Protection need for all groups

Press, 6 October 1987, Page 5

Protection need for all groups

By

CHRISTOPHER

MOORE

The protection of indivb dual ethnic and cultural groups could not threaten the rights of other members of society, a senior official of the Human Rights Commission, Mr Graeme MacCormick, warned delegates at the Law Conference yesterday.

"Democracy can certainly tolerate distinctive or special rights. for differing groups. The fact that Maori culture is aboriginal to New Zealand and that the colonising Europeans committed themselves to its preservation provides strong reasons why the Maori people, their language and culture should be protected,” said Mr MacCormick, proceedings commissioner for the commission, during a seminar on human rights. “But the right to protection is just that. It is not a right which can threaten the rights of other citizens. Non-indigenous peoples also have rights to their property and culture. Pakeha New Zealand culture, although a later development, is also unique to New Zealand to

the extent that it is threatened, for example, by the preponderance of imported television programmes.”

Indigenousness did not provide a justification for superior treatment over those who came later, provided the late comers had a right to be there.

"This is a key proviso. In a democracy, all members had equal rights. It does not matter when they joined, provided they are legitimate members and not just visitors or invaders. Assertion of the superior rights of the indigenous people therefore has the effect of denying the citizenship and legitimacy of hte non-indi-genous,” Mr MacCormick said.

Assimiliation was not an answer for indigenous people who would rebel against it. It was synonomous with domination and subjugation, and undervalued the diversity of lifestyles and perspectives. A more varied distinctive society would arise to embrace the best of a variety of traditions and values — a society which would differ from the society arising from policies promoting assimi-

lation. “Fortunately New Zealand has its own avenue of proceeding. The Treaty of Waitangi deals with the special rights of the indigenous people of Aotearoa — New Zealand. It is our own charter of rights of indigenous peoples. We have a tribunal to consider and assist in interpreting its meaning and implications. ' “The treaty’s scope is conceivably very broad. Until and unless the treaty is replaced by something better, acceptable to Maori and nonMaori, we must not only honour it but endeavour to remedy the injustices of past failures to honour it with the guidance of the Waitangi Tribunal.” The treaty was “a remarkable document” which spoke of a partnership and looked forward to the future. There were different understandings as to what it meant and what it meant today. But—the treaty must be honoured in terms of its concept of partnership.

LAW CONFERENCE