Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Legal Systems and Societies - Coggle Diagram

- - - - why is it relevant to law and society?
        The story of the discussion the court cases around whether to lower the voting age to 18 is a an I guess a good nice recent example of separations of powers and its operation in New Zealand. So we've had parliament over the past setting, the age at which people can vote, going from 21 to 80, and then expanding the group of people that can vote the legislation historically, was introduced by government. And here with make it 16. We had the debate going to the courts for their views, but we are I guess we were still in a situation. The court has come out Supreme Court I scored the land has made its determination and it's sort of pushed the argument bit further forward, give a bit more like a bit more strength for issuing the declaration of inconsistency, but it's back to the government to make a decision and to respond. And I guess the government isn't in the process of that. And at some point in the future, we may have the introduction of legislation in Parliament to see if voting in local elections can be introduced, whether voting at the age of the voting age in general elections can be introduced.
        
        So when you think about that story, but not that account, you can maybe ask yourself, but do you think in this context and the context of debates about the voting age, and how it's been responded to? Do you think that our constitution provides an adequate system of checks and balances? You see our three bodies in operation there. We have the outcome of the court, the government's response in Parliament's response. Do you think it's an adequate system of checks and balances is happening here? And maybe, since we're talking about the courts this week, it's a question about whether you think the courts should have a role or input and generally, but also into deciding who can exercise his core democratic rights. That might bring us back to some of the debates about democracy and drop aristocracy. What is the role of the courts here? Or should it be a matter for government in Parliament? Only because they're the ones I guess, more directly or more clearly representative of us. So I felt so bold ideas at the beginning of last week, broad ideas about the courts this week. and a lot of those ideas, If you think about it, come through in this court case, And it's about rights and liberties, the balance of power between the individual and the state. The limits on those power limits on those rights are they justified or not, or is it an arbitrary exercise of power.
- - - - But I would like to go back and just have a quick overview of some history, but also maybe kind of picking back your way. I tried to keep drawing threads of ideas through all my lectures, because it's not the evolution of launches and society is not isolated, isolated chunks and history. But it's helpful to go back and think about some of the things that Matthew Palmer said in his piece about our constitutional culture. When he talked about that, he in the context of parliamentary sovereignty. One of the things he talked about was that his view that Aotearoa New Zealand was essentially an egalitarian society. So that our society he argues values social equality, and he talked about embracing a team spirit in terms of maybe sporting our rugby teams, maybe less so comes with the America's Cup these days. But he also talked about the idea of tall poppies, not so popular people who might have we would say in Ireland have notions about themselves. So part of part of that as a part of what I want to talk about this week is simple. That's really true here in Aotearoa, New Zealand. So we embrace this idea of social equality. But does that mean also that all people here have equal rights and opportunities? Do they have equal rights and opportunities that they deserve? So we might have this view of you egalitarian idea ideal, but we can see in history and even through to today, that the law didn't reflect all groups and society can treat them the same. So we can see with a treaty, we can look at Article Three, all the ordinary people of New Zealand had the same rights as the people of England, but subsequent law and policies and practice didn't fare that out. We can see maybe more positively in terms of women have the right to vote in 1893. So New Zealand, women became the first women to be able to vote in general elections. But this sort of feeds into what I'll talk about later, women didn't tend to get involved in politics at that time, so they had the vote. But they didn't tend to get involved in politics as well as in the sense that we might understand it now. Organised political parties, so they didn't really get involved there. Even though they got the vote. They became eligible to become MPs in 1919. The first woman MP was elected in 1933. So we could see we can see change there when we can see legal change, but maybe we don't see dramatic social change. But part of the reason that we didn't see a huge upsurge in those sort of 30 to 40 years after 1893 was how society viewed women and this idea of the cult of domesticity, and that reflected British Victorian values about the proper place for a role for women, which at that time, by and large was at home caring for the family. So we can have legal change, but it didn't have a big shift on social change because social ideas and social values, and women themselves, you know, accepted that role by and large, they stayed at home caring for the families.
        
