‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
- Lewis Carroll in ‘Through the Looking Glass’
The Government’s proposals regarding the changes to the law governing incitement and discrimination are so loaded I decided to not complete the ‘consultation’ form.
According to the
Wikipedia entry, ‘a loaded question is one that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption
of guilt)… The
question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the
questioner's agenda.’ Take the very first one: ‘Do you
agree that broadening the incitement provisions in this way will better protect
these groups?’ The assumption built into this question is that the respondent
agrees with the position that any arbitrarily defined ‘group’ needs
‘protecting’ by the State from opinions expressed about it that may not be
complimentary.
It’s all a matter of the meaning of words,
and the words used throughout this proposal and the associated ‘consultation’
form have been exhibiting considerable ‘mission creep’ over the past years.
Proposal 1 reads
‘Change the language in the incitement provisions so
that they protect more groups that are targeted by hateful speech’.
‘Incitement’ in law refers to encouraging
another person or persons to commit a crime. Now even if I am ‘inciting’ a
dislike (‘hatred’ is such an emotive term) for a particular group, that should
only have legal consequences if I am calling for a crime to be committed.
‘Hateful’ speech in itself is not, or should not be, an offence unless it can
be shown that the intention of the speaker is to get others to commit a crime –
which is a tall order, unless the scope of the word ‘crime’ is expanded.
In my younger
days I came across NZers who said they ‘hated’ Dutchies – maybe they had a
Dutch boss at work who revved them up when they were slacking – and openly
opined that we should go back to where we came from, by deportation if
necessary. That was not actionable then and wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, be now.
I doubt whether the writers of the proposal
in question had us Dutchies in mind, although I see no reason why we couldn’t
be covered – maybe I should try instigating a class action against those awful types
who said those terrible things about lovely people like us. Yes, I’m being
facetious, but hey, this is serious, folks!
Of course, if ‘discrimination’ is a crime,
then my objections may be dismissed. This term too has been broadened in
meaning to include any negative opinion uttered about a given ‘group’. There
was a time when ‘discrimination’ involved treating someone disfavourably on the
basis of extraneous factors such as sex, race and physical disability. This
addendum is an important one as it allows for ‘discrimination’ under certain
circumstances. Someone with low vision will not be allowed to fly an aeroplane
as visual acuity is not an extraneous factor when applying for a pilot’s
licence. Opining that only people with excellent vision should be allowed to
fly aeroplanes is not being ‘discriminatory’ in the pejorative sense of the
word.
Proposal 4 reinforces the case that this is
all about rewriting the conventional legal lexicon – ‘Change the language of
the civil incitement provision to better match the changes being made to the
criminal provision’. Proposal 5 (‘Change the civil provision so that it makes
'incitement to discrimination' against the law’) closes the circle. ‘Hateful’
speech is to be criminalised because it has been conflated with both
‘discrimination’ and ‘incitement’ as redefined – an insidious package deal from
the point of view of freedom of expression and the right to engage in frank and
vigorous democratic debate.
Proposal 6 specifically targets sexual
minorities: ‘Add to the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act to
clarify that trans, gender diverse, and intersex people are protected from
discrimination’. I have no problem with that until the new definition of
‘discrimination’ is applied.
In a discussion on marriage law, I tell
someone that I disagree with the amendment of the Marriage Act to allow two
people of the same sex to marry. I have rational, secular reasons for that,
although that is beside the point – in a democracy, one does not have to agree
with the law, and may lobby for it to be changed. But the character I am
talking to does not agree with the concomitants of democracy so s/he reports me
for ‘hateful speech’ (of which that neologism ‘homophobia’ is now a subset) and
‘discrimination’ and I am now in deep you-know-what.
I am not exaggerating. This sort of crap is
going on in our universities and in government departments. If this is what you
want, support the proposals being put to you by this Govt. And kiss democracy and
all its associated gains over the past quarter millennium goodbye.
Dr Barend Vlaardingerbroek BA BSc BEdSt PGDipLaws MAppSc PhD is a retired academic. Feedback welcome at bv_54@hotmail.com.
2 comments:
Dr. Vlaardingerbroek, Well said.
I agree that this dangerous social/political engineering has taken root in our universities and is duly transferred to government departments. The introduction of the 'Unteach Racism' programmes that have been introduced into the education system, from primary school to university level, is the application of 'Critical Race Theory' concepts that have the start-point that: anyone with a white skin is either consciously or subconsciously a racist, and the government appears to be seen, (by activists), as being white dominated and is thereby guilty of embedded, systemic racism. Looking at the outcomes from the current Labour Government, one could certainly not say that it is dominated by whites. The embedded systemic racism is certainly true, but this racism is not imposed upon people of colour, it is imposed upon whites.The commissioning of the He Puapua Proposal Report by this government is testiment that Maori dominate the government, regardless of numbers.
I cannot recall any inclusion of what is presently being implimented, as being part of Labour's Election Manifesto, prior to the last election. I view the devious actions of the Ardern Government as a betrayal of the voters' expectations that the Government would 'Govern for all New Zealanders'.
I am certain that the majority of Kiwis of all colours and ethnicities do not want a country where racial tension has been nurtured by the government.
The power to change this rests in the hands of the voters.
Most voters are too apathetic to search for real news and rely on the PC drivel dished up by Stuff and the other Labour mouthpieces in the news media.
Post a Comment