In both contexts the word is freighted with menace. It is impossible to miss the threat which the word is now required to bear. What the political radical is saying to the person about to avail herself of what is perhaps the most fundamental of all human rights is chilling.
“Of course you can speak out on this issue, but you are surely not so naïve as to believe that your little speech will be the end of it. Giving voice to such opinions cannot help but leave a very black mark on your record. It’s the sort of thing that goes down in an employee’s personal file. Your chances of promotion may be limited very seriously by giving voice to such views. Still, it’s entirely up to you. Just remember, though, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from its consequences.”
If you were a public servant harbouring serious doubts about the wisdom of enshrining “decolonisation” and “indigenisation” at the top of your ministry’s priorities, and you had let it be known that it was your intention to speak out against the idea at the next staff training day, and your supervisor delivered that not-so-subtle warning to you the night before, would you go ahead with your plan? Or would the consequences of going ahead with your “little speech” cause you to scrap the whole idea?
Are we really free to express ourselves if, by doing so, we place our livelihood, our entire future career, at risk? If that’s what’s at stake, then doesn’t the exercise of our freedom of expression take on a fraught, almost existential, character? Like the German citizen of the Third Reich who, in obedience to his Christian faith, conceals a Jewish family in his attic. Simply by showing compassion for his fellow human-beings, that man was risking arrest, imprisonment and death. When those are the outcomes of displaying human compassion; of obeying the Christian injunction to “love thy neighbour”; is it not reasonable to suppose that the exercise of love and compassion will diminish?
Attaching dire consequences to any aspect of human behaviour must be seen as a means of reducing or eliminating that behaviour. If speaking out against “decolonisation” and “indigenisation” in a government ministry could cost the speaker their career, then the chances of it happening will be reduced dramatically. A climate of fear and compliance will be created in which the only safe speech is that which conforms to the policies and plans of the people in charge. The language of consequences all-too-easily shades into the language of totalitarianism.
It is difficult to attribute anything other than an intention to intimidate the incoming government to Debbie Ngarewa Packer’s statement to RNZ. Or to Willie Jackson’s comments to Jack Tame on TVNZ’s Q+A current affairs programme. The former Māori Development Minister predicted civil unrest on a scale “five times, ten times” worse than the 1981 Springbok Tour protests if the Act Party’s referendum goes ahead. Both politicians are laying out the consequences of a coalition partner making it possible for citizens to cast a vote on the role and scope of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. It is suggested that massive civil disturbances – quite possibly violent in nature – will be the result if this classically democratic mechanism is employed to resolve significant differences in the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi.
Compare the response of these two Māori nationalists with those of the people who opposed the introduction of proportional representation, assisted dying, and decriminalisation of cannabis. Did the “anti” side of these debates, or the “pro” side, for that matter, threaten massive civil disturbances if their will was thwarted by the democratic process? No, they did not, because the referendum is generally acknowledged by all those who adhere to the democratic values of New Zealand society to be the best method of resolving controversial issues rationally and peacefully.
What other conclusion can be drawn from the statements of Debbie Ngarewa Packer and Willie Jackson, except that they reject the principle of majority rule that underpins the entire democratic system of government. And, if that is true, then New Zealanders will find it difficult to resist the conclusion that these two politicians’ preference, and the preference of the Māori nationalist movement generally, is for a system of government that accords the right of veto to a minority of the population.
Because what else is being demanded here but the right to prevent certain political policies from being implemented? Not by virtue of winning an election fought, at least in part, on the political policies in dispute. Not by winning a referendum called to determine, finally, which course of action should be followed. But by warning of the consequences of allowing the offending policy to be implemented over the minority’s objections. Or, in the language of the mafioso enforcer: “Nice little country you’ve got here, it would be a real shame if something happened to turn it into a hell-hole of civil strife.”
How, then, should the incoming government respond to this threat of consequences? The largest party of the coalition currently in formation, National, has rejected Act’s policy of a Treaty referendum as “divisive and unhelpful”. But this is nonsense. A great many of the policies espoused by National, Act and NZ First are “divisive and unhelpful” – not least their pledge to abolish Fair Pay Agreements. But, the fact that a great many people are opposed to National-Act-NZ First policies will not prevent them from being implemented. It’s one of the principal reasons for holding democratic elections, to provide governments with the mandate needed to proceed with their policies over the objections of the opposition. The question, therefore, is not whether Act’s policy is “divisive and unhelpful”, but whether it is justified.
And, if it is justified, then the incoming government must decide how to respond to the threatened consequences of allowing Act’s referendum to be put before the people. The answer to this question is as clear as it is daunting: no government can allow its conduct of national affairs to be determined by threats of massive civil disturbance and/or political violence.
Successfully applied once, the minority’s consequences – its veto – will be applied again, and again, and again, until the political will of the majority has been set at nought. Either that, or, unwilling to be ruled by the minority, the majority will develop a sequence of consequences intended to secure results considerably more to their liking.
