Upholding Religious Freedom And Respect For All
Wednesday, 25 June 2025, 8:58 pm
Press Release: Joint Media Statement
Joint Statement from New Zealand Faith Communities
22 June 2025
As leaders and representatives of diverse religious communities across Aotearoa New Zealand, we are united in our concern about the messages promoted during the public protest held on June 21, 2025 by Brian Tamaki and his followers against immigration and the spread of non-Christian religions in New Zealand.
The right to protest is a cornerstone of democracy. However, we are saddened to see rhetoric that appeared to diminish the place of some faiths in New Zealand's multicultural society. Our religious traditions may differ, but we all share a common commitment to compassion, dignity, and the peaceful coexistence of communities.
New Zealand's strength lies in its diversity, including its religious diversity. The freedom to worship, or not to worship, is a value we all cherish. We believe that no one faith should be positioned as having greater legitimacy than others in the life of our nation.
We encourage dialogue rather than division, and understanding rather than suspicion. In times of tension, it is especially important that we come together in the spirit of unity and mutual respect.
We remain committed to working together across our faiths to uphold these values and to support the inclusive, respectful society that we all seek to build.
Statement supported by the following organizations, spokespeople noted:
Ben Kepes, Spokesperson New Zealand Jewish CouncilDaljit Singh, Chair NZ Central Sikh AssociationSecretary, Hindu Foundation New Zealand, IncSomaliland Society in New Zealand Incorporated
Wellington Abrahamic Council
© Scoop Media
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Upholding Religious Freedom And Respect For All
Wednesday, 25 June 2025, 8:58 pm Press Release: Joint Media Statement Joint Statement from New Zealand Faith Communities 22 June 2025 As leaders and representatives of diverse religious communities across Aotearoa New Zealand, we are united in our concern about the messages promoted during the public protest held on June 21, 2025 by Brian Tamaki and his followers against immigration and the spread of non-Christian religions in New Zealand. The right to protest is a cornerstone of democracy. However, we are saddened to see rhetoric that appeared to diminish the place of some faiths in New Zealand's multicultural society. Our religious traditions may differ, but we all share a common commitment to compassion, dignity, and the peaceful coexistence of communities. New Zealand's strength lies in its diversity, including its religious diversity. The freedom to worship, or not to worship, is a value we all cherish. We believe that no one faith should be positioned as having greater legitimacy than others in the life of our nation. We encourage dialogue rather than division, and understanding rather than suspicion. In times of tension, it is especially important that we come together in the spirit of unity and mutual respect. We remain committed to working together across our faiths to uphold these values and to support the inclusive, respectful society that we all seek to build. Statement supported by the following organizations, spokespeople noted: Ben Kepes, Spokesperson New Zealand Jewish CouncilDaljit Singh, Chair NZ Central Sikh AssociationSecretary, Hindu Foundation New Zealand, IncSomaliland Society in New Zealand Incorporated Wellington Abrahamic Council © Scoop Media
Scoop
14 hours ago
- Scoop
Palestine Israel: Implementing A One-State Solution
It's time that the nations of the world (or at least the influential western nations) accept the reality that all the lands that constituted 1920-1948 Mandatory Palestine should be formally recognised as a single nation-state; ideally called Palestine Israel or Israel-Palestine, but more realistically called Israel. In other words, the never-viable notion of a two-nation-state division of 'Israel' ( should be dropped as a viable solution in favour of the promotion of a liberal bicultural (or multicultural) nation-state. The role model for change could be South Africa. Jewish and Non-Jewish intellectuals (such as Hans Kohn, Shlomo Sand and Yanis Varoufakis) – on the political left – have been arguing for this 'one-state-solution' for over 100 years. It's just that their voices have always been deamplified by those on the political centre and the political right. (On the centre, we think of people like Joe Biden, Keir Starmer, and their predecessors. On the right, we may consider former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, a leader in the 1940s of the openly fascist Lehi, yet a moderate by today's Israeli political standards.) Shlomo Sand outlines the history of the arguments for a single 'binational' state in his 2024 book Israel-Palestine: Federation or Apartheid? His