When the story of a man's body being taken away by his "family" first broke, I couldn't decide which party was in the right as the man's marital status was unclear. NZ media have this annoying habit of obscuring the relationships of people to each other by using such generic terms as "partner" as to be almost completely useless in any sort of informative sense.
If the man was married, his wife had dibs on burying his body as he and her had implicitly created a new family via the marriage. However, if the man was just a live in boyfriend, albeit a boyfriend over many years, then his original family should have had precedence. That's just the way things ought to work.
In the latest article, the media calls the man the woman's "husband", so maybe they had formalised their union and therefore the man via the marriage had implicitly broken any "rights" his original family might think they have over his body.
Whatever the outcome of this, what is most disturbing is the NZ Police's reticence to follow their mandate to enforce the law. The woman originally got a court order to prevent the man's family from taking his body away, and the Police did not enforce that court order. Now they might not exhume the body. Very, very strange and disturbing.
Related Link: Body in family burial dispute to be exhumed
If the man was married, his wife had dibs on burying his body as he and her had implicitly created a new family via the marriage. However, if the man was just a live in boyfriend, albeit a boyfriend over many years, then his original family should have had precedence. That's just the way things ought to work.
In the latest article, the media calls the man the woman's "husband", so maybe they had formalised their union and therefore the man via the marriage had implicitly broken any "rights" his original family might think they have over his body.
Whatever the outcome of this, what is most disturbing is the NZ Police's reticence to follow their mandate to enforce the law. The woman originally got a court order to prevent the man's family from taking his body away, and the Police did not enforce that court order. Now they might not exhume the body. Very, very strange and disturbing.
Related Link: Body in family burial dispute to be exhumed
Lucyna, he had children with this woman. The north island relatives effectively snatched the body and the police did not have the nuts to enforce a court order.
ReplyDeleteThis maori body snatching is not uncommon. Who could forget Billy T James being snatched and dumped in the back of a Bedford truck.
I think your raising the legal status of his relationship with this woman is irrelevant.
The more imporatant discussion point is BODY SNATCHING and our Police forces inability/ reticence to uphold the law when dealing maori.
BB, let me clarify the legal relationship's relevance for you then. A married woman should not have to get a court order preventing her husband's family from taking off with the body - her marriage to the man ought to be enough. If this woman was married to him, the fact that she needed a court order (that was ignored) is very disturbing.
ReplyDeleteI understand that point perfectly well Lucyna.
ReplyDeleteThe actuality of this case is that the north island family forcibly removed his body and took it north. The absence of a wedding ring (if indeed they were not married)would have made no difference whatsoever to the the actions of the bodysnatchers
bb,
ReplyDeleteYou are definitely correct in the inability / reticence of the constabulary to uphold the law when dealing with local ethnics.
I am sure I witnessed on TV news the other night a solid first punch being thrown by a protestor over some roadworks in the far north dole country, but have yet to see said individual in the courts for assault!
They should not be able to choose and be directed to do the exhumation with due haste before this gets any more mileage.
It was the road worker thumping the protester actually. personally if I am ever going to build a road he well get the job... Nice punch too.
ReplyDeleteLook at what the body snatching means in terms of proven committment, siring children and living in a specific locality.. not whether there is a marriage certificate.
ReplyDeleteIn earlier times, people had a much better and pragmatic arrangement when it came to committment.. a man and a woman would dedicate themselves to live as man and wife and sort out the preacher/priest thing later when one came along.
By today's standards they were unmarried before the priest got there, but to their communities and themselves, they were married.
In the Chch case, I will assume they were unmarried, but there is absolute evidence and proof that they were married "in the sight of God" by their consanguinity over 20 years. It's neither here or there whether it was a good marriage or whatever.. the fact remains that both parties were fulfilling a contract that has been sanctified by the Church and society since the earliest times.
The wife's/partner's/children's claim to the body is paramount, otherwise we are agreeing to the sort of sick mentality that sees children beaten to death but the perpetrators are both forgiven and protected by the wider family because he/she are "kin". The dead kid being the annoying detritus arising outside the circle of kinship.
The actions of the dead man's family are among the worst and most evil example of "form over substance" that we can see, and may be a deliberatye attempt to "punish" the partner and child for taking away the loyalty and earning power of the dead man.
JC
Burial at sea would be a good compromise if he was exhumed...
ReplyDelete