyist >>>>>ideology?stacked
with judges, law deans, and insiders who think it?s their place to impose >>>>>their
values and worldview on others through law and policy.
I was inspired by Gary?s brave move and joined him to argue that the >>>>> regulations violated fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of >>>>>Rights
Act?including freedom of thought, conscience, belief, expression, and >>>>>academic
freedom. Gary and I appeared before the Regulations Committee in October >>>>>last
year and argued this case.
In effect, the regulation mandated a cultural indoctrination course as a >>>>> precondition to joining the legal profession. While the Committee >>>>>ultimately
dismissed the majority of our complaint, it did find that one >>>>>provision?the
requirement that tikanga be compulsorily assessed within every core legal >>>>> subject?was an unusual and unexpected use of regulatory power.
That part of the regulation was formally disallowed in Parliament last >>>>>evening,
thanks to Joseph Mooney MP moving the motion. Former Hobson?s Pledge >>>>>trustee
and now New Zealand First MP, Casey Costello, also spoke powerfully in >>>>>the
House, stating what many know to be true: tikanga is not law. And she?s >>>>>right.
It?s a small victory, but a victory nonetheless?and it proves that when >>>>>we
stand up for what?s right, victory is possible. It reminds us why >>>>>Hobson?s
Pledge exists: to oppose the creeping racialisation of law and policy, >>>>>and
to
stand for a New Zealand where every citizen is treated equally?where no >>>>>one
gets to force their cultural practices and beliefs on any other person. I >>>>>am
encouraged, and I hope you are too.
Sincerely, Thomas Newman Trustee Hobson?s Pledge"
As many are coming to expect from the dishonest Hobson's Pledge
the content., No surprise there.
organisation that is close to the dishonest and deceptive ACT Party,Once more, as above.
the law change may go further than was justified by the Regulations >>>Committee. It is not clear from the above whether there was a separate >>>compulsory course in tikanga Maori, or whether tikanga wasSo still not addressing the content.
compulsorily assessed within every legal subject - but either way it
has been removed entirely. I believe that excluding tikanga Maori >>>entirely from the education of law courses seems to be going too far -
an important contract that many say forms the basis of our system of >>>government is the Tiriti o Waitangi, and an understanding of that
Treaty requires some understanding of tikanga Maori. Based on Academic >>>research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed
significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example.
And they did cede sovereignty as we all actually know.No, Maori did not. If you think that really is the case then prove it,
Tony. You have been given proof that you are wrong previously - why do
you continue to lie?
So you, as usual, attack the people that wrote the article and fail to >>address
So while many lawyers will learn about the Treaty as part of their
work or through general knowledge, it is a shame that the deliberate >>>misunderstanding of that important agreement between the Crown and
Maori is still being pushed for partisan political purposes - in
effect Hobson's Pledge and the ACT Party are being deliberately >>>misleading.
the content., No surprise there.
So you, as usual, attack the people that wrote the article and fail to >>address
Yet again we have the tail wagging the dog - ACT have captured the
"think tanks" that once supported the more moderate views of the
National Party - they have been taken over by the far-right and racist >>>Atlas Network - there was a good video / radio programme on that >>>recently; but Atlas have taken over the Business Roundtable (now the
NZ Initiative) - they provided Nicola Willis with advice regarding the >>>recent Budget; but there are other ACT-supporting organisations as
well designed to pretend that there are more people supporting those >>>policies than there actually are.
the content., No surprise there.
Dickbot has completely failed to address the article. And demonstrates his >>racism. Clear as the proverbial bell.
A small but significant victory. For those who believe this is in some >>>>>weird
way racist please remember that it is exactly the opposite - it is the >>>>>removal
of a racist regulation. Striking down a regulation in parliament is rsre >>>>>and
welcome. There needs to be more of this because there are several other >>>>>racist
professional bodies. If Tikanga is to be compelled then so must the >>>>>teaching of
the culture of all communities that exist in this country - not just one. >>>>> Tikanga is not law!
The victory also sets a precedence and signals that things have gone too far
off the path.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 21:12:23 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 16:16:31 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:
On 26 May 2025 00:23:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-05-25, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
From Hobson's pledge.
"A few nights ago, Parliament struck down a regulation that said tikanga must
be taught as part of every core legal course for students and aspiring lawyers.
I am particularly pleased to share this news with you as it is something >>>>> Hobson?s Pledge has been involved in and also because I added my voice into the
original complaint alongside Gary Judd KC. I am a lawyer myself and I care
about what my future colleagues are taught at university!
This is a small but still significant win and our thanks goes to National MP
Joseph Mooney, who moved what is called a disallowance motion ? that is, a
motion in the Parliament to strike down regulation. That this motion was >>>>> successful is very encouraging.
As background to understand why this happened, last year, Gary Judd KC filed a
complaint to the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament regarding the >>>>> Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Maori Requirements) Amendment >>>>> Regulations 2022. This committee of MPs reviews regulations to ensure they are
fit for purpose and reflect the intention of the legislation that enabled such
regulations to be made.
These new legal regulations, passed by the New Zealand Council of Legal >>>>> Education, required all law students and aspiring lawyers to complete a >>>>> compulsory course in tikanga Maori?Maori laws, beliefs, and
philosophy?alongside the truly core legal subjects like contract law, criminal
law, and torts.
In my view, the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, like so many of our
public institutions, has been quietly captured by Treatyist ideology?stacked
with judges, law deans, and insiders who think it?s their place to impose their
values and worldview on others through law and policy.
I was inspired by Gary?s brave move and joined him to argue that the >>>>> regulations violated fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights
Act?including freedom of thought, conscience, belief, expression, and academic
freedom. Gary and I appeared before the Regulations Committee in October last
year and argued this case.
In effect, the regulation mandated a cultural indoctrination course as a >>>>> precondition to joining the legal profession. While the Committee ultimately
dismissed the majority of our complaint, it did find that one provision?the
requirement that tikanga be compulsorily assessed within every core legal >>>>> subject?was an unusual and unexpected use of regulatory power.
That part of the regulation was formally disallowed in Parliament last evening,
thanks to Joseph Mooney MP moving the motion. Former Hobson?s Pledge trustee
and now New Zealand First MP, Casey Costello, also spoke powerfully in the
House, stating what many know to be true: tikanga is not law. And she?s right.
It?s a small victory, but a victory nonetheless?and it proves that when we
stand up for what?s right, victory is possible. It reminds us why Hobson?s
Pledge exists: to oppose the creeping racialisation of law and policy, and to
stand for a New Zealand where every citizen is treated equally?where no one
gets to force their cultural practices and beliefs on any other person. I am
encouraged, and I hope you are too.
Sincerely, Thomas Newman Trustee Hobson?s Pledge"
As many are coming to expect from the dishonest Hobson's Pledge >>>organisation that is close to the dishonest and deceptive ACT Party,
the law change may go further than was justified by the Regulations >>>Committee. It is not clear from the above whether there was a separate >>>compulsory course in tikanga Maori, or whether tikanga was
compulsorily assessed within every legal subject - but either way it
has been removed entirely. I believe that excluding tikanga Maori >>>entirely from the education of law courses seems to be going too far -
an important contract that many say forms the basis of our system of >>>government is the Tiriti o Waitangi, and an understanding of that
Treaty requires some understanding of tikanga Maori.
It seems clear to me that it is the compulsory nature of this training
that has been removed. The training itself can still be made
available - it has not been banned.
For those who available themselves of this training it seems that >>assessment of knowledge will still be possible - meaning that those
who do the training can have their proficiency tested.
It would be interesting to know if any assessment of the profession
has been done in respect of how many lawyers practice in any area
requiring the proficiency that this training delivers.
An increasing number probably, as Maori are increasing as a percentage
of our population, and in addition there is quite a bit of legal work
that relates to management of Maori assets, including money and
property arising from Treaty Settlements.
Based on Academic
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed
significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example.
So while many lawyers will learn about the Treaty as part of their
work or through general knowledge, it is a shame that the deliberate >>>misunderstanding of that important agreement between the Crown and
Maori is still being pushed for partisan political purposes - in
effect Hobson's Pledge and the ACT Party are being deliberately >>>misleading.
Yet again we have the tail wagging the dog - ACT have captured the
"think tanks" that once supported the more moderate views of the
National Party - they have been taken over by the far-right and racist >>>Atlas Network - there was a good video / radio programme on that >>>recently; but Atlas have taken over the Business Roundtable (now the
NZ Initiative) - they provided Nicola Willis with advice regarding the >>>recent Budget; but there are other ACT-supporting organisations as
well designed to pretend that there are more people supporting those >>>policies than there actually are.
A small but significant victory. For those who believe this is in some weird
way racist please remember that it is exactly the opposite - it is the removal
of a racist regulation. Striking down a regulation in parliament is rsre and
welcome. There needs to be more of this because there are several other racist
professional bodies. If Tikanga is to be compelled then so must the teaching of
the culture of all communities that exist in this country - not just one. >>>>> Tikanga is not law!
The victory also sets a precedence and signals that things have gone too far
off the path.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 20:44:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
No, Maori did not. If you think that really is the case then prove it, >>>Tony. You have been given proof that you are wrong previously - why do >>>you continue to lie?Based on AcademicSo still not addressing the content.
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed >>>>>significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example.
And they did cede sovereignty as we all actually know.
You are an abusive little twerp. I have not lied, but you have,
You have never proven that Maori did not cede sovereignty, that is the lie. >>Nobody has ever proved that.
It is not for me to prove you wrong it is for you to prove you are correct >>and
you are not correct and you have never shown that you are.
You are the liar. And it is alwyas you here that lies, nobody else.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/20that%20there%20is%20a%20consistent,precludes%20the%20very%20concept%20of%20ceding%20mana.
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/treaty-faqs
from which:
What does the Treaty say?
The Treaty has three articles. In the English version, Maori cede the >sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain; Maori give the Crown an
exclusive right to buy lands they wish to sell and, in return, are
guaranteed full rights of ownership of their lands, forests, fisheries
and other possessions; and Maori are given the rights and privileges
of British subjects. The Treaty in Maori was deemed to convey the
meaning of the English version, but there are important differences.
Most significantly, in the Maori version the word �sovereignty� was >translated as �kawanatanga� (governance). Some Maori believed that the >governor would have authority over the settlers alone; others thought
that were giving up the government over their lands but retaining the
right to manage their own affairs. The English version guaranteed >�undisturbed possession� of all properties, but the Maori version
guaranteed �tino rangatiratanga� (full authority) over �taonga�
(treasures, which can be intangible). The precise nature of the
exchange within the Treaty of Waitangi is a matter of debate.
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/moana-jackson-there-is-no-word-in-te-reo-maori-for-cede/#:~:text=That%20question%20was%20definitively%20answered%20in%202014,to%20affirm%20that%20M%C4%81ori%20never%20ceded%20sovereignty.&text=He%20explained%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DScbeWuQ27Y&ab_channel=TeAowithMoanaYou really are a fool. None of those either individually or collectively prove that Maori did not cede sovereignty. I strongly urge you to get some English comprehesnion lessons. If you do you may have a better and more involved life. Meanwhile I await actual proof.
