 |
| Promise-Keeper: The events of 15 March 2019 are seared upon Jacinda Ardern’s memory. She will not, therefore, abandon the proposed “Hate Speech” legislation lightly, seeing it as a particularly effective means of preventing such horrors. It is also clear that the Prime Minister believes she has promises to keep to the victims of the Christchurch Mosque Attacks. All of this is understandable, but none of it makes the abrogation of New Zealanders’ freedoms acceptable. |
I UNDERSTAND WHY the Prime Minister feels so strongly about “Hate Speech”. The events of 15 March 2019 are seared upon Jacinda Ardern’s memory. She will not, therefore, abandon lightly what she sees as a particularly effective means of preventing such horrors from ever happening again. It is also clear that the Prime Minister believes she has promises to keep to the victims of the Christchurch Mosque Attacks. From her perspective, legislating against “Hate Speech” is the most important way of keeping those promises.
She’s wrong, of course.
Prime Ministers cannot afford to take things personally. That may sound harsh and unfeeling, but it is, nevertheless, true. As the leader of this country, Jacinda Ardern has a responsibility to honour not just the pain and suffering of the victims of the Christchurch terrorist, but the pain and suffering of the generation of New Zealanders who battled against the most malign terrorist of all time.
Tens-of-thousands of young New Zealanders were killed or wounded in the global struggle against Adolf Hitler. One of the most precious things they were fighting to protect was the first thing Hitler and his fellow Nazis set out to destroy: the right of every human-being to think, speak and communicate freely.
The urge to suppress ideas and beliefs which contradict what one fervently believes to be the truth is not a healthy urge. It is a totalitarian urge. An urge to bend the whole world to your way of thinking. The great danger of succumbing to this urge is that you begin to see those who disagree with you as willful enemies of the truth. Confronted with their dissent, with their deliberate refusal to acknowledge what is self-evidently true, with their hate speech: what else can you do but make sure that the offenders are disciplined and punished?
Tragically, this is the direction in which the Royal Commission of Inquiry Into The Christchurch Mosque Attacks opted to steer the Government. Out of the terrorist’s mayhem, the Royal Commissioners were determined to bring forth what they called “Social Cohesion”. The people of New Zealand, they said, must be brought closer together, and in order for that to happen, all forms of speech which foster division, are insulting, create disharmony, and/or incite discrimination and hate, should be criminalised.
Had the Royal Commission restricted itself to recommending that language intended to incite hatred and/or violence against followers of the Islamic faith be outlawed, it is just possible that New Zealanders would have conceded the point. After all, if the law already forbids such expression in relation to ethnicity, then why not religion? In the dark shadow of the Mosque attacks, surely it would have been the least New Zealanders could do?
But, no. Restricting the extension of the existing law to cover religion was not deemed to be sufficient. The strengthening of New Zealand’s social cohesion would require the creation of a whole swathe of new “protected groups”. To bring the country together, the Royal Commission – and now, seemingly, the Labour Government – is intent on empowering the citizenry to send their neighbours to jail for up to three years for the “crime” of pissing them off.
One can only feel desperately sorry for the Police as women turn on men, Trans on TERFs, Maori on Pakeha, Christians on atheists, supporters of Palestine on supporters of Israel, Baby Boomers on Millennials, and Neoliberals on Marxists. The courts will be filled with angry and bitter complainants and defendants. Juries will be asked to solve problems philosophers have struggled with for centuries. Vast sums of money will be expended on lawyers. No one will emerge from the process emotionally unscathed. And all in the name of strengthening New Zealand’s social cohesion!
It won’t work, Jacinda. No matter how much you’d like it to; no matter how sincere all those promises you made to the victims. It won’t work. You need to listen to those who are warning you that the unintended consequences of this direct attack on the freedom of thought and expression, guaranteed to all New Zealanders in the Bill of Rights Act, will be huge.
Uniformity of belief and behaviour is Xi Jinping’s goal – it shouldn’t be Jacinda Ardern’s.
Freedom is unruly. It’s rude. It hurts people’s feelings. Makes them angry.
But people died for it, Jacinda.
Leave it alone.
This essay was originally published in The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 2 July 2021.
53 comments:
Thank you Mr Trotter! I thought I might be the only one with the sense that what was being proposed was worse than the ill it sought to eradicate. It was the right road to Oceania, 1984. Seriously in 'be careful what you wish for' country.
I can understand the feelings of people who routinely have to endure insults and abuse - what I accept is hate speech - and I accept that there is no 'mens rea' in the PM's proposed legislation. But, like you, I agree: this is simply wrong headed.