If you were a public servant harbouring serious doubts about the wisdom of enshrining “decolonisation” and “indigenisation” at the top of your ministry’s priorities, and you had let it be known that it was your intention to speak out against the idea at the next staff training day, and your supervisor delivered that not-so-subtle warning to you the night before, would you go ahead with your plan? Or would the consequences of going ahead with your “little speech” cause you to scrap the whole idea?
Are we really free to express ourselves if, by doing so, we place our livelihood, our entire future career, at risk? If that’s what’s at stake, then doesn’t the exercise of our freedom of expression take on a fraught, almost existential, character? Like the German citizen of the Third Reich who, in obedience to his Christian faith, conceals a Jewish family in his attic. Simply by showing compassion for his fellow human-beings, that man was risking arrest, imprisonment and death. When those are the outcomes of displaying human compassion; of obeying the Christian injunction to “love thy neighbour”; is it not reasonable to suppose that the exercise of love and compassion will diminish?
Attaching dire consequences to any aspect of human behaviour must be seen as a means of reducing or eliminating that behaviour. If speaking out against “decolonisation” and “indigenisation” in a government ministry could cost the speaker their career, then the chances of it happening will be reduced dramatically. A climate of fear and compliance will be created in which the only safe speech is that which conforms to the policies and plans of the people in charge. The language of consequences all-too-easily shades into the language of totalitarianism.
It is difficult to attribute anything other than an intention to intimidate the incoming government to Debbie Ngarewa Packer’s statement to RNZ. Or to Willie Jackson’s comments to Jack Tame on TVNZ’s Q+A current affairs programme. The former Māori Development Minister predicted civil unrest on a scale “five times, ten times” worse than the 1981 Springbok Tour protests if the Act Party’s referendum goes ahead. Both politicians are laying out the consequences of a coalition partner making it possible for citizens to cast a vote on the role and scope of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. It is suggested that massive civil disturbances – quite possibly violent in nature – will be the result if this classically democratic mechanism is employed to resolve significant differences in the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi.
Compare the response of these two Māori nationalists with those of the people who opposed the introduction of proportional representation, assisted dying, and decriminalisation of cannabis. Did the “anti” side of these debates, or the “pro” side, for that matter, threaten massive civil disturbances if their will was thwarted by the democratic process? No, they did not, because the referendum is generally acknowledged by all those who adhere to the democratic values of New Zealand society to be the best method of resolving controversial issues rationally and peacefully.
What other conclusion can be drawn from the statements of Debbie Ngarewa Packer and Willie Jackson, except that they reject the principle of majority rule that underpins the entire democratic system of government. And, if that is true, then New Zealanders will find it difficult to resist the conclusion that these two politicians’ preference, and the preference of the Māori nationalist movement generally, is for a system of government that accords the right of veto to a minority of the population.
Because what else is being demanded here but the right to prevent certain political policies from being implemented? Not by virtue of winning an election fought, at least in part, on the political policies in dispute. Not by winning a referendum called to determine, finally, which course of action should be followed. But by warning of the consequences of allowing the offending policy to be implemented over the minority’s objections. Or, in the language of the mafioso enforcer: “Nice little country you’ve got here, it would be a real shame if something happened to turn it into a hell-hole of civil strife.”
How, then, should the incoming government respond to this threat of consequences? The largest party of the coalition currently in formation, National, has rejected Act’s policy of a Treaty referendum as “divisive and unhelpful”. But this is nonsense. A great many of the policies espoused by National, Act and NZ First are “divisive and unhelpful” – not least their pledge to abolish Fair Pay Agreements. But, the fact that a great many people are opposed to National-Act-NZ First policies will not prevent them from being implemented. It’s one of the principal reasons for holding democratic elections, to provide governments with the mandate needed to proceed with their policies over the objections of the opposition. The question, therefore, is not whether Act’s policy is “divisive and unhelpful”, but whether it is justified.
And, if it is justified, then the incoming government must decide how to respond to the threatened consequences of allowing Act’s referendum to be put before the people. The answer to this question is as clear as it is daunting: no government can allow its conduct of national affairs to be determined by threats of massive civil disturbance and/or political violence.
Successfully applied once, the minority’s consequences – its veto – will be applied again, and again, and again, until the political will of the majority has been set at nought. Either that, or, unwilling to be ruled by the minority, the majority will develop a sequence of consequences intended to secure results considerably more to their liking.
Chris Trotter is a political commentator who blogs at bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz. - This article was first published HERE
12 comments:
The activist parties greens and te pati keep chanting "from the river to the sea" which is palestinian terms means no israel at all. From a nz perpective what do they mean one wonders? Do they want the removal of ""white colonists?" What is being done to keep nzers safe from the activist politicians?
