Monday, 17 August 2009

The curse of nonsense

Isn’t it disappointing that it’s only now he’s out of office that former Labour Minister of Education Trevor Mallard has realised the importance of One Law for All? "It would have been prison if they weren’t Maori," says Trevor of the decision by Justice Simon France not to jail the family who tortured and killed their niece Janet Moses

I’m not entirely sure he’s right, however.  When Pastor Luke Lee killed a parishioner in January 2000 for trying to rid her of some indeterminate Korean demons, he was jailed initially, true, but then released on appeal, citing “the freedom of religion.”  [Story here at the Canterbury Atheist.]

It’s true that the “makutu” defence on which Justice France let them off has been used – and accepted – before, despite Dr Ranginui Walker insisting in 1997 that makutu is now a “non-issue” in Maoridom, and warning that the justice system had to be very wary of what he called the “cultural re- invention” of “makutu."

That warning came after a man was found not guilty by Justice Morris of pushing a crucifix up a young woman’s nose and into her brain  – not guilty, said Morris, because he “accepted unreservedly” that the man thought he was under a Maori curse at the time.

And what did former Minister of Education Mallard, or any of his colleagues, say at the time about this rampant Political Correctness in the courtroom?   To paraphrase Lindsay Perigo, “Absolutely zilch, zero, nothing. They were too busy advocating it for the classroom!”

As my colleague Robert White said as the time, if he (White) was Attorney General then he would have seen to it that Justice Morris would have swiftly become Inmate Morris. Inmate France would certainly deserve to join him. And frankly, when we have witchdoctery used as an excuse for crime that’s bad enough, but when the learned gentleman of the Bench explicitly throw objectivity out the judicial window, then it’s time to take defensive action.

Absurdity is not a racial thing, it’s worldwide.  The whole idea of exorcism itself was hardly a Maori invention – it was the invention of religious zealots eager to exercise their own inner demons.

As Voltaire observed three centuries ago, those who believe absurdities are apt to commit atrocities. He’s still right. It is not the job of the courts to debunk and to neuter the absurdities – that is the job of reason and sound philosophy. But it is the job of an objective court system to neuter those who do commit atrocities, whatever the reasons they commit them.

We urgently need to have objectivity brought back into the courts, back from the dustbin of judicial neglect.


  1. It was presumably a rather elderly Voltaire when he said that *wink*

  2. Oops, yes, he would have been rather elderly in 1979, wouldn't he.

    Fixed now, thanks.

  3. But it is the job of an objective court system to neuter those who do commit atrocities, whatever the reasons they commit them.
    More fucking lefty bullshit.

    PC - please explain why the state must intervene into acts between consenting adults behind closed doors?

    They could be fucking. They could be praying. They could be exercising. They could be exorcising.

    So long as the door can be opened from the inside, and either party walk out at any time - it is none of your business - and certainly none for the state!

  4. What the hell are you talking about you anonymous idiot. Who's talking about consenting adults here?

  5. I am a bit lost as to what Anonymous is talking about, too.

    However, if s/he/it is asking why the State should intervene when consenting adults, behind closed doors, are taking the life of a 'non' consenting adult the answer is...ummmmm...because the victim has a right to life.


  6. So long as the door can be opened from the inside, and either party walk out at any time

    Criteria failed. One couldn't. PC: 1. Mr. Nony Mouse:0.

  7. Good one, Anon. Perhaps they could be starving their wives by consent for not letting them play hide the sausage, too?

  8. Moses was an adult at the time of her exorcism, and was willing to engage in the process.

    No-one has suggested any intent to do physical harm.

    Once again, please explain what objective role the state has in such a situation and why?

    Or - like many lefties - do you believe the state must enforce Atheism?

  9. Anon

    She may have been a willing participant AT FIRST...

    but then things got somewhat more vigorous. She fought for life but by then her killers were really getting into their stride and they were not paying much attention to her plight..

    The deal is they killed her. That's of interest as there is the likelyhood that her life was taken against her consent. She may have voluntarily participated in the exorcism but the question remains, did she volunteer herself for killing? If she did not, then it is necessary for the state to get involved. As a first step it becomes necessary to investigate what occurred, who was responsible, or not (as the case may be). Then it needs to be determined what to do about it.


    PS use a tag-line

  10. Why did anonymous call Moses a 'she'?

    That is just being feminist and silly as everybody knows Charlton Heston was a chap.

  11. OK Look. Moses was a consenting adult. Moses was the legal guardian of the minor and consented on her behalf. These facts are beyond dispute.

    Second, once the exorcism was under way, the room was wet (so tasers could not be used safely); full of shouting stamping men wielding crutches, taiaha, and other traditional weapons.

    If you think this should be illegal - and that laws should be enforceable - then you must support armed state police intervention to "save" people undergoing such procedures. Frankly I can't think of a more lefty idea than a bunch of stormtroopers smashing their way into private houses with guns drawn. Then think of the surveillance that would be needed to prevent this. t is literally Orwellian, the most Politically Correct intervention imaginable, completely abrogating individual responsibility, the separation of church and state. respect for private property, and for consent
    Moses family or estate may have a civil claim if the exorcists were unable to provide service they offered: this can ideally be tested in private mediation or arbitration. Similar, if Moses had a health insurance cover, or some contract with a deporgramming group or something, they could legitimately deploy private force to remove her from that situation.
    Exorcism may be immoral and repugnant. But surely home invasions by nanny-state police stormtroopers to stop exorcisms are much much worse.

  12. OK Look. Moses was a consenting adult. Moses was the legal guardian of the minor and consented on her behalf. These facts are beyond dispute.

    If they were, I would actually agree with you. Stupid and pointless as this mysticism is, it's an individual choice to indulge in it. HOWEVER. Remember that the "possession" in question was actually mental illness.

  13. I'm told these are the same nutbars who scratched a young woman's eyeballs to get rid of 'demons' a few years ago.

    If that is true then there goes the 'they are no danger to others' defence.

  14. Anon

    You're not that idiot Redbaiter are you?


  15. Hahaha, I just came to that exact conclusion in another thread. Scary!


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.