Cheers,
Ion A Dowman
Thanks Chris, I really appreciate your eloquent way of pointing out the terrible unintended consequences that are very likely to come from the proposed hate speech law introduction. The terrible irony of the whole thing is that the intention is to try and bring society back together, when it will without doubt push each grouping further apart. Already there is so much fear of ridicule if you question Maori - Pakeha relations, multiculturalism, transgender sport participation etc. that people with genuine questions are unable to find a good explanation for the reasons behind why these changes are being introduced. Without the ability to question and receive a rational answer, you get locked into a fear induced silence which slowly grows to hatred and finally to the Dark side! A discussion with people you respect who hold differing opinions can at least take the dehumanising part out of the equation, which is key to ensuring violence doesn't come next.
The right to hate speech to the threshold it is likely to cause actual harm to anyone, let alone a vulnerable minority is a cause that I cannot understand coming from those that have previously fought for the rights and safety of the oppressed.
The proposed legislation is very limiting and far behind that of other western jurisdictions. What is proposed is largely symbolic expanding the unused historic clause in the Human Rights Act and raising the threshold in terms of the level of harm. It is my view that it does not go far enough and expression designed to stigmatize minorities would seem not to reach the threshold of harm to a sector.
'The strengthening of New Zealand’s social cohesion would require the creation of a whole swathe of new “protected groups”.'
The legislation put for consultation largely mirrors the Human Rights Legislation, with the notable exception of political belief (sorry, 'Neoliberals on Marxists' doesn't make the undercard). Your previous article showed the harm that has and is perpetrated upon women through strong social misogynists, it hints at the violence that flows from homophobia. It would seem difficult to juxtapose that with the protection of hate expression likely to cause harm to these groups.
Amongst the new swathe of protected groups include the disabled, a fair percentage of the population of NZ. This would include mental and physical disability. The days of hate speech to the extent of harm towards the mentally disabled should be consigned to the past. The same for those with disability that may be from birth, accident or illness. The purposed criminal law does not offer the protection from speech designed to cause stigmatization to this group, it must constitute 'hate' and meet a high threshold of 'harm'.
One of the problems is that the current Minister of Justice has scant understanding of his own legislation. He has failed to give, or respond to, real life examples of the affect of the legislation. It is necessary to speculate. All the examples you have given -
'women turn on men, Trans on TERFs, Maori on Pakeha, Christians on atheists, supporters of Palestine on supporters of Israel, Baby Boomers on Millennials...'
- all need to be moderated through the requirement of actual hate and likely harm to the sector. The 'Maori on Pakeha' can, of course, be looked at through the present HRC legislation at a lower threshold never being reached. Baby Boomers v Millennials? Youth vs Experience - literally a battle for the ages. I would suggest that someone actively campaigning to build a movement for the compulsory euthanasia of superannuants could me the high thresholds.
I'm just an old fashioned liberal. I think that the motivation of hatred in causing harm to the vulnerable in society requires state regulation.
Aren't we, the people of New Zealand, supposed to be having "a conversation" about the important, nation changing initiatives being proposed?
Most of those require robust, possibly hurtful but vital dialogue if the truth or some sort of consensus is to be reached. No?
What do we have? The press have been muzzled, disgracefully bribed into silence on any dissent on treaty/Maori sovereignty issues, even that essay by Elizabeth Rata would be unlikely to be published by the MSM. NZME dumped the one by Michael Bassett and banned him from their papers. You can have a conversation but you're only allowed to say what you're permitted to say and we're going to WTF we like anyway?
Soon even blogs like this and their comments section will be liable for criminal charges if someone feels offended, with the truth as no defense. Three years and forced "re-education" in the Wokistan gulag?
"It is also clear that the Prime Minister believes she has promises to keep to the victims of the Christchurch Mosque Attacks."
Wrong promisees.
Absolutely agree.I attempted to express similar views in an email to P.M. it got sidelined to a Minister who has not replied.
You cannot legislate for social cohesion anymore than you can legislate for uniformity of thought and belief. It’s a utopian project unworthy of any politician and any Government in a liberal democracy.
Treating others with dignity and respect, regardless of ethnicity, political beliefs or religion cannot be achieved through a legislative framework, it begins in the cradle, it is nurtured during childhood and imperfectly exampled by parents, teachers, pastors, Imams and Rabbi’s. It is a flawed process, but as human beings, these are the tools we have available.
So, please, leave the totalitarian instincts behind, and as a government treat all New Zealanders with the dignity and respect they deserve. That would be a worthy example others could follow.
