In many ways, it isn’t surprising that Massey University’s Vice-Chancellor has barred Don Brash from speaking on campus at an event organised by Massey students. So-called “no-platforming”, in response to pressure of mobs – often threatening disorder if a speaking engagement were to proceed – has become rather too common in the United States and in the UK. It was only a matter of time until this practice arrived here, and perhaps almost a matter of chance which speaker/group would be the first victim. As it happened the lot falls to a 77 year old former corporate chief executive, former Governor of the Reserve Bank, former MP and leader of the National Party invited, by a student politics group, to talk about his time as leader of the National Party (the party that has led governments in the country for 47 of the last 70 years).
And what offence has this lifelong New Zealander given to Massey’s Vice-Chancellor, an Australian who has lived in New Zealand for all of 18 months? She tells us that her concern is
Mr Brash’s leadership of Hobson’s Pledge and views he and its supporters espoused in relation to Māori wards on councils
This is the group whose website outlines a vision
Our vision for New Zealand is a society in which all citizens have the same rights, irrespective of when we or our ancestors arrived.
It might not be your vision, I’m somewhat ambivalent about it myself, but it clearly isn’t Professor Thomas’s view of the country. Which probably shouldn’t really matter greatly because (a) she isn’t a citizen herself, and (b) because the nature of politics in a democratic country is about conflicting views, not just about means but also about ends.
But Professor Thomas appears to regard such views – and opposition to Maori wards on local councils (which have been defeated in most/all places where a referendum has been held on them) – as simply illegitimate, and having no place in New Zealand, let alone on the campus of Massey University, an organisation founded and substantially funded by the New Zealand government and taxpayers. She was terrified that Dr Brash might make some negative comment about Maori wards on campus
Whether those views would have been repeated to students in the context of a discussion about the National Party may seem unlikely, but I have no way of knowing.
And presumably no one at the university she manages could cope with knowing that somewhere on campus, an elderly former politician was expressing a view they might disagree with – a view which, on this particular occasion, appears to be held by a fairly large chunk of the population.
In a startling display of casual inaccuracy (one hopes not deliberate) Professor Thomas is also upset that Dr Brash was part of the Free Speech Coalition, that supported the right to be heard (in public premises), of two controversial recent Canadian visitors. She claims
Dr Brash was also a supporter of right-wing Canadian speakers Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, who were due to address a public meeting in Auckland.
Had she done any research at all, she would know that Dr Brash had indicated publicly that he had little or no knowledge of the views Southern and Molyneux had espoused but – like left-wing activist Chris Trotter for example – did not approve of public facilities being denied to people who wanted to use them to hear from visiting speakers, however much their views might be controversial or provocative. (Disclosure: I am part of the Free Speech Coalition myself, and as I noted in my earlier post on this issue, had never heard of either Southern or Molyneux until the Auckland Council banned use of its facilities, the mayor boasting – inaccurately – that he had done so.)
For a private university to have banned such a meeting, and a speaker such as Dr Brash, would have been unwise and generally inconsistent with the sort of ethos universities generally sought to represent (contest of ideas etc). But, being private institutions, they’d be quite free to make that choice.
But Massey is different: it is a public institution (establishment, funding, appointments to the council). And if the (foreign) Vice-Chancellor of a public university thinks Dr Brash – who has given decades of public service to this country – shouldn’t be allowed to speak on campus, when invited by students (what, one wonders, would she do if one of the professors invited him to speak to a class?), you have to wonder who – and which views – are next in the line for a ban. Dr Brash is prominent enough – even if not always liked – that there will be an outcry against his ban, while this sort of insidious censorship can be applied more broadly to less prominent people.
Professor Thomas really should be called into line, by her own Council (her employers), by the Minister of Education (funding agency), the Prime Minister (if she is at all serious about her claims to support free speech – to her credit, I see she has come out a little critical of Professor Thomas). But where, one might wonder, is the Leader of Opposition on this? It is a pretty sorry picture if the leader of the National Party won’t forthrightly defend the right of students at Massey to hear from one of his predecessors about his own time as National Party leader. Does he believe in free and open debate, notably at our universities, or doesn’t he?