You have of course been directed to some of these in the past, but if
you have any credible evidence that these are wrong by all means post
. . .
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
No, Maori did not. If you think that really is the case then prove it, >>Tony. You have been given proof that you are wrong previously - why doBased on AcademicSo still not addressing the content.
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed >>>>significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example.
And they did cede sovereignty as we all actually know.
you continue to lie?
You are an abusive little twerp. I have not lied, but you have,
You have never proven that Maori did not cede sovereignty, that is the lie. >Nobody has ever proved that.
It is not for me to prove you wrong it is for you to prove you are correct and >you are not correct and you have never shown that you are.
You are the liar. And it is alwyas you here that lies, nobody else.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 22:03:47 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 21:12:23 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:All good then - Hobsons Pledge was right to point out that there was
On Mon, 26 May 2025 16:16:31 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:
On 26 May 2025 00:23:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-05-25, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
From Hobson's pledge.
"A few nights ago, Parliament struck down a regulation that said tikanga must
be taught as part of every core legal course for students and aspiring lawyers.
I am particularly pleased to share this news with you as it is something >>>>>> Hobson?s Pledge has been involved in and also because I added my voice into the
original complaint alongside Gary Judd KC. I am a lawyer myself and I care
about what my future colleagues are taught at university!
This is a small but still significant win and our thanks goes to National MP
Joseph Mooney, who moved what is called a disallowance motion ? that is, a
motion in the Parliament to strike down regulation. That this motion was >>>>>> successful is very encouraging.
As background to understand why this happened, last year, Gary Judd KC filed a
complaint to the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament regarding the
Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Maori Requirements) Amendment >>>>>> Regulations 2022. This committee of MPs reviews regulations to ensure they are
fit for purpose and reflect the intention of the legislation that enabled such
regulations to be made.
These new legal regulations, passed by the New Zealand Council of Legal >>>>>> Education, required all law students and aspiring lawyers to complete a >>>>>> compulsory course in tikanga Maori?Maori laws, beliefs, and
philosophy?alongside the truly core legal subjects like contract law, criminal
law, and torts.
In my view, the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, like so many of our
public institutions, has been quietly captured by Treatyist ideology?stacked
with judges, law deans, and insiders who think it?s their place to impose their
values and worldview on others through law and policy.
I was inspired by Gary?s brave move and joined him to argue that the >>>>>> regulations violated fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights
Act?including freedom of thought, conscience, belief, expression, and academic
freedom. Gary and I appeared before the Regulations Committee in October last
year and argued this case.
In effect, the regulation mandated a cultural indoctrination course as a
precondition to joining the legal profession. While the Committee ultimately
dismissed the majority of our complaint, it did find that one provision?the
requirement that tikanga be compulsorily assessed within every core legal
subject?was an unusual and unexpected use of regulatory power.
That part of the regulation was formally disallowed in Parliament last evening,
thanks to Joseph Mooney MP moving the motion. Former Hobson?s Pledge trustee
and now New Zealand First MP, Casey Costello, also spoke powerfully in the
House, stating what many know to be true: tikanga is not law. And she?s right.
It?s a small victory, but a victory nonetheless?and it proves that when we
stand up for what?s right, victory is possible. It reminds us why Hobson?s
Pledge exists: to oppose the creeping racialisation of law and policy, and to
stand for a New Zealand where every citizen is treated equally?where no one
gets to force their cultural practices and beliefs on any other person. I am
encouraged, and I hope you are too.
Sincerely, Thomas Newman Trustee Hobson?s Pledge"
As many are coming to expect from the dishonest Hobson's Pledge >>>>organisation that is close to the dishonest and deceptive ACT Party, >>>>the law change may go further than was justified by the Regulations >>>>Committee. It is not clear from the above whether there was a separate >>>>compulsory course in tikanga Maori, or whether tikanga was
compulsorily assessed within every legal subject - but either way it >>>>has been removed entirely. I believe that excluding tikanga Maori >>>>entirely from the education of law courses seems to be going too far - >>>>an important contract that many say forms the basis of our system of >>>>government is the Tiriti o Waitangi, and an understanding of that >>>>Treaty requires some understanding of tikanga Maori.
It seems clear to me that it is the compulsory nature of this training >>>that has been removed. The training itself can still be made
available - it has not been banned.
For those who available themselves of this training it seems that >>>assessment of knowledge will still be possible - meaning that those
who do the training can have their proficiency tested.
It would be interesting to know if any assessment of the profession
has been done in respect of how many lawyers practice in any area >>>requiring the proficiency that this training delivers.
An increasing number probably, as Maori are increasing as a percentage
of our population, and in addition there is quite a bit of legal work
that relates to management of Maori assets, including money and
property arising from Treaty Settlements.
no justification for the compulsory study the NZ Council of Legal
Education imposed in 2022, as referenced on Tony's OP.
Based on Academic
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed >>>>significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example.
So while many lawyers will learn about the Treaty as part of their
work or through general knowledge, it is a shame that the deliberate >>>>misunderstanding of that important agreement between the Crown and >>>>Maori is still being pushed for partisan political purposes - in
effect Hobson's Pledge and the ACT Party are being deliberately >>>>misleading.
Yet again we have the tail wagging the dog - ACT have captured the >>>>"think tanks" that once supported the more moderate views of the >>>>National Party - they have been taken over by the far-right and racist >>>>Atlas Network - there was a good video / radio programme on that >>>>recently; but Atlas have taken over the Business Roundtable (now the
NZ Initiative) - they provided Nicola Willis with advice regarding the >>>>recent Budget; but there are other ACT-supporting organisations as
well designed to pretend that there are more people supporting those >>>>policies than there actually are.
A small but significant victory. For those who believe this is in some weird
way racist please remember that it is exactly the opposite - it is the removal
of a racist regulation. Striking down a regulation in parliament is rsre and
welcome. There needs to be more of this because there are several other racist
professional bodies. If Tikanga is to be compelled then so must the teaching of
the culture of all communities that exist in this country - not just one.
Tikanga is not law!
The victory also sets a precedence and signals that things have gone too far
off the path.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:20that%20there%20is%20a%20consistent,precludes%20the%20very%20concept%20of%20ceding%20mana.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 20:44:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
No, Maori did not. If you think that really is the case then prove it, >>>>Tony. You have been given proof that you are wrong previously - why do >>>>you continue to lie?Based on AcademicSo still not addressing the content.
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed >>>>>>significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>>>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example.
And they did cede sovereignty as we all actually know.
You are an abusive little twerp. I have not lied, but you have,
You have never proven that Maori did not cede sovereignty, that is the lie. >>>Nobody has ever proved that.
It is not for me to prove you wrong it is for you to prove you are correct >>>and
you are not correct and you have never shown that you are.
You are the liar. And it is alwyas you here that lies, nobody else.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/treaty-faqs
from which:
What does the Treaty say?
The Treaty has three articles. In the English version, Maori cede the >>sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain; Maori give the Crown an
exclusive right to buy lands they wish to sell and, in return, are >>guaranteed full rights of ownership of their lands, forests, fisheries
and other possessions; and Maori are given the rights and privileges
of British subjects. The Treaty in Maori was deemed to convey the
meaning of the English version, but there are important differences.
Most significantly, in the Maori version the word �sovereignty� was >>translated as �kawanatanga� (governance). Some Maori believed that the >>governor would have authority over the settlers alone; others thought
that were giving up the government over their lands but retaining the
right to manage their own affairs. The English version guaranteed >>�undisturbed possession� of all properties, but the Maori version >>guaranteed �tino rangatiratanga� (full authority) over �taonga�
(treasures, which can be intangible). The precise nature of the
exchange within the Treaty of Waitangi is a matter of debate.
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/moana-jackson-there-is-no-word-in-te-reo-maori-for-cede/#:~:text=That%20question%20was%20definitively%20answered%20in%202014,to%20affirm%20that%20M%C4%81ori%20never%20ceded%20sovereignty.&text=He%20explained%
You really are a fool. None of those either individually or collectively prove >that Maori did not cede sovereignty. I strongly urge you to get some English >comprehesnion lessons. If you do you may have a better and more involved life. >Meanwhile I await actual proof.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DScbeWuQ27Y&ab_channel=TeAowithMoana
You have of course been directed to some of these in the past, but if
you have any credible evidence that these are wrong by all means post
. . .
On Tue, 27 May 2025 03:08:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony20explained%20that%20there%20is%20a%20consistent,precludes%20the%20very%20concept%20of%20ceding%20mana.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 20:44:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
No, Maori did not. If you think that really is the case then prove it, >>>>>Tony. You have been given proof that you are wrong previously - why do >>>>>you continue to lie?Based on AcademicSo still not addressing the content.
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed >>>>>>>significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>>>>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example.
And they did cede sovereignty as we all actually know.
You are an abusive little twerp. I have not lied, but you have,
You have never proven that Maori did not cede sovereignty, that is the lie. >>>>Nobody has ever proved that.
It is not for me to prove you wrong it is for you to prove you are correct >>>>and
you are not correct and you have never shown that you are.
You are the liar. And it is alwyas you here that lies, nobody else.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/treaty-faqs
from which:
What does the Treaty say?
The Treaty has three articles. In the English version, Maori cede the >>>sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain; Maori give the Crown an
exclusive right to buy lands they wish to sell and, in return, are >>>guaranteed full rights of ownership of their lands, forests, fisheries >>>and other possessions; and Maori are given the rights and privileges
of British subjects. The Treaty in Maori was deemed to convey the
meaning of the English version, but there are important differences.
Most significantly, in the Maori version the word �sovereignty� was >>>translated as �kawanatanga� (governance). Some Maori believed that the >>>governor would have authority over the settlers alone; others thought >>>that were giving up the government over their lands but retaining the >>>right to manage their own affairs. The English version guaranteed >>>�undisturbed possession� of all properties, but the Maori version >>>guaranteed �tino rangatiratanga� (full authority) over �taonga� >>>(treasures, which can be intangible). The precise nature of the
exchange within the Treaty of Waitangi is a matter of debate.
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/moana-jackson-there-is-no-word-in-te-reo-maori-for-cede/#:~:text=That%20question%20was%20definitively%20answered%20in%202014,to%20affirm%20that%20M%C4%81ori%20never%20ceded%20sovereignty.&text=He%
So you agree that you have not proved it. Good on you - I note however that you are having another temper tantrum.You really are a fool. None of those either individually or collectively >>prove
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DScbeWuQ27Y&ab_channel=TeAowithMoana
You have of course been directed to some of these in the past, but if
you have any credible evidence that these are wrong by all means post
. . .
that Maori did not cede sovereignty. I strongly urge you to get some English >>comprehesnion lessons. If you do you may have a better and more involved life.
Meanwhile I await actual proof.
