Are we living in a world where, increasingly, “noise” is drowning out “sound”? A world in which it is getting harder and harder to distinguish the discrete voices of reason from the angry roar of the crowd. Where we are assailed by the deafening racket of bad political actors determined to drown out any and all opinions but their own.
Political “noise”, and its impact on society’s ability to “hear” itself, was brought to life vividly by Emeritus Professor Nigel Biggar from Oxford University in his keynote address to the AGM of the Free Speech Union, held at the Viaduct Events Centre on Saturday, 9 November 2024.
Pilloried by the Left for daring to express the heretical view that colonialism wasn’t an unalloyed evil, and that the British Empire, in particular, wasn’t all bad, Biggar recalled the 2016 Oxford Union debate concerning the fate of Oriel College’s statue of Cecil Rhodes. The enemies of colonisation were determined to remove this memorial to one of Nineteenth Century Britain’s greatest imperial swashbucklers (think Elon Musk with a Maxim gun) and Biggar was on hand to argue that it makes more sense to understand your country’s history than to cancel it.
Every time an anti-Rhodes speaker sat down, Biggar told the surprisingly large audience of between 200-300 AGM attendees, the venerable debating chamber would erupt into wild and sustained applause. To the casual observer, support for the removal of Rhodes’ statute would have seemed overwhelming. Looking around the Chamber, however, Biggar noticed that the number not cheering and clapping was almost as large as the number who were. The “anti-colonialists” simply made a lot more noise. (The “Rhodes Must Fall!” motion was eventually carried 245/212.)
This is what political noise does. It renders nuance and subtlety impossible. It makes the voices of dissenters appear weak. Most importantly, deliberately amplified political noise causes those holding dissenting views to doubt the efficacy of their own judgement, intimidating them into inaction and silence. Political noise thus achieves the same result as switching-off an opponent’s microphone. The sounds made by individual contributors are lost in the deafening noise of the mob.
That Prof. Biggar’s speech to the FSU’s AGM, and the introduction of David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill to Parliament, occurred in the same week could be seen as a happy coincidence. In the week ahead, a Toitū te Tiriti (Honour the Treaty) hikoi will set off from the Far North for Wellington. As it wends its way south, the ratio of noise to sound promises to be politically instructive.
According to the latest poll, conducted by Curia Research between 3-7 October 2024, 46 percent of those surveyed support the Treaty Principles Bill, 25 percent oppose it, and 29 percent are “unsure”. When compared to Curia’s first poll on the Bill, published on 14 March 2024, these latest results indicate a substantial drop in the number of respondents indicating assent. Back in March, the supporters of Seymour’s legislation outnumbered its opponents 3:1.
What caused this drop, from 3:1 to 2:1, has become a matter for debate. When Curia’s first poll was taken, Seymour’s principles possessed an admirable clarity. By October, however, the second of the three fundamental principles had been complicated considerably by the Bill’s drafters – to the point where its meaning was no longer readily intelligible to the ordinary voter. This would certainly explain the 7-point rise in the number of respondents indicating uncertainty.
The 7 percentage point rise in those indicating opposition to the Bill may also reflect the confusion created by the revised version of its second principle. There is certainly quite a difference between March’s Version 1:
The New Zealand Government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority over their land and other property.
And October’s Version 2:
The Crown recognises the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed the Treaty. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements, or other agreement with the Crown.
The hitherto staunchest supporters of Seymour’s legislative initiative may well consider the revised version of the Second Principle to be altogether too “Treaty-ish” in its wording and intent to be worthy of their continuing support.
Alternatively, the relentless demonisation of Seymour’s bill by all major media organisations, the overwhelming majority of political journalists and columnists, and – most effectively – by the nation’s leading political cartoonists, may be convincing an increasing number of the Bill’s supporters that they are indeed guilty, as charged, of being on “the wrong side of history”.
By preventing its supporters from hearing either themselves, or the clear plurality of other New Zealanders who share their views, think, the deafening political noise generated by the Bill’s institutional opponents, particularly the universities and the Waitangi Tribunal, may simply, through grinding emotional attrition, be turning the numbers around.
This is the bet that National and NZ First have taken. That, by the time the six months of select committee hearings have concluded, conservative New Zealanders will have grown heartly sick of the whole business.
It could be a shrewd bet, because the select committee hearings will doubtless be drowned out by the relentless cacophony of the Bill’s opponents. What’s more, the constant and public vilification of the Bill’s supporters will not only encourage their shell-shocked withdrawal from the debate, but also convince an ever-increasing number of New Zealanders that the political game is no longer worth the candle.
Alternatively, the actions of the Treaty Principles Bill’s opponents may provoke the same sort of angry public backlash that followed the violent end of the anti-vaccination mandate movement’s occupation of Parliament Grounds.