vision, which is not quite what I favour, emphasises binationalism ( and looks towards these successful liberal examples of bi- or multi- nationalism: Canada, Belgium, Switzerland. The better framing of this approach, I believe, is biculturalism; though even that is not problem-free, because it is an exclusive concept. What I think would work best for Palestine Israel is also the same as what would work best for Aotearoa New Zealand: multiculturalism with a bicultural (treaty) emphasis. (Ireland could have become something similar, as in Irish rugby; but it went down a failed two-state path, and experienced two substantial civil wars last century.) The ideal is for Palestine Israel to become a liberal democracy in which all people born within its borders become citizens with equal citizenship rights; a nation state which commits to both the domestic and international norms of liberal democracy. (In a bicultural nation-state, the principal divider is religion; normally people's religious loyalties are discrete, meaning that being, say, a Muslim or Jew or Christian is mutually exclusive. The word 'national' is increasingly used in the 21st century as it was in the 19th century; to refer to a 'people' or a 'race' rather than to relate to a territory defined by its borders and its sovereign institutions. Ethnicity – the better word is 'ancestry – is not a discrete concept such as 'religion'; individual people have multiple ancestries, and should not be required to identify as one over another.) How can this be achieved? First, we should note that the status quo in Eretz Israel is at least as unacceptable as Apartheid South Africa was to our world of mostly 'internationally-civilised' nation-states. (An internationally civilised state is one that accepts agreed norms in the ways that it relates to other nation states, meaning that it does not indulge in offensive hard-power geopolitics – such as 'gunboat diplomacy'; and it practises cultural equality. Terrorism is understood as criminality. Such a state does not have to be a 'democracy' in the Westminster or American sense; but it should meet open liberal standards in the ways it treats its resident denizens – non-citizens – and it should subscribe to international treaties on matters such as climate sustainability and nuclear energy and election authenticity.) Second, this desired outcome will not come about by force. The community of liberal nations should simply recognise Eretz Israel as a nation state, based ideally on the prior borders of Mandatory Palestine. While there should be no demands, such a new nation-state would be risking discriminatory sanctions if it abuses liberal norms; in particular if it implements laws (including civil-marriage laws) that discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, or ancestry. Again, the obvious model is Apartheid South Africa, and the ways that South Africa was excluded from international sport so long as it implemented laws which discriminated on the basis of ethnicity. (Palestinians and many Israelis have Levantine ethnicity. Many Israelis have European, African or Asian co-ethnicity; that non-indigeneity should never be held against them. Nor should the indigeneity of the Palestinians.) In recognising Eretz Israel as Israel-Palestine (or even just under the name 'Israel'), a Levantine nation state, Israel's nuclear status should be addressed and normalised. (Likewise, India and Pakistan should be pressured to join the 'nuclear club'. One of the most problematic regional asymmetries at present is the advanced nuclear-status of Israel versus the embryonic nuclear status of Iran; Israel at present hides behind its non-membership of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to make it seem that Iran is a bigger nuclear threat to the world than Israel is.) Recognition of Eretz Israel as a sovereign nation state, under any name, should come with overt expectations of democracy, amnesty, truth, reconciliation, and press freedom. There should be no formal or informal mechanism of 'settling scores', no matter how reprehensible anyone's past or present behaviour has been. Truth trumps vengeance cloaked as 'accountability'. Lebanon was an initially successful, but now largely failed, version of a similar attempt at creating a tolerant multicultural nation state in the Levant. Lebanon's main problem was its belligerent southern neighbour. Israel-Palestine would not have Israel as a neighbour. Abandon the naïve two-state solution There is no way a Palestinian nation-state can be viable. At the very best it could become like a mini-Pakistan or mini-Bangladesh; and even that would take decades. (And the last Israeli prime minister to formalise a two-state future – Yitzhak Rabin – was assassinated in 1995, having achieved a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.) The two-state-solution agenda seems to be more about