The meaning of a document is not decided by majority vote, or by people going on a protest march, or even by judges making a ruling. But the laws we all live by, how those laws are interpreted, and how taxpayer money is spent, are all things that can be altered by elected representatives of the majority of voters.
There is a difference between a referendum determining how society should interpret a document, and a referendum being intended to determine what a document actually means. I took the latter as an implicit aim of the Act Party in seeking to hold a referendum.
But there are plenty of reasons why a referendum is a stupid way to go about determining how society should interpret a document. For one thing, it means that the interpretation of the Treaty will be voted on by people who know nothing about it. For another thing, it will cause tremendous division and unrest.
A common fallacy seems to be that the Bill is about changing the meaning of the Treaty.
It appears to me to be nothing of the sort!!!
Just as, an act of Parliament in 1975 created an undefined thing called the principles of the treaty. This bill seeks to create a definition of that phrase in law.
So when people are required to sign/agree that they support the principles of the treaty. They have something to agree with rather than various, often changing meanings put out by various government bodies/corporates.
Thanks for your comment! Whether the bill changes the Treaty is a separate issue from whether truth is decided by referendum. This article does not deal with the former issue.
Those who believe abortion is acceptable, those who think abortion is unacceptable.
Which is the truth about abortion?
Another example.
Those that think Maori need a separate Health organisation. Those who think that Maori Asian and all citizens can be served with one Health organisetion.
Which is true?
When the majority decide something is true, then it follows that society has decided truth. Until Society changes its mind.
Slavery used to be accepted(Truth) until it was not(the new truth)
A referendum is just a giant poll on what society thinks!!!
Or do you think a special minority must be the sole arbiters of what is truth?
EG Maori Elite, Supreme court Judges?
With regard to interpreting a document. Then use the US Constitution as a case in point. Arguments are many and varied before the Supreme court. Orginalists try and interpret the meaning when it was drafted. Others try to interpret the Constitution using todays norms.
I submit that in todays society, neither popular belief(referendum) or elites interpretation represent truth. But Society as a whole has to have a common undertstanding as to what is true or not true.
Re: morality, there is no academic consensus on whether objective morality exists. An example of a scholar who believes that objective morality does exist, and has argued for that position, is Robert Merrihew Adams. On the other end of the spectrum, I dislike Peter Singer intensely, but even he believes that objective morality exists.
Regardless of whether objective morality exists or not however, as my article has argued (successfully, I think) the existence of objective morality is the foundation of indigenous rights and human rights in general. You in fact concede this in your comment about slavery. The position you espouse may or may not be true (see the internal inconsistency there, by the way?) but my point is that that view leads leads to societies like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
There are things that are obviously true. "Either Neil Armstrong landed on the moon or he did not" is a premise which is true by definition, as those are the only two alternatives. I recognise that it is obvious that truth is objective, and that may be where your confusion comes in, but for a significant period in time denying the existence of objective truth was in vogue and many people still believe that today.
You accuse me of not addressing the subject (referendum/Truth) then wander off in a discussion on morality???? I would hate to infer you were deflecting. But then you and I have different views on what truth is.
I loved your slur "maybe thats where your confusion comes in""
I will use it as a put down some time in the future.
I hesitate to say that morality and truth as in deciding truth are two different topics.
But I have had my say in saying that a referendum has its place in deciding what society believes is truth.
This piece is oddly argued. "Firstly, it denies that the Treaty of Waitangi has an objective meaning. If truth does not exist, then what the Treaty means is a matter of opinion."
Of course "what the Treaty means is a matter of opinion". Sir Apirana Ngata, for instance, had a vastly different view on it than TMP does now.
Lucy is apparently a lawyer. Who should know better that documents are capable of many interpretations than a member of the legal profession? Why else do lawyers go to court to argue their case?
I think you misunderstand my point. Of course there are often differing opinions over what a document means. My point is that those opinions are not all equally correct. Which is to say: the Crown and iwi intended to agree on certain matters and it is possible to be right or wrong about what it is that they intended.
This may be confusing because postmodernism is such a ridiculous worldview. It denies that 2 + 2 objectively = 4, and says that any answer to that question is equally correct. That is because it teaches that truth does not exist.