I note your unsupported opinion, Tony - I have an opinion based on the >evidence of your posts - you are stupid, bigoted, and wrong. That has
been evident in a large majority of your posts to nz.general.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 13:51:48 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>The issue is that it should not be compulsory, perhaps you could actually address that instead of changing the subject.
wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 22:03:47 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 21:12:23 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:All good then - Hobsons Pledge was right to point out that there was
On Mon, 26 May 2025 16:16:31 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:
On 26 May 2025 00:23:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-05-25, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
From Hobson's pledge.
"A few nights ago, Parliament struck down a regulation that said >>>>>>>tikanga must
be taught as part of every core legal course for students and aspiring >>>>>>>lawyers.
I am particularly pleased to share this news with you as it is >>>>>>>something
Hobson?s Pledge has been involved in and also because I added my voice >>>>>>>into the
original complaint alongside Gary Judd KC. I am a lawyer myself and I >>>>>>>care
about what my future colleagues are taught at university!
This is a small but still significant win and our thanks goes to >>>>>>>National MP
Joseph Mooney, who moved what is called a disallowance motion ? that >>>>>>>is, a
motion in the Parliament to strike down regulation. That this motion >>>>>>>was
successful is very encouraging.
As background to understand why this happened, last year, Gary Judd KC >>>>>>>filed a
complaint to the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament regarding >>>>>>>the
Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Maori Requirements) Amendment >>>>>>> Regulations 2022. This committee of MPs reviews regulations to ensure >>>>>>>they are
fit for purpose and reflect the intention of the legislation that >>>>>>>enabled such
regulations to be made.
These new legal regulations, passed by the New Zealand Council of Legal >>>>>>> Education, required all law students and aspiring lawyers to complete a >>>>>>> compulsory course in tikanga Maori?Maori laws, beliefs, and
philosophy?alongside the truly core legal subjects like contract law, >>>>>>>criminal
law, and torts.
In my view, the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, like so many of >>>>>>>our
public institutions, has been quietly captured by Treatyist >>>>>>>ideology?stacked
with judges, law deans, and insiders who think it?s their place to >>>>>>>impose their
values and worldview on others through law and policy.
I was inspired by Gary?s brave move and joined him to argue that the >>>>>>> regulations violated fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of >>>>>>>Rights
Act?including freedom of thought, conscience, belief, expression, and >>>>>>>academic
freedom. Gary and I appeared before the Regulations Committee in >>>>>>>October last
year and argued this case.
In effect, the regulation mandated a cultural indoctrination course as >>>>>>>a
precondition to joining the legal profession. While the Committee >>>>>>>ultimately
dismissed the majority of our complaint, it did find that one >>>>>>>provision?the
requirement that tikanga be compulsorily assessed within every core >>>>>>>legal
subject?was an unusual and unexpected use of regulatory power.
That part of the regulation was formally disallowed in Parliament last >>>>>>>evening,
thanks to Joseph Mooney MP moving the motion. Former Hobson?s Pledge >>>>>>>trustee
and now New Zealand First MP, Casey Costello, also spoke powerfully in >>>>>>>the
House, stating what many know to be true: tikanga is not law. And she?s >>>>>>>right.
It?s a small victory, but a victory nonetheless?and it proves that when >>>>>>>we
stand up for what?s right, victory is possible. It reminds us why >>>>>>>Hobson?s
Pledge exists: to oppose the creeping racialisation of law and policy, >>>>>>>and to
stand for a New Zealand where every citizen is treated equally?where no >>>>>>>one
gets to force their cultural practices and beliefs on any other person. >>>>>>>I am
encouraged, and I hope you are too.
Sincerely, Thomas Newman Trustee Hobson?s Pledge"
As many are coming to expect from the dishonest Hobson's Pledge >>>>>organisation that is close to the dishonest and deceptive ACT Party, >>>>>the law change may go further than was justified by the Regulations >>>>>Committee. It is not clear from the above whether there was a separate >>>>>compulsory course in tikanga Maori, or whether tikanga was >>>>>compulsorily assessed within every legal subject - but either way it >>>>>has been removed entirely. I believe that excluding tikanga Maori >>>>>entirely from the education of law courses seems to be going too far - >>>>>an important contract that many say forms the basis of our system of >>>>>government is the Tiriti o Waitangi, and an understanding of that >>>>>Treaty requires some understanding of tikanga Maori.
It seems clear to me that it is the compulsory nature of this training >>>>that has been removed. The training itself can still be made
available - it has not been banned.
For those who available themselves of this training it seems that >>>>assessment of knowledge will still be possible - meaning that those
who do the training can have their proficiency tested.
It would be interesting to know if any assessment of the profession
has been done in respect of how many lawyers practice in any area >>>>requiring the proficiency that this training delivers.
An increasing number probably, as Maori are increasing as a percentage
of our population, and in addition there is quite a bit of legal work >>>that relates to management of Maori assets, including money and
property arising from Treaty Settlements.
no justification for the compulsory study the NZ Council of Legal
Education imposed in 2022, as referenced on Tony's OP.
Any group is entitled to express an opinion, but why should they be
allowed to impose that on another group - the NZ Council of Legal
Education had determined that it would assist one or more of the
students, the legal profession and New Zealand. They are more likely
to know than a very small extremist political lobby group. There are >certainly some legal issues that I have referred to where a knowledge
of background would assist - it is also an example of the complexity
of New Zealand laws that lawyers need to deal with.
Based on Academic
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed >>>>>significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example.
So while many lawyers will learn about the Treaty as part of their >>>>>work or through general knowledge, it is a shame that the deliberate >>>>>misunderstanding of that important agreement between the Crown and >>>>>Maori is still being pushed for partisan political purposes - in >>>>>effect Hobson's Pledge and the ACT Party are being deliberately >>>>>misleading.
Yet again we have the tail wagging the dog - ACT have captured the >>>>>"think tanks" that once supported the more moderate views of the >>>>>National Party - they have been taken over by the far-right and racist >>>>>Atlas Network - there was a good video / radio programme on that >>>>>recently; but Atlas have taken over the Business Roundtable (now the >>>>>NZ Initiative) - they provided Nicola Willis with advice regarding the >>>>>recent Budget; but there are other ACT-supporting organisations as >>>>>well designed to pretend that there are more people supporting those >>>>>policies than there actually are.
A small but significant victory. For those who believe this is in some >>>>>>>weird
way racist please remember that it is exactly the opposite - it is the >>>>>>>removal
of a racist regulation. Striking down a regulation in parliament is >>>>>>>rsre and
welcome. There needs to be more of this because there are several other >>>>>>>racist
professional bodies. If Tikanga is to be compelled then so must the >>>>>>>teaching of
the culture of all communities that exist in this country - not just >>>>>>>one.
Tikanga is not law!
The victory also sets a precedence and signals that things have gone too >>>>>>far
off the path.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:20explained%20that%20there%20is%20a%20consistent,precludes%20the%20very%20concept%20of%20ceding%20mana.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 03:08:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 20:44:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
No, Maori did not. If you think that really is the case then prove it, >>>>>>Tony. You have been given proof that you are wrong previously - why do >>>>>>you continue to lie?Based on Academic
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed >>>>>>>>significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>>>>>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example. >>>>>>>So still not addressing the content.
And they did cede sovereignty as we all actually know.
You are an abusive little twerp. I have not lied, but you have,
You have never proven that Maori did not cede sovereignty, that is the lie.
Nobody has ever proved that.
It is not for me to prove you wrong it is for you to prove you are correct >>>>>and
you are not correct and you have never shown that you are.
You are the liar. And it is alwyas you here that lies, nobody else.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/treaty-faqs
from which:
What does the Treaty say?
The Treaty has three articles. In the English version, Maori cede the >>>>sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain; Maori give the Crown an >>>>exclusive right to buy lands they wish to sell and, in return, are >>>>guaranteed full rights of ownership of their lands, forests, fisheries >>>>and other possessions; and Maori are given the rights and privileges
of British subjects. The Treaty in Maori was deemed to convey the >>>>meaning of the English version, but there are important differences. >>>>Most significantly, in the Maori version the word �sovereignty� was >>>>translated as �kawanatanga� (governance). Some Maori believed that the >>>>governor would have authority over the settlers alone; others thought >>>>that were giving up the government over their lands but retaining the >>>>right to manage their own affairs. The English version guaranteed >>>>�undisturbed possession� of all properties, but the Maori version >>>>guaranteed �tino rangatiratanga� (full authority) over �taonga� >>>>(treasures, which can be intangible). The precise nature of the >>>>exchange within the Treaty of Waitangi is a matter of debate.
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/moana-jackson-there-is-no-word-in-te-reo-maori-for-cede/#:~:text=That%20question%20was%20definitively%20answered%20in%202014,to%20affirm%20that%20M%C4%81ori%20never%20ceded%20sovereignty.&text=He%
So you agree that you have not proved it. Good on you - I note however that youYou really are a fool. None of those either individually or collectively >>>prove
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DScbeWuQ27Y&ab_channel=TeAowithMoana
You have of course been directed to some of these in the past, but if >>>>you have any credible evidence that these are wrong by all means post
. . .
that Maori did not cede sovereignty. I strongly urge you to get some English >>>comprehesnion lessons. If you do you may have a better and more involved life.
Meanwhile I await actual proof.
I note your unsupported opinion, Tony - I have an opinion based on the >>evidence of your posts - you are stupid, bigoted, and wrong. That has
been evident in a large majority of your posts to nz.general.
are having another temper tantrum.
You really are rude.
I am not bigotted. you are. I am not stupid but I suspect that you are. And I >am correct, you are not.
You have provided no proof as anticipated.
Maori did in fact cede sovereignty and that is good for us all especially Maori.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 13:51:48 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:The issue is that it should not be compulsory, perhaps you could actually >address that instead of changing the subject.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 22:03:47 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 21:12:23 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:All good then - Hobsons Pledge was right to point out that there was
On Mon, 26 May 2025 16:16:31 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:
On 26 May 2025 00:23:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-05-25, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
From Hobson's pledge.
"A few nights ago, Parliament struck down a regulation that said >>>>>>>>tikanga must
be taught as part of every core legal course for students and aspiring >>>>>>>>lawyers.
I am particularly pleased to share this news with you as it is >>>>>>>>something
Hobson?s Pledge has been involved in and also because I added my voice >>>>>>>>into the
original complaint alongside Gary Judd KC. I am a lawyer myself and I >>>>>>>>care
about what my future colleagues are taught at university!
This is a small but still significant win and our thanks goes to >>>>>>>>National MP
Joseph Mooney, who moved what is called a disallowance motion ? that >>>>>>>>is, a
motion in the Parliament to strike down regulation. That this motion >>>>>>>>was
successful is very encouraging.
As background to understand why this happened, last year, Gary Judd KC >>>>>>>>filed a
complaint to the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament regarding >>>>>>>>the
Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Maori Requirements) Amendment
Regulations 2022. This committee of MPs reviews regulations to ensure >>>>>>>>they are
fit for purpose and reflect the intention of the legislation that >>>>>>>>enabled such
regulations to be made.