Very well put....all true.
I personally do not believe Ardern has the IQ to see how divisive her ridiculous proposal is.
However, there is an upside....this WILL ensure her political demise, of that I'm confident. Even a dysfunctional National Party is infinitely preferable to the current rabble !
I strongly disagree with affording religion any protections under the law. It is a source of considerable hatred and violence against innocent people as we have too often seen through the first 20 years of this century. Nor, obviously, should political opinion be protected. Yet both of these things will be put off limits under Jacinda's law. Her instincts are in fact totalitarian. This government wants to control what people can say or think, all the while promoting its own radical programme of race-based division. "Social cohesion", what a laugh! Protecting certain designated groups from scrutiny or criticism will only promote resentment and division. You are also right to hark back to our forebears who suffered greatly and were ready to make the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our basic freedoms. The proposed law is a betrayal of them.
A welcome and necessary article. I agree completely.
Yes Jacinda's social cohesion is highly problematic. At her UN speech she said humans organise and it can be on the drop of a coin. But behaviour runs deeper than that and I doubt Robert Sapolsky would remotely agree with her. Chinese are all descended from the Yellow Emporer and even though John Campbells co worker was born here and Peter Brown wasn't, he and we have a heritage she doesn't and vice versa.
Jacinda's social cohesion cannot be a valid use of the term. Social cohesion in the normal sense is natural and voluntary this means manipulation through media; censorship (algorithm) and making examples of people.
The most insidious part is the way corporates are willing to be government henchmen for filthy lucker.
Paul Spoonley has discovered that some groups are targeted more than others (including Maori). He is disappointed that when Lauren Southern came it became about free speech.
However back in the day he co edited Tauiwi (1984). Michael King found the word offensive and said it was used in the 19thCentury but not in literature. it appears to have been resurrected by the professor and his ivory tower activists (peeing on the rest of the population)..
the debates over matters such as the future of to reo Maori, or the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi, are often ill-informed and there is a tendency to rely on comfortable myths that derive from New Zealand's colonial past. Pakehas have an obvious investment in reproducing these myths although there are members in other groups who share a similar commitment. Some Maoris and Pacific Islanders support the dominant group's mythologies much to the consternation of activists and to the delight of conservatives. The task of increasing the awareness of New Zealanders is obviously difficult given the cornmitment of particular groups to views which correspond to vested political and economic interests. Nevertheless, it is the aim to of this book to inform, to stimulate discussion and to try and dispel some of the myths surrounding race relations in New Zealand.
Specifically negative group statistics are the other parties doing - a zero sum game.
Common sense advice, but will she take it?
Labour will ex communicate you, Chris, for this brilliant brilliant opinion. She will do it, and it will be her undoing, easily a bridge too far! Why does Ardern think Kiwis will stand for this fascist nonsense? Utter madness, and a total misreading of how the electorate thinks! Freedom of speech is held near and dear, and I can't believe she doesn't get this!
Gail.
Canada has developed a series of disturbing, totalitarian regulations regarding speech. To see how these things snowball, now they're planning to criminilise speech BEFORE it happens.
"If passed, a bill in the Canadian legislature will punish online or in-person “hate speech” with a fine up to C$20,000 (about $23,000 NZD) if it targets a specific person.
The law states that “hate speech means the content of a communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
Nice and vague, just the way they like it.
The law also allows the courts to intervene if a person fears they will be the target of a hatred motivated offense.
So basically it’s like pre-crime. If a potential victim feels that you might hate them, they can apply for what is essentially a restraining order. What’s more, the judge can demand that you surrender weapons, wear a GPS monitor, remain under house arrest, abstain from alcohol, and submit to drug tests.
This is all without being charged, let alone convicted, of any crime.
And anyone who does does not follow the orders faces a year in prison."
When Jordan Peterson made his heroic stand against the Canadian compelled speech Bill C-16 he was accused of fear mongering, that the provisions were merely guidelines and so on. What he predicted has come to pass. The convictions for non compliance are happening and worse, emboldened by that "success", the lawmakers are extending their grip to, what is essentially, thought crime.
Leave it alone Jacinda indeed.
Good read, it seems that we are allowing the few to determine the futures of the many, with little regards for the will of the people, this is the same formula most dictators follow with a belief they are doing good work.
Agree, except for "the courts will be full" comment - I suspect there will be few cases, rather a lot of warnings by police and many many more threats.
But by far the biggest threat will not be visible or measurable, it will be the chilling of open discussion.