We can never know what the parties to the Treaty understood 184 years ago. We can only make educated guesses, using contemporary evidence such as the chiefs' speeches at Waitangi and at Kohimarama in 1860, but we can have no idea what most of the other 500 signatories believed they were signing up to . Most couldn't read te reo and relied on whatever they were told the Treaty actually said and meant.
I think you're entirely wrong to make this a question of post-modernism. A much better parallel is Bible exegesis. The debates about what particular verses mean has occupied scholars for millennia.
Again, that is a separate issue. The question I am posing is whether there is a correct answer, not whether we can know it. Postmodernism would insist that there is no correct answer and that contradictory views as to what the parties actually intended are equally correct.
But what would a "correct answer" look like and how would it be arrived at? 500 chiefs might have had very different ideas among them about what they were signing. You'd have to quiz all of them individually (and assume they were telling the truth) to understand their reasons.
Some views may be so outlandish they can be easily dismissed but a lot of contradictory or competing views will be plausible and have evidence to support them.
Similar issues arise about authorial intent in relation to legislation passed by Parliament (I remember in Law School a friend commenting sardonically when we were studying what politicians intended by section 15(d) of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979 that they were probably all drunk at the time) but our legal system revolves around the assumption that there is such thing as parliamentary intention. I agree that complex issues can arise about group agency but for present purposes the most straightforward way to approach the issue is to do our best to give effect to what the majority of signers intended in relation to any given document, while trying to accommodate insofar as it is possible what a minority may have intended. The exact dynamics of that will depend on the specific document in question.
Yes, legislative intent is sometimes more obvious than others. You'll know that the govt is redefining s58 of the Marine and Coastal Areas Act for exactly that reason. The judges claimed that the section couldn't possibly mean what it plainly meant because, if it did, very few iwi/hapu would qualify for CMT.
That case of judicial activism seems pretty clear cut but it's very often a matter of contentious debate.
The meaning of a document is not decided by majority vote, or by people going on a protest march, or even by judges making a ruling. But the laws we all live by, how those laws are interpreted, and how taxpayer money is spent, are all things that can be altered by elected representatives of the majority of voters.
There is a difference between a referendum determining how society should interpret a document, and a referendum being intended to determine what a document actually means. I took the latter as an implicit aim of the Act Party in seeking to hold a referendum.
But there are plenty of reasons why a referendum is a stupid way to go about determining how society should interpret a document. For one thing, it means that the interpretation of the Treaty will be voted on by people who know nothing about it. For another thing, it will cause tremendous division and unrest.
A common fallacy seems to be that the Bill is about changing the meaning of the Treaty.
It appears to me to be nothing of the sort!!!
Just as, an act of Parliament in 1975 created an undefined thing called the principles of the treaty. This bill seeks to create a definition of that phrase in law.
So when people are required to sign/agree that they support the principles of the treaty. They have something to agree with rather than various, often changing meanings put out by various government bodies/corporates.
IT DOES NOT SEEK TO CHANGE THE TREATY....
Thanks for your comment! Whether the bill changes the Treaty is a separate issue from whether truth is decided by referendum. This article does not deal with the former issue.
Lucy, I suspect your argument is a straw horse.
Truth is different for different people!!!
A simple example.
Those who believe abortion is acceptable, those who think abortion is unacceptable.
Which is the truth about abortion?
Another example.
Those that think Maori need a separate Health organisation. Those who think that Maori Asian and all citizens can be served with one Health organisetion.
Which is true?
When the majority decide something is true, then it follows that society has decided truth. Until Society changes its mind.
Slavery used to be accepted(Truth) until it was not(the new truth)
A referendum is just a giant poll on what society thinks!!!
Or do you think a special minority must be the sole arbiters of what is truth?
EG Maori Elite, Supreme court Judges?
With regard to interpreting a document. Then use the US Constitution as a case in point. Arguments are many and varied before the Supreme court. Orginalists try and interpret the meaning when it was drafted. Others try to interpret the Constitution using todays norms.