The Police are expecting upwards of 25,000 Māori protesters and their allies to descend upon the Parliamentary Precinct on Monday, 18 November. Among those allies, Police anticipate having to deal with a large number of gang members intending to defy the legal ban on public displays of gang insignia. It is also thought that a contingent of activists determined to link the “anti-colonial struggles” of Māori and Palestinians will be part of the Hikoi.
The Hikoi leaders have assured the Police that its demonstration of opposition to the Treaty Principles Bill will be peaceful. But the level of political noise, and the passions it can hardly avoid arousing, may outstrip the ability of the leaders to keep their followers under control. If the whole thing turns pear-shaped, then National and NZ First will lose their bet.
In the aftermath of the American elections, the Coalition Government would be unwise to position themselves too closely alongside a noisy – let alone a violent – minority. The one sound loud enough to be heard above the efforts of even the most determined makers of political noise, is the sound of the long-suffering majority making up its mind.
Chris Trotter is a well known political commentator. This article was published HERE
Pilloried by the Left for daring to express the heretical view that colonialism wasn’t an unalloyed evil, and that the British Empire, in particular, wasn’t all bad, Biggar recalled the 2016 Oxford Union debate concerning the fate of Oriel College’s statue of Cecil Rhodes. The enemies of colonisation were determined to remove this memorial to one of Nineteenth Century Britain’s greatest imperial swashbucklers (think Elon Musk with a Maxim gun) and Biggar was on hand to argue that it makes more sense to understand your country’s history than to cancel it.
Every time an anti-Rhodes speaker sat down, Biggar told the surprisingly large audience of between 200-300 AGM attendees, the venerable debating chamber would erupt into wild and sustained applause. To the casual observer, support for the removal of Rhodes’ statute would have seemed overwhelming. Looking around the Chamber, however, Biggar noticed that the number not cheering and clapping was almost as large as the number who were. The “anti-colonialists” simply made a lot more noise. (The “Rhodes Must Fall!” motion was eventually carried 245/212.)
This is what political noise does. It renders nuance and subtlety impossible. It makes the voices of dissenters appear weak. Most importantly, deliberately amplified political noise causes those holding dissenting views to doubt the efficacy of their own judgement, intimidating them into inaction and silence. Political noise thus achieves the same result as switching-off an opponent’s microphone. The sounds made by individual contributors are lost in the deafening noise of the mob.
That Prof. Biggar’s speech to the FSU’s AGM, and the introduction of David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill to Parliament, occurred in the same week could be seen as a happy coincidence. In the week ahead, a Toitū te Tiriti (Honour the Treaty) hikoi will set off from the Far North for Wellington. As it wends its way south, the ratio of noise to sound promises to be politically instructive.
According to the latest poll, conducted by Curia Research between 3-7 October 2024, 46 percent of those surveyed support the Treaty Principles Bill, 25 percent oppose it, and 29 percent are “unsure”. When compared to Curia’s first poll on the Bill, published on 14 March 2024, these latest results indicate a substantial drop in the number of respondents indicating assent. Back in March, the supporters of Seymour’s legislation outnumbered its opponents 3:1.
What caused this drop, from 3:1 to 2:1, has become a matter for debate. When Curia’s first poll was taken, Seymour’s principles possessed an admirable clarity. By October, however, the second of the three fundamental principles had been complicated considerably by the Bill’s drafters – to the point where its meaning was no longer readily intelligible to the ordinary voter. This would certainly explain the 7-point rise in the number of respondents indicating uncertainty.
The 7 percentage point rise in those indicating opposition to the Bill may also reflect the confusion created by the revised version of its second principle. There is certainly quite a difference between March’s Version 1:
The New Zealand Government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority over their land and other property.
And October’s Version 2:
The Crown recognises the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed the Treaty. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements, or other agreement with the Crown.
The hitherto staunchest supporters of Seymour’s legislative initiative may well consider the revised version of the Second Principle to be altogether too “Treaty-ish” in its wording and intent to be worthy of their continuing support.
Alternatively, the relentless demonisation of Seymour’s bill by all major media organisations, the overwhelming majority of political journalists and columnists, and – most effectively – by the nation’s leading political cartoonists, may be convincing an increasing number of the Bill’s supporters that they are indeed guilty, as charged, of being on “the wrong side of history”.
By preventing its supporters from hearing either themselves, or the clear plurality of other New Zealanders who share their views, think, the deafening political noise generated by the Bill’s institutional opponents, particularly the universities and the Waitangi Tribunal, may simply, through grinding emotional attrition, be turning the numbers around.
This is the bet that National and NZ First have taken. That, by the time the six months of select committee hearings have concluded, conservative New Zealanders will have grown heartly sick of the whole business.