It will exacerbate a reluctance, which already exists, thanks to cancelling, for people to say what they really think.
A reluctance that drives a significant proportion of people underground.
A reluctance that adds to the problem of talented people, bereft of evangelical ideological determination, just never wanting to participate in discourse or politics.
It eliminates moderation.
Some on the left woke may view this as a good thing. Like not paying politicians well, it is certainly a good way of making sure the National Party candidates remain an unappetising collection of inept drearies, supplemented by ACT's motley collection of issue motivated groupies.
I feel it is a recipe for descent into dissent. I feel far more likely to provoke more conflict than prevent it.
Thank you Chris for the fine voice of reason on this subject. The cornerstone of democracy is free speech. Our ancestors died to protect it and it is our turn now to protect it for ourselves and our descendants. One of the most crucial issues of our time.
Barron, I have some sympathy for your need to regulate hatred causing harm. Where we differ is that I dont trust state activism to deliver results, and I certainly dont trust it to remain non politicised and sensible.
What in effect this law attempts is to outlaw verbalisation of what an individual thinks. It wont stop the individual thinking that or even questioning it. Id describe that as pointless and of negative utility.
If we wish to rid ourselves of hate speech we already have a powerful tool. It is called social opprobrium. Call a Downes person a "spacker" or similar within earshot of you and I would get a real reaction. Our response sends a message that state compulsion never can.
In another life, I was often called upon to mediate between parties with strongly-held and sometimes very different points of view. One of the first things that I learned was how easy it can be for the mediator to ‘steer’ the conversation. I also learned that this is something against which the mediator must guard at all costs. A dragooned agreement is seldom really an agreement.
Over the past five or so years, the people of New Zealand have often been called upon to ‘have a conversation’. But, more often than not, those calling for the conversation, especially Ms Ardern and her crew, also want to ‘steer’ the conversation, frequently going so far as to stipulate who may take part in the conversation and what must not be said. That, in my opinion, is not a proper conversation.
Remember Hone Harawira's reference to "white mother fuckers" on a parliamentary email? It was given scant attention by the media. Imagine the furore had a "white" MP of any party had produced the same referring to Maori. Today's media portrays a (not too) covert implication that racism and hate speech is predominantly one way - IE white on brown. Could we be confident that perpetrators such as Mr. Harawira will be arraigned equally as his white counterpart? Or are we to embrace Annette Sykes who said decades ago, "Indigenous peoples can never be accused of racism."
“ Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience”
C. S. Lewis
I would suggest that someone actively campaigning to build a movement for the compulsory euthanasia of superannuants could me the high thresholds.
How would you know it wasn't satire? Do you have any awareness of some of the social media sites (NOT FaceTwit) used by people in their twenties? It's rife with anti-Boomer sentiment, including the above and more.
More to the point, who would decide? You and those whose thinking you approve of.
I'm just an old fashioned liberal.
Well if by "liberal" you mean the US version, that's possibly true since inside every such liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out.
If you mean a "Classical Liberal" then I'd say you're just having a laugh, since freedom of speech was a core principal for them. Actually for so-called Left Liberals, up until recently.
Everything you've written on this blog on virtually every issue has had the stamp of the Far Left, and not the anarchist kind but that of the usual totalitarian lovers of State power.
I am terribly of this bill.
What are Labour thinking, especially in the current climate of cancel culture.
I am gender critical. I think it is highly likely these views will be seen as hate speech (even though a judge recently determined the a gender critical group was not a hate group.
People will be too scared to speak up about lots of things and this will drive them underground and build up a huge amount of resentment. Surely we learnt something about how bad this situation is from the Weimar Republic.
It is utter blindness by the govt if they thing this will bring about social cohesion. The exact opposite will occur.
Yes Mark, will the protections against "offence" be evenly extended to all?
I think we all know that that will not be the case, the "protected" groups are being openly defined, the "conversation" about, and motivation for the laws, largely confined to them and their concerns.
When pre-Nazi Germany brought in laws to criminilise anti Semitic speech one of the unintended consequences was the fostering of the belief that the laws themselves were further evidence of favouratism to the Jews, that they had captured the levers of power so the "truth" could not be told. We already have significant resentment to ethnic favouritism, it's inevitable, in my opinion, that any drafting or application of the speech laws that is not entirely even would only make things far worse in that regard.
I wonder if Jacinda & Co ever have a genuinely honest conversation (as far as we're still allowed to) with folk; obviously not or they would be aware of those concerns. Or perhaps they dismiss such concerns as entirely illegitimate, a manifestation of the naked racism of the dreaded deplorables?