As it happens, Professor Thomas had conveniently laid out her perspective on free speech a few weeks ago when the Southern/Molyneux debate was raging (and no one was talking about university facilities). In a lengthy Herald op-ed she sought to build her argument around the concept of “hate speech” – a concept that, fortunately, still has no place in New Zealand law. Even Professor Thomas can sound reasonable at times
Beyond the reach of the law, however, the battle against hate speech is fought most effectively through education and courageous leadership, rather than through suppression or legal censure.
And this is where universities can take positive action by providing a venue for reasoned discussion and cogent argument.
Which you might have thought could include a lecture to a student politics society by the former Leader of the Opposition, former Governor of the Reserve Bank? But apparently not.
Perhaps she justifies her stance this way
Given the current dominance of wall-to-wall social media and the echo chambers of fake news, universities are in many ways obliged to make positive societal interventions.
But one can’t help suspecting that in this case she means “we need to put a stop to the expression of any views we disagree with”. That certainly seems to be the practical import in the current case, and rather at odds with her very next sentence.
Universities support our staff and students to push boundaries, test the evidence that is put to them and challenge societal norms, including examining controversial and unpopular ideas.
Ah, perhaps it is only societal norms that (recent arrival) Professor Thomas disapproves of that should be challenged? Certainly, from her op-ed and her statement today, she seems to think no space at all should be given to any debate around how, or how best, to think about the Treaty of Waitangi and its place in modern New Zealand. Which would be outrageous coming from any university CEO, but perhaps all the more so from one fresh off the plane.
In her statement on the Brash case, Professor Thomas made passing reference to security concerns – even though it is equally apparent from her statement that she was just looking for an excuse to ban the meeting (having put her prejudice against Don Brash on display in that earlier op-ed. Her approach isn’t that of the courageous leader defending freedom and debate, but rather of aligning herself with the mob to veto the ability of student groups to invite speakers (ones uttering controversial views) to campus. That sort of mobocracy, if allowed sway, would be the very antithesis of democracy as we’ve come to practice it in countries like ours (even Professor Thomas’s Australia) in the last couple of centuries. Thugs and bullies rule, at the expense of those who respect the ability of decent people to disagree. Thugs and bullies can come from either side of the political spectrum. These days, in New Zealand (and other Anglo countries) they are almost all from the far-left.
(Much as I support what should be the freedom of the Massey student group to invite whoever they wish to have to speak to them (supported if necessary by the Police to keep law and order, and allow law-abiding citizens to go about their business), I increasingly wonder at the prospects for such a world. Process liberalism – you do your thing, I do mine, and we leave each other alone – is very slender reed around which to organise any society, and I rather doubt it can hold: perhaps it will prove to have been just a very brief historical interlude as society moved from one set of largely shared beliefs to another. Human societies seem to need more than just process rules to hold them together, and that process tends to involve the marginalisation or exclusion or forced suppression of minority views. Since most of my own more important views these days are distinctly minority ones in modern New Zealand, I hope it isn’t true, but I suspect it is. If so, of course, in New Zealand issues around the Treaty and Maori/non-Maori perspectives could prove a very nasty and dangerous fault line.)
NB As I imagine all regular readers will know, Dr Brash was my boss in years past, and these days I count him as a friend.
UPDATE: So the most Chris Hipkins can say is that it isn’t the decision he would have made and the most the Prime Minister can do is call it an “over-reaction”. In context, they are little more than weasel words, washing their own hands of owning responsibility, without full-throatedly condemning Professor Thomas and calling on her to reverse her decision. Simon Bridges has described the ban as a disgrace.
47 thoughts on “Massey Vice-Chancellor bans Don Brash”
As a Massey Alumni, I would suggest that rather than the presence of Don on campus provoking conflict, most Massey students would be oblivious to his presence and many would simply say “Don who”?
Let the old fella speak. Regardless of whether you agree with him, or not, his service to this country over many years should be recognised and he should be treated with dignity and respect.
Would Dr Thomas ban Halen Clarke or Mike Moore. I doubt it. And quite rightly so for the same reason Don should be allowed to speak.
