Am I a bad person?
Because I would not don the hijab. Ever. It's not my culture, it has no meaning for me and while I accept someone else has reasons for wearing it, I don't share them.
True tolerance for each other would be demonstrated through side- by- side wearing of the hijab and going bare-headed.
The Al Noor mosque people are star-struck by Jacinda and she is besotted by them, and their terrible personal tragedies.
The senseless and violent murders that took away their family and friends forever were an evil act and must be an agony to live with. Our shared humanity as parents, children, brothers and sisters, tells us that.
But the risk of a repeat will never be eliminated by introducing hate speech laws. It could even be aggravated.
Yet that is what Jacinda promised the Muslim advocates for such a law change today. Down in Christchurch. In her hijab.
In France judges have ruled against implementation of recently introduced hate speech laws finding they did in fact impinge on freedom of speech:
The court said this [tech regulation] created an incentive for risk-averse platforms to indiscriminately remove flagged content, whether or not it was clearly hate speech.
The law’s provisions “therefore infringe upon the exercise of freedom of expression and communication in a way that is not necessary, suitable, and proportionate,” the court said in a statement.
New Zealand is still a free country (I write, with many 'buts' bumping around in my brain). And we will need to fight to remain so. We must not change our laws to appease groups whose safety will not be improved by the process. The PM must not emotionally over-identify with one group at great cost to the other. They need to learn, along with every other citizen, that laws have limitations in terms of desired effect, and that tolerance and persuasion are far more powerful impulses.
14 comments:
Lindsay, I'm a free speech absolutist, and will not willingly relinquish that right, however it probably matters little when the media have already embraced a level of 'self censorship' that 'protects' ordenary citizens from ugly and unsayable truths.
Jacinda is keen to protect 'religion' from 'hate speech' but she might just as well have said 'Islam'. Christians are used to abuse, and frankly as a Christian I would much rather live in a society that permits such abuse than in one where the Government regulates for "correct speech". Islam does not permit blasphemy against their prophet; think Charlie Hebdo, and many many other similar examples. Consequently they seek a legal mechanism in otherwise free countries to enforce their blasphemy laws.
Jacinda confirmed she is keen to oblige.
The media has been 'self censoring' ever since the Mohammad cartoon 'crisis' in September 2005. However today I noted a typical example in the BBC article, linked below where three "French" men attacked a women in the street for wearing a short skirt. Who knew the French male had become so prudish?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54277235
We are told nothing of the ethnicity or the presumed religion of the attackers, but who do we think might say something like: "Look at that whore in a skirt." The article also links to a seperate incident in France where "On Thursday, France Bleu Alsace reported that two women had been attacked in another eastern city, Mulhouse, on Wednesday, after a man told one of them her skirt was "too short".
France, like many European nations has found itself with a new religious police determined to impose righteous standards upon their fellow (female) citizens. This comes as no surprise for those who have been observing immigration patterns in Europe over the last two decades.
But for Jacinda, it's not enough that the media are already self censoring events like this to ensure none of us get the wrong impression - about Islam in particular. We now require laws to prevent us from stating the obvious.
Well said Lindsay. "Hate Speech," Censorship, the veil of anonymity or court suppression orders, they are all instruments designed to impede the flow of information considered to be, "not in the public interest".
Every plastic card in my wallet irrespective of its value, has a barcode. I can conceive of the day when the common people will not be allowed access to the internet without logging in their barcode linking them to the computer of life. Our names will be irrelevant.
People scoffed at Orwell's 1984. But 71 years after it's publication, the world Orwell envisaged is all around us. Is it gradualism, predeterminism or the results of unintended consequences? I dont know the answer to that, other than changes happen faster than I can
keep up with.
In the meantime and like so many fellow travelers, I continue to say the wrong thing, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, to the wrong people.
You are not a bad person. You are a thinking person. But that's the trick: to make us doubt ourselves and to put up a defence even before we state our argument.
Rodney Hide
I wish Ardern would stop at the first obstacle: accepting free speech advice from an Imam.
Daft doesn't even begin to get to my point. They will structure everything to do with speech around blasphemy with predictable results (and ever worse sanctions, down to death, depending on which country you're in).
As dumb as expecting the innate adult right and choice of assisted dying from a Catholic, Brendan ;)
[I always like to insult all the religions equally.]
Hi Mark
I joyfully embrace your insults, albeit I do note that you are a little sensitive to your religion being critiqued. ;-)
Hah.
I don't have religion, Brendan.