I submit that in todays society, neither popular belief(referendum) or elites interpretation represent truth. But Society as a whole has to have a common undertstanding as to what is true or not true.
Re: morality, there is no academic consensus on whether objective morality exists. An example of a scholar who believes that objective morality does exist, and has argued for that position, is Robert Merrihew Adams. On the other end of the spectrum, I dislike Peter Singer intensely, but even he believes that objective morality exists.
Regardless of whether objective morality exists or not however, as my article has argued (successfully, I think) the existence of objective morality is the foundation of indigenous rights and human rights in general. You in fact concede this in your comment about slavery. The position you espouse may or may not be true (see the internal inconsistency there, by the way?) but my point is that that view leads leads to societies like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
There are things that are obviously true. "Either Neil Armstrong landed on the moon or he did not" is a premise which is true by definition, as those are the only two alternatives. I recognise that it is obvious that truth is objective, and that may be where your confusion comes in, but for a significant period in time denying the existence of objective truth was in vogue and many people still believe that today.
You accuse me of not addressing the subject (referendum/Truth) then wander off in a discussion on morality???? I would hate to infer you were deflecting. But then you and I have different views on what truth is.
I loved your slur "maybe thats where your confusion comes in""
I will use it as a put down some time in the future.
I hesitate to say that morality and truth as in deciding truth are two different topics.
But I have had my say in saying that a referendum has its place in deciding what society believes is truth.
Message ends
This piece is oddly argued. "Firstly, it denies that the Treaty of Waitangi has an objective meaning. If truth does not exist, then what the Treaty means is a matter of opinion."
Of course "what the Treaty means is a matter of opinion". Sir Apirana Ngata, for instance, had a vastly different view on it than TMP does now.
Lucy is apparently a lawyer. Who should know better that documents are capable of many interpretations than a member of the legal profession? Why else do lawyers go to court to argue their case?
I think you misunderstand my point. Of course there are often differing opinions over what a document means. My point is that those opinions are not all equally correct. Which is to say: the Crown and iwi intended to agree on certain matters and it is possible to be right or wrong about what it is that they intended.
This may be confusing because postmodernism is such a ridiculous worldview. It denies that 2 + 2 objectively = 4, and says that any answer to that question is equally correct. That is because it teaches that truth does not exist.
We can never know what the parties to the Treaty understood 184 years ago. We can only make educated guesses, using contemporary evidence such as the chiefs' speeches at Waitangi and at Kohimarama in 1860, but we can have no idea what most of the other 500 signatories believed they were signing up to . Most couldn't read te reo and relied on whatever they were told the Treaty actually said and meant.
I think you're entirely wrong to make this a question of post-modernism. A much better parallel is Bible exegesis. The debates about what particular verses mean has occupied scholars for millennia.
Again, that is a separate issue. The question I am posing is whether there is a correct answer, not whether we can know it. Postmodernism would insist that there is no correct answer and that contradictory views as to what the parties actually intended are equally correct.
But what would a "correct answer" look like and how would it be arrived at? 500 chiefs might have had very different ideas among them about what they were signing. You'd have to quiz all of them individually (and assume they were telling the truth) to understand their reasons.
Some views may be so outlandish they can be easily dismissed but a lot of contradictory or competing views will be plausible and have evidence to support them.
Similar issues arise about authorial intent in relation to legislation passed by Parliament (I remember in Law School a friend commenting sardonically when we were studying what politicians intended by section 15(d) of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979 that they were probably all drunk at the time) but our legal system revolves around the assumption that there is such thing as parliamentary intention. I agree that complex issues can arise about group agency but for present purposes the most straightforward way to approach the issue is to do our best to give effect to what the majority of signers intended in relation to any given document, while trying to accommodate insofar as it is possible what a minority may have intended. The exact dynamics of that will depend on the specific document in question.
Yes, legislative intent is sometimes more obvious than others. You'll know that the govt is redefining s58 of the Marine and Coastal Areas Act for exactly that reason. The judges claimed that the section couldn't possibly mean what it plainly meant because, if it did, very few iwi/hapu would qualify for CMT.
That case of judicial activism seems pretty clear cut but it's very often a matter of contentious debate.