Seriously, is anyone listening to wee Willie & Co. flapping their gums? I suspect that they will be just as effective in opposition as they were in Government.
There is a maori guy who lives near me and he is just as proud of his scottush roots as his maori ones. He was telling me what clan he is from in scotland, what their tartan is and is proud of the settlers that came here. So which side of the " civil war" would he take? The maori shop owner who has a dutch wife he brought back to nz from europe, which side would he take. The activists are idiots and are trying to take control. The new govt must be assertive and have a referendum.
This is typical behaviour from a bully who, confronted with something they don't like or that reduces their authority, resorts to threats of violence.
What it shows is that they're scared. Scared of losing all the anti-democratic and racist gains made over the past 3 years, thanks to Labour.
In typically tribal fashion they're now performing their war dance to warn everyone that trouble is afoot.
Maori politicians are like kids. Form a gang, stick your tongues out at the other lot and look menacing. That's it!
Only one way to stand up to bullies. Tackle them head on.
They invariably fade away when they realise what the CONSEQUENCES are.
Trouble is, our new PM don't do head on, or tackling. He'll likely be wetting himself at the moment. This will be his first big test and if he fails it then that sets the tone for the next 3 years.
Sadly in the late 1920's and through the early to mid 1930's there was a political party in a European country that had a minority following.
This politcal party utilised the 'thugs' veto with a passion and as such they slowly but surely turned the solid citizen who once disagreed into ones that were too afraid to speak out. Their minority became a majority and saw them into power.
The consequence of a government being weak or careless in the face of repulsive rhetoric and threats saw the birth of the third reich.
The treatyist maori elites have an absolute disregard for democracy not because they believe their ideological spirit should come to rule, they do so because they want the power, the money and the ruling to be theirs personally.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. These people try hard to subvert power to them and theirs through the same historically repellent method.
The saviour to the ideology of threats is that unlike the European country of yesteryear where the population was considered an ethnically cohesive group which won those thugs their ability to rule, our own thugs can try to use ethnicity as a fulcrum but that fulcrum bends at 16% when real weight is applied.
When the fulcrum bends like a seesaw then the consequences of the physical pushback is always felt.
Ken S , I don't know if you are on facebook or not but please look at mp debbie ngawera-packer's public page. She has posted a video of herself talking at at a pro-hamas rally where she is yelling about activism, sayimg from.the river to the sea and even speaking in arabic. The crowd there are really into it so.it is not just mp's yapping.
Well said, Chris. Mr Luxon best not try to delay the inevitable with corporate weasel words or political double-speak, which I'm sure many of us suspect is his first inclination. As DeeM suggests, this will be his first big test and if he can't see that this is a significant part of the "back on track" and the re-unification of the country the majority of the electorate is seeking, then there will be "consequences" and his reign at the helm will likely be a short and unpleasant one.
Yeah, here we go again.
In the 1990's our Governor General at that time Mr Paul Reeves and his Maori mates were threatening the National Government with violence if the Government did not honor Mr Palmer's 'Five Principles for Crown Action on the TOW.
Mr Reeves, the Queen's representative stated that 'injustices under the treaty would lead to violence'.
Mr Bob Mahuta when asked 'if they would take it by force', replied, 'naturally yes'.
Mr Matiu Rata, stated 'when Maori people's faith in the rule of law was destroyed, it introduces such thoughts as civil war'.
Guess what our National Government did?
New Zealand will never know true peace until this insanity is sorted out. Maori were not the first people to settle this country. Maori themselves will tell you that! What we need is facts, honesty, and truth about our past! It is time to sort out just what happened to the people (Patupaiarehe, Waitaha, Moriori) who came before Maori. Why has 80 plus books been removed from libraries bookshops, etc? Some books that are published today are unavailable from bookshops, and university libraries. Why? It is time to replace the hate, distrust and dishonesty and replace it with love and fellowship for all New Zealanders.
Kevan
Well said Kawena, He iwi tahi taou.
And how about our new Government go and find New Zealand's Royal Charters/letters patent issued by Queen Victoria before 'they get lost'.
The 1839 Royal Charter/letters patent which preceded Te Tiriti o Waitangi and
The 1840 Royal Charter/letters patent which superseded Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Latest headline from Newshub.
Māori will go to war over treaty!
Really?
Will they really get out of their beds and go fight the good fight ?
Yeah, Nah.
They can’t be arsed to go and vote.
So let’s dial it all down Newshub and Mr Hipkins.
If you can’t discuss anything without all this bullshit hype and threats, then you will end up with an authoritarian government just like the one we booted out
The Ardern government painted its policies as resolving racial disharmony that had been caused by injustice. But it was predictable and predicted that encouraging Maori or any group to develop unrealistic expectations could only result in greater disharmony with a risk of civil war. We are seeing that outcome now arising. The faster and more decisively it is stopped the better for all.
Post a Comment