        We can also I guess, here we can also think about the question of migration into New Zealand in the 19th century. Um, some people who arrived here also experienced discrimination, and British migrants could enter New Zealand pretty easily. And at that stage it was there was a lot of migrants from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Ireland would have sort of fallen under the British umbrella then. New Zealand was described as Britain or the south doesn't always make me sign I think was a better Britain without the Irish. But other Europeans had more difficulty. So a group the donations, which I think would be for the Southern European, in around kind of Croatia. Somebody might correct me my geography there. They were European, but they were treated more harshly but it was Chinese, the Chinese and Chinese migrants who experienced the harshest treatment overall, the poll tax being the most infamous example the denial citizen ship for decades, which meant that the Chinese migrants couldn't access welfare payments or pensions and things like that for quite a while. So New Zealand society might have been premised on this notion of social equality, but the reality was pretty different for very many people. And that continued into the 20th century. So we have social origins reflected in law in the mid 1800s, but the echoes of that differential treatment, it goes through. And I suppose when we talk about gender equality, those echoes those ripples we're still dealing with today. So in terms of gender equality, things began to change. I guess in the 1960s. There was the second wave of women's liberation first wave being circulated around the right to vote and political organisation in the late 1900s and into the early 20th century. The second wave of women's liberation came in the 1960s and 70s. I suppose it was, it was also a period of participles of the wider civil rights movement and challenges to regimes and governments that had legally enshrined a race discrimination. So there was a few things happening at that point. And so there was women's rights movement overseas, and here in New Zealand and it'll be about a slide or two later on. New Zealand women were campaigning for greater equality, including in the workplace. And so one of the successful examples came with the pay equity Pay Equity Act, but 50 odd years ago, and that prohibited Sex Discrimination and Employment. But again, this is question between law and society, law and social change. So a lot of have been talking about over the last few minutes is dramatic social change, pushing or has had an impact of legal change, but it didn't and the law changed, but it didn't eliminate six discrimination in the workplace that carried on I got better but it carried on and it didn't resolve the issue of gender inequality in the workforce, if we look at it in terms of the gender pay gap that's still going on today. So my think that you know, part of it is yes, social change can be welcomed, where it improves the rights and liberties of people. where it moves towards equality and non discrimination. But so we can have legal change, but often the wider social change that flew pushed into us that we don't see dramatic change It takes can go for years and decades. So that's a little bit of a background story. And I've used words like equality and discrimination and inequality and non discrimination and things like that. So I want to talk just a little bit about these notions of equality and non discrimination, because there's a little bit more to it than meets the eye. So what does equality me. And it was one of the.
  - - - Or we can develop that idea a little bit more and look for equality of results. So we think of substantive equality and when we think about inequality of in terms of equality of results. That means measured, things must be done, measures must be taken to make sure that everybody from all parts of society have a genuinely equal chance at accessing education, employment, health care and political representation. So we, we have to take those steps. But we also have to make sure that the steps we're taking actually result in what we want. So maybe with equality of opportunity, Yep, good place to start. Everybody has the opportunity to access these goods and services. Good place to start, but maybe it's not enough. We have we also have to make sure that I'm giving everybody these opportunities that it's actually gives us the outcomes that we want. So that sort of brings us to this equality of outcome. Who our policy measures do our legal measures mean that people have more equal access to core things like health, education, employment, and political representation, not to last week. But we can do more. There's always more. So these are some ideas that get us to sort of think about equality, inequality, discrimination and discrimination, but part of what we need to do that's embedded in all of this is to, I guess, have a look at structural and historic inequalities. So we're taking these steps to sort of have a more level playing field, but it's I suppose it's not just sort of having a look at what's happening in 2023, or in the last few years. A lot of this inequality has a long history, some of which I talked about at the beginning of the lecture. So what we need, so you know, maybe a bit more needs to be done, because those ideas, attitudes and laws, they won't. Well, the laws might change overnight, but the ideas and the attitudes won't necessarily change all that quickly. They've been there for a long time. And so when we think about inequality or equality, we have to take into account the different treatments that I guess previous generations experienced that might flow on to us today, either individually.
  - - - So part of this discussion is maybe on on younger parents and younger women and what happens when the child is born, what happened when the child was born, the impact of those decisions will echo into the years and decades ahead. Because we can see that for women who are edging towards retirement, their pension savings, they're part of which they are to live on. When they retire is much smaller than men. A part of the reason for that is they're outside of the workforce for longer, and somebody's going to have to pick up the cost. So it's that I guess that wider ripple effect of what happens at a certain point in time goes on and it goes through years and decades. So there's that. So is there another way can we change things to try and encourage our changing attitudes towards who has the caring role and who goes back into the workforce? Is there another way to overcome historical and structural inequalities? So part of what we need to do is change our attitudes and norms are our cultural attitudes and norms. A lot of the focus has been changing those attitudes and norms to accommodate the idea of, you know, women being in the workforce, for starters, and then for longer periods. But somebody has to take care and and so part of the change it's argued is that we need to make more space and more time for men to engage in caring roles within the family or sorry, within the home. So we need to our attitudes more broadly need to change because without well we can have legislative change, but that may not solve the problem. So one argument is that we would introduce leads specifically for fathers which some people might come out struggle with because like, Well, why would we do that? Didn't we get away from dedicatedly just from others? It seems sort of counterintuitive. dedicatedly for fathers because I don't know and we moved away from all of that that are gender neutral language. But overseas, research and experience shows that this might work we have dedicated leave for fathers for one parent and that it's paid. So that might work to try and overcome negative attitudes, negative attitudes towards fathers as well but also the reality of the economic consequences for male workers. So you you maybe take away the worry of okay, well, you earn more but if you take time off that's, you know, a lot less money coming into the house. And we have paid leave for fathers or for for a partner. It might get my stuff and out some of those economic consequences. And that might also then I suppose, maybe soften out some of those social consequences and fears that men might have. In as much as a bit for women back in the day, it might normalise the idea that a parent, mother or father would take time out of the workforce to care for their children. So we could see that with mothers and women to begin with and the last sort of 40 odd years. But if we had a dedicated, paid benefit for fathers, it would normalise the idea that men can also take career breaks to care for their children. What that might then mean is greater balance in the workforce. Because if we normalise and support men to take time out of their careers to care for their children, we are making more space for women to go back into the workforce more quickly and continue their careers support the family income. And as I said a few minutes ago that will have benefits in the long term because both parents will be able to I guess sort of save for their future. So we have a more positive outcome for women and in the workforce. And that might then have a wider knock on effect in terms of changing cultural norms around caring roles. Which might also move us away from the dominant norms about the makeup of families and who cares for the family and who are carriers for children. And I think in the goal article, there's some reference to that, that it might be reflective of T kinda fell mounting, for example, construction of families and the caring role within that. And they are a little bit ol
        
        for example, construction of families and the caring role within that. And they are a little bit old now. But we can see that some countries have entitlements for fathers paid paternity leave and paid parental leave that only fathers can access. There's a fair amount of that happening overseas. And some of the wider readings for today show that it's positive all round for for parents, for mothers and fathers and for wider society.
      - Conclusion: Okay, so that's, I suppose, pretty much all I have to say. But I guess if you give me a minute or two, just to wrap it up. So where are we in the story? We're talking about law and society. We're talking about the Constitution and legislation. And I guess in particular that underpins that framework. At the end of last week, I introduced the notion of Bill of Rights, or rights and liberties. I introduced the notion of discrimination in the context of the Make It 16 case. This week, I'm running with those two ideas of rights, equality and those three ideas, equal rights, equality and non discrimination in the context. of another part of our society, which is like the relationships between men and women, the inequality and the discrimination experienced by women for quite a long time, much of which had its origins in a particular social and historic attitude towards women. And the echoes of that rippled arm through the decades despite legislative change that allowed women to vote. And despite maybe 50 or 40 years of legislative change, to facilitate women coming out of the workforce to care for their children. But still we have inequality. And still, we have discrimination in this space. So can we do more? Can we think about it differently? And that's a question that has ended on for a long time. The focus has been on women and their difficulties they had in terms of workforce, but it might be that actually we need to look at the other part of the equation, which is men in the workforce, primarily men not in the home of the caring role. So maybe we need to change our social attitudes towards that and maybe we need to change our legal attitudes towards that with a dedicated leave for fathers that's paid, that might nudge our wider thinking about caring roles and those watching at home and in the workforce. Alright so that's all I say I'm happy to carry on the chat for another few minutes if you want to ask me anything.
- - - - Reflecting on our discussion a few weeks ago about gender equality, we delved into the concepts of formal equality and substantive equality. A similar perspective is applicable here, especially when we consider the public health service model that claims to be universally accessible and treats everyone equally. However, the issue with this one-size-fits-all approach is the assumption that everyone's needs are identical. This is not the case, as individual and communal health necessities vary significantly.
        Certain demographic groups, for instance, have distinct health requirements. The healthcare needs of children differ from those of the elderly, and these, in turn, are different from the needs and rights of individuals with disabilities or those from minority groups. Recognizing these differences is crucial, and our health services must be adaptive and responsive to accommodate this diversity.
  - - - The concept of a 'right to health' is embedded within our international legal frameworks. It encompasses more than just an absence of illness or infirmity. Yet, there is a conspicuous absence of a direct 'right to health' in our domestic legislation, which is pivotal. For example, consider our Bill of Rights Act. Recently, a group of young individuals was able to bring a court case claiming their right to be free from age discrimination had been infringed upon. Such claims necessitate a tangible legal 'right' to reference, and without a concrete 'right to health,' formulating legal arguments becomes challenging. The absence of this right within domestic law doesn't make legal recourse impossible, but it certainly imposes complications, demanding more innovative and strategic thinking.
  - - - Big conversation this morning. Last week, we talked about international law, its impact on domestic law. We looked at example of environmental law. This week, we're continuing that conversation. We're looking at international law. We're looking at its impact on our law. And policy. I've chosen a tricky area because it's for me, it's well, it's one of the core things. It's obviously climate change impacts our health, all right to health, it's going to be affected as a consequence. What must government do? It's harder to have that conversation in some ways because we can pick up a right to health and go to court and say it's been violated. We have to think craftily and creatively about that. I think a part of these challenges could be responded to If there was a right to health clear a direct right to health in our domestic legislation. but there isn't some there are various reasons for that. But we can still talk about our right to health and international law. it's just not in our domestic law. And we need to I suppose it's another way of trying to think about legal responses on things we can do to try and combat impact of climate change, we can look to international law, to help us in that regard.
        