It could be a shrewd bet, because the select committee hearings will doubtless be drowned out by the relentless cacophony of the Bill’s opponents. What’s more, the constant and public vilification of the Bill’s supporters will not only encourage their shell-shocked withdrawal from the debate, but also convince an ever-increasing number of New Zealanders that the political game is no longer worth the candle.
Alternatively, the actions of the Treaty Principles Bill’s opponents may provoke the same sort of angry public backlash that followed the violent end of the anti-vaccination mandate movement’s occupation of Parliament Grounds.
The Police are expecting upwards of 25,000 Māori protesters and their allies to descend upon the Parliamentary Precinct on Monday, 18 November. Among those allies, Police anticipate having to deal with a large number of gang members intending to defy the legal ban on public displays of gang insignia. It is also thought that a contingent of activists determined to link the “anti-colonial struggles” of Māori and Palestinians will be part of the Hikoi.
The Hikoi leaders have assured the Police that its demonstration of opposition to the Treaty Principles Bill will be peaceful. But the level of political noise, and the passions it can hardly avoid arousing, may outstrip the ability of the leaders to keep their followers under control. If the whole thing turns pear-shaped, then National and NZ First will lose their bet.
In the aftermath of the American elections, the Coalition Government would be unwise to position themselves too closely alongside a noisy – let alone a violent – minority. The one sound loud enough to be heard above the efforts of even the most determined makers of political noise, is the sound of the long-suffering majority making up its mind.
Chris Trotter is a well known political commentator. This article was published HERE
11 comments:
Let's see how Aucklander's cope with having their already congested city taken over and closed down by out of town people with nothing better to do then moan about how badly off they are...colonialism. I think we will be hearing the sound of backlash before too long. I think Luxon is also going to hear the sound of his ratings hitting the bottom of the dunny. A nicely put article, thank you.
The amazing aspect of all this is that they are arguing against equality, against equal rights, against one person one vote, against universal suffrage.
They don’t want to be equal & largely want a return to tribalism. But I guess this time funded by whoever will stick around - mad
This madness should be highlighted. Seems like an argument that would defeat itself?! 🤷🏻♂️
The wording of the "interim" version of Seymour's second principle has been particularly disastrous. It appeared to be diametrically opposed to Seymour's stated aims and many will have switched off in disappointment.
The latest wording of the second principle in the bill seems reasonable and Seymour will have six months to win over the public. But he really did shoot himself in the foot.
....and a backlash would also be detrimental to the ratings of any party likely to go into coalition with the Maori Party....an outcome devoutly to be wished.
Just passed a Maori family in Queen St, with 2 school age kids with Maori flags over the shoulders - obviously part of this so called hikiou, protesting to protect apartheid. Sitting outside McDonald's with the world's worst food, and smoking weed.
Why aren't those kids in school ?
Another couple of kids inevitably ending up as social problems.
I questioned David Seymour about the changes to the second part, at a meeting shortly after the changes were leaked. He tried to convince me that the changes didn't affect the meaning of the clause, so I asked why change it, if doesn't affect anything. I didn't get a satisfactory answer which makes me wonder if he was being leaned on. Sad.
Anonymous @1:29
I heard a broadcaster today say that a school head allowed some of his students time to attend the hikoi because it was "justified".
Therin lies where a lot of our race problems begin and fester.
Maybe those you saw at Maccas were those students.
It begs the question; was Mcdonalds and some weed the bribe price for a wee walk?
I posed a similar question when it was at the Cabinet paper stage and fair do's, he replied that: "There is nothing wrong with recognising hapu and iwi rights, so long as they are no different from the rights everyone can reasonably expect. He added that: "Your assumption that the cabinet paper is the result of pressure from other parties is incorrect". As one who admires and appreciates the fact that he is motivated to do what is right for New Zealand (not that other nebulous "A" place), I replied saying: "That being the case, there is frankly no need at all to call them out separately, since that only serves to reinforce the inference that some in New Zealand are more equal than others and sadly, we all know that that to be true. As I intimated below, consequences are often unintended. Since the 1975 ToW Act, the occurrence of 'unintended consequences' in New Zealand have reached epidemic proportions." Since then, PM Luxon decided to commit political suicide by displaying his hubris and placing his foot squarely in his mouth, so I'm pretty disgusted/disappointed with the PM. Not sure how I will be submitting to the bill given all of this but I am minded to support David Seymour even though the augmentation of that 2nd principle bothers me greatly.
Whilst it is all starting to appear as a New Zealand version of Barnaby's Circus, it is at least dragging out the racist, radical separatists into the sunlight, exposed now for the rest of NZ to consider. It's unpleasant and confrontational, but it has been brewing for some time - David Seymour is merely the catalyst.
There may be a simple solution to all this: abandon the ‘principles’ bill, and eliminate all reference to TOW principles in all extant legislation. Oh, and also cancel the Waitangi Tribunal. That surely should make everybody happy?
Post a Comment