Sticks and stones won't enhance anyone's moans

Jay Kuten PHOTO/FILE

When I first began to write these opinion pieces I was given advice or perhaps words of warning. Kiwis, I was told, may grumble about the things that disturb their tranquillity but they don't like to stand up and express themselves, mostly on account of the sort of disapproval that taking a stand may generate.

As readers will surely note, I have not taken that advice to heart, because I believe in robust democratic debate, one which focuses on the issues and remains civil. As one of my colleagues in forensic psychiatry (a profession which often involves adversarial proceedings) puts it: "We can disagree without becoming disagreeable."

Recently (February 5, 2014), I published an op-ed on the prospective felling of the London plane trees on the Quay. I was particularly concerned at the haste with which the decision was being made by council and, in the spirit of debate, I invited proponents of cutting trees to express the reasons for their vote.

I learned later from Joan Street's column in Midweek that she had written of the beauty and historic significance of the plane trees as a necessary part of the resurgence of Wanganui's river front. She had posted her views on a Facebook page called "Save the Trees".

That was news to me, as I don't "do" Facebook . Further news was the abuse Mrs Street recounts having received. She was "characterised as an old biddy, too old to know anything about anything, a tree-hugger, an eccentric".

As a second to Street's own objection to this display of personal attack, it's necessary to state clearly that divisive issues such as this (as represented by the 6-5 vote in council) deserve a fair and open debate. Those who resort to name-calling or other deviations from the civil are essentially tarring themselves by their inability otherwise to participate in the debate by offering their reasoned point of view. Personal attacks signal an absence of a reasoned view. Worse, such comments serve to distract from the democratic process and may be an attempt to silence contrary opinion through verbal intimidation.

Such bullying tactics have no place in the democratic process. Or any fair process.

In the US, the professional football (gridiron) team Miami Dolphins has been cited in a 144-page report commissioned by the National Football League responding to allegations of bullying within the Dolphins. During practice sessions, several older players repeatedly harassed a newer recruit, former college All-American Jonathan Martin. The three taunted Martin with sexual remarks about his sister and his mother and used racial epithets (Martin is African American; the ring-leader, Ritchie Incognito, is white).

In response to a season of such harassment, Martin quit the team and debated giving up on his career. He says he was under such psychological duress that he twice considered committing suicide.

These professional gridiron players weigh in the neighbourhood of 275 pounds, mostly muscle, and stand about 6ft 4in. (Martin weighed 312lb and stood 6ft 5in). If one of them can be bullied, anyone can. It only takes a concerted campaign by a determined few in a situation where the bullied person has a need or desire for group acceptance.

In this case, bullying predictably hurt the team's performance and the ringleader, Incognito, is now indefinitely suspended.

I have long admired the New Zealand tradition of making debate a part of school curricula. Rhetoric is one of the arts that are essential to a functioning democracy. It is by airing of differences and using civil discourse to persuade others that the people's will can be properly exercised. That's to ensure that information is articulated, and tested by debate before decisions, especially those with lasting impact, are made.

Arguments against person (ad hominem attacks) are a form of bullying designed to silence opposition. Such bullying - a reflection of weakness of its practitioners - forfeits any place in the debate.

We need more, not less, civil debate about our city's future and to have more open discussion about those trees. The nature of our future depends on the future of our nature.