        Our focus today builds on last week's discussion about the intersection of international and domestic law, using environmental law as an exemplar. Now, we're extending that dialogue, examining the influence of international law on domestic statutes and policies. One particularly complex area is the intersection of climate change, health, and legal rights. The adverse effects of climate change on our health—and consequently, our 'right to health'—raise pressing questions about governmental responsibilities.
        The lack of a clear, direct 'right to health' in our domestic legislation complicates these discussions. There are various reasons for its omission, but this doesn't negate the existence of such a right within international law. Although it's not recognized domestically, we need to explore alternative legal strategies to address climate change's health impacts. This involves leveraging international law to augment our local legal frameworks and strategies. It's about thinking differently and harnessing all available resources in our quest to mitigate the health ramifications of climate change.
- - - - He has this idea. But the idea is not his if your idea comes from another German philosopher, Hegel, but Hegel, the only people on the corner, and Hegel has this idea called dialectics. And dialectics according to Hegel is that there is progress in the world. When you get to ideas that rub against each other. And that friction of ideas, you get progress in it. So Hegel looks back over into Hegel predates Marx, by a couple of decades. And Paco looks back over history and he says it history is this continual kind of rubbing together of ideas and in that process and friction, you get advancement, it's like he looks at like religion, and then he looks at like monarchy, and it kind of looks at the Greeks and the Romans and all that stuff that I was talking about the kind of thing here, there's something in there, you know, the idea is gonna rub against each other and it's something good comes out the other side, but that marks takes one step further. And what Mark says is it's not the friction between the ideas. It's the importance of material things. And it's the friction between the material factors of life, dialectical materialism, and when he's talking about the material factors of life that struggle, what he's talking about is between those who have lots of stuff and those who don't have anything, and it's the material friction between the rich and the poll that he says that's where the real challenge is. And this, this idea is revolutionary, because it like says Mr. X looks back and he's sitting there and he's like, he's got like, a lecture notes that I've given you. And he says, Yeah, I can see. I can see that there is a kind of a progress, and that you know, humanity is going somewhere. And he looks at that first stage that we talked about with religion, and I'll be honest, he's not a fan of religion. He's the one who sees Religion is the opium of the masses. And so he says, you know, the first stage is religion. And then he says, Yeah, but that was interesting. And he says, I can see the second stage and the second stage is like, feudalism, and monarchy. And that were the kings and the queens civil power. I mean, it is and I can see that third stage, that period of enlightenment that l was talking about last week. And we're you had this idea where humanity walks out of the darkness and you get the French Revolution and you get the American Revolution. And you've got the English revolution as well. And he says, Yep, I can see that. And so he says that there's all these stages of human existence. And each one builds on itself, and that there is kind of a progress or a path of where we're going and the importance of that for law. Is that each state has its own rules. And so if you want to look at what law is, you've got to understand the social epoch that humanity was in.
        
        Marx is writing at an amazing period of time. 1848 So you had the American Revolution, you had the French Revolution, you had Napoleon, and with Napoleon, everything kind of like who inherits the French Revolution or takes it over. Everything kind of goes to becoming an emperor in the status quo, and then you have the reaction. And they tried to stop all the advancements that were happening in Europe at this point. And so the reaction is against what Napoleon had because the fringer are pushed back to the British when the Russians when the Austrians when, in between 18 118 48 Or sorry, 1815 1848 There is a debate in Europe. And the debate is effectively over whether the Constitutions or kennix. The debate is whether you have liberties like freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or you don't. And so for those of us between 1815 and 1848, there is this intense turmoil in Europe, and most countries are trying to push the clock back to before the French Revolution. But you can't you can't do that because technology is changing. People have got some education people start to think about what a better world looks like. And this starts to turn. But something else is changing because some people are arguing, we want to be we want a constitution. We don't want the King to be in all control. Other people are saying we want free press. Some people are saying we want the freedom to petition. Sometimes we want free speech, and you kind of know those arguments because you heard those arguments with the French Revolution, and the American Revolution. But at this point, something new comes up. And this is the thing that fascinates Marx and what new comes in is the idea of social rights. Because some people say actually, it's not about freedom of speech, or freedom of petition. It's about education. It's about health. It's about me being able to take my kids to the doctor and not being charged. And then some people saying actually, I'm concerned, I'm a worker, and I want my rights to be considered as well. So anyway, you're at this point in history, where you've got the you've gone through that the enlightenment, you've had a push back against the enlightenment, and everything's bubbling in Europe, and Marx is writing at this point. He's writing at this point where all these revolutions start to break out in Europe. Some people are arguing about constitutions. Some people are arguing about liberal rights, and a new group is as arguing about social welfare and workers rights.
    - - So Mark to sit back and he goes, Well, what's the answer? He looks back at this whole chemistry. This is what is the answer to the riddle of history? Where are we going? This lovely long, particularly if we if we're going through these, these steps if you're going through religion, feudalism, enlightenment, what's next? Where do we go? It's one of those questions we all ask ourselves. It's like, is there a theme to where we are? Is there a path for humanity? Are we actually going somewhere greater? And Marx looks at this question and he thinks about it. Anything is, the answer is communism. The answer of where humanity is going as communism is the riddle of history. And he says anything that's communism knows it's still solution. That's interesting. What does that mean? What what does all this mean?
        
