Gisborne Herald letters: Colonisation ‘no excuse for terrible behaviour’

A reader writes to say that judges should not try to blame the past for wrongdoing. Photo / Getty Images

Letters to the Editor

OPINION

It has long been the convention to refrain from direct criticism of members of the judiciary.

The reason for this is to protect judges from harm and abuse as they fulfill one of society’s most difficult tasks; also, to protect them from political and other interference.

But they are not infallible, and on occasion must be called to account. I protest at the words of Justice Andru Isac in the Gisborne court. In judgment on the death of a toddler, he said: “Your background and upbringing, like that of many young Māori men, is marked by violence, substance abuse and lack of education. These are a part of the legacy of colonisation.”

I dispute Justice Isac’s claim that “many young Māori men” have a background and upbringing “marked by violence, substance abuse and lack of education”. I suggest his view is skewed by what he encounters in his court sessions.

But it is his statement on the legacy of colonisation to which I most object. You cannot excuse terrible behaviour by invoking the issues of colonisation. Even before the arrival of people from the rest of the world, Māori had codes of behaviour. Ill-treating children was as abhorrent to them then as it is to people everywhere now.

Globally, most of humanity knows the difference between right and wrong - even though some are perverted by religions or despotic regimes. Some human beings are pathologically different and lack empathy. Some are psychotic. But these are a small minority. It is also observable that most people try to be decent members of society, despite their upbringing and lack of opportunity.

So to Justice Isac and anyone who tries to blame the past for wrongdoing - I say NO. Everyone - but the psychologically impaired - is personally responsible and accountable for their own actions. No excuses.

Roger Handford

A few comments and questions

Some comments and questions about the “new look” Herald:

1. The rural paper no longer comes in a plastic bag. Well done at last!

2. It’s jazzed up and dumbed down, mainly by meaningless coloured pictures on every page. I hope that expense becomes justified by larger circulation. It also means less to read, which saves me time.

3. How many contributors besides the New Zealand Initiative are to be allowed dispensation from the 600-word opinion limit and from the requirement to include a photo? (On Friday, it was just over 800.)

4. It would be nice to know if such contributions are also in the NZ Herald, and not unique to our paper. This is essential information when framing a response.

5. If so, does this mean fewer local opinion pieces will be printed?

6. The large coloured picture is irresponsible if it accompanies such a biased and ill-informed column as appeared on Friday, as its caption gives a crude, convincing-looking message to people who only look at the pictures.

Gavin Maclean

Footnote from Ed: The opinion pages can be all shared content used in other regional NZME newspapers and sometimes the NZ Herald; or they can be all local content that we have booked the space for - but most often will be a mix of local and shared content. Longer columns can now be considered, at the editor’s discretion, but the standard maximum length remains 600 words; the Guideline regarding this has now been updated.

Billboard now, with reduced ‘waypoints’

Re: Grey St Project Concerns - April 27 letter.

I referred to the Resource Management Act and the resource consent process that the Gisborne District Council (GDC) must follow - Section 6 Part 2. I see part of it is now starting to be followed: on the Grey Street site now, “a billboard will be placed at the site of the proposed activity”.

Interestingly, the council has deleted an important section, Our Tohu, and only shown six waypoints (1-6). In the plans I have uplifted there are 11 and it is obvious that all cultural paraphernalia has been removed on the billboard.

In my view, the council has stuffed the CBD up and they shouldn’t start doing the same to the side streets. Leave Grey Street alone as it is. Check what the public are saying. The people are dead against this Streets for People project. Wake up!

Whoever on the GDC is answering questions, answer positively. Stop the repetition of negative jargon. And don’t waste any more of the $900,000 pool. Use it more wisely.

We are also now losing 42 angle parks.

I’ve been informed that another meeting will be held at Ray White’s, corner of Grey Street and Childers Road, at 9.30 next Monday, May 13. All welcome.

Tiny Thompson

Widespread disagreement with Cass Review

Martin Hanson cites me briefly in his column on the Cass Review, but not the reasons why there is widespread disagreement amongst clinicians in the disciplines of pediatrics and developmental psychology over this document.

One of the primary caveats that many critics have with the Cass Review is the use of the questionable evaluative tool known as the Newcastle/Ottawa Test, which has been found to produce disparities between evaluations. This tool was misused to eliminate numerous positive peer-reviewed journal studies from pediatrics and developmental psychology.

Let me refer Mr Hanson to two alternative sources of cumulative, replicable and verifiable evidence on adolescent access to puberty blockers. One is an annotated letter from prominent figures at the Yale School of Medicine (July 2022), criticising the severely flawed Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration study which similarly prevented access to puberty blockers. Dr Cass is known to have had contact with one figure associated with that study, affiliated with the conservative Catholic, anti-transgender Catholic Health Association.

The other is an amicus curiae from the Academy of American Pediatrics and numerous other federal US and state organisations condemning a similar puberty blocker ban in Alabama (June 23, 2021). This document is particularly relevant to the current debate over the Cass Review, because it cites numerous research papers that testify to the efficacy of puberty blockers and the consequences of premature and abrupt disruption of medical care for trans adolescents.

Mr Hanson, might it not be possible that the Cass Review is an outlier? I would invite you to consult the aforementioned studies and then reassess your earlier comments.

Craig Young