I too count Don as a friend and it’s irrelevant whether I disagree with some of what he believes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a Massey Alumni (a single course to learn the C++ computer language a decade ago) there is a devious solution – have Don Brash give his lecture at 9am. There were 36 students enrolled in my course and we never managed over half attending the 9am lecture and one glorious morning it was just myself and the surprisingly talented lecturer who incidentally moved to Australia).
Miss Jan Thomas should be sacked for this nonsensical debacle. Free speech should trump over censorship anyday. Lets hear it. If it is a problem then thats where the Human Rights department should become involved but we won’t know if we can’t hear it.
Well done Michael – you belted that out of the park.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Simon Bridges has rightly called it a disgrace, which is what Ardern should have said instead of labelling the ban an “overreaction”.
Good to hear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
i was hoping Adern would agree with Thomas. Let’s get them out in the open?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nigel Latta of the Hardstuff is a snowflake
I remember King Ansell coming to Canterbury University dressed up in a uniform and giving Nazi salutes. I think people felt sorry for him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Roseanne Barr tweets
Sarah Jeong tweets
But that’s different
People either don’t read, or don’t understand what they read or hear. Or have certain political views. Don Brash also wants a society, where all New Zealanders (pakiha, Maori, and all others) are equal in rights and responsibilities. …He repeatedly said that.
One thing the Weinsteins of Evergreen College concluded was that the left have a bad actor problem: people who want to turn the tables of oppression. They said the other half of the left unwittingly buy into it.
David Farrar to Chris Hipkins on twitter
Hey @chrishipkins you’re a good guy who I’m sure doesn’t agree with Massey banning Don Brash from speaking. As Minister you can’t direct Massey but if you stated publicly you thought it was the wrong decision I’m sure it would have great moral weight.
Chris Hipkins replies to David Farrar
I already have. You’re right, they’re autonomous institutions and make their own decisions, but in this case I think they made the wrong call. If Don Brash can find someone at Massey willing to listen to him he should be free to speak to them
“Our vision for New Zealand is a society in which all citizens have the same rights, irrespective of when we or our ancestors arrived.” Well, giving the same rights to foreigners (permanent residents) that include being able to vote in ‘our’ (what a joke) elections and buy property in No Zealand, is going to be one of the primary causes of NZ Wars II. This will come to pass; lift your snout from the trough and see the future imploding into the present like a the light of an oncoming train at the end of your tunnel.
LikeLiked by 2 people
After Marama Davidson stood outside the Powerhouse, the venue for the 2 Canadians, shouting “down with white supremists” one is led to imagine why Massey Chancellor Michael Ahie was never going to pull the trigger, instead loading the gun and handing it to his Vice-Chancelller
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the English speaking world today we have descended into allowing the public discourse to become toothless emotionalised dribble of name calling without due regard to the argument. It is a glaring omission that at no point were the two Canadians views presented. If you actually listen to them both have two main points: free speech is seriously under threat and the reason is the left thinking politic and the incursion of Islam. They are both factual and articulate.
I haven’t followed either but from what was reported in the paper the guy was going to talk about brain differences and IQ by ethnic group which is fairly easily countered by pointing out the advantages of a smaller computer so as mentioned at my U3A group men have larger brains than women but 3 girls attain university entrance for every 2 boys and judging by the size of their heads professional rugby forwards have bigger heads than the backs but they are known for brute force not creativity on the field.
The young lady (for some reason 90% of the published media photos were of her) reputedly argues against multi-cultralism. Here it depends on the meaning of the word – if you mean an integrating society of many origins such as Birkenhead – well that is great and a major reason I and my visibly multi-ethnic family moved to Auckland North Shore. Everyone is trying to be a kiwi – that is my kind of multi-cultralism. However there is another form of multi-cultralism where societies are kept apart not integrated. I have lived in a London suburb where everyone is Bengali (96% at local schools); after 3 generations it is not good for the UK and it is not good for the Bengali colony. I have family in Bradford and Oldham where the same issue arises with Kasmiris. Academics in ivory towers can say what they like but it is simply not good for ordinary people living in it. As the lady was reported as saying that kind of multi-cultralism has been tried and it leads to failure; sooner of later one culture dominates. As Taleb mentions in ‘the Black Swan’ the Lebanon had been multi-cultural for a millenium and then a civil war broke out and lasted 11 years and destroyed the Paris of the Mediterranean. For another comparison consider the Catholic and Protestants in NZ who are now well integrated with 400 years of Northern Ireland where there are still high walls separating the two communities.
