Interment and Eternity

James Takamore, a Tuhoe Maori from the eastern Bay of Plenty, began a relationship with pakeha Denise Clarke.  They moved to Christchurch where they lived for 20 years, had two children and he died in 2007.  His partner had him buried near their home, as he wished.  His Tuhoe relatives had different ideas, and in a distasteful act exhumed his body at night without permission and took it back to Kutarere, near Opotiki, and reburied him there.  Ms Clarke won a court judgment to have his body officially exhumed and returned to the original burial plot on 9^th August 2014.  Kutarere Maoris refused to permit the official exhumation under threat of violence so the issue was sent back to the sheriff of the High Court in Christchurch to decide the next step.

There are two topics of interest here.  The first thing to consider is the arrogance of this particular tribe of Maoris, which may well be shared by other Maoris and other tribes.  It is quite proper to consider that a tribal member should be buried in the tribe’s location, but this cannot exist as an inviolable decree that overrides the subject’s wishes or those of his nearest family.  Nor should a tribe’s demands be enforced by threats of violence, a resort to barbarism.   There is no reason to consider that one culture has greater rights over its mores over another’s.  The failure to reach an agreement with Mr Takamore’s family demonstrates the tribe’s contemptuous disrespect for other cultures and their action of body-snatching a cavalier disregard for the dignity of the deceased.

The second item concerns the capitulation of the police in enforcing the law.  This dishonourable back-down will be seen as a victory by the tribe, notwithstanding their criminal and morally repugnant actions.  Even worse, the police accepted defeat with no actions taken against the tribe for their refusal to cooperate with New Zealand’s legal system.  It will be seen by Maoris that the threat of violence is a viable and successful form of enforcing illegal activity. 

It has to be noted, however, that the legal case may have some distance to go before a permanent resolution is reached.

I suppressed my moral outrage and wrote the following letter to the Dominion Post on the 10^th of August 2014:

“A more agreeable resolution than the Judgment of Solomon on the late James Takamore would be to assign the body to his partner and children for the duration of their lives, or less if volunteered. It can then be re-interred beside his father for eternity. 

“This will allow Maoritanga to demonstrate the enduring nature of whakapapa over genealogy, and both sides will gain moral stature from a willingness to negotiate on cultural difference.  Failure to co-operate would demonstrate ethnic arrogance and crush the magnanimity of compromise.

“It need not come to that.”

It does the Dominion Post no credit that they did not publish this, and no other suggestions on a resolution have come to my attention.