How did it come to this?:
Increasing abuse and threats directed at elected members has prompted a new home security allowance to councillors’ pay.
Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) chief executive Susan Freeman-Greene said her organisation had advocated for new protections such as the allowance given a significant increase in abuse, harassment and threatening behaviour.
Central Otago Mayor Tamah Alley said she had been involved in putting the case to the Remuneration Authority. . .
While it was not possible to please everyone the decisions elected members made should not bring anxiety into their homes, Mrs Alley said.
“It’s just wrong. We are here to make the decisions for the benefit of, you know, as much of the public as we can … [but] the decisions we are making shouldn’t be following you home and make you or your family feel unsafe.” . . .
I don’t begrudge the cost of security but it concerns me that it’s necessary.
Abuse and threats to the safety of people and their property isn’t confined to local body politicians. MPs are victims of it too.
I don’t know how it came to this but it reflects a lack of respect for other people, a growing propensity to attack people personally rather than debating their views, and a lack of self-control from the perpetrators.
Reasonable people are able to discuss issues and debate ideas without resorting to personal abuse or threatening behaviour.
The need for security for councillors shows there are far too many unreasonable people who don’t respect others and can’t control themselves.
Councillors shouldn’t need security. That they do makes it even harder to persuade good people to put their hands up for public office.
Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
Of course, this would have nothing to do with the state’s corporate enforcer, LGNZ, forcing councils into adopting Maori wards and other apartheid policies, masquerading as co-governance/partnerships and other corporate wokeness against the will of rate payers, would it? Surely not.
>"I don’t know how it came to this but it reflects a lack of respect for other people, a growing propensity to attack people personally rather than debating their views, and a lack of self-control from the perpetrators."
It's a product of a 'new absolutism' that has entered the Western psyche through the marxofascist portal. There are only two kinds of people in society, this warped paradigm says: those who agree with us and the rest, who must be silenced by any means available.
It would be interesting to know the distribution of threats aimed at pro maori and to not pro maori. As the latter are dificult to recognse and relatively miniscule, should receive very few threats. But a threat from a maori is much more daunting as there are so many low IQ brainwashed semi educated haka roused brainwashed nutters with a violent inheritance, tikanga of utu, and no concern for character reputation in the wider community. The haka is fostered to encourage them. It is part of the supremely successful cancellation campaign. Very few persons not ardently pro maori will make themselves available for the next local body elections. Having to battle staff selected for pro maori bias plus a very active motivated irrational sector of the public is not fullfilling.
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.