You have absolutely hit the nail on the head Chris.
It is not real "hate speech" that will be criminalised, but also "insulting speech". This means that any publication of speech that hurts the feelings of someone or some group (i.e. insults them) will be a criminal offence.
The key word is "insulting". This is a totally subjective feeling.
In the U.K., "insulting hate speech" has led to travesties such as a young man telling a mounted police officer that the cop's horse is "gay". The young man was arrested - hate speech.
A woman tweeted on social media that there are "only two genders". She was arrested - hate speech.
Do we need this nonsense here ? NO we do not.
And we all know that these laws will be used to silence critics of the current government.
Our parents fought against the appalling tyrannies of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan to stop this kind of central control and dictatorship.
I have re-read your message to the P.M. three times Chris.
Thank you again for your outstanding comments, expressing the background and the situation so clearly.
Brendan. Couldn't agree with CS Lewis more. Perhaps you could send this quote to the Christian nationalists/Dominionists, who are working towards a theocracy in the US? You Christians are the biggest moral busybodies in the world – followed closely by Muslims, with the Hindus a distant third, and the Buddhists for all their faults pretty much last amongst the big religions.
On the other hand.
“Freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness. That is why I recommend that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast.” ― Viktor E. Frankl
Perhaps the very reason our elected representatives, following public consultation, wished to regulate through legislation that can be interpreted by the courts - including under criminal law 12 peers.
The idea of leaving disabled, or any other minority group, reliance on the violence of the able bodied or other majority mob for protection from hatred, causing harm, would seem outside a civilized state.
John
If you have not seen it see the Pareto principle, it
Puts your comment into perspective.
Hy can white people just celebrate themselves without it being about being better than everyone else. All cultures around the world celebrate themselves and do it in a way where it is just about the achievements of their people, not being better than anyone else just celebrating achievement. When White people celebrate themselves they do it by way of their superiority of others. We're so great we have democracy, free markets make it fair for everyone, everyone has the same opportunities. They live by these lies, they die for these lies and they kill for these lies. Everytime white people unite it terms into a a hate group....history tells us this over and over again. And here they are again talking about race wars, no doubt a white person will make the first move on this race war, they always do.
Do you really see my or your response to somebody delivering hateful verbal abuse to another person as a form of able bodied violence? Mines verbal, thats opprobrium expressed. And I have faced physical violence as a consequence. That becomes a Police matter for we as a society have long agreed to prohibit violence by law.
Ultimately in my mind it becomes a question of courage to do what is right as an individual. If we demand that the State do that for us we outsource it to them to do as they will, not as we will it.
Democracy not autocracy😻
Anonymous, your comments reek of a distinct bias. All cultures consider themselves better than others and are happy to point it out. The most extreme I have personal experience with would be Chinese. However Maori are gaining ground. They continually celebrate their amazingness at everything from raising children to protecting the environment. All while treating whites with distain and accusing them of destroying the world.
It is standard survival tactics, who wants to be part of a culture that tells members it is not as good as others. Dig beyond the superficial with open eyes and you will find this 'fault' in white culture everywhere.
Anon: "When White people celebrate themselves they do it by way of their superiority of others"
Have you ever listened to Indians after a cricket victory over Pakistan? Did Kiwis celebrate their recent world cup cricket win in that way?
Whether it's sporting rivalry or war there's nothing unique to one ethnicity.
The State has the responsibility to protect vulnerable citizens from unreasonable harm. I don't accept that harm is only physical, indeed, unreasonable economic harm is legislated.
The basis of the law out for consultation is that there is an intention of hate towards a sector. If that is reasonably likely to cause harm to that sector, then it is within the expectation of a cohesive society.
I have used the example of the disabled. Archeologists confirm early humans looked after the disabled, this was communal understanding that society should look after the vulnerable. By the early 20th Century the post enlightenment west largely accepted a doctrine of eugenics culminating in the euthanasia of the disabled by a highly educated industrialized state.
Protection against hatred which could led.to harm is as relevant today as the right advocates the opt out of government and a role of support and protection of the vulnerable.
Laws regulate what protection should be provided. In doing so through elected representatives it reflects the needs of the communities.
Deterrent from behavior of the empowered harming the disempowered and vulnerable is what I expect from a just and progressive state.
