Dear NZCPR Reader,
This week we examine the impact of political correctness on the freedom of speech, our NZCPR Guest Commentator, Lindsay Perigo explains why he thinks free speech in New Zealand is dead, and our poll asks whether you believe political correctness is undermining free speech in New Zealand.*To read the newsletter click HERE.
*To register for the NZCPR Weekly mailing list, click HERE.
 |
| Billy T James epitomised free speech in New Zealand - as we knew it! |
1 comment:
One of the reasons we have political correctness is the lack of laymen's guides to what has been going on. Eg in
The Social Psychology of Social (Dis)harmony: Implications for Political Leaders and
Public Policy
Luisa Batalha, Katherine J. Reynolds & Emina Subasic
Australian National University
This work thus suggests that for multiculturalism to succeed identities need to be transformed. And, importantly, as Kymlicka suggests, this transformation applies not only to the minority but also to the majority. Indeed, perhaps the major identity transformation is required from members of the majority as their attributes are, as a rule, the same as the ones that define the national identity. Minorities need to be written into the self-definition of the national identity such as to imbue them with existential legitimacy as citizens in parity with the majority.
Since a new identity is required and the poor sods who were (in our case) The New Zealanders, we must be down sized. That seems to be the role of Susan Devoy. New comers have everything to gain but we have everything to loose.
it goes on to say In a multiethnic/multicultural society, the shift from an exclusive to an inclusive definition of the national prototype requires the emergence of new and consistent discourses about who ‘we’ are (see Kymlicka, 1995). Discourses that do not appeal to ethnic heritage and traditions but to civic values. It is in this context that the role of political leadership comes into place in changing the discourse and creating a consensual view of the national prototype such that it becomes shared by the members of a polity (see Uberoi & Modood, 2013). Moreover, there needs to be an nistitutionalisation of the public discourse as in line with terms outlined by Parekh (2006).
What is it all about anyway: the left consider an ethnic group within a national boundary as racist, therefore...?
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.