        Marx said the answer is "common properties" In some degrees, we agree to it, e.g. military, school, hospitals.
    - - Tax Law Vs Free Trade Agreement
    - - In conclusion, what, what I've tried to show you today, okay? I've tried to show you today that we were on this pathway, and that law in society reflected different stages of evolution. We went through religion, we went through feudalism and monarchy, we went to the enlightenment. And then this guy comes up Karl Marx. He says, there's another stage. There's another stage store design. He says, you want the riddle to history. You want to know where we're going as a species, the answer is communism. Communism means common property. And he says law is about a reflection of class is nothing more. And this idea that law and policy is something where one group exploits another group, until that group gets control of the levers of power is appealing, and it's appealing depending on where you are in a society because he's not talking to you is definitely not talking to you. He's talking to those who have nothing and have no opportunity in the horizon does not look right. The problem is that communism, as we know, does not answer all the issues that we have around us. It doesn't add to this question of identity. It doesn't answer those questions of who we are in our deeper ethical, ethnic religious, sexual questions, but we don't, but more than that, he was wrong. In the West, it did not come to the clash, because we developed social welfare. And so that prediction that things will keep getting worse until you get a revolution did not apply in the West, but it did apply in Russia and it did apply in China. And then you get to the point. What's the future we thought that communism had fallen over? In 1991? We assumed that the West that the free market, the liberal world had succeeded. But it hasn't. It hasn't. We have just as many challenges in the free world as we do for the community. Questions. What do you think?
  - - - So New Zealand you see a reflection of Marxist thinking. You do see a reflection of you see a evolution of a country in which workers rights were slow to grow compared to Britain, but then they advanced very quickly. At the turn of the 20th century. We saw a reaction against communism. We saw two highlights in terms of the public Conservation Act and the 1951 wood front regulations. We have moved away from being a society based on class, belonging government changed us back towards the free market. and the Bucha government continued that transition. Is that not today? I'm gonna stop talking. Any questions on that period of Europe.
- - - - Ur-Nammu (2100 BCE)
        
        Lipit-Ishtar (1870-1860 BCE)
        
        Hammurabi’s Code (1750BCE)
        
        The Hittite Code (1650BCE)
        
        Assyrian Laws (1100BCE).
        
        The Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament/Tanakh (1300-300 BCE).
        
        Similarities were probably due to the need of having to deal with similar problems, although the law codes appear to have been aware of each other. All of these societies overlapped with war, alliances and trade, from which cultural exchanges could be expected
        
        Common foundations 1.
        According to Sumerian myth (2300 BCE)…
        Law = justice
        Enki (the God of wisdom- and also creation, water and mischief), whilst drunk, he handed over the foundations of law. These were,
        ▪ 1. Justice.
        ▪ 2. Truth.
        ▪ 3. Confronting Falsehood.
        
        And justice (if you add all the codes together) is…
        ▪ 1. The weak, not to be exploited by the strong. (although we don't know who the weaks are)
        ▪ 2. Safety (public order) within society and from external (military) enemies. (safe from external and internal threats)
        ▪ 3. Economic prosperity. (Economic can grow, exchanging goods and services)
        ▪ 4. Family security. (This go through all points above, breakdown in family, whether they are married or with children)
        ▪ 5. Dispute resolution mechanisms. (They need someone comes from outside who is independent, impartial with integrity to say this is correct or incorrect)
        So these above ideas were universal.
        
        Common foundations 2.
        Anthropomorphic deities, polytheism and monotheism
        Although the Gods change, the principle that law and religion are completely interlinked remains the same.
        1 ▪ All authority, for all law, ultimately came from God/s.
        2 ▪ The Ruler represented God/s on Earth.
        3 ▪ In the Bible, conformity with the laws is seen as a link to the Divine.
        From foundations to procedure:
        All had to take oath before God/s.
        Exodus 22/ Hammurabi 20,23,103,120,131 & 266].
        Oaths are critical, as these promised divine retribution if the oath-taker lied.
        
        Religion and God/Gods are synonyms.
        Gods as authority and law are the same thing.
        Rulers presents gods, pass down the law like Moses and Hammurabi.
        
        Note: Blasphemy.
        Blasphemy remains a crime, in law, in about 70 countries.
        Leviticus 24:13-16 The LORD said to Moses, saying: Take the blasphemer outside the camp; and let all who were within hearing lay their hands on his head, and let the whole congregation stone him. And speak to the people of Israel, saying: Anyone who curses God shall bear the sin. One who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death; the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer. Aliens as well as citizens, when they blaspheme the Name, shall be put to death.
        
        Common foundations 3.
        1 ▪ The laws were to be consistent and to help with this, they were written.
        2 ▪ They were to be applied impartially.
        3▪ The leaders were also lawmakers and judges, but in time (as kingdoms got bigger) this changed and only the most serious matters went to the ruler.
        4▪ There were no lawyers. - not exist until roman time
        5▪ The administration of justice became a separate science. - collecting consistency.
        6▪ Law was a unified system, as part of a national system beneath a powerful centralised authority. - so we can control consistency.
        
        Common foundations 4.
        1▪Diplomacy. - domesitc law and international law - 1300BC we can send diplomate to Peria.
        2▪Trade.
        3▪War.
        
        Common foundations 5.
        The Egyptian–Hittite peace treaty,
        International rules are formed on
        ▪ 1. A geographical division of territory.
        ▪ 2. A commitment to ‘peace and brotherhood... forever’, binding their children and grandchildren alike.
        ▪ 3. And three principles:
        ▪ (a). neither shall ‘pass into the land’ of the other or take anything from it.
        ▪ (b). to lessen tensions, they also both agreed to turn over anyone from either country who attempted to flee their primary domicile and attempted to live in the other country.
        ▪ (c). rather than fight the other, both sides sought to entrench the status quo via mutual assistance against both internal and external enemies.
        
        Common foundations 6.
        Humanity: the idea of protecting the widow, orphan and the poor, is in all of the codes.
        