Campbell V's Brown 13 years on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BNBzrAe7HE
"Hy can white people just celebrate themselves without it being about being better than everyone else. All cultures around the world celebrate themselves and do it in a way where it is just about the achievements of their people, not being better than anyone else just celebrating achievement. When White people celebrate themselves they do it by way of their superiority of others. We're so great we have democracy, free markets make it fair for everyone, everyone has the same opportunities. They live by these lies, they die for these lies and they kill for these lies. Everytime white people unite it terms into a a hate group....history tells us this over and over again. And here they are again talking about race wars, no doubt a white person will make the first move on this race war, they always do."
Trolling? or just ignorant. Im leaning toward just ignorant.
"Hy can white people just celebrate themselves without it being about being better than everyone else. All cultures around the world celebrate themselves and do it in a way where it is just about the achievements of their people, not being better than anyone else just celebrating achievement. When White people celebrate themselves they do it by way of their superiority of others. We're so great we have democracy, free markets make it fair for everyone, everyone has the same opportunities. They live by these lies, they die for these lies and they kill for these lies. Everytime white people unite it terms into a a hate group....history tells us this over and over again. And here they are again talking about race wars, no doubt a white person will make the first move on this race war, they always do."
Out of the top 20 mass atrocities or mass genocides of the 20th century "White" based countries only feature twice. Russia and Germany - Germany being the only Western Country. The rest of these mass murders have been Asian, African and Middle Eastern. So how does that sit with regard to your obvious trolling post?
GS, I don't see the tiny "Christian theocracy" movement as a threat to liberal democracy as we know it. For a start it's contrary to a fundamental tenet of Christianity: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". There are no Christian Theocracy countries currently, the Vatican excepted I suppose. The Sharia law principles, on the other hand, are proscribed in the Koran and are a feature of a lot of the Islamic nations.
Perhaps we should consider something that is a genuine threat to liberal democracy as the politicisation of wo-woo continues apace right here in New Zealand.
"A different but also highly successful strategy is the control of Treaty language, particularly the use of religious imagery. Referring to the Treaty as a “covenant” with a spirit that “still speaks today” evokes a timeless and commanding authority. This otherworldliness takes the Treaty from the combative political sphere to a level of unquestioning reverence. It disallows the profane debates that democratic politics requires, making such behaviour seem disrespectful, almost shameful. Words like “atone”, found in the government’s apology to Tainui, suggest the expiation of a sin-inspired guilt with redemption only through reparation. The strategy succeeds by placing the Treaty outside history and beyond politics."
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/07/05/elizabeth-rata-the-road-to-he-puapua-is-there-really-a-treaty-partnership/
Unknown at 17.38 and John007 at 9.27
By all means look at the Pareto Principle. That will keep you absorbed for a good number of hours and is an example of the mischief that men with leisure and education can get up to while the peasants are toiling in the mud. The peasants come up with Monty Python's Anarcho-Syndicalist theory and practice and Pareto coils his theory around society with apparently straight-forward methods for gaining more returns, which has been grasped with alacrity by businessmen and the PTB.
A small portion of the explanations and perspectives of the many, from Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
Pareto originally used the word "optimal" for the concept, but as it describes a situation where a limited number of people will be made better off under finite resources, and it does not take equality or social well-being into account, it is in effect a definition of and better captured by "efficiency".[2]
In addition to the context of efficiency in allocation, the concept of Pareto efficiency also arises in the context of efficiency in production vs. x-inefficiency: a set of outputs of goods is Pareto efficient if there is no feasible re-allocation of productive inputs such that output of one product increases while the outputs of all other goods either increase or remain the same.[3]:459
It seems to me it has a connection with marginality in economics, but I understand economics from the ground up. tending to study and learn after experiencing. It seems what is helpful in the economic discipline to understanding of human endeavour, has been stretched beyond its reasonable intent by lazy-minded people with narrow intellects specialising in a few disciplines of those offered by higher education. The humanities has been dropped and those with higher financial interaction and rewards have been prioritised.
My problem is this. Who will be the arbiters of what constitutes hate speech? We all have seen the horrendous treatment of Jeremy Corbyn and the conflation of antizionism with antisemitism followed by the thought police dealing to Facebook and closer to home the Israel Folau fiasco where some unfortunate utterances about homosexuality have seen him banished from his sports while Matt Lodge a violent drunken home invader has the NRL bribe the NY justice system such that today the Warriors think he's a worthy recruit.
I'm beginning to hate the word freedom. My namesake uncle died for two things. We need to establish democracy is the greater of the two.
"GS, I don't see the tiny "Christian theocracy" movement as a threat to liberal democracy as we know it. For a start it's contrary to a fundamental tenet of Christianity: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". "
Since when have Christians ever been afraid to violate their own fundamental tenets? Think on that. Maybe start with child abuse.
