Racism:

“Discrimination or prejudice based on race.’

Treating social groups in a prejudiced way isn’t always a bad thing. i.e. We have gender-based toilets, though not all men are perverts, and it does no one any harm.

The problem with prejudiced law is when it comes to subjugate and disenfranchise people because of the group they belong to (i.e. South Arica, Third Riech), then it becomes a matter of justice.

Democratic pluralism, on the other hand, whilst it may lead to prejudice laws, empowers disenfranchised minorities whilst leaving the traditionally socially advantaged group with power. In this case prejudiced law serves justice rather than working against it. See what I mean?

racism
“Discrimination or prejudice based on race.”
I think we can agree on that definition, it’s broader that then one you seem to have used, but I tend to view racism in a wider context than just subjugation.

Now, where we differ…

You think reversing the racism makes up for past injustice. That it balances out on average.
Me, I think that’s about the best method you can get if you want to perpetuate ignorance and intolerance on both sides.

“Why is reasonable OK in employment law, but not OK in, say, s59?”

I’ve already answered this. In some areas of law there are just too many “reasonable” permutations to list them all in the legislation. in some areas you need it, in some you don’t. You just don’t seem to get it. Are you playing thick or are you genuinely stupid?

“There is a big difference between “a lot of labour supporters’ as I wrote, and “all pakeha labour supporters’”

Democratic pluralism is a progressive cause which acknowledges and seeks to redress the real differences in power between various social cleavages in society. That’s called justice (that people be given equal opportunity). The view that this is racism (that groups are subjugated and victimised as a result of prejudice) is simply moronic. Progressive pluralism has been mainstream for 20 years, yet the groups you say are they prey of racism are still enjoy most of the power and privilege in society.

I agree that one jury’s `reasonable’ would clearly be different to another’s, but the point I’m making is that the legislature – and a sizeable majority of the legislature – decided that this wasn’t good enough.

My point stands.

L

It wasn’t the judiciary who applied the reasonableness test in s59 cases, it was the jury. It was a question of fact. So one jury’s “reasonable” could be quite different to another’s. One or two errant jury decisions didn’t warrant changing the law, which actually was very sensible.

If you can make some other specific, individual cases for `reasonable’ to be replaced with something else in law, then fair enough. But advocating for blanket removal of the term from everything is a different matter.

L

Why is reasonable OK in employment law, but not OK in, say, s59?
That sure as hell caused ‘great problems’.

I agree that it isn’t relevant to the case you were making, but it’s going to be a pretty important distinction come November.

I have to endorse what you say about Rudd’s platform. Particularly with the IR, it is quite conservative and doesn’t roll back some of the more invidious Howard reforms.

And finally, why is it that Phil et al. can’t understand that our statutory and common law of employment is riddled with “reasonable” and this doesn’t cause any great problems?

JP, Could be that they’re lacking talent, could be that they’re wilfully dishonest. I remember attending an industrial relations conference a few years back when Wayne Mapp made himself the laughing stock of the room trying to claim that the term ‘reasonable’ was impossible and confusing and should be removed entirely from employment law.

Knowing that, surely it would be wise of you to post here a caution to the Rudd government, on how difficult that word can make the lives of legislators/lawyers, rather than endorse them wholeheartedly?

Phil, firstly, I didn’t endorse Rudd’s platform wholeheartedly. Secondly, we have the term ‘reasonable’ in our employment law and it works just fine. The primary objection comes from employers (and their ideological bedfellows) who don’t want to be held up to standards of reasonable behaviour in the way they treat their staff.

Yes.

and hence is supported by 50% of NZers at present.

No.

The best you can say is that the National Party is supported by 50% of the (possibly as low as 30%) of a (biased) sample of the population who agree to answer pollsters questions.