        Common foundations 7.
        But… there is no idea of equality.
        In all of the codes, divisions exist:
        (a). Status and position matter. From the ruler, to the specialists [religious/civil authority/ military], to the free, and then the slaves.
        (b). Citizens and foreigners.
        (c). Men and women (although family laws are largely patriarchal, detailed rules on divorce, and especially on the dowry exist for all).
        (d). Slavery is universal.
  - - - 1▪ ‘In accordance with the true word of Utu, he established equity in the land; he banished malediction, violence and strife’. - Stability and balance
        2▪ Death, for murder, robbery, adultery (for the woman), and rape (unless a female slave, in which case silver is exchanged).
        3▪ Divorce cost one mina of silver (women could not just be abandoned). If she survives trial by ordeal if accused of adultery, one third of a mina of silver.
        4▪ If a man floods the field of another, he must pay a certain amount of barley, per field.
        5▪ The standardisation of measures for weights, silver and bronze.
        6▪ A dozen laws on family matters (sex, divorce and marriage).
        
        Lex talionis
        (=‘The Law of Retribution’, or an eye for an eye).
        Compensation: not revenge.
        =Earlier code is about compensation not revenge
        ▪ Nammu did not have lex talionis for many bodily injuries, and preferred that the guilty pay money (for damage to limbs) instead of which penalties were set down, thus, if a man bit and severed another man’s nose, he shall weigh one mina of silver’.
        Also, the Hittite Code (1650BC) ‘If someone blinds a free man or knocks out his teeth, formerly he would have given one mina of silver, now he gives 20 shekels of silver, and pledged his estate as security’
        
        Trial by Ordeal
        A critical test in times of serious accusations against an individual.
        
        if you don't have evidence, and not sure. - god is the factor to determine.
        
        Trial by ordeal (where the water=God, would determine honest of an oath) for charges of sorcery and adultery, with a person tied and dunked into the water. All codes, from Hammurabi to the Old Testament, follow
  - - - ▪ Rules on orchards, and set penalties for breaking into or stealing from.
        ▪ Rules on oxen, and if rented or borrowed and damaged in the process.
        ▪ Rules on slave girls, and how they can pass ownership if they live with another man for over one month (but must be paid for).
        ▪ Rules on the children of slaves, if made with the master of the house: they cannot be excluded from the inheritance.
        ▪ Same for children born out of wedlock (by a ‘harlot from the public square’) – the father must provide grain, oil and clothing. The children from the harlot shall be his heirs, but as long as his wife lives, the harlot shall not live in the house with the wife.
        
        The first legal precedent: 1850 BCE.
        ▪ Three men: a barber, a gardener and one whose name is unknown, killed a temple official. Afterwards, the murderers told the deceased wife. She did not tell the authorities.
        ▪ The authorities found out, and all four were tried by a Citizens Assembly of 12 people at Nippur. The only real issue was the woman. - start talk about attribution of guilt and proportion of weight of guilt in criminal law
        ▪ Nine spoke against the women, three spoke for.
        ▪ Men all sentenced to death, woman not as although fault on her part, ‘the punishment of those who actually killed should suffice’.
  - - - We don't have all details, as we cannot find actual written pieces now. But we know that they had these ideas, but largely we don't know what that mean in terms of actual principles.
        And the problem was that we just got the idea, that the Egyptian idea where you have a person at the top, pharaoh.
        