Dont disagree with your sentiments Barron, merely the method.
Couple of points: intention of hate. If it is not verbalised it will still be there, and may get acted upon. If it is verbalised at least we know who we are up against. The next problem is defining intent and making it stick legally.
Second is our trust in a benevolent state. Would you trust Judith Collins to administer in which direction the state focuses? I suggest providing tools enables the carver to carve in his own image. The experience of the 20th century resulted in law being used by those in power to perform terrible deeds such as acting upon eugenics. If you think that you or I wouldnt use legal power inappropriately I would suggest you think about those of us who would. The trucks to the camps required huge numbers of drivers.
"Out of the top 20 mass atrocities or mass genocides of the 20th century "White" based countries only feature twice. Russia and Germany - Germany being the only Western Country. "
Funny, I have a few more than two.
Italy in Abyssinia – approximately 300,000 deaths.
Yugoslavia, about 500,000 to 600,000 deaths.
USSR, 20+ million
Germany, about 10 or 15 million or maybe more if you count all the debts that resulted from World War II.
In fact you could probably accuse Germany of more than one attempted genocide given that they tried it on the Poles The Gypsies and the Jews. Not to mention their activities in South West Africa.
There are more, but you obviously don't consider the perpetrators to be "white". Convenient.
And of course the Belgians – or rather King Leopold – in the Congo – difficult to estimate but possibly up to 10-15 million.
Just sayin'
Shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Whatever the solely right-wing media are doing with their watchers. What do we make of that spear nudging the heart of American 'democracy'? Reality needs to be reimposed by some means in this changing age. Address that. Fantasylands fashioned 'fervently' for fools. Myself, I think of people's governments demanding instead of negotiating with capitalists. 'Freedom' is an individual's thing, not a social system like 'democracy'.
I'm perfectly willing to take seriously serious ideas but I find so few of them in the letters sections, let alone, aside from Chris, the articles. Of course I'm banned from the Rogernomics 'Left' site.
The Congo deaths, GS, are the ultimate horror. When we acknowledge that we've got a better bead on reality. But it's been a grind , a machine for all our time. In this time's favour we can pass judgment in our 'leisure'.
Anonymous with a brick of thought about white people or something.
That repeated by an Unknown who asked if it was trolling.
Then repeated by another? Unknown who starts talking about mass deaths.
If Unknown or Anonymous want to comment here, even if they can get through with that generic pseudo, I think they should have to put a pseudo of their own at the bottom. Or they should stay away and talk to their navel. At present they have no more substance than a puddle. There are hundreds of thousands of words, choose one, and stick to it and then you will have a persona that we can identify you, and refer to you with.
Telling other anonymous contributors to "stay away and talk to their own navel"is rich coming from you.
Your anonymous comments "have no more substance than a puddle".
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
I don't know whether the matter has been raised elsewhere but the "incitement to violence" condition for a successful prosecution under the proposed "hate speech" law will itself be discriminatory - not necessarily in a bad way.
Take for example, a woman who makes an abusive and insulting statement about men in general. The case against her would hinge on the plausibility of women being incited to act violently against men in consequence of her statement. I suspect that the very first precedent setting case would fail on the grounds that women in general will not and cannot be incited to engage in random or organized and premeditated acts of violence against men simply because they lack the physical (and arguably emotional) capacity to do so. One could easily come up with a number of historical exceptions to this rule, but the rule would still stand.
Similar arguments could be used in defense of homosexuals who might abuse or insult heterosexuals, with the added argument that as a small minority of the population they lack the capacity to launch a violent attack upon the heterosexual majority.
Ditto for ethnic and religious minorities.
Under this law people will be punished or exonerated depending on whether they belong to a large or small group, whether that group is commonly perceived as having capacity for physical force, and whether the group is perceived as being of a temperament that makes it likely to use such force.
So minorities and groups perceived as non-dominant will, on the whole, escape prosecution and conviction regardless of what they say and write.
That is all very well, except that will be other cases where the moral equation is not quite so straightforward.
For example if a blue collar union organiser of riggers, scaffolders, builders and boilermakers writes a diatribe or makes a speech railing against capitalists, will he be held liable under hate speech laws? I am afraid he will. Because manual workers are a large group, because they have a capacity for physical force, because they are purportedly "known" to not be shy about using such force and because the capitalist victims are an inoffensive minority who create jobs and contribute to charitable causes.