deescalating sufficiently for the Palestine issue to disappear from its media prominence; and not at all about ending a forever war which began in 1948. The present forever war – now in its hottest phase – followed a brutal war for Israeli-Jewish independence and non-Jewish expulsion waged by fascist and non-fascist 'non-state actors' from 1939 to 1948 against the British 'protectors'. That, in turn, followed a prior Palestinian insurrection against the British and the settlers from 1936-1939 (though overshadowed in the international media by the Spanish Civil War), which in its turn followed the 1929 Palestine riots. That's 96 years of escalating forever violence. In Summary Recognise a new expanded state, with or without a new name, but with certain (unenforceable, but well-publicised) expectations. This expectation should be a multi-cultural Levantine sovereign state, embracing adherents of the three Abrahamic faiths (as well as people of other religions, or no religion, as citizens; people born in Israel or Palestine, and documented immigrants): Levantine Jews, Levantine Muslims, Levantine Christians, plus others. All Israelis. And all Palestinians. Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand. Keith Rankin Political Economist, Scoop Columnist Keith Rankin taught economics at Unitec in Mt Albert since 1999. An economic historian by training, his research has included an analysis of labour supply in the Great Depression of the 1930s, and has included estimates of New Zealand's GNP going back to the 1850s. Keith believes that many of the economic issues that beguile us cannot be understood by relying on the orthodox interpretations of our social science disciplines. Keith favours a critical approach that emphasises new perspectives rather than simply opposing those practices and policies that we don't like. Keith retired in 2020 and lives with his family in Glen Eden, Auckland.
The Spinoff
18 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Weaponising the haka: Destiny Church's protest is cultural theft, not free speech
Brian Tamaki's latest protest didn't just target minority communities – it co-opted haka, taiaha and moko to do it. When Māori culture is used to push a hateful agenda, we need to call it what it is: cultural appropriation in service of extremism. There I was, stuck in my Covid isolation room doomscrolling through social media on a Saturday afternoon. Among the plethora of comments about humanity being on the verge of another world war and excitement for the Warriors game that evening, I saw a video shared with the following caption: 'Oh dear! Using Māori culture to advance an agenda of fundamentalism, terrorism, and pōrangitanga.' I clicked on it and soon realised I had joined a livestream of approximately 500 Destiny Church members marching up Queen Street. I didn't even know the march was happening, nor why, but what I saw only strengthened my disdain for Brian Tamaki and his church. Leading the crowd is a group of young Māori, a majority of them men, dressed in maro, with red paint on their thighs, stenciled mataora on their faces, and black rākau in their hands. Behind them, six more rows of people – dressed mostly in black Destiny Church apparel – begin to haka in unison. At the conclusion of the fiery haka, supreme leader Brian Tamaki takes the microphone. He speaks to the crowd – which I imagine is mostly made up of bemused onlookers otherwise in the area – about the evils of the world. Several New Zealand flags fly behind him, alongside a banner that reads: 'NZs Official Religion: Christianity'. 'This is the beginning of the pushback from the Commonwealth countries and the Christian nation here in the southern hemisphere,' Tamaki begins. He goes on to talk about how they are taking back their countries from 'evil people' who are trying to take away their 'homes, future and faith'. Over the next 15 minutes, there is mention of wars against religion, other gods attempting to take over, and the price of butter. Tamaki proclaims the national anthem is 'an embarrassment' and says the New Zealand flag isn't flown enough. The whole time Tamaki is speaking, the group behind him gesticulates and posturises – they pull pūkana, wander around with their traditional Māori weapons, and let out cries. Then appear flags: Islam, Palestine, Khalistan, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, United Nations, World Health Organisation, World Economic Forum, Atheist, Rainbow, and Transgender. One-by-one, each flag is torn in two as Tamaki explains why they are evil. After each flag, a short haka takes place: 'Upokokōhua! Kai a te kurī!' These terms are the equivalent of Māori curse words, the first referring to a boiled head and second to dog's food. To conclude there are two large pieces of paper – the first has 12 different New Zealand news media outlets on it. After a comical attempt by two of Tamaki's