        Law divided into two parts, religious - Divine Justice and secular Justice.
  - - - Started from Mesopotamia, nationals learned from each other.
- - - - Enlightenment: moving from an age of religion, to one or reason, and how that is reflected in the law.
        What I've been trying to say is that there was a high point when you had Rome, and then everything started to descend a collapse in the West. We had to rebuild the legal systems. And as you rebuild the legal systems, they started off as small codes. And they started to evolve and develop. It starts to turn into a debate, and the debate is who is the most powerful entity and a community? Is it the church? Is it the king? Is it the barons, you get some fantastic work? You get the foundation of modern British Commonwealth New Zealand law with the Magna Carta in 1215. You start to move into Renaissance where we start to rebuild and start thinking about a different way in different path forward. But what I wanted to show you was that even though you've got this idea of progress on one hand, you've got this idea of irrationality. On the other hand, and law is used as something not to advance but to punish and it can be used in a very irrational way. And the example of that is not so much Galileo because Galileo's device example I tried to use was a witchcraft where you could actually punish people, condemned people and kill people. for crime, which did not exist.
    - - The Dooms is beginning of common law.
    - - Papal Revolution
    - - Evidence: Witness, Marks, Torture
  - - - Elizabeth ordered to take lands from non-Christian.
    - - Slave Non-Christian.
        War between Protestant and Catholic.
    - - Charles also wanted centralised power.
    - - The Star Chamber controls the prints and the ideas flowed around.
    - - Rousseau is French.
    - - Slavery - How to you deal with Inequality - slavery.
        Franchise - These people can vote are small group.
        Workers - No labour law, rising urban poors.
    - - First class first our law and religion were synonymous. Second class you saw the movement of our go from the King to the people. It's gone from the King to the people. You've seen three revolutions. You've seen the English revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution. The Enlightenment is a period of change, capitalism, equality, debate, freedom. It all looks great. But when you take a step back, you're gonna say, yep, that is good. That is progress. But whose freedom were you talking about? Whose freedom? Were you talking about? The freedom from slavery. We're talking about all people being part of the franchise. And what are you going to do with the impact of unfettered capitalism upon society? Then a quote to walk away with from Immanuel Kant, who is the probably most modern philosopher of the Enlightenment, what is the Enlightenment? usual reason? You don't have to live in the shadows. walk away from the darkness, start to think about what a bit of society looks like and what more should begin behaviors. Dear to know, have courage to use your own reasons why folks,
- - - - What I've been trying to tell you, I have been trying to tell you that drugs come in all types, the illegal drugs and the illegal drugs and they cause harm. There is a difference in the harm that drugs cause some drugs are much more dangerous than other drugs. I have been trying to tell you that supply and demand is increasing the war on drugs as you deal with it in terms of the amount that is produced or the amount that is consumed is failing. After 100 years of effort. There are more edits and people trying to source this in previous times. The underlying theme I was trying to get across it was that not only a supply and demand increasing is fueling criminal activity. If you're really concerned about gangs and corruption, you've got to focus on that which makes them wealthy. Law and Policy is changing law and policy for the last first first part of the 20th century, up until 1987 in New Zealand was about prohibition, and prohibition got harder and harder and harder. And then we started to tune in the first thing we tuned with was with regards to the needle exchanges. And then in the last couple of years, we've seen more discretion for the police. We've seen testing for various illegal drugs at festivals. We've seen the legalization of medicinal cannabis. But the big question about whether you want to have legal markets for illegal drugs at the moment was put to referendum in the country said no.
  - - - The law on firearms is different if you are in a common law country where it is a privilege, or if you are in a country like America where it is right. With firearms ownership is a privilege, it's easy to get change. However, change typically only occurs once you've had a atrocity. And once we've had an atrocity, then Parliament's will regulate. And typically what they will regulate is the platform of the firearm that was involved in porosity in New Zealand, we saw that on March 15 2019, after we hit our own extreme terror attack in this country, we had two types of law change. The first type of law change was about making sure that that platform and who was fit and proper was changed. The second type was about registration. And this was about trying to tidy up the illegal market and the free flow of firearms in the community. Looking forward from here that the law changes had happened in New Zealand, good and commendable, but we have a long road to go on because we are starting to see the rise and other types of crime in our community for which we should be concerned.
- - - - Draco is about order, not virtue. Pay everything in blood.
    - - Question everything.
    - - Value holding the country together as a society.
    - - Witness, torture, no lawyers but you can bring friends, no judiciary, penalty has to be proved with evidence.
    - - The last class for today we talked about before antiquity, that idea that religion and law and societies are learning from each other. And you could see a slow progress, we get to the Greeks. and the Greeks are important because they give us philosophy. They give us your and your wisdom. Give us your democracy, and give us some legal codes and the legal codes, you're important. and you should know what the legal code saying, but their ideas are bigger than that. they introduced us a different way of thinking. and the idea of democracy sounds very attractive until you come to the trial of Socrates and the reaction of Plato. Plato saying democracy, don't trust it, you need to decision makers who are best to make the call.
  - - - Simplified from Roman law
    - - 200 BCE - 500 AC
    - - From after the Greeks, the influence is remarkable. And they build more the Romans build law and below that they build it's after the Greeks legal case in Western history. So so the Romans come in from after the Greeks. The influence is remarkable. And they build for the Romans build law and the law that they build. It's the foundations of the legal practice that you will go into today is some really cool ideas. But there's some also pretty bad ideas and at the same time, they had the idea of social welfare they had the idea of the Republic. But then it becomes Caesar and it becomes one man one will. Christianity has an influence. Christianity starts to soften society. There were some good aspects, but then governance is harder in practice, than in principle. And then finally, the example to look for for the most important trial of this period is that of Christ. And you can see that there are some anomalies in it. There are some deep questions, but the biggest question of all, there's one for you to work out for yourself over dinner tonight with your loved ones. Okay, any questions before we depart
- - - - I was saying that historically, judges and lawyers have been very slow to recognise that a cultural issue may even just be relevant, let alone understand how that could be presented as evidence. Now, just having a look very, very quickly, at some recent statistics, when Dr. Williams was appointed to the Supreme Court last year, he was the he was the first morning to set it on fire school. If you go down to the detail, you're 10 doctors on the football field, only justice smart Cooper affiliates to happen. Under the High Court. That's justices on the district court, though, looks a little more promising because they're the ones who are going to live up to the system. Okay. 34 out of 179 judges online. And I think in the last week or so, every week, they have people coming in. There has never been a Pacifica judge in the senior court, although there are now seven at the district court level. And there is one only one of Asians and he's not the most humble four. He's now in Council this university, former governor general so suddenly when it comes to ethnicity 76.4% of lawyers are European 7% Amani 4% of Pacifica with just two of the 174 judges, being Indian, and one Maori Chinese friend of mine, Kitty she, her older son, my daughter went through, put a study together. Although praise B there is an equal gender split just about so that bodes very, very well for the future. I've been moved to sisters and just some other figures Despite attempts to encourage ethnic diversity Chief Justice David Coleman is really keen on off the 15 and a half 1000 over 15 and a half 1000 lawyers who are practising in New Zealand and 54 of which percent by the way are women. Women now outnumber the highest percentage in the legal profession. Okay, but only 1154 of those 15,000 adwares. Identify as Maori and he said 1% In other words, and under 400 on Pacifica that three and a half percent Most Significant increase, by the way in ethnic diversity is amongst Asian lawyers. that that's increased.
        
        Revision:
        The focus of our discussion is the contemporary handling of financial matters, diverging from the traditional Maori dispute resolution processes. The backdrop to this discussion is the significant change that occurred in contemporary Maori society following colonization. This period marked a transition, with assimilation into Western society drastically altering traditional socio-economic bases due to land loss, leading to the breakdown of traditional family leadership structures. Consequently, there was an adverse effect on crime rates, health, education, and socio-economic conditions among the Maori people. It is distressing to note the overrepresentation of Maori in various negative statistics. While making up only 16% of the general population, Maori men and women significantly constitute the prison population, with over 50% of male inmates and over 60% of female inmates being Maori. The pressing challenge is to address these high imprisonment rates by restructuring the system to cater to the needs of all individuals involved, particularly those of Maori descent. Addressing this requires an understanding of the colonial history and its ongoing impacts, including landlessness, homelessness, poverty, deprivation, poor mental health, limited educational opportunities, and high suicide rates among Maori individuals. These issues are not coincidental but are the outcomes of systematic efforts during colonization to impose a new set of cultural norms, leading to the loss of land, language, culture, and identity for the indigenous people. Being landless in one's own land and losing one's language and much of one's cultural identity are direct consequences of these events. For a more equitable system, legal professionals, including lawyers and judges, must acknowledge and understand these historical and cultural contexts. Historically, there has been a reluctance or slow acknowledgment within the legal system to recognize or consider cultural issues relevant, let alone allow them to inform court proceedings. Looking at recent developments, the appointment of Dr. Williams to the Supreme Court was a milestone, being the first Maori to hold such a position. However, diversity in higher courts remains low, with only a few judges of Maori or Pacifica descent. In contrast, the District Court shows more promise with 34 out of 179 judges being Maori. Despite attempts to encourage ethnic diversity, the majority of lawyers, about 76.4%, are of European descent, and only a small percentage are Maori or Pacifica. Encouragingly, there has been a significant increase in Asian lawyers. Of the over 15,500 practicing lawyers in New Zealand, only around 1,154 identify as Maori, and under 400 as Pacifica, highlighting an underrepresentation in the legal field. Chief Justice David Coleman has expressed a keen interest in enhancing ethnic diversity in the profession. Interestingly, while there has been a struggle in ethnic diversification, gender balance has seen positive progress, with women now making up a slightly larger portion of the legal profession. In summary, there is a clear need for the legal system to recognize and integrate Maori historical and cultural contexts, to work towards a fair and more representative judicial system. This recognition includes increasing ethnic diversity among legal professionals and a greater understanding of the implications of New Zealand's colonial past on its present societal structure.
  - - - there are also some obstacles, alright. And I've listed some of those there for you. One of them, I do want to bring up the equality before the law objection that's raised quite frequently. This objection is just a familiar complaint. The very idea of having a dual legal system is offensively discriminatory. That's the argument, then we'll take it is. That's the argument. All right. Under this argument, justice is It is claimed, requires that all citizens be equal before the law and the proposal of having a separate system for Maori blatantly runs counter to this requirement. Interesting enough, I did a jurisprudence essay. About 5000 words I think we had to do. And I actually titled all are equal under the law, but some are more equal than others. Okay, but it wasn't about this particular topic. It was about another topic. However, okay, so that's, that's probably the one that resonated the most that equality before the law objection. Right. And what does that actually mean? Okay. And it's interesting, too, because if you look at using the language of rights, according to Ronald Walken is one of the philosophers in law. No one has a right to equal treatment. Right? The right to have equal distribution of some benefit or only the right to treatment as an equal. Slight difference, okay, which is the right to be treated with the same respect as others. So if you treat people according to this argument, if you treat people equally, it doesn't need that doesn't mean it's a violation of their rights. Okay. Because you know, just think of the disabled person is treated unequally because okay, and given extra resources to help compensate for that disability
        