On the other hand whatever capitalists say against workers could never be taken as an incitement to violence, not least because capitalists know that they need workers. All a capitalist wants is for workers to be themselves, that is, to arrive at the job on Monday morning, healthy, fit and ready to work. It is quite implausible to suggest that they would wish to subject workers to physical harm.
So the focus on "incitement to violence" as a condition of conviction will effectively discriminate in favor of some groups and against others. As it happens this discrimination will neatly tie in with the current ideology of the colonialist state and its social prejudices.
The entire body of traditional western law assumes a situation in which individuals commit crimes or misdemeanors and in which individuals are the victims. That is why we have defamation law and laws against incitement of violence towards individuals.
In the age of identity politics, such law is no longer fit and sufficient for purpose. Because the political and legislative focus is now on the wrong doings and sufferings of groups rather than of individuals, there must be appropriate extensions to the law so as to protect groups, types and identities as we once protected individuals.
The current government knows this to be the case better than any of us, and this explains why it now is willing to impose draconian limitations on the right of free speech.
Geoff: "the political and legislative focus is now on the wrong doings and sufferings of groups rather than of individuals"
There's a serious problem with that line of thinking.
It's only the individual that suffers or sins. You don't need to extend it to groups, and, in any case, what groups? Everyone has a multitude of groups they could identify with or be separated by.
The whole basis of our law is the assumption that the individual is responsible, what are you going to do? Imprison or otherwise punish an entire demographic?
Not a good idea, positively dangerous in fact.
Geoff, the proposed law is not directed at the offence of "incitement to violence", that is already covered by existing law. The British law, which Jacinda & Co seem intent on duplicating has been used to prosecute someone saying, for example, that women don't have penises. The truth is obviously no defence nor is the defence that it would be unlikely to incite some sort of Terfs versus Trans violence. The criteria is a purely subjective one of intention of offence or incitement to hate.
Unless the law very specifically identifies the groups it intends to "protect" and excludes others (which would be in serious breach of our human rights commitments) it can't be used in the manner you suggest. Once a precedent has been set, say the dismissal of a prosecution of someone for hate against Christians, that would be used as case law in the defence of a similar case involving hate against, say, Jews. Absent a complete corruption of the most fundamental principles of law, how could it be otherwise?
Thoughts can be evil, and words can be harmful but we cannot legislate the human heart, and words are a window to the heart that is best not shuttered.
Actions are visible and relatively straightforward. They are not so subject to nuance and ambiguity, not so easily misunderstood or misinterpreted. That is why we have let the state regulate our actions, and left it to the family, the school, the church and community to guide our thoughts and words.
The words "hate" and "discriminate" which are central to the New Zealand government's proposals illustrate the difficulties surrounding the legislation of speech.
Jesus said "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." It is the task of theologians and believers rather than a jury to debate the meaning of His words.
We seek to "discriminate good from bad" and we may admire those of "discriminating taste and discernment". Language is both complex and fluid. For one generation what was "wicked" was to be eschewed, for the next it was to be exalted, not so much because attitudes had changed, but because the language had changed. So for the state to legislate language is like trying to scoop water with a sieve.
In the liberal lexicon "choice" is good, but "discrimination", a very closely related concept, is bad. Whether we call it choice or discrimination, it is a part of our humanity. People discriminate between the genders in their choice of marriage partner, they discriminate in favour of whanau in a multitude of ways, they discriminate against those whose political or religious positions are abhorrent to them even if it is only to the extent of striking certain names off the Christmas card list.
Some people, to their credit, transcend the bias that would make others unlikely to welcome a fascist, a communist, a Green or an ACT party member into their home or their place of business. But it is folly to try to enforce such magnanimity. Even if we could succeed in doing such the end result would be to replace magnanimity with compliance, compassion with obedience, and thus to remove from us one of the essential characteristics of our true humanity.
In the end, if the neoliberal had his or her way, people would still discriminate. In that perfect neoliberal world, people would no longer discriminate on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender or political belief. They would instead discriminate on purely economic grounds. Their questions would not be "What race are you? What gender? What religion? Where do you come from?" but "How much can you pay me?".
Now where does would that leave us? With a utopia born out of legislative genius? No, it would leave us with a system of human exploitation and suffering which is no less pernicious for being obscure and confusing to those who believe that since their suffering can be explained by nothing that is physically apparent or socially evident, it must be due to a deep and purely personal inadequacy.
To the New Zealand government I would say "Do good in the world. House the homeless. Feed the hungry. That is your place. Do not imagine yourself better able than God to cure the souls of men and to drive hatred from their hearts."
Post a Comment