If handled properly it could have been a productive not a divisive discussion.
I’m not entirely convinced by the Catholic/Protestant example: I suspect mostly that works fine in most places now because (a) the differences between both groups are less than those between them and the non-Christians, and (b) the decline of religion generally, so that fewer people care much/passionately.
This is the sort of thing I was talkiing about in my final pessimistic paragraph: I’m sceptical how long free societies can endure with two (or more) widely divergent worldviews, when people on both sides really regard what they believe as truth.
“If handled properly it could have been a productive not a divisive discussion”.
I’m not so sure – given the ‘live’ controversy regarding hate speech immediately preceding the event. I’m mindful, and agree with an important point made by Jan Thomas in her article written on 17 July, before such time as she was faced with having to make this decision:
“Public universities have an obligation to uphold our civic leadership role in society and our first responsibility, I would argue, is to do no harm.”
There is no doubt in my mind that any number of the “beliefs” of the Hobson’s Pledge organisation (see their website under the heading ‘Where We Stand, we believe that…) do engender harm to many Massey staff and students who are Maori, or who have family and/or friends who are Maori (myself included).
Not only does such re-litigation of these hard fought for rights and obligations – now embodied in our laws and custom surrounding Treaty matters – hurt Maori today, but such re-litigation is, to my mind, an affront to those tupuna who struggled so much along the way in their attempt to recover and preserve tikanga Maori. Such re-litigation dishonours them – and that is even more hurtful to those who have come afterwards – or as Sir Issac Newton famously said, for those of us who stand on the shoulders of giants.
For me (as both a staff member and an alumni) I hope this gives readers a very small insight into what I hold dear as part and parcel of Massey University’s strategic commitment (as pointed out by Jan Thomas);
“Te Tiriti o Waitangi is at the centre of our university strategy, emphasising the importance of positive national leadership and supporting fundamental human values alongside academic ones. This is where Te Tiriti, with its emphasis on partnership, respect and tolerance, has much to teach us all.”
Hobson’s Pledge denies that that partnership even exists, as they point out;
“The Treaty of Waitangi did not create a “partnership” between Maori and the Crown”.
This is an argument that has long past its use-by date. It adds nothing to our social fabric in NZ. It’s a bit like ‘fake news’, a denial of fact and history – a means to divide, as opposed to unite us. It twists the meaning of Hobson’s famous dictum.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Where does your stance leave you in concrete practice Katharine? Do you support the Vice-Chancellor’s ban? Would you regard a (hypothetical) Massey student’s Hobson’s Pledge group as so beyond the pale that they too should be banned?
Michael: as an atheist I had never considered Catholic/Protestant as dramatically different world views. There are many Christian countries where the two tolerate one another; Ireland for one. The example of PNG is interesting: before the war there were a couple of deaths in the Sepik where natives converted to Catholism and Lutheranism battled. During the war the missionaries were rounded up by the army and forced to live together in a compound in Port Moresby; initial complaints dissolved once the two groups of missionaries realised how much they had in common and many friendships resulted.
Katherine: since I’ve followed this blog in my mind you have contributed more sense than anyone else. So I will go away and think again. Obviously my knowledge of NZ history is pitiful. The concept of everyone being equal in the eye of the law (and God) is very attractive but whenever I have read comments about Hobson’s Pledge “Our vision for New Zealand is a society in which all citizens have the same rights, irrespective of when we or our ancestors arrived” I have noticed some real weirdos making approving comments so I have stayed away from it – but that is guilt by association.
‘Widely divergent worldviews’ can change. When Maori and Europeans first met both sides had slaves and no rights for women other than to be a chattel of first father and then husband.
