Consistency. Not the most exciting word in the English dictionary, but an attribute I place a high value on. As some of you may know, philosophy is one of my great loves and I think the merit or otherwise of ideas can often be tested by consistency.
Unfortunately, in recent weeks, consistency has been thrown out the window once again. Consequently, inconsistency unsettles our sense of justice and fairness, and even confidence in our democratic way of life.
Take the recent protest led by Brian Tamaki that sought to walk over the Auckland Harbour Bridge, and when denied, protestors threatened to do so anyway. Personally, both the cause and nature of this protest are not something I align with, yet how this protest was treated compared to many others illustrates a galling inconsistency.
Previous protests from a pro-Hamas rally to a hikoi protesting the Treaty Principles Bill were given permission to march over the bridge. It shouldn’t matter whether you disagree or agree with said causes, but you would expect the treatment to be fair and consistent. This has clearly not been the case. It seems some political issues are to be facilitated by the NZTA and/or Police, while others are not. Granted, police commanders have said that the days of such marches over the bridge are over, but to be frank, I do not believe them. I think the inconsistency will return according to the political preferences of the day.
Take the recent protest led by Brian Tamaki that sought to walk over the Auckland Harbour Bridge, and when denied, protestors threatened to do so anyway. Personally, both the cause and nature of this protest are not something I align with, yet how this protest was treated compared to many others illustrates a galling inconsistency.
Previous protests from a pro-Hamas rally to a hikoi protesting the Treaty Principles Bill were given permission to march over the bridge. It shouldn’t matter whether you disagree or agree with said causes, but you would expect the treatment to be fair and consistent. This has clearly not been the case. It seems some political issues are to be facilitated by the NZTA and/or Police, while others are not. Granted, police commanders have said that the days of such marches over the bridge are over, but to be frank, I do not believe them. I think the inconsistency will return according to the political preferences of the day.
Police at the recent protest, which intended to cross the Harbour Bridge
Speaking of police, the response to Brian Tamaki’s event versus others is quite extraordinary. While the very large police deployment was probably warranted with the recent threat to march over the bridge, it is striking in contrast how poorly prepared police choose to be when cyclists threatened – and then stormed – the Harbour Bridge back in 2021.
We can go wider than the Harbour Bridge of course, and direct our attention to those awful Covid days when we were all locked down in our homes and yet Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests were tolerated. You could not attend the funeral of a loved one or sing at church, but turning up en masse in Aotea Square to scream and yell obscenities in support of a happening in America was allowed.
More contemporaneously, we have the rather disturbing situation around the ICE raids in the state of Minnesota, notably the recent killing of Alex Pretti. There are many angles we could discuss, but on the consistency front, it is striking how progressives have suddenly become strong advocates for the Second Amendment and the right to carry firearms; many on the right appear to have abandoned due process for a desire to simply amplify the rhetoric of the government; and some media have decided facts don’t matter as they busy themselves doctoring photos of Mr Pretti to, arguably, drive greater attraction and sympathy for him.
MSNBC’s editing of the photo of Alex Pretti, who was
killed by ICE agents in Minnesota.
Returning to New Zealand, we also had this weekend a protest by a group calling themselves Toitu te Aroha. It is hard to know where to begin with the glaring inconsistencies here. First up was all the talk of aroha or love, and yet so many of the slogans, signs, and messages were those of violence, anger, and aggression. After this, one must question the internal inconsistencies as this umbrella group embraces radical Islamists and trans right activists, human rights activists and those vocally supporting the Iranian or Venezuelan despots.
Returning to New Zealand, we also had this weekend a protest by a group calling themselves Toitu te Aroha. It is hard to know where to begin with the glaring inconsistencies here. First up was all the talk of aroha or love, and yet so many of the slogans, signs, and messages were those of violence, anger, and aggression. After this, one must question the internal inconsistencies as this umbrella group embraces radical Islamists and trans right activists, human rights activists and those vocally supporting the Iranian or Venezuelan despots.
