COMMENT
The debate over Paul Holmes' comments has highlighted an interesting feature of 21st century society: that what we say and do is monitored by a small group of people who think their way is right and want to bend the rest of us to their will.
Centuries of conflict over basic
freedom have brought us one mantra: "All men are created equal." But it seems that not all groups are created equal. One can rant about poms and honkies until the cows come home, but put in an ill word about some other groups and you could lose your job.
And there are some groups who do not even bear mention, such as young people - who would have thought that we could be a minority, too? It seems that all that is important in the world has to fit between sips of latte, and, sorry, time is short and some people just aren't important enough.
Words by themselves are intrinsically innocuous, but we should realise that every ill word uttered reminds the oppressed of years of injustice and bad treatment.
But should this mean that those who mutter such utterances be deprived of their own freedom, their job, their reputation? Is that balanced? Do those words create specific harm?
I am what you would call a young person, but once I reduced a grown man to tears when I threatened to report him for making a racist comment against my friend. The punishment just does not fit the crime. Is this the kind of society we want to live in, where the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many?
No one in this country seriously wants to get rid of Asian people or begrudge the tangata whenua what is rightfully theirs. The closest thing we have to a white supremacist is Winston Peters.
All the rant and rhetoric are whipped up by politicians to obscure real problems in society: houses that are too expensive, and the fact that no one seems to know how to drive.
The most important factor is the availability of quality jobs - no one grumbles when their wad can cover their outlay. When people can pay their bills suddenly we live in Utopia.
All the rhetoric of bleeding-heart liberals and the pathetic PC posturing will not solve any real world problems or create one single new job (except race relations conciliators). It's a lot of huffing and puffing for nuffing.
The French Revolution was based on three factors - equality, liberty, fraternity. Equality meant that everyone in the same situation would be treated the same; liberty that everyone had the right to freedom so long as that freedom did not act upon the freedoms of others; and fraternity was brotherhood.
Updated for a modern audience, they might read equality, liberty, humanity. These three factors were a tripartite partnership; none was to be at the expense of the others. Now, flooded by the tide of history, we seem to have lost our way, granting more freedom to some at the expense of others, all in the name of equality.
We all want an equal society, but equality must not come at the expense of liberty.
* Glen David Snelgar is a reader from Manukau.
COMMENT
The debate over Paul Holmes' comments has highlighted an interesting feature of 21st century society: that what we say and do is monitored by a small group of people who think their way is right and want to bend the rest of us to their will.
Centuries of conflict over basic
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.