Your first sentence (“as an atheist”) is sort of my point. I also think my differences with the Catholics are much less than my differences with you. But when there were few/no atheists, plenty of people took the Catholic/Protestant difference seriously enough to die for.
Hi Michael. What the Vice-Chancellor cancelled was a specific event, occurring in a specific time (close on the heals of the Canadian’s visit). I don’t think Dr Brash has been banned from speaking at Massey forever and a day, so to speak. But at this particular point in time, Dr Brash’s historic speeches/positions and current involvement in Maori-focused political/constitutional matters, and his more recent support for the rights of the two Canadians to speak in a publicly-owned venue – did make him at this particular time, a bit of a beacon for potential angst and harm. And that might have brought disrepute to the institution, for example, had mud been slung again, or something similar. That type of incident is not what I’d like our campus to become known for where its invited guests are concerned. I’m not aware of the specifics of the safety concerns/threat that the student group organising the event communicated to the Vice Chancellor, but I suspect she weighed all of these possibilities carefully.
We do think of NZ as a far more peaceful place than elsewhere – and so from the sidelines, we might well think this cancellation was perhaps an over-reaction (as per the PM’s comment). I simply don’t have the detail to make the call that the Vice Chancellor did. But given she had all the information, I support that call in that I trust her judgement – particularly having read her earlier piece (the one written on 17 July following the Auckland issues). I support everything she said in that piece.
Would I support a Hobson’s Pledge group/club forming on the Massey campus? – as per these organisations;
No, I would vehemently oppose it, as it is not in keeping with the University’s commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Should such an organisation be able to form elsewhere in civil society – yes, absolutely, by all means. No problem with that whatsoever.
Every university is an institution and a community with norms, beliefs and expectations. I lived through the turmoil on campuses (and in the streets) in the US during the 60/70s. Although the cause was just – the violence and loss of life was too high a price that some campus communities had to pay;
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Human societies seem to need more than just process rules to hold them together”. I believe you are correct here. I would say they need a foundation of morality.
Certainly agree there. A disclaimer – I teach (the very basics!) of moral philosophy at Massey to College of Science students studying environmental science. To understand the various environmental ethics/worldviews, one needs a grounding in basic ethics/moral philosophy. This knowledge should in my opinion be the foundation of any civics education that we eventually see incorporated in to the NZ Curriculum.
We all make decisions daily about right and wrong, but many/most of my students have no idea what philosophical basis they use to make these morals judgments – nor that there are more than one way/basis on which to formulate those decisions and take action on them.
It’s a real eye opener for many, and I like to think knowledge of our different philosophical bases, moves us toward ‘shared meaning’.
Isn’t morality just an evolutionary adaptation and if so it would favour kin over foreigners. Which is why liberals like subversion and conservatives want a society where you can go out and leave the door unlocked. Also, diverse societies produce anomie (according to Johnathon Haidt – I think that’s what he is saying)?
Don Brash (and I) are conservatives in so far as “a house divided upon itself cannot stand” and “the wise man built his house upon the rock” Whereas biculturalism is building a society on sand.
In drawing a dichotomy between liberals and conservatives, you are yourself creating a “house divided upon itself” – as political beliefs or persuasions are part and parcel of our social/cultural make up. And there will always be cultural differences in a society – differences in religion, age, race, upbringing, politics and so forth. There is no such thing as monoculturalism, nor even biculturalism – the world is a multicultural place. The one thing that unites us is that we are all human – and as such, we don’t need a slogan to promote that, it’s a given.
According to Mannheim’s typology of social order (1940), anomie is a factor of the level of public participation in civil society being low (x axis) and the level of centralisation (i.e., the strength of the institutions of governance) (y axis) also being low. The typology also includes depiction of the social orders of dictatorship, democracy and anarchy, I’m unfamiliar with Haidt – will look him up.
The end of your first paragraph sounds almost like an argument I’d expect to hear from a libertarian. I guess my view is that each functional community needs a reasonably strong core of common “culture” (things that really matter to us, ways we do things here), which may be different to that of some other functional community.