Hi Mark
With respect, I suggest that your ‘no religion’ claim is only partially true. Observing your posts over the years, it would be reasonable to describe your beliefs as those of a ‘Christian atheist’; while you deny the existence of God, you embrace the liberties that have been purchased uniquely by more than 1500 years of Christian cultural formation.
Your hyper individualism is sourced from the dignity and intrinsic worth of the Individual; a construct that is uniquely Judeo Christian in origin, and springs from the first few chapters of Genesis. While you may argue that it’s a product of the enlightenment, to do so ignores the fact that the enlightenment grew out of a culture deeply informed by Christianity. It is a kind of ‘Christian heresy’ to assume that autonomous man can ascribe to himself any kind of dignity or individual rights absent a Creator God; even the notion of human rights have grown out of the uniquely Judeo / Christian faith tradition. Such rights are entirely unknown in fully atheistic societies like the Orwellian named ‘People’s Republic of China’, or Islamic cultures of the type found in Iran and elsewhere.
Even your ability to freely and publicly express yourself as an atheist is a fruit of our Judeo Christian heritage. To declare yourself an atheist is to invite execution in at least fourteen nations: Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
So, my Christian atheist friend, we are both to a great extent shaped by our cultural context, probably more than we care to admit.
We are very different, Brendan.
I don't let mumbo jumbo mysticism lead me to believe I can force my beliefs onto others who don't share them, and worse, take their innate rights and volition away, in this case, you would want to ensure I have no choice of dignity in death even though that choice doesn't harm you.
You are as deluded, and you are the bully that the Imam is.
Mark
Can you comprehend how absurd it sounds for a collection of atoms drifting through space and time in a meaningless universe, make a claim to be in possession of ‘innate rights’?
;-)
To those with terminal illnesses - and there are three in my circle (one wouldn't use this choice because he's a Christian, the other two would) - this is not an academic exercise.
You are cruel, Brendan. You do great harm.
I have no humour on this topic. I despise bullies.
Mark
I have already imposed upon Lindsay’s good will to permit this exchange, but in closing, the advocates of euthanasia are failing to grasp the implications of further undermining the dignity and value of human life.
Christianity teaches that all human life is created by God, and therefore has intrinsic value. It also teaches that part of what it means to be human is to patiently endure suffering, unpalatable as that sounds to the mind of autonomous man. It also teaches compassion (as opposed to pity) which proactively seeks to alleviate suffering wherever possible, palliative care being just one example.
However, if we systematically depreciate the value of human life to mere utilitarian status, then we can hardly complain when the PRC harvests body organs from prisoners, or human traffickers engage in slavery, or the sexual exploitation of children. When the value of human life is arbitrary, so are all arguments relating to its status. Ultimately its value is reduced to whatever you or I say it is, or whatever the State says it is.
This is what we are choosing between, divine and human definitions of life’s value. One affords protection from conception to natural death, the other is at best unreliable.
I do no believe in God.
God does not exist.
You may as well believe in Harry Potter, I really don't care other than you would force people to die in a manner they find anathema TO THEM for your beliefs. Appalling. Just absolutely appalling.
Bugger off Brendan and don't ever include yourself among the enlightened.
#Out ... Apologies Lindsay.
Brendan said "When the value of human life is arbitrary, so are all arguments relating to its status. Ultimately its value is reduced to whatever you or I say it is, or whatever the State says it is."
Isn't that the point of choice? You pick your value Brendan for your life and Mark picks his.
Hi Lindsay
I appreciate that in a hyper individualised culture that views choice as the ultimate expression of what it means to be human, any apparent restriction on our personal sovereignty is viewed as an unwelcome imposition.
This is why we need to step back a moment.
It was GK Chesterton who warned us not to take down a fence until we understood the reason it was put up in the first place. Why do we presently have laws that prevent the taking of human life in this way? What did our forebears understand that we are now apparently missing? What are the present laws designed to protect us from? What are the unintended consequences of removing this fence? There are always unintended consequences.
The argument that my right to end my own life has no impact on anyone else is entirely specious. We are in an implied social contract with each other, whether we like it or not. Your decision to arbitrarily devalue your life to utilitarian value has an impact upon how the whole of society views human life. We have already reduced the life of the unborn child to convenience value through abortion on demand. To proceed with euthanasia is to further erode the intrinsic value that we in the west have historically and uniquely placed on all human life. All actions have consequences, and while I cannot predict what they will be I can assure you that we and /or future generations will regret yet another protection being removed from our previously understood sanctity of all human life.
Take a look at those societies where human life is not valued and protected, is that where we want to end up? What is an imprisoned murderers life worth when good people who are making a positive contribution to society desperately need their organs?
When the value of human life becomes arbitrary, these questions are easily answered.
Post a Comment