        Revision:
        Our discussion applies a fresh perspective to a groundbreaking research report published in 1988, which presented a critical investigation into the bias within the criminal justice system against the Maori. This research situated the bias within a broader context of socio-economic and cultural issues that have shaped New Zealand society. Even today, we continue to explore these themes. Moana Jackson, in his pioneering work, advocated from a Maori worldview, pushing for greater recognition of historical and cultural impacts on Maori offending. He emphasized a community-oriented approach rather than an individualistic one, concluding that a parallel justice system was necessary to ensure fairness for the Maori people. Jackson highlighted the system's cultural insensitivity and inherent bias, identifying these as central to the disproportionate representation of Maori in criminal statistics. He famously argued that the Maori should have the opportunity for an alternative justice system. This system would respect and operate on Maori terms, rather than conforming to preconceived Pakeha or European methodologies. His critique extended to what he termed a "Eurocentric approach" to crime, where typical offender-based methodologies separated individuals from their cultural and societal contexts. Jackson stressed the need for positive Maori representations in the media, opposing the prevalent negative stereotypes. Advocating a fundamental structural change, Jackson called for parallel institutions that would work alongside the existing system, contributing to the rule-making process. He envisioned institutions where decisions were made by Maori, for Maori, and enforced through Maori processes and cultural understanding. This revolutionary idea sparked political uproar, leading to the report's suppression, with only less controversial suggestions, such as diversion schemes, being implemented. In 1941, Kelvin Davis, the Corrections Minister at the time, introduced a new Maori pathways prison rehabilitation scheme, marking a step towards a 'by Maori, for Maori' approach. This program, developed with input from Maori experts, operates in several prisons. The concept of a parallel system has its merits and challenges. While addressing the overrepresentation of Maori in crime statistics, the proposition of a separate justice system for Maori offenders remains contentious. Advocates argue that this aligns with the Treaty of Waitangi, preserving Maori rights to self-determination. For instance, Peter Sharples, in his 1995 article "Cultural Justice," highlighted the shocking statistic that one in 180 Maori are incarcerated. He asserted that these figures alone justify a separate system, emphasizing the role of colonization in causing sustained deprivation within the Maori community. However, there are significant obstacles, including the prominent 'equality before the law' argument. Critics contend that a dual legal system is inherently discriminatory, violating the principle that all citizens should stand equal in the eyes of the law. I recall writing a jurisprudence essay titled "All Are Equal Under the Law, But Some Are More Equal Than Others," where I explored similar themes, albeit on a different topic. This principle of equality is complex, as highlighted by legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin, who posited that no one has an absolute right to equal treatment, but rather a right to respectful treatment as an equal. Therefore, treating people differently based on relevant criteria (such as disability) doesn't necessarily violate this principle. In conclusion, the discussion around establishing a parallel justice system for the Maori touches on deep, systemic issues within New Zealand's social fabric. It calls for a delicate balance between recognizing the unique cultural identity and historical injustices suffered by the Maori, and ensuring that the principle of legal equality is upheld within the broader society.
  - - - Marae Justice , that's another programme that was put in all right, as a response to wanna Jackson's report. The first pilot was held at na ho fr, which is an MRI in Christchurch. In 2010. And in 2014, three other sites with trial by 2017 There were so these are justice Mariah justice animals, and what happens is the court diverts a person to be seen before a community based panel about their offending. They come before their own Maori community. Together with their family, their father, their victims, something that doesn't happen in court, or at least, probably will start to happen in court now. But we'll come to that later. But, but certainly doesn't happen on a full scale. So if you go into court, offenders are not confronted in that way with the consequences of what they've done, but they are when they come before the panel. They are confronted with what they have done. The second focus is about reintegrating defender back into the community right back into the farm farmer back into the modding community back into the general community, finding employment and a place in society. All the players are the panel and the victim and the offender and the assembly has come up with right in the presence of everyone in that room. Everyone knows what the plan is. They may include things like going to programmes or compensating the victim, maybe compensating the community, whatever, but whatever plans they come up with, it's done in front of everybody.
        