Hi Michael. There are a lot of qualities/ideals of libertarianism that I like. I’m not really any particular political persuasion. I guess if I had to put a label on me, I’d say I’m Aristotelian, in that I try to follow a path of virtue ethics. And as I was raised a Catholic, it made me a kind of utopian, in that I believe good prevails over evil, as that is what a Creator intended.
And Michael, I agree with you that we need a common “core” as you say in terms of culture/nationhood. Again, part of the reason I see civics education as so critically important, alongside history. And I see embedding and honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi as part of what I believe should be that common “core” – not all of it, but a very proud part of it (just as the Declaration of Independence is in the US). Hence the reason that intentions such as those espoused by Hobson’s Pledge, are, to my mind, obstacles in terms of the formulation of that common “core” of nationhood here in NZ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But I imagine Don Brash would respond that he sees the vision of his Hobson’s Pledge group aimed at exactly that core concept of nationhood, and worries that those favouring what he opposes are working against such a conception.
I’m sceptical of both stances. I doubt yours in tenable, and his is perhaps only if Maoridom is suppressed/swamped (as I’ve noted previously one – lesser – reason why I oppose high immigration in NZ is that it does have precisely that swamping effect; every new migrant diminishing the Maori proportion of the population in their own country.
Hi Michael. What I believe makes my position tenable is the excellent groundwork done by Geoffrey Palmer and Andrew Butler on building a constitution for Aotearoa/New Zealand;
They make provision within that proposed constitution for ‘Finding a place for the treaty’ (see explanation under that heading);
“The proposed Constitution provides a process for this national conversation to occur.”
So far governments of all stripes have had “conversations” – Hobson’s Pledge too is part of that conversation – and I think we need a binding process that progresses that conversation forward from talking to doing/acting.
Hence, everything in building our “core” or common/shared values is within the realm of possibility, i.e., tenable. We just need a better building process :-).
Actually the dichotomy is based on the observation that of the five core [cross cultural] moral values liberals focus on the first two whereas conservatives tend to care more about the others. I watched a video of one of Haidt’s lectures and he seems to be saying that these are necessary behaviours for a society to survive but a society needs many hands to balance extremes.
This is the closest I can find to a meta study on social cohesion
Their ‘moral foundations theory’ has since moved on from analysis within that dichotomy – adding libertarian as a third political ideology considered within the typology;
As I’ve posted before, I think the dominant political ideology of our time is globalism – and it seems it is that dominant ideology that is being contested/challenged more recently. Hence, I think we do ourselves a disservice when we discuss democratic politics within the old dichotomy of left/right, liberal/conservative. The real question is globalism – yes/no. and what are the emergent ideologies and options;
Click to access JPI%20Ideologies%20of%20globalization%20%20final.pdf
LikeLiked by 2 people
As an atheist brought up as CofE and now married to a Catholic….
The Bible does not approve of believers killing one another. Matthew 5:38-40. It took the hundred year war in Europe to get to a point where it was live and let live for most Catholics andProtestants. At that time in Constantinople Muslims, Christians, Jews and various others lived in reasonable tolerance (as long as you didn’t disturb the Muslim rulers).
Ref your skepticism about divergent world views; well it depends on the world view. Just as some food ingredients dissolve in water and others don’t some specific world views can be combined and others can’t. Schools can support differing modern language teaching but you cannot combine selective schools and comprehensives (that’s what I grew up with). There are numerous different automobiles but they have to agree on which side of the road they drive. Multiple national cuisines enrich my life but FGM and honour killings don’t.
So we can be tolerant and live with a diversity of world views; where I agree with you is not to assume it is easy. Incidentally it doesn’t need wide divergence for problems to emerge – the Astor Place riot in New York, 1849 left over 20 dead and the dispute was over whether Americans or only the English could act in Shakespeare’s plays.
Certainly not prescribing (executions and martyrdoms) just describing…….