These new legal regulations, passed by the New Zealand Council of Legal
Education, required all law students and aspiring lawyers to complete a
compulsory course in tikanga Maori?Maori laws, beliefs, and
philosophy?alongside the truly core legal subjects like contract law, >>>>>>>>criminal
law, and torts.
In my view, the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, like so many of
our
public institutions, has been quietly captured by Treatyist >>>>>>>>ideology?stacked
with judges, law deans, and insiders who think it?s their place to >>>>>>>>impose their
values and worldview on others through law and policy.
I was inspired by Gary?s brave move and joined him to argue that the >>>>>>>> regulations violated fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of >>>>>>>>Rights
Act?including freedom of thought, conscience, belief, expression, and >>>>>>>>academic
freedom. Gary and I appeared before the Regulations Committee in >>>>>>>>October last
year and argued this case.
In effect, the regulation mandated a cultural indoctrination course as
a
precondition to joining the legal profession. While the Committee >>>>>>>>ultimately
dismissed the majority of our complaint, it did find that one >>>>>>>>provision?the
requirement that tikanga be compulsorily assessed within every core >>>>>>>>legal
subject?was an unusual and unexpected use of regulatory power. >>>>>>>> That part of the regulation was formally disallowed in Parliament last >>>>>>>>evening,
thanks to Joseph Mooney MP moving the motion. Former Hobson?s Pledge >>>>>>>>trustee
and now New Zealand First MP, Casey Costello, also spoke powerfully in >>>>>>>>the
House, stating what many know to be true: tikanga is not law. And she?s
right.
It?s a small victory, but a victory nonetheless?and it proves that when
we
stand up for what?s right, victory is possible. It reminds us why >>>>>>>>Hobson?s
Pledge exists: to oppose the creeping racialisation of law and policy, >>>>>>>>and to
stand for a New Zealand where every citizen is treated equally?where no
one
gets to force their cultural practices and beliefs on any other person.
I am
encouraged, and I hope you are too.
Sincerely, Thomas Newman Trustee Hobson?s Pledge"
As many are coming to expect from the dishonest Hobson's Pledge >>>>>>organisation that is close to the dishonest and deceptive ACT Party, >>>>>>the law change may go further than was justified by the Regulations >>>>>>Committee. It is not clear from the above whether there was a separate >>>>>>compulsory course in tikanga Maori, or whether tikanga was >>>>>>compulsorily assessed within every legal subject - but either way it >>>>>>has been removed entirely. I believe that excluding tikanga Maori >>>>>>entirely from the education of law courses seems to be going too far - >>>>>>an important contract that many say forms the basis of our system of >>>>>>government is the Tiriti o Waitangi, and an understanding of that >>>>>>Treaty requires some understanding of tikanga Maori.
It seems clear to me that it is the compulsory nature of this training >>>>>that has been removed. The training itself can still be made >>>>>available - it has not been banned.
For those who available themselves of this training it seems that >>>>>assessment of knowledge will still be possible - meaning that those >>>>>who do the training can have their proficiency tested.
It would be interesting to know if any assessment of the profession >>>>>has been done in respect of how many lawyers practice in any area >>>>>requiring the proficiency that this training delivers.
An increasing number probably, as Maori are increasing as a percentage >>>>of our population, and in addition there is quite a bit of legal work >>>>that relates to management of Maori assets, including money and >>>>property arising from Treaty Settlements.
no justification for the compulsory study the NZ Council of Legal >>>Education imposed in 2022, as referenced on Tony's OP.
Any group is entitled to express an opinion, but why should they be
allowed to impose that on another group - the NZ Council of Legal
Education had determined that it would assist one or more of the
students, the legal profession and New Zealand. They are more likely
to know than a very small extremist political lobby group. There are >>certainly some legal issues that I have referred to where a knowledge
of background would assist - it is also an example of the complexity
of New Zealand laws that lawyers need to deal with.
Based on Academic
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed >>>>>>significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>>>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example.
So while many lawyers will learn about the Treaty as part of their >>>>>>work or through general knowledge, it is a shame that the deliberate >>>>>>misunderstanding of that important agreement between the Crown and >>>>>>Maori is still being pushed for partisan political purposes - in >>>>>>effect Hobson's Pledge and the ACT Party are being deliberately >>>>>>misleading.
Yet again we have the tail wagging the dog - ACT have captured the >>>>>>"think tanks" that once supported the more moderate views of the >>>>>>National Party - they have been taken over by the far-right and racist >>>>>>Atlas Network - there was a good video / radio programme on that >>>>>>recently; but Atlas have taken over the Business Roundtable (now the >>>>>>NZ Initiative) - they provided Nicola Willis with advice regarding the >>>>>>recent Budget; but there are other ACT-supporting organisations as >>>>>>well designed to pretend that there are more people supporting those >>>>>>policies than there actually are.
A small but significant victory. For those who believe this is in some >>>>>>>>weird
way racist please remember that it is exactly the opposite - it is the >>>>>>>>removal
of a racist regulation. Striking down a regulation in parliament is >>>>>>>>rsre and
welcome. There needs to be more of this because there are several other
racist
professional bodies. If Tikanga is to be compelled then so must the >>>>>>>>teaching of
the culture of all communities that exist in this country - not just >>>>>>>>one.
Tikanga is not law!
The victory also sets a precedence and signals that things have gone too >>>>>>>far
off the path.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 07:13:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony20explained%20that%20there%20is%20a%20consistent,precludes%20the%20very%20concept%20of%20ceding%20mana.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 03:08:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 20:44:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
No, Maori did not. If you think that really is the case then prove it, >>>>>>>Tony. You have been given proof that you are wrong previously - why do >>>>>>>you continue to lie?Based on Academic
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed >>>>>>>>>significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>>>>>>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example. >>>>>>>>So still not addressing the content.
And they did cede sovereignty as we all actually know.
You are an abusive little twerp. I have not lied, but you have,
You have never proven that Maori did not cede sovereignty, that is the lie.
Nobody has ever proved that.
It is not for me to prove you wrong it is for you to prove you are correct
and
you are not correct and you have never shown that you are.
You are the liar. And it is alwyas you here that lies, nobody else.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/treaty-faqs
from which:
What does the Treaty say?
The Treaty has three articles. In the English version, Maori cede the >>>>>sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain; Maori give the Crown an >>>>>exclusive right to buy lands they wish to sell and, in return, are >>>>>guaranteed full rights of ownership of their lands, forests, fisheries >>>>>and other possessions; and Maori are given the rights and privileges >>>>>of British subjects. The Treaty in Maori was deemed to convey the >>>>>meaning of the English version, but there are important differences. >>>>>Most significantly, in the Maori version the word �sovereignty� was >>>>>translated as �kawanatanga� (governance). Some Maori believed that the >>>>>governor would have authority over the settlers alone; others thought >>>>>that were giving up the government over their lands but retaining the >>>>>right to manage their own affairs. The English version guaranteed >>>>>�undisturbed possession� of all properties, but the Maori version >>>>>guaranteed �tino rangatiratanga� (full authority) over �taonga� >>>>>(treasures, which can be intangible). The precise nature of the >>>>>exchange within the Treaty of Waitangi is a matter of debate.
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/moana-jackson-there-is-no-word-in-te-reo-maori-for-cede/#:~:text=That%20question%20was%20definitively%20answered%20in%202014,to%20affirm%20that%20M%C4%81ori%20never%20ceded%20sovereignty.&text=He%
So you agree that you have not proved it. Good on you - I note however that youYou really are a fool. None of those either individually or collectively >>>>prove
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DScbeWuQ27Y&ab_channel=TeAowithMoana
You have of course been directed to some of these in the past, but if >>>>>you have any credible evidence that these are wrong by all means post >>>>>. . .
that Maori did not cede sovereignty. I strongly urge you to get some English
comprehesnion lessons. If you do you may have a better and more involved life.
Meanwhile I await actual proof.
I note your unsupported opinion, Tony - I have an opinion based on the >>>evidence of your posts - you are stupid, bigoted, and wrong. That has >>>been evident in a large majority of your posts to nz.general.
are having another temper tantrum.
You really are rude.
I am not bigotted. you are. I am not stupid but I suspect that you are. And I >>am correct, you are not.
You have provided no proof as anticipated.
Maori did in fact cede sovereignty and that is good for us all especially Maori.
Tony I note your tenacity in the face of such bigoted and irrational
posts from Rich. I do not have your desire to engage with Rich in the
face of such verbal gymnastics as he throws at you, but I do read the
threads and hold myself back in responding to viewpoints that are so
mired in political ideology. If you were ever to ask, I would suggest
never responding to Rich's posts when you know there is not a skerrick
of a chance that Rich is open to debate.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 07:08:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 13:51:48 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:The issue is that it should not be compulsory, perhaps you could actually >>address that instead of changing the subject.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 22:03:47 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 21:12:23 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>wrote:All good then - Hobsons Pledge was right to point out that there was
On Mon, 26 May 2025 16:16:31 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:
On 26 May 2025 00:23:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-05-25, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
From Hobson's pledge.
"A few nights ago, Parliament struck down a regulation that said >>>>>>>>>tikanga must
be taught as part of every core legal course for students and aspiring
lawyers.
I am particularly pleased to share this news with you as it is >>>>>>>>>something
Hobson?s Pledge has been involved in and also because I added my voice
into the
original complaint alongside Gary Judd KC. I am a lawyer myself and I >>>>>>>>>care
about what my future colleagues are taught at university!
This is a small but still significant win and our thanks goes to >>>>>>>>>National MP
Joseph Mooney, who moved what is called a disallowance motion ? that >>>>>>>>>is, a
motion in the Parliament to strike down regulation. That this motion >>>>>>>>>was
successful is very encouraging.
As background to understand why this happened, last year, Gary Judd KC
filed a
complaint to the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament regarding >>>>>>>>>the
Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Maori Requirements) Amendment
Regulations 2022. This committee of MPs reviews regulations to ensure >>>>>>>>>they are
fit for purpose and reflect the intention of the legislation that >>>>>>>>>enabled such
regulations to be made.
These new legal regulations, passed by the New Zealand Council of Legal
Education, required all law students and aspiring lawyers to complete a
compulsory course in tikanga Maori?Maori laws, beliefs, and
philosophy?alongside the truly core legal subjects like contract law, >>>>>>>>>criminal
law, and torts.
In my view, the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, like so many of
our
public institutions, has been quietly captured by Treatyist >>>>>>>>>ideology?stacked
with judges, law deans, and insiders who think it?s their place to >>>>>>>>>impose their
values and worldview on others through law and policy.
I was inspired by Gary?s brave move and joined him to argue that the >>>>>>>>> regulations violated fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of >>>>>>>>>Rights
Act?including freedom of thought, conscience, belief, expression, and >>>>>>>>>academic
freedom. Gary and I appeared before the Regulations Committee in >>>>>>>>>October last
year and argued this case.
