To Limit Another's Rights Is To Limit One's Own: Is it too much to expect senior members of our Government to be capable of explaining that we protect the rights of human-beings precisely because not even the most depraved act can cancel-out the fact that its perpetrator is also a human-being, a possessor of rights – one of us?
THE SHOCK/HORROR expressed at the Christchurch Shooter’s
letter from prison is unworthy of a grown-up nation. A bold assertion, to which
the cynical will undoubtedly reply: “True – but this is New Zealand we’re
talking about!” Beleaguered liberals will chuckle ruefully – and move on.
Because who now believes that the shock/horror “deplorables” are in any way
redeemable? And, who really cares?
Such defeatism is unworthy of us. Historically, New
Zealanders have shown themselves to be perfectly capable of moral clarity. It
was almost sixty years ago that the New Zealand Parliament voted to abolish the
death penalty. Does anyone, today, seriously dispute that this legislative
reform was carried out against the strong opposition of what was almost
certainly a clear majority of the electorate? No. And yet, the politicians of
1961 did not surrender to the ignorance and cruelty of the “hang-‘em-high!”
majority – they rose above it.
Our Parliament did the same in 1986 when deliberating the
Homosexual Law Reform Bill. Those around at the time will recall the
extraordinary rally of conservative Christians who gathered on Parliament’s
forecourt to pile high the boxes containing the signatures of the 800,000 New
Zealanders petitioning the House of Representatives to reject the Bill. This
was, easily, the largest petition in New Zealand history. Did the majority of
MPs favouring reform quail before this frightening demonstration of the
Christian Right’s numbers? They did not. The Bill became law.
These battles were won because in both 1961 and 1986 liberal
New Zealanders still had faith in the duty of reason to over-rule ignorance and
cruelty. They refused to be swayed by mere numbers. That a majority of the
population believed in the state-sanctioned killing of helpless individuals, or
evinced a knee-jerk antipathy to homosexual acts, proved only how dangerous it
was to determine what is and is not morally defensible by counting heads.
Even at the risk of someone crying “Godwin”, it is still
worth asking if, in 1935, the infamous “Nuremburg Laws” discriminating against
the Jews of Germany had been put to a referendum, and endorsed, would that have
excused everything that followed? Of course not.
Democracy isn’t just about honouring the will of the
majority, it is also – and perhaps more importantly – about protecting the
rights of the minority. Precisely because they are human rights:
inherent and unalienable; they are not susceptible to the vagaries of popular
opinion. To suggest otherwise, which, shamefully, appears to be the position of
the NZ First Party, is to invest the majority with the power to annihilate
their enemies – and democracy along with them.
The Christchurch Shooter is a human-being charged with appalling
crimes. Even so, and those alleged crimes notwithstanding, the outraged
majority is not entitled to turn him into a thing without rights. As a prisoner
of the state, he must be accorded all the rights and privileges guaranteed to
him by law. Included among these is the right to communicate with the outside
world: the right to write a letter.
Does this mean that he must be permitted to write to his
racist followers, instructing them to make war upon innocent human-beings?
Absolutely not. Anymore than we are obliged to permit a person to cry “Fire!”
in a crowded theatre. The letters of the Christchurch Shooter, by inspiring
White Supremacists all around the world, have the power to inflict suffering
and death on an horrific scale. As such, the prison authorities have both the
right and the duty to prevent such communications being sent.
By the same token, however, those Ministers of the Crown
with an interest in the trial of the Christchurch Shooter have a duty to uphold
the international covenants guaranteeing the rights of prisoners to which New
Zealand is signatory. Moreover, they should all possess the wit and will to
patiently explain to the ignorant and the cruel why it is their duty to protect
even an evildoer’s rights.
Is it too much to expect senior members of our Government to
be capable of this? Surely, every politician should understand that we protect
the rights of human-beings precisely because not even the most depraved act can
cancel-out the fact that its perpetrator is also a human-being, a possessor of
rights – one of us.
Herein lies the paradox. That the criminal’s attempted negation
of our common humanity only serves to heighten its inherent and transcendent
value. That is why, by honouring the Christchurch Shooter’s right to write, we
are simultaneously acknowledging and honouring the humanity of the people who
fell before his bullets. More importantly, by negating his negation, we are proudly
proclaiming his utter moral defeat.
If New Zealand’s liberal politicians have forgotten these
arguments, then, surely, it is time they relearned them.
This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog
of Friday, 16 August 2019.
