The Rule of Law: Individual rights and the paramount interests of the child v Social Justice

Graham Hill's picture
Submitted by Graham Hill on Thu, 2021-08-26 02:28

Both Karl du Fresne and Chris Trotter have blogged on the Hawkes Bay case of a young girl and a parenting order for her and whether this should proceed on the basis of culture or race.

I see it as a dispute between a collectivist- social justice- approach and the individual rights and interests of the child.



I concur with Gary Judd who blogged into Karl du Fresne's article. He makes the point that s 4 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 enshrines the rule of law. That is correct, but how? There is one legal pundit, with some influence, who maintains that the s4 provision is merely declaratory and of no substantive effect. I have tried to litigate that it is of substantive effect but a certain Tribunal was not up to the task. There are no cases on this section.

I blogged the following as a comment:

"My unfortunate experience, and as a former lawyer, is that lawyers can be involved in breaches of the rule of law, and what has occurred in this case is no real surprise. The Nuremberg laws were also laws of the state- and its rule of law- and the officer corps of the SS was largely made up of lawyers. There is no magical incantation (though pronouncing the words "rule of law" might approach such an incantation) or wand-waving that makes probable lawyers as guardians of the rule of law. If it were so the Neo Marxist 'feminist' judgments project, with its intersectional mummery, would have been canned long ago. Also, there would not have been censorship in Law Talk of Jordan Peterson. The rule of law, by the way, is not, as Professor Niall Ferguson says, the rule of lawyers. Yet it is a good start.

There is a greater dynamic at play here. It also features in the Ministry of Justice hate speech' proposals. The present rule of law system is based on individual rights, not collectivist Neo Marxist ones. Social Justice is NOT legal justice, because it is the imposition of prejudice and liability bases on immutable identity factors. There is no possible interface. Woke Social justice determines in advance, through one's membership to a group, one's guilt (sub nom "privilege') for example. I know of Judge Callinicos, who is a competent and very experienced family law judge as he was as a practitioner, who would have focused on the interests of the child which are paramount, not an a priori presumption pertaining to CRT. It is simply astonishing two other judges who should have known better but obviously did not decide to write to Judge Callinicos.

If members of the Judiciary are not up to speed with the rule of law then we do have a serious problem.

What we have here is a striking example of the corruption of the Clerisy in the Ministry of the Child (as with the MoEd and possibly MSD)- which has adopted critical race theory- and raises the issue, which I raised in my submission on hate speech, has our current weltanschauung been subverted and overthrown by Neo-Marxism? Most lawyers are anti-intellectual and will not see the issue as it really is. Thus their role as 'guardians of the rule of law is in question. There would have been a lawyer arguing for Oranga Tamiriki's social justice CRT position."