In effect, the regulation mandated a cultural indoctrination course as
a
precondition to joining the legal profession. While the Committee >>>>>>>>>ultimately
dismissed the majority of our complaint, it did find that one >>>>>>>>>provision?the
requirement that tikanga be compulsorily assessed within every core >>>>>>>>>legal
subject?was an unusual and unexpected use of regulatory power. >>>>>>>>> That part of the regulation was formally disallowed in Parliament last
evening,
thanks to Joseph Mooney MP moving the motion. Former Hobson?s Pledge >>>>>>>>>trustee
and now New Zealand First MP, Casey Costello, also spoke powerfully in
the
House, stating what many know to be true: tikanga is not law. And she?s
right.
It?s a small victory, but a victory nonetheless?and it proves that when
we
stand up for what?s right, victory is possible. It reminds us why >>>>>>>>>Hobson?s
Pledge exists: to oppose the creeping racialisation of law and policy,
and to
stand for a New Zealand where every citizen is treated equally?where no
one
gets to force their cultural practices and beliefs on any other person.
I am
encouraged, and I hope you are too.
Sincerely, Thomas Newman Trustee Hobson?s Pledge"
As many are coming to expect from the dishonest Hobson's Pledge >>>>>>>organisation that is close to the dishonest and deceptive ACT Party, >>>>>>>the law change may go further than was justified by the Regulations >>>>>>>Committee. It is not clear from the above whether there was a separate >>>>>>>compulsory course in tikanga Maori, or whether tikanga was >>>>>>>compulsorily assessed within every legal subject - but either way it >>>>>>>has been removed entirely. I believe that excluding tikanga Maori >>>>>>>entirely from the education of law courses seems to be going too far - >>>>>>>an important contract that many say forms the basis of our system of >>>>>>>government is the Tiriti o Waitangi, and an understanding of that >>>>>>>Treaty requires some understanding of tikanga Maori.
It seems clear to me that it is the compulsory nature of this training >>>>>>that has been removed. The training itself can still be made >>>>>>available - it has not been banned.
For those who available themselves of this training it seems that >>>>>>assessment of knowledge will still be possible - meaning that those >>>>>>who do the training can have their proficiency tested.
It would be interesting to know if any assessment of the profession >>>>>>has been done in respect of how many lawyers practice in any area >>>>>>requiring the proficiency that this training delivers.
An increasing number probably, as Maori are increasing as a percentage >>>>>of our population, and in addition there is quite a bit of legal work >>>>>that relates to management of Maori assets, including money and >>>>>property arising from Treaty Settlements.
no justification for the compulsory study the NZ Council of Legal >>>>Education imposed in 2022, as referenced on Tony's OP.
Any group is entitled to express an opinion, but why should they be >>>allowed to impose that on another group - the NZ Council of Legal >>>Education had determined that it would assist one or more of the >>>students, the legal profession and New Zealand. They are more likely
to know than a very small extremist political lobby group. There are >>>certainly some legal issues that I have referred to where a knowledge
of background would assist - it is also an example of the complexity
of New Zealand laws that lawyers need to deal with.
Dead right Tony. It was the compulsory nature of the ruling that was >contested. Rich sought to justify the decision as an anti-Maori,
rather than an anti-compulsion issue. I wonder if he (and many
others) can understand that nuance.
Based on Academic
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed >>>>>>>significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>>>>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example.
So while many lawyers will learn about the Treaty as part of their >>>>>>>work or through general knowledge, it is a shame that the deliberate >>>>>>>misunderstanding of that important agreement between the Crown and >>>>>>>Maori is still being pushed for partisan political purposes - in >>>>>>>effect Hobson's Pledge and the ACT Party are being deliberately >>>>>>>misleading.
Yet again we have the tail wagging the dog - ACT have captured the >>>>>>>"think tanks" that once supported the more moderate views of the >>>>>>>National Party - they have been taken over by the far-right and racist >>>>>>>Atlas Network - there was a good video / radio programme on that >>>>>>>recently; but Atlas have taken over the Business Roundtable (now the >>>>>>>NZ Initiative) - they provided Nicola Willis with advice regarding the >>>>>>>recent Budget; but there are other ACT-supporting organisations as >>>>>>>well designed to pretend that there are more people supporting those >>>>>>>policies than there actually are.
A small but significant victory. For those who believe this is in some
weird
way racist please remember that it is exactly the opposite - it is the
removal
of a racist regulation. Striking down a regulation in parliament is >>>>>>>>>rsre and
welcome. There needs to be more of this because there are several other
racist
professional bodies. If Tikanga is to be compelled then so must the >>>>>>>>>teaching of
the culture of all communities that exist in this country - not just >>>>>>>>>one.
Tikanga is not law!
The victory also sets a precedence and signals that things have gone too
far
off the path.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 19:51:48 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 07:08:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 13:51:48 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:The issue is that it should not be compulsory, perhaps you could actually >>>address that instead of changing the subject.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 22:03:47 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 21:12:23 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>wrote:All good then - Hobsons Pledge was right to point out that there was >>>>>no justification for the compulsory study the NZ Council of Legal >>>>>Education imposed in 2022, as referenced on Tony's OP.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 16:16:31 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:
On 26 May 2025 00:23:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 2025-05-25, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
From Hobson's pledge.
"A few nights ago, Parliament struck down a regulation that said >>>>>>>>>>tikanga must
be taught as part of every core legal course for students and aspiring
lawyers.
I am particularly pleased to share this news with you as it is >>>>>>>>>>something
Hobson?s Pledge has been involved in and also because I added my voice
into the
original complaint alongside Gary Judd KC. I am a lawyer myself and I
care
about what my future colleagues are taught at university!
This is a small but still significant win and our thanks goes to >>>>>>>>>>National MP
Joseph Mooney, who moved what is called a disallowance motion ? that >>>>>>>>>>is, a
motion in the Parliament to strike down regulation. That this motion >>>>>>>>>>was
successful is very encouraging.
As background to understand why this happened, last year, Gary Judd KC
filed a
complaint to the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament regarding
the
Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Maori Requirements) Amendment
Regulations 2022. This committee of MPs reviews regulations to ensure
they are
fit for purpose and reflect the intention of the legislation that >>>>>>>>>>enabled such
regulations to be made.
These new legal regulations, passed by the New Zealand Council of Legal
Education, required all law students and aspiring lawyers to complete a
compulsory course in tikanga Maori?Maori laws, beliefs, and >>>>>>>>>> philosophy?alongside the truly core legal subjects like contract law,
criminal
law, and torts.
In my view, the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, like so many of
our
public institutions, has been quietly captured by Treatyist >>>>>>>>>>ideology?stacked
with judges, law deans, and insiders who think it?s their place to >>>>>>>>>>impose their
values and worldview on others through law and policy.
I was inspired by Gary?s brave move and joined him to argue that the >>>>>>>>>> regulations violated fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of
Rights
Act?including freedom of thought, conscience, belief, expression, and
academic
freedom. Gary and I appeared before the Regulations Committee in >>>>>>>>>>October last
year and argued this case.
In effect, the regulation mandated a cultural indoctrination course as
a
precondition to joining the legal profession. While the Committee >>>>>>>>>>ultimately
dismissed the majority of our complaint, it did find that one >>>>>>>>>>provision?the
requirement that tikanga be compulsorily assessed within every core >>>>>>>>>>legal
subject?was an unusual and unexpected use of regulatory power. >>>>>>>>>> That part of the regulation was formally disallowed in Parliament last
evening,
thanks to Joseph Mooney MP moving the motion. Former Hobson?s Pledge >>>>>>>>>>trustee
and now New Zealand First MP, Casey Costello, also spoke powerfully in
the
House, stating what many know to be true: tikanga is not law. And she?s
right.
It?s a small victory, but a victory nonetheless?and it proves that when
we
stand up for what?s right, victory is possible. It reminds us why >>>>>>>>>>Hobson?s
Pledge exists: to oppose the creeping racialisation of law and policy,
and to
stand for a New Zealand where every citizen is treated equally?where no
one
gets to force their cultural practices and beliefs on any other person.
I am
encouraged, and I hope you are too.
Sincerely, Thomas Newman Trustee Hobson?s Pledge"
As many are coming to expect from the dishonest Hobson's Pledge >>>>>>>>organisation that is close to the dishonest and deceptive ACT Party, >>>>>>>>the law change may go further than was justified by the Regulations >>>>>>>>Committee. It is not clear from the above whether there was a separate >>>>>>>>compulsory course in tikanga Maori, or whether tikanga was >>>>>>>>compulsorily assessed within every legal subject - but either way it >>>>>>>>has been removed entirely. I believe that excluding tikanga Maori >>>>>>>>entirely from the education of law courses seems to be going too far - >>>>>>>>an important contract that many say forms the basis of our system of >>>>>>>>government is the Tiriti o Waitangi, and an understanding of that >>>>>>>>Treaty requires some understanding of tikanga Maori.
It seems clear to me that it is the compulsory nature of this training >>>>>>>that has been removed. The training itself can still be made >>>>>>>available - it has not been banned.
For those who available themselves of this training it seems that >>>>>>>assessment of knowledge will still be possible - meaning that those >>>>>>>who do the training can have their proficiency tested.
It would be interesting to know if any assessment of the profession >>>>>>>has been done in respect of how many lawyers practice in any area >>>>>>>requiring the proficiency that this training delivers.
An increasing number probably, as Maori are increasing as a percentage >>>>>>of our population, and in addition there is quite a bit of legal work >>>>>>that relates to management of Maori assets, including money and >>>>>>property arising from Treaty Settlements.
Any group is entitled to express an opinion, but why should they be >>>>allowed to impose that on another group - the NZ Council of Legal >>>>Education had determined that it would assist one or more of the >>>>students, the legal profession and New Zealand. They are more likely >>>>to know than a very small extremist political lobby group. There are >>>>certainly some legal issues that I have referred to where a knowledge >>>>of background would assist - it is also an example of the complexity
of New Zealand laws that lawyers need to deal with.
Dead right Tony. It was the compulsory nature of the ruling that was >>contested. Rich sought to justify the decision as an anti-Maori,
rather than an anti-compulsion issue. I wonder if he (and many
others) can understand that nuance.
It is normal for most elements of knowledge required for a
professional qualification to be compulsory, with a smaller set where
those seeking qualification can choose from a range of options. There
may also be post qualification CPD requirements; again a mix of
compulsory or optional, with fewer at that stage being compulsory. It
would be very rare to have those requirements not set largely if not
entirely by members of the profession, albeit with the some technical
review before formal approval is granted by some approving body based
on independent specialist advice.
The legal profession does have some particular differences from other >professions in that some of their duties directly relate to the
integrity of legislation - and I note that the Regulation Review
Committee has two Labour and three National members, with one of those >National MPS (Joseph Mooney) getting involved in this issue -
presumably on behalf of Hobson's Pledge.
Having an education programme for a profession influenced by political >considerations is certainly unusual, but in this case it can be
attributed to the intense scrutiny of details by the far-right
organisation Hobson Pledge. In the long run this change is likely to
be seen as a short term aberration - we are fortunate that there are
plenty of lawyers well versed in Maori issues; under previous Labour
and National-led governments such knowledge has been fostered. It
would be interesting to hear the opinion of Chris Finlayson on this
blatantly racist intervention.