Some of the ‘loving’ (aroha) messages of
the eponymously named protest - Toitu te Aroha
At this point, it is important to comment on what actually holds these disparate groups together – something known, ironically, as critical theory. Put very simply, critical theory divides the world into a binary of oppressor and oppressed. In this context - and using the words of the protest organisers - Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, trans, Maori, and others are all oppressed and victims. No matter what is actually happening or what they do, they are always oppressed. So the fact that Iran is run by despotic Islamic lunatics, likely behind the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in recent days, becomes irrelevant. According to these activists, the regime is still an oppressed victim of the oppressive West and therefore must be supported. That former Venezuelan president Maduro was a despot is ignored, because he is a socialist and also oppressed by the West (supposedly). Hamas, according to Toitu te Aroha activists, are just innocent oppressed Arabs despite their barbaric atrocities of October 7th and so on.
The sad inconsistency, and irony, is that their simplistic embracing of critical theory blinds them to the reality that their supposed allies hate them. For example, Hamas and other Islamic regimes have no toleration of trans rights – the latter activists would be hung from lamp posts or thrown from buildings given the chance. I won’t repeat here, but I have previously written about why these progressive and Islamic extremists have found common cause, which you can read here.
A rather eclectic array of flags and causes, many mutually
At this point, it is important to comment on what actually holds these disparate groups together – something known, ironically, as critical theory. Put very simply, critical theory divides the world into a binary of oppressor and oppressed. In this context - and using the words of the protest organisers - Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, trans, Maori, and others are all oppressed and victims. No matter what is actually happening or what they do, they are always oppressed. So the fact that Iran is run by despotic Islamic lunatics, likely behind the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in recent days, becomes irrelevant. According to these activists, the regime is still an oppressed victim of the oppressive West and therefore must be supported. That former Venezuelan president Maduro was a despot is ignored, because he is a socialist and also oppressed by the West (supposedly). Hamas, according to Toitu te Aroha activists, are just innocent oppressed Arabs despite their barbaric atrocities of October 7th and so on.
The sad inconsistency, and irony, is that their simplistic embracing of critical theory blinds them to the reality that their supposed allies hate them. For example, Hamas and other Islamic regimes have no toleration of trans rights – the latter activists would be hung from lamp posts or thrown from buildings given the chance. I won’t repeat here, but I have previously written about why these progressive and Islamic extremists have found common cause, which you can read here.
A rather eclectic array of flags and causes, many mutually
exclusive other than all embracing critical theory.
I might add - beyond the particulars of these weird groupings -the rather obvious and glaring inconsistency that these critical theorists who hate binaries are also the ones gleefully embracing them. These activists who cannot even explain what a woman or man are, are more than happy to promote an oppressor versus oppressed binary, even when the supposedly oppressed are killing, maiming, and harming so many people.
A final reflection - what can we do to confront these bizarre contradictions? I think the first step is recognise these contradictions, call them out, and also be consistent ourselves. Inconsistency hates sunlight, and so drawing attention to it helps. But much begins ‘at home’ as such. If we are simply agreeing to a narrative because it aligns with our political or cultural beliefs, or that it is from a commentator we’ve traditionally followed, then that is not good enough. We need to assess each situation on it’s merits, apply reason and consideration, seek a consistent application, and then speak and act accordingly.
Simon O'Connor a former National MP graduated from the University of Auckland with a Bachelor of Arts in Geography and Political Studies . Simon blogs at On Point - where this article was sourced.
I might add - beyond the particulars of these weird groupings -the rather obvious and glaring inconsistency that these critical theorists who hate binaries are also the ones gleefully embracing them. These activists who cannot even explain what a woman or man are, are more than happy to promote an oppressor versus oppressed binary, even when the supposedly oppressed are killing, maiming, and harming so many people.
A final reflection - what can we do to confront these bizarre contradictions? I think the first step is recognise these contradictions, call them out, and also be consistent ourselves. Inconsistency hates sunlight, and so drawing attention to it helps. But much begins ‘at home’ as such. If we are simply agreeing to a narrative because it aligns with our political or cultural beliefs, or that it is from a commentator we’ve traditionally followed, then that is not good enough. We need to assess each situation on it’s merits, apply reason and consideration, seek a consistent application, and then speak and act accordingly.
Simon O'Connor a former National MP graduated from the University of Auckland with a Bachelor of Arts in Geography and Political Studies . Simon blogs at On Point - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.