followers to light it on fire, the paper is torn in half. Then appears a large printout of the cover of Jacinda Ardern's newest biography A Different Kind of Power, which is also torn in half. Young men circle the remnants, posturing with taiaha, yelling into the camera. It was absurd. But it was also insidious. This is Destiny Church's attempt to break the spirit of these movements and communities. The livestream ends with Tamaki continuing to speak. I don't bother searching for another one. The self-proclaimed apostle would be well aware the number of Destiny Church members dwindles in comparison to these groups. The tearing of flags is nothing more than a symbolic gesture, especially considering a majority of those present were already members of the church. This all would have done little to 'break the spirit' of the movements and organisations Tamaki was condemning. So besides public condemnation, what's the point? Well, my hypothesis is that the whole spectacle was nothing more than a fearmongering exercise and attempt from Tamaki to boost dwindling membership numbers and garner support leading into next year's general election. Mention of British anti-Islam campaigner Tommy Robinson and 'the biggest protest the world has ever seen' in England this September shows Tamaki is attempting to further align himself with global extremists. This wasn't a haka – it was a hijacking. It was a weaponisation of Māoritanga. Destiny Church continually co-opts Māori culture – haka, moko, taiaha, pūkana – and twists it into an instrument of intimidation. The performance wasn't about pride in whakapapa. It was about vilifying anyone who didn't fit Brian Tamaki's Christian nationalist worldview. This is where things get dangerous. Tamaki often blurs the line between Christian identity and cultural identity – and not by accident. His entire aesthetic often relies on the illusion that Māoritanga and Christianity are one and the same, and that to be Māori is to support his particular brand of fundamentalism. The result? Viewers unfamiliar with tikanga may associate haka, moko and taiaha with aggression, exclusion and intolerance – rather than with cultural pride, resilience and manaakitanga. I don't deny that some haka are rooted in conflict, but the confusion has real-world consequences. Young people watching that livestream could be left thinking that te ao Māori is inherently anti-queer. That to be proud in their culture, they must also hate Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus. That standing strong as Māori means tearing down others. It's not just hateful. It's a distortion. There's a crucial distinction that Destiny Church refuses to make – perhaps because its entire strategy depends on erasing it. Māori identity is not a religion. Māoritanga is not Christianity. You can be Māori and Muslim. Māori and Buddhist. Māori and takatāpui. You can be Māori and Christian too, even a Māori member of Destiny Church, but don't use our culture to desecrate the flags of other faiths while shouting offensive kupu and performing haka with hate in your heart. You don't get to drape yourself in maro and claim you stand for all Māori. Especially when you're using that platform to attack the very values that underpin our culture: inclusion, whanaungatanga, aroha and manaaki. As Ngāti Pāoa's health service E Tipu e Rea put it in a release: 'Our tikanga teaches us to uplift, to manaaki, and to protect the dignity of all people… what we witnessed was a weaponisation of our culture to spread hate.' The symbolism wasn't lost on others either. Multiple ethnic and faith organisations have since spoken out. The Federation of Islamic Associations, the Combined Sikh Association, the NZ Buddhist Council, and dozens more condemned the protest. 'This is not an exercise of free speech,' one joint statement read. 'This is targeted hate.' Melissa Derby, the race relations commissioner, said plainly in a release: 'Brian Tamaki's 'us vs them' narratives are a reckless attack on social cohesion.' This isn't about silencing religion. It's about holding extremists accountable when they misuse platforms, symbols and cultural identities to push hate. Brian Tamaki is free to preach whatever theology he wants in his church. What he doesn't have the right to do is appropriate Māori cultural practices – many of them sacred – and use them as props in a political campaign that seeks to vilify other New Zealanders. That is not religious freedom. That's cultural exploitation. He may believe he's waging a holy war. But from where I'm sitting – watching while he parades young Māori men in maro to tear down rainbow flags – it looks more like a desperate grab for relevance. A play to reinvigorate his crumbling congregation. A last gasp to position himself at the head of a fringe 'Commonwealth crusade' that has no place in a country that values dignity, tolerance and diversity.