Based on Academic
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed >>>>>>>>significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>>>>>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example.
So while many lawyers will learn about the Treaty as part of their >>>>>>>>work or through general knowledge, it is a shame that the deliberate >>>>>>>>misunderstanding of that important agreement between the Crown and >>>>>>>>Maori is still being pushed for partisan political purposes - in >>>>>>>>effect Hobson's Pledge and the ACT Party are being deliberately >>>>>>>>misleading.
Yet again we have the tail wagging the dog - ACT have captured the >>>>>>>>"think tanks" that once supported the more moderate views of the >>>>>>>>National Party - they have been taken over by the far-right and racist >>>>>>>>Atlas Network - there was a good video / radio programme on that >>>>>>>>recently; but Atlas have taken over the Business Roundtable (now the >>>>>>>>NZ Initiative) - they provided Nicola Willis with advice regarding the >>>>>>>>recent Budget; but there are other ACT-supporting organisations as >>>>>>>>well designed to pretend that there are more people supporting those >>>>>>>>policies than there actually are.
A small but significant victory. For those who believe this is in some
weird
way racist please remember that it is exactly the opposite - it is the
removal
of a racist regulation. Striking down a regulation in parliament is >>>>>>>>>>rsre and
welcome. There needs to be more of this because there are several other
racist
professional bodies. If Tikanga is to be compelled then so must the >>>>>>>>>>teaching of
the culture of all communities that exist in this country - not just >>>>>>>>>>one.
Tikanga is not law!
The victory also sets a precedence and signals that things have gone too
far
off the path.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 20:05:25 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>20explained%20that%20there%20is%20a%20consistent,precludes%20the%20very%20concept%20of%20ceding%20mana.
wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 07:13:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 03:08:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 20:44:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
No, Maori did not. If you think that really is the case then prove it, >>>>>>>>Tony. You have been given proof that you are wrong previously - why do >>>>>>>>you continue to lie?Based on Academic
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed >>>>>>>>>>significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>>>>>>>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example. >>>>>>>>>So still not addressing the content.
And they did cede sovereignty as we all actually know.
You are an abusive little twerp. I have not lied, but you have, >>>>>>>You have never proven that Maori did not cede sovereignty, that is the lie.
Nobody has ever proved that.
It is not for me to prove you wrong it is for you to prove you are correct
and
you are not correct and you have never shown that you are.
You are the liar. And it is alwyas you here that lies, nobody else. >>>>>>
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/treaty-faqs
from which:
What does the Treaty say?
The Treaty has three articles. In the English version, Maori cede the >>>>>>sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain; Maori give the Crown an >>>>>>exclusive right to buy lands they wish to sell and, in return, are >>>>>>guaranteed full rights of ownership of their lands, forests, fisheries >>>>>>and other possessions; and Maori are given the rights and privileges >>>>>>of British subjects. The Treaty in Maori was deemed to convey the >>>>>>meaning of the English version, but there are important differences. >>>>>>Most significantly, in the Maori version the word �sovereignty� was >>>>>>translated as �kawanatanga� (governance). Some Maori believed that the >>>>>>governor would have authority over the settlers alone; others thought >>>>>>that were giving up the government over their lands but retaining the >>>>>>right to manage their own affairs. The English version guaranteed >>>>>>�undisturbed possession� of all properties, but the Maori version >>>>>>guaranteed �tino rangatiratanga� (full authority) over �taonga� >>>>>>(treasures, which can be intangible). The precise nature of the >>>>>>exchange within the Treaty of Waitangi is a matter of debate.
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/moana-jackson-there-is-no-word-in-te-reo-maori-for-cede/#:~:text=That%20question%20was%20definitively%20answered%20in%202014,to%20affirm%20that%20M%C4%81ori%20never%20ceded%20sovereignty.&text=He%
So you agree that you have not proved it. Good on you - I note however that youYou really are a fool. None of those either individually or collectively >>>>>proveYou have of course been directed to some of these in the past, but if >>>>>>you have any credible evidence that these are wrong by all means post >>>>>>. . .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DScbeWuQ27Y&ab_channel=TeAowithMoana >>>>>>
that Maori did not cede sovereignty. I strongly urge you to get some English
comprehesnion lessons. If you do you may have a better and more involved life.
Meanwhile I await actual proof.
I note your unsupported opinion, Tony - I have an opinion based on the >>>>evidence of your posts - you are stupid, bigoted, and wrong. That has >>>>been evident in a large majority of your posts to nz.general.
are having another temper tantrum.
You really are rude.
I am not bigotted. you are. I am not stupid but I suspect that you are. And I
am correct, you are not.
You have provided no proof as anticipated.
Maori did in fact cede sovereignty and that is good for us all especially Maori.
Tony I note your tenacity in the face of such bigoted and irrational
posts from Rich. I do not have your desire to engage with Rich in the
face of such verbal gymnastics as he throws at you, but I do read the >>threads and hold myself back in responding to viewpoints that are so
mired in political ideology. If you were ever to ask, I would suggest >>never responding to Rich's posts when you know there is not a skerrick
of a chance that Rich is open to debate.
Do you find any fault in this article, Crash? Tony appears to be
believe that it has no credibility, but offers no evidence himself.
I see nz.general as a discussion forum; that does not mean that there
will always be agreement, and while I welcome different views (and
would not be likely to continue to post if that disappears), it is
often the reason why opinions are held - whether those views are valid
or not. An insistence that an opinion not be questioned is not
productive; but I do say that those prone to bigotry and irrational
posts seldom see their posts in that light - perhaps you could give an >example of each that you claim to have seen in my posts.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 20:56:55 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>20explained%20that%20there%20is%20a%20consistent,precludes%20the%20very%20concept%20of%20ceding%20mana.
wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 20:05:25 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 07:13:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 03:08:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 20:44:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
No, Maori did not. If you think that really is the case then prove it, >>>>>>>>>Tony. You have been given proof that you are wrong previously - why do >>>>>>>>>you continue to lie?Based on Academic
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed >>>>>>>>>>>significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>>>>>>>>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example. >>>>>>>>>>So still not addressing the content.
And they did cede sovereignty as we all actually know.
You are an abusive little twerp. I have not lied, but you have, >>>>>>>>You have never proven that Maori did not cede sovereignty, that is the lie.
Nobody has ever proved that.
It is not for me to prove you wrong it is for you to prove you are correct
and
you are not correct and you have never shown that you are.
You are the liar. And it is alwyas you here that lies, nobody else. >>>>>>>
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/treaty-faqs
from which:
What does the Treaty say?
The Treaty has three articles. In the English version, Maori cede the >>>>>>>sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain; Maori give the Crown an >>>>>>>exclusive right to buy lands they wish to sell and, in return, are >>>>>>>guaranteed full rights of ownership of their lands, forests, fisheries >>>>>>>and other possessions; and Maori are given the rights and privileges >>>>>>>of British subjects. The Treaty in Maori was deemed to convey the >>>>>>>meaning of the English version, but there are important differences. >>>>>>>Most significantly, in the Maori version the word �sovereignty� was >>>>>>>translated as �kawanatanga� (governance). Some Maori believed that the >>>>>>>governor would have authority over the settlers alone; others thought >>>>>>>that were giving up the government over their lands but retaining the >>>>>>>right to manage their own affairs. The English version guaranteed >>>>>>>�undisturbed possession� of all properties, but the Maori version >>>>>>>guaranteed �tino rangatiratanga� (full authority) over �taonga� >>>>>>>(treasures, which can be intangible). The precise nature of the >>>>>>>exchange within the Treaty of Waitangi is a matter of debate.
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/moana-jackson-there-is-no-word-in-te-reo-maori-for-cede/#:~:text=That%20question%20was%20definitively%20answered%20in%202014,to%20affirm%20that%20M%C4%81ori%20never%20ceded%20sovereignty.&text=He%
I was referring to this: https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/There was no article in Tony's OP.So you agree that you have not proved it. Good on you - I note however that youYou really are a fool. None of those either individually or collectively >>>>>>proveYou have of course been directed to some of these in the past, but if >>>>>>>you have any credible evidence that these are wrong by all means post >>>>>>>. . .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DScbeWuQ27Y&ab_channel=TeAowithMoana >>>>>>>
that Maori did not cede sovereignty. I strongly urge you to get some English
comprehesnion lessons. If you do you may have a better and more involved life.
Meanwhile I await actual proof.
I note your unsupported opinion, Tony - I have an opinion based on the >>>>>evidence of your posts - you are stupid, bigoted, and wrong. That has >>>>>been evident in a large majority of your posts to nz.general.
are having another temper tantrum.
You really are rude.
I am not bigotted. you are. I am not stupid but I suspect that you are. And I
am correct, you are not.
You have provided no proof as anticipated.
Maori did in fact cede sovereignty and that is good for us all especially Maori.
Tony I note your tenacity in the face of such bigoted and irrational >>>posts from Rich. I do not have your desire to engage with Rich in the >>>face of such verbal gymnastics as he throws at you, but I do read the >>>threads and hold myself back in responding to viewpoints that are so >>>mired in political ideology. If you were ever to ask, I would suggest >>>never responding to Rich's posts when you know there is not a skerrick
of a chance that Rich is open to debate.
Do you find any fault in this article, Crash? Tony appears to be
believe that it has no credibility, but offers no evidence himself.
I see nz.general as a discussion forum; that does not mean that there
will always be agreement, and while I welcome different views (and
would not be likely to continue to post if that disappears), it is
often the reason why opinions are held - whether those views are valid
or not. An insistence that an opinion not be questioned is not
productive; but I do say that those prone to bigotry and irrational
posts seldom see their posts in that light - perhaps you could give an >>example of each that you claim to have seen in my posts.
There is no point in my doing so. Your history of ignoring posted
evidence that is contrary to your political ideology is legendary and
I have no interest in quoting chapter and verse on this when you will >continue to ignore what you are confronted with.
I was simply replying to Tony with my post.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 19:51:48 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>Completely off topic. How you can post such tripe is beyond belief.
wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 07:08:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 13:51:48 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:The issue is that it should not be compulsory, perhaps you could actually >>>address that instead of changing the subject.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 22:03:47 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 21:12:23 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>wrote:All good then - Hobsons Pledge was right to point out that there was >>>>>no justification for the compulsory study the NZ Council of Legal >>>>>Education imposed in 2022, as referenced on Tony's OP.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 16:16:31 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:
On 26 May 2025 00:23:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 2025-05-25, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
From Hobson's pledge.
"A few nights ago, Parliament struck down a regulation that said >>>>>>>>>>tikanga must
be taught as part of every core legal course for students and >>>>>>>>>>aspiring
lawyers.
I am particularly pleased to share this news with you as it is >>>>>>>>>>something
Hobson?s Pledge has been involved in and also because I added my >>>>>>>>>>voice
into the
original complaint alongside Gary Judd KC. I am a lawyer myself and >>>>>>>>>>I
care
about what my future colleagues are taught at university!