        Te Pae Oranga: Iwi Community Justice Panel means talk, listen. Well, it began in 2013 when panels were established in the Hutt Valley, Gibbon and Monaco what those panels did or is what that what I what I did was to apply a Maori framework to the Community Justice panel approach, right. So now you had a particular Maori approach, and it was first piloted in questions in 2010. But then they started the whole programme for real. Police then re launched it in 2018 as an alternative resolution scheme, using Tichenor come up with a body and restorative justice practices to take people out of the court system and away from imprisonment. So idea okay. So okay, so the panels are made up of three community, people. There is not a judge on site. It's three community people. Panel members are often Komatsu elders, right. Or others who are leaders in the community, right. But the thing is, they are not judges. They are not lawyers. Their job is to decide not to happen as a result of the offence. The initiative has been widely supported by multi leaders, including my king, right to get to Haiti as a few patrons of the programme. There are countries there are currently 17 locations with a few problems so there has to be but there is one going on, why did he drive you'll see they have a key feature is local community leaders who have valuable knowledge and experience. They support the participants, people who've attended to make plans. So those plans include actions that yesterday participants would have to complete but also conditions they may have to follow, such as paying for the damage that's been caused or apologise except for the problems that have led up to the offence and maybe so it's a very proactive programme. And one of the things that I think it does well is to look at the reasons why and what's going on in people's lives. That way the panel can connect them to the right kinds of services, services that are actually going to support them, mainly services that are around them, right one of the reasons to call health was chosen because it has a lot of social services attached to it. Despite what it is not a soft option. Sitting before a panel can be very confronting can be a very confronting experience. Because you have to accept responsibility for what you've done. You have to be open about your thoughts about your problems, and you have to ask for help. A lot of people like doing that. You have to ask for help from people in your community mixed up on how it's working. But the latest stuff I could find in 2019 was at 74%. Of panel participants. Yes, went on to commit other crimes, but the level of harm, so the crimes were less of a lower level. All right. Being committed that were committed beforehand. Two thirds of those plans were completed to the satisfaction of the police and the courts. And there was a 63% reduction in read in offending again. Yes, whatever. Yes. Okay. One criticism has come from colleague whence she's concerned about the discretion that is given to arresting officers in the scheme. And she says that's problematic for Maori because there is a lot of evidence that shows police have bias in terms of their dealings with Maori so they may not get diverted as often this a show, much less likely to benefit from it. But if we get it right, I think the system is a good one.
  - - - Rangatahi Courts: they are judged and they're not imposed on the community and the community has to accept them. Okay, so we're gonna take Watson online, and they operate within the framework of New Zealand law to deliver culturally appropriate processes and outcomes.
- - - - That treaty itself is not in law. The principles of the Treaty are because there's always remember that the Treaty of Waitangi itself is not in law, but the principles in the treaty.
- - - - Women were also chosen, often for beginners of tribes and tribal groups. In Canada for instance, there is a tribe named after woman who appeared in Papakura gave her name for putting boots on the ground. It's here in Waikato, women were also the peacemakers. And a peace seal by a female is Pato o naman, which means a green stone door to pass through. In other words, it's a block because it will piece was made by a woman, it was a single piece wouldn't be broken. Okay. It was women's mediation or women's mediating piece, I suppose was considered the most binding piece of all, and it was usually sewn up so to speak, will usually concluded by that particular one and offering to go to the other prime or the enemy or so in traditional stories about women, those women were very independent. They chose their own future. A lot of times they chose their own husbands. So completely opposite, completely opposite to the Victorian women that came here. When they lead. They did things they took on activities that were not necessarily female type activities. They fought in battles. They took part in the learning of Tikona of karakia Saba, all these were done by women as well as by men. Okay. So we look at the female characters or figures that are in the stories of the stories or the stories of creation. They were there for a purpose, Right? They had mana in their own right.
      - Women were often selected, especially among the beginners of tribes and tribal groups. In Canada, for example, there is a tribe named after a woman who made a significant contribution in Papakura, known for her initiative in introducing footwear. In Waikato, women also played pivotal roles as peacemakers. A symbol of peace endorsed by a woman is "Pato o naman," which signifies a green stone door to pass through. In other words, when a peace agreement was crafted by a woman, it was often deemed unbreakable because it was a single, cohesive piece. Women's mediation, or their role as mediators, was considered one of the most binding aspects, often concluding negotiations and offering a path to reconciliation, even with adversaries, as seen in traditional stories. In narratives about women, these individuals displayed remarkable independence, often choosing their own destinies, including their husbands. This stands in stark contrast to the Victorian-era women who arrived later. These women took on activities that defied traditional gender roles, engaging in battles and participating in the learning of Tikona and karakia Saba, demonstrating that these activities were not exclusive to men. When we examine the female characters and figures in creation stories, it becomes evident that they held a distinct purpose and possessed their own mana or power.
- - - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_CJFEKNvX8
    - - does legislation reflect the different form?
        
        So let's have a look. I've given this legislation to you and I've even given you a helping hand by highlighting it right so you can look at how the law the legislation in New Zealand now defined family, right. And I've given you the Oranga Tamariki act and I've also given you the education training and the family violence. How do those bits of legislation define family? Farmer? Is it necessary? Is it efficient to have different meanings of family format? Necessary? Yes, because we have different forms and using and it's essential not to lose bicultural and efficient but you cannot sleep translate terms and words into English and sometimes that gets lost in translation. But does that campus how Maori create their families that farmer Have a think about that obligatory Well, if you're a minority group, I think it's right that the law should take into account your cultural practice you got to ask yourself, that's it.
    - - Okay, now I want to talk about adoption which is fine. Now there is a reading and I encourage you to read it because I will be asking questions at the end of the year test on this reading. It's an article by Craig and Linda y Marie Nikora. And it's called finite remembering, understanding and experiencing the reader. And the whole article discusses the concept highlights the advantages and disadvantages of illegal adoptions. What we'll find out is the customs in Maori culture by which children are raised by adults that are not necessarily the second set of terms is most likely but not always related to the child. So they've got some relational connection to the to the family often happens when the birth parents aren't able to look after the children for various reasons. And the article talks about that. So they can't was often the child. They may be working and they don't have the time. They may not be, they may not have the money, whatever. Okay, and so they ask someone else in the family to look after a child. Sometimes, they may take turns, raising your child, go off, right, and then come back. It's a fluid system, right. And what this does this, this practice actually strengthens community ties. If you're looking after a child or someone else or wasn't it ties you to that, to that community to that person to that foreigner to usually, Sinai, well in the past anyway, they were found into a group that shared fucka Papa that shared a direct bloodline, right but sometimes found I can be adopted outside of that. It happens sometimes what you get is song I've been going with their grandparents. All right. So they're Komar to their grandparents. And this is for educational purposes. Usually. I mean, not to told me that he was highlight to his grandparents, so that he could be given all the knowledge the tribal knowledge that his grandfather head, and then it was for him to take that knowledge and, and use it. So that is often for the first seven years of their life. Often, the oldest child is given to the grandparents strictly to learn or to learn all that information. Sometimes a child has given to a childless couple and a couple who can't have children as well it's a gift, If you Okay, what about fun on the wall? all the time? Well, yes, online is widely accepted in New Zealand society is informal. And it's usually range between family members. It does not go through the pocket. Sometimes adults, but more often than not, it does not go through. So there's no guardianship, or anything like that. So the child's birth parents remain legal guardians. not the fun of the actual birth parents. So it is not recognised in New Zealand law.
        
        The role of Whangai and Adoption in Aotearoa
        
        Should the practice of Whāngai be recognised in New Zealand law?
      - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cax0vKtSRpk
        
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTxfrUT_hYo
        
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blpORNpe4Qw
        
        The role of Whangai and Adoption in Aotearoa
        
        Should the practice of Whāngai be recognised in New Zealand law?
    - - Read this: 2023 09 07 Reading - Nikora - Whangai