This is a small but still significant win and our thanks goes to >>>>>>>>>>National MP
Joseph Mooney, who moved what is called a disallowance motion ? that >>>>>>>>>>is, a
motion in the Parliament to strike down regulation. That this motion >>>>>>>>>>was
successful is very encouraging.
As background to understand why this happened, last year, Gary Judd >>>>>>>>>>KC
filed a
complaint to the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament >>>>>>>>>>regarding
the
Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Maori Requirements) >>>>>>>>>>Amendment
Regulations 2022. This committee of MPs reviews regulations to >>>>>>>>>>ensure
they are
fit for purpose and reflect the intention of the legislation that >>>>>>>>>>enabled such
regulations to be made.
These new legal regulations, passed by the New Zealand Council of >>>>>>>>>>Legal
Education, required all law students and aspiring lawyers to >>>>>>>>>>complete a
compulsory course in tikanga Maori?Maori laws, beliefs, and >>>>>>>>>> philosophy?alongside the truly core legal subjects like contract >>>>>>>>>>law,
criminal
law, and torts.
In my view, the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, like so many >>>>>>>>>>of
our
public institutions, has been quietly captured by Treatyist >>>>>>>>>>ideology?stacked
with judges, law deans, and insiders who think it?s their place to >>>>>>>>>>impose their
values and worldview on others through law and policy.
I was inspired by Gary?s brave move and joined him to argue that the >>>>>>>>>> regulations violated fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill >>>>>>>>>>of
Rights
Act?including freedom of thought, conscience, belief, expression, >>>>>>>>>>and
academic
freedom. Gary and I appeared before the Regulations Committee in >>>>>>>>>>October last
year and argued this case.
In effect, the regulation mandated a cultural indoctrination course >>>>>>>>>>as
a
precondition to joining the legal profession. While the Committee >>>>>>>>>>ultimately
dismissed the majority of our complaint, it did find that one >>>>>>>>>>provision?the
requirement that tikanga be compulsorily assessed within every core >>>>>>>>>>legal
subject?was an unusual and unexpected use of regulatory power. >>>>>>>>>> That part of the regulation was formally disallowed in Parliament >>>>>>>>>>last
evening,
thanks to Joseph Mooney MP moving the motion. Former Hobson?s Pledge >>>>>>>>>>trustee
and now New Zealand First MP, Casey Costello, also spoke powerfully >>>>>>>>>>in
the
House, stating what many know to be true: tikanga is not law. And >>>>>>>>>>she?s
right.
It?s a small victory, but a victory nonetheless?and it proves that >>>>>>>>>>when
we
stand up for what?s right, victory is possible. It reminds us why >>>>>>>>>>Hobson?s
Pledge exists: to oppose the creeping racialisation of law and >>>>>>>>>>policy,
and to
stand for a New Zealand where every citizen is treated equally?where >>>>>>>>>>no
one
gets to force their cultural practices and beliefs on any other >>>>>>>>>>person.
I am
encouraged, and I hope you are too.
Sincerely, Thomas Newman Trustee Hobson?s Pledge"
As many are coming to expect from the dishonest Hobson's Pledge >>>>>>>>organisation that is close to the dishonest and deceptive ACT Party, >>>>>>>>the law change may go further than was justified by the Regulations >>>>>>>>Committee. It is not clear from the above whether there was a separate >>>>>>>>compulsory course in tikanga Maori, or whether tikanga was >>>>>>>>compulsorily assessed within every legal subject - but either way it >>>>>>>>has been removed entirely. I believe that excluding tikanga Maori >>>>>>>>entirely from the education of law courses seems to be going too far - >>>>>>>>an important contract that many say forms the basis of our system of >>>>>>>>government is the Tiriti o Waitangi, and an understanding of that >>>>>>>>Treaty requires some understanding of tikanga Maori.
It seems clear to me that it is the compulsory nature of this training >>>>>>>that has been removed. The training itself can still be made >>>>>>>available - it has not been banned.
For those who available themselves of this training it seems that >>>>>>>assessment of knowledge will still be possible - meaning that those >>>>>>>who do the training can have their proficiency tested.
It would be interesting to know if any assessment of the profession >>>>>>>has been done in respect of how many lawyers practice in any area >>>>>>>requiring the proficiency that this training delivers.
An increasing number probably, as Maori are increasing as a percentage >>>>>>of our population, and in addition there is quite a bit of legal work >>>>>>that relates to management of Maori assets, including money and >>>>>>property arising from Treaty Settlements.
Any group is entitled to express an opinion, but why should they be >>>>allowed to impose that on another group - the NZ Council of Legal >>>>Education had determined that it would assist one or more of the >>>>students, the legal profession and New Zealand. They are more likely >>>>to know than a very small extremist political lobby group. There are >>>>certainly some legal issues that I have referred to where a knowledge >>>>of background would assist - it is also an example of the complexity
of New Zealand laws that lawyers need to deal with.
Dead right Tony. It was the compulsory nature of the ruling that was >>contested. Rich sought to justify the decision as an anti-Maori,
rather than an anti-compulsion issue. I wonder if he (and many
others) can understand that nuance.
It is normal for most elements of knowledge required for a
professional qualification to be compulsory, with a smaller set where
those seeking qualification can choose from a range of options. There
may also be post qualification CPD requirements; again a mix of
compulsory or optional, with fewer at that stage being compulsory. It
would be very rare to have those requirements not set largely if not
entirely by members of the profession, albeit with the some technical
review before formal approval is granted by some approving body based
on independent specialist advice.
The legal profession does have some particular differences from other >professions in that some of their duties directly relate to the
integrity of legislation - and I note that the Regulation Review
Committee has two Labour and three National members, with one of those >National MPS (Joseph Mooney) getting involved in this issue -
presumably on behalf of Hobson's Pledge.
Having an education programme for a profession influenced by political >considerations is certainly unusual, but in this case it can be
attributed to the intense scrutiny of details by the far-right
organisation Hobson Pledge. In the long run this change is likely to
be seen as a short term aberration - we are fortunate that there are
plenty of lawyers well versed in Maori issues; under previous Labour
and National-led governments such knowledge has been fostered. It
would be interesting to hear the opinion of Chris Finlayson on this
blatantly racist intervention.
Based on Academic
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed >>>>>>>>significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>>>>>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example.
So while many lawyers will learn about the Treaty as part of their >>>>>>>>work or through general knowledge, it is a shame that the deliberate >>>>>>>>misunderstanding of that important agreement between the Crown and >>>>>>>>Maori is still being pushed for partisan political purposes - in >>>>>>>>effect Hobson's Pledge and the ACT Party are being deliberately >>>>>>>>misleading.
Yet again we have the tail wagging the dog - ACT have captured the >>>>>>>>"think tanks" that once supported the more moderate views of the >>>>>>>>National Party - they have been taken over by the far-right and racist >>>>>>>>Atlas Network - there was a good video / radio programme on that >>>>>>>>recently; but Atlas have taken over the Business Roundtable (now the >>>>>>>>NZ Initiative) - they provided Nicola Willis with advice regarding the >>>>>>>>recent Budget; but there are other ACT-supporting organisations as >>>>>>>>well designed to pretend that there are more people supporting those >>>>>>>>policies than there actually are.
A small but significant victory. For those who believe this is in >>>>>>>>>>some
weird
way racist please remember that it is exactly the opposite - it is >>>>>>>>>>the
removal
of a racist regulation. Striking down a regulation in parliament is >>>>>>>>>>rsre and
welcome. There needs to be more of this because there are several >>>>>>>>>>other
racist
professional bodies. If Tikanga is to be compelled then so must the >>>>>>>>>>teaching of
the culture of all communities that exist in this country - not just >>>>>>>>>>one.
Tikanga is not law!
The victory also sets a precedence and signals that things have gone >>>>>>>>>too
far
off the path.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 21:18:21 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>20explained%20that%20there%20is%20a%20consistent,precludes%20the%20very%20concept%20of%20ceding%20mana.
wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 20:56:55 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 20:05:25 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 07:13:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 03:08:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 20:44:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
No, Maori did not. If you think that really is the case then prove it,Based on Academic
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed >>>>>>>>>>>>significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>>>>>>>>>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example. >>>>>>>>>>>So still not addressing the content.
And they did cede sovereignty as we all actually know.
Tony. You have been given proof that you are wrong previously - why do
you continue to lie?
You are an abusive little twerp. I have not lied, but you have, >>>>>>>>>You have never proven that Maori did not cede sovereignty, that is the >>>>>>>>>lie.
Nobody has ever proved that.
It is not for me to prove you wrong it is for you to prove you are >>>>>>>>>correct
and
you are not correct and you have never shown that you are. >>>>>>>>>You are the liar. And it is alwyas you here that lies, nobody else. >>>>>>>>
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/03/the-myth-of-the-cession-of-maori-sovereignty/
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/treaty-faqs
from which:
What does the Treaty say?
The Treaty has three articles. In the English version, Maori cede the >>>>>>>>sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain; Maori give the Crown an >>>>>>>>exclusive right to buy lands they wish to sell and, in return, are >>>>>>>>guaranteed full rights of ownership of their lands, forests, fisheries >>>>>>>>and other possessions; and Maori are given the rights and privileges >>>>>>>>of British subjects. The Treaty in Maori was deemed to convey the >>>>>>>>meaning of the English version, but there are important differences. >>>>>>>>Most significantly, in the Maori version the word �sovereignty� was >>>>>>>>translated as �kawanatanga� (governance). Some Maori believed that the >>>>>>>>governor would have authority over the settlers alone; others thought >>>>>>>>that were giving up the government over their lands but retaining the >>>>>>>>right to manage their own affairs. The English version guaranteed >>>>>>>>�undisturbed possession� of all properties, but the Maori version >>>>>>>>guaranteed �tino rangatiratanga� (full authority) over �taonga� >>>>>>>>(treasures, which can be intangible). The precise nature of the >>>>>>>>exchange within the Treaty of Waitangi is a matter of debate.
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/moana-jackson-there-is-no-word-in-te-reo-maori-for-cede/#:~:text=That%20question%20was%20definitively%20answered%20in%202014,to%20affirm%20that%20M%C4%81ori%20never%20ceded%20sovereignty.&text=He%
I did not actually say that, so you are lying.I was referring to this: >https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2014/11/waitangi-tribunal-finds-treaty-of-waitangi-signatories-did-not-cede-sovereignty-in-february-1840/There was no article in Tony's OP.So you agree that you have not proved it. Good on you - I note however >>>>>that youYou really are a fool. None of those either individually or collectively >>>>>>>proveYou have of course been directed to some of these in the past, but if >>>>>>>>you have any credible evidence that these are wrong by all means post >>>>>>>>. . .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DScbeWuQ27Y&ab_channel=TeAowithMoana >>>>>>>>
that Maori did not cede sovereignty. I strongly urge you to get some >>>>>>>English
comprehesnion lessons. If you do you may have a better and more involved >>>>>>>life.
Meanwhile I await actual proof.
I note your unsupported opinion, Tony - I have an opinion based on the >>>>>>evidence of your posts - you are stupid, bigoted, and wrong. That has >>>>>>been evident in a large majority of your posts to nz.general.
are having another temper tantrum.
You really are rude.
I am not bigotted. you are. I am not stupid but I suspect that you are. >>>>>And I
am correct, you are not.
You have provided no proof as anticipated.
Maori did in fact cede sovereignty and that is good for us all especially >>>>>Maori.
Tony I note your tenacity in the face of such bigoted and irrational >>>>posts from Rich. I do not have your desire to engage with Rich in the >>>>face of such verbal gymnastics as he throws at you, but I do read the >>>>threads and hold myself back in responding to viewpoints that are so >>>>mired in political ideology. If you were ever to ask, I would suggest >>>>never responding to Rich's posts when you know there is not a skerrick >>>>of a chance that Rich is open to debate.
Do you find any fault in this article, Crash? Tony appears to be
believe that it has no credibility, but offers no evidence himself.
I see nz.general as a discussion forum; that does not mean that there >>>will always be agreement, and while I welcome different views (and
would not be likely to continue to post if that disappears), it is
often the reason why opinions are held - whether those views are valid
or not. An insistence that an opinion not be questioned is not >>>productive; but I do say that those prone to bigotry and irrational
posts seldom see their posts in that light - perhaps you could give an >>>example of each that you claim to have seen in my posts.
There is no point in my doing so. Your history of ignoring posted
evidence that is contrary to your political ideology is legendary and
I have no interest in quoting chapter and verse on this when you will >>continue to ignore what you are confronted with.
I posted the only external evidence in this thread . . . Tony said
that he wanted evidence but was not prepared to post any himself to
support his view.
I was simply replying to Tony with my post.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 20:49:06 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>He can be quite exhausting at times eh?
wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 19:51:48 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 07:08:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 13:51:48 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>wrote:The issue is that it should not be compulsory, perhaps you could actually >>>>address that instead of changing the subject.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 22:03:47 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 21:12:23 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>>wrote:All good then - Hobsons Pledge was right to point out that there was >>>>>>no justification for the compulsory study the NZ Council of Legal >>>>>>Education imposed in 2022, as referenced on Tony's OP.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 16:16:31 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On 26 May 2025 00:23:48 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
On 2025-05-25, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
From Hobson's pledge.
"A few nights ago, Parliament struck down a regulation that said >>>>>>>>>>>tikanga must
be taught as part of every core legal course for students and >>>>>>>>>>>aspiring
lawyers.
I am particularly pleased to share this news with you as it is >>>>>>>>>>>something
Hobson?s Pledge has been involved in and also because I added my >>>>>>>>>>>voice
into the
original complaint alongside Gary Judd KC. I am a lawyer myself and >>>>>>>>>>>I
care
about what my future colleagues are taught at university! >>>>>>>>>>> This is a small but still significant win and our thanks goes to >>>>>>>>>>>National MP
Joseph Mooney, who moved what is called a disallowance motion ? >>>>>>>>>>>that
is, a
motion in the Parliament to strike down regulation. That this >>>>>>>>>>>motion
was
successful is very encouraging.
As background to understand why this happened, last year, Gary Judd >>>>>>>>>>>KC
filed a
complaint to the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament >>>>>>>>>>>regarding
the
Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Maori Requirements) >>>>>>>>>>>Amendment
Regulations 2022. This committee of MPs reviews regulations to >>>>>>>>>>>ensure
they are
fit for purpose and reflect the intention of the legislation that >>>>>>>>>>>enabled such
regulations to be made.
These new legal regulations, passed by the New Zealand Council of >>>>>>>>>>>Legal
Education, required all law students and aspiring lawyers to >>>>>>>>>>>complete a
compulsory course in tikanga Maori?Maori laws, beliefs, and >>>>>>>>>>> philosophy?alongside the truly core legal subjects like contract >>>>>>>>>>>law,
criminal
law, and torts.
In my view, the New Zealand Council of Legal Education, like so >>>>>>>>>>>many of
our
public institutions, has been quietly captured by Treatyist >>>>>>>>>>>ideology?stacked
with judges, law deans, and insiders who think it?s their place to >>>>>>>>>>>impose their
values and worldview on others through law and policy.
I was inspired by Gary?s brave move and joined him to argue that >>>>>>>>>>>the
regulations violated fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill >>>>>>>>>>>of
Rights
Act?including freedom of thought, conscience, belief, expression, >>>>>>>>>>>and
academic
freedom. Gary and I appeared before the Regulations Committee in >>>>>>>>>>>October last
year and argued this case.
In effect, the regulation mandated a cultural indoctrination >>>>>>>>>>>course as
a
precondition to joining the legal profession. While the Committee >>>>>>>>>>>ultimately
dismissed the majority of our complaint, it did find that one >>>>>>>>>>>provision?the
requirement that tikanga be compulsorily assessed within every core >>>>>>>>>>>legal
subject?was an unusual and unexpected use of regulatory power. >>>>>>>>>>> That part of the regulation was formally disallowed in Parliament >>>>>>>>>>>last
evening,
thanks to Joseph Mooney MP moving the motion. Former Hobson?s >>>>>>>>>>>Pledge
trustee
and now New Zealand First MP, Casey Costello, also spoke powerfully >>>>>>>>>>>in
the
House, stating what many know to be true: tikanga is not law. And >>>>>>>>>>>she?s
right.
It?s a small victory, but a victory nonetheless?and it proves that >>>>>>>>>>>when
we
stand up for what?s right, victory is possible. It reminds us why >>>>>>>>>>>Hobson?s
Pledge exists: to oppose the creeping racialisation of law and >>>>>>>>>>>policy,
and to
stand for a New Zealand where every citizen is treated >>>>>>>>>>>equally?where no
one
gets to force their cultural practices and beliefs on any other >>>>>>>>>>>person.
I am
encouraged, and I hope you are too.
Sincerely, Thomas Newman Trustee Hobson?s Pledge"
As many are coming to expect from the dishonest Hobson's Pledge >>>>>>>>>organisation that is close to the dishonest and deceptive ACT Party, >>>>>>>>>the law change may go further than was justified by the Regulations >>>>>>>>>Committee. It is not clear from the above whether there was a separate >>>>>>>>>compulsory course in tikanga Maori, or whether tikanga was >>>>>>>>>compulsorily assessed within every legal subject - but either way it >>>>>>>>>has been removed entirely. I believe that excluding tikanga Maori >>>>>>>>>entirely from the education of law courses seems to be going too far - >>>>>>>>>an important contract that many say forms the basis of our system of >>>>>>>>>government is the Tiriti o Waitangi, and an understanding of that >>>>>>>>>Treaty requires some understanding of tikanga Maori.
It seems clear to me that it is the compulsory nature of this training >>>>>>>>that has been removed. The training itself can still be made >>>>>>>>available - it has not been banned.
For those who available themselves of this training it seems that >>>>>>>>assessment of knowledge will still be possible - meaning that those >>>>>>>>who do the training can have their proficiency tested.
It would be interesting to know if any assessment of the profession >>>>>>>>has been done in respect of how many lawyers practice in any area >>>>>>>>requiring the proficiency that this training delivers.
An increasing number probably, as Maori are increasing as a percentage >>>>>>>of our population, and in addition there is quite a bit of legal work >>>>>>>that relates to management of Maori assets, including money and >>>>>>>property arising from Treaty Settlements.
Any group is entitled to express an opinion, but why should they be >>>>>allowed to impose that on another group - the NZ Council of Legal >>>>>Education had determined that it would assist one or more of the >>>>>students, the legal profession and New Zealand. They are more likely >>>>>to know than a very small extremist political lobby group. There are >>>>>certainly some legal issues that I have referred to where a knowledge >>>>>of background would assist - it is also an example of the complexity >>>>>of New Zealand laws that lawyers need to deal with.
Dead right Tony. It was the compulsory nature of the ruling that was >>>contested. Rich sought to justify the decision as an anti-Maori,
rather than an anti-compulsion issue. I wonder if he (and many
others) can understand that nuance.
It is normal for most elements of knowledge required for a
professional qualification to be compulsory, with a smaller set where
those seeking qualification can choose from a range of options. There
may also be post qualification CPD requirements; again a mix of
compulsory or optional, with fewer at that stage being compulsory. It
would be very rare to have those requirements not set largely if not >>entirely by members of the profession, albeit with the some technical >>review before formal approval is granted by some approving body based
on independent specialist advice.
The legal profession does have some particular differences from other >>professions in that some of their duties directly relate to the
integrity of legislation - and I note that the Regulation Review
Committee has two Labour and three National members, with one of those >>National MPS (Joseph Mooney) getting involved in this issue -
presumably on behalf of Hobson's Pledge.
Having an education programme for a profession influenced by political >>considerations is certainly unusual, but in this case it can be
attributed to the intense scrutiny of details by the far-right
organisation Hobson Pledge. In the long run this change is likely to
be seen as a short term aberration - we are fortunate that there are
plenty of lawyers well versed in Maori issues; under previous Labour
and National-led governments such knowledge has been fostered. It
would be interesting to hear the opinion of Chris Finlayson on this >>blatantly racist intervention.
Absolutely nonsense as usual. The racism is clearly with compulsion
and that is indefensible. It has been fixed as it should be.
Based on Academic
research, the legal views regarding the Treaty have changed >>>>>>>>>significantly from those held in the 1940's - we now know that >>>>>>>>>sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in that Treaty for example. >>>>>>>>>
So while many lawyers will learn about the Treaty as part of their >>>>>>>>>work or through general knowledge, it is a shame that the deliberate >>>>>>>>>misunderstanding of that important agreement between the Crown and >>>>>>>>>Maori is still being pushed for partisan political purposes - in >>>>>>>>>effect Hobson's Pledge and the ACT Party are being deliberately >>>>>>>>>misleading.
Yet again we have the tail wagging the dog - ACT have captured the >>>>>>>>>"think tanks" that once supported the more moderate views of the >>>>>>>>>National Party - they have been taken over by the far-right and racist >>>>>>>>>Atlas Network - there was a good video / radio programme on that >>>>>>>>>recently; but Atlas have taken over the Business Roundtable (now the >>>>>>>>>NZ Initiative) - they provided Nicola Willis with advice regarding the >>>>>>>>>recent Budget; but there are other ACT-supporting organisations as >>>>>>>>>well designed to pretend that there are more people supporting those >>>>>>>>>policies than there actually are.
A small but significant victory. For those who believe this is in >>>>>>>>>>>some
weird
way racist please remember that it is exactly the opposite - it is >>>>>>>>>>>the
removal
of a racist regulation. Striking down a regulation in parliament is >>>>>>>>>>>rsre and
welcome. There needs to be more of this because there are several >>>>>>>>>>>other
racist
professional bodies. If Tikanga is to be compelled then so must the >>>>>>>>>>>teaching of
the culture of all communities that exist in this country - not >>>>>>>>>>>just
one.
Tikanga is not law!
The victory also sets a precedence and signals that things have gone >>>>>>>>>>too
far
off the path.
--
Crash McBash
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 156:43:07 |
| Calls: | 12,093 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,739 |