As I understand, the end of the 30 year wars just left each state to itself, without changing the strong tendency in almost every western european state to tolerate only one religion and only one branch of Christianity. Some of my ancestor came to England after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and Catholic emancipation in the UK wasn’t complete until 1829. Re the Ottoman example, perhaps the key phrase is the final one (deference to the rulers), combined perhaps with the fact that in practical terms there isn’t a great deal of differences between the morality of Muslims, Christians, and Jews (even if there is around theology and worship practices etc) – something very different than the situation today (eg – but not limited to – divides around gay “marriage”).
I had some reflections on related issues in a short talk I did a few years ago
Click to access the-sharing-game.pdf
and wrote about that event (with other speakers) here
It would be better to look at the fundementals of a belief system to understand what Islam , Christianity and Judaism teach. If you look at the African slave trade it reveals this outlook. Islam took close to 140 million Africans (2/3 female 1/3 castrated males) for 1400 years (it continues today) where about 90% died or where killed (most children of African female slaves were killed at birth as they were mainly sex slaves).
Europeans took African slaves for three hundred years around 11 million where 90% survived with 2/3 males used in agriculture where they had children. Jewish people where involved in the slave trade but generally did not have slaves and where very restricted in employment so took this work out of desperation.
So Islam uses the plural word for slave for Africans in general, mamluk for white slaves, mandates slavery and sex slavery, war against non-Muslims and their killing or subjugation. The bible does not mandate these things. A good resource based on historical records of port imports/exports, written records, personal testimony and historical reports is John alembillah azuma’s book the legacy of Arab Islam in Africa.
So if you think there is similarity it is not based in fact. For example in 1492 Portugal dumped its Jewish population in N. Africa. Many were sold to Muslims as slaves and died. Interesting a few decades later a large Portuguese army attacked Muslims in N. Africa to stop their slave raiding but lost and they themselves ended up in local Muslim slave markets. They begged the former Portuguese Jewish people to buy them rather than Muslims. So the Jewish people agreed providing the Portuguese paid them back for the fair back to Portugal. A modern day example of Jewish belief (repairing the world) would be Netanyahu making a video in Farsi to the Iranian people giving them the technological know how to conserve water owing to irans government spending money on jihad not infastructure leaving 96% of Iran desparately short of water.
I think I might have made that link incorrectly Michael? Would you delete it or something for me please?
Thinking about what Katharine Moody wrote at the above. I see the whole treaty debate as moot. Either you take the view that because Maori were in power they put the spin on it or vice versa. In either case the other side isn’t happy (I’m sure a lot of Maori would have been happy to merge into a common ethnicity – if allowed by the experts).
I’m wondering if the VC takes the view that the Treaty is a given and bicultural policy is a given rather than up for debate? In which case it is the government bureaucrats and politicians who are at fault and Don Brash is an Enemy Of The State. In other words a mandated position. Perhaps it isn’t about people having their feelings hurt as much as the government telling us what to do?
I came across this quote in a piece titled: Nexus of media and political agenda “Today all of us are living in an environment in which the media’s presence is ubiquitous and their influence is encapsulating” – Molyneux and Southern threatened the whole narrative. Goff belongs to that group who were architects of multiculturalism. When threatened with a counter narrative he uses the states new asset: division. “The Islamic community will be offended”. He also (like the media generally) told blatant lies about their new competitor (Youtubers).
The Treaty is a given – as it exists, it was signed by both parties (and we must assume) in good faith – it has a numbers of articles, each of which communicate elements of a forward direction toward nationhood. It exists, just as many treaties exist between the settler government of the US and the indigenous people’s there. I’m proud of NZ and the Crown’s history of eventually honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi – unlike the building of nationhood in the US. And I’m pleased that tikanga Maori survives and is beginning to thrive as well. We are one nation with many cultures living together within its boarders. What is important to preserve democracy (which Mannheim describes as having the qualities of creativity and difference) are strong, respectful institutions of governance and active participation by our citizens in civil society.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Treaty may be a given but at the time it was an expediency and didn’t address demographics. Today some Maori talk about their rohe as though we were somehow misplaced.
Tikanga is like religious observation except that Maoridom is a closed society. It might be fun or give a sense of belonging but just accentuates “otherness” and obligation when we may have drawn closer together.
The grievances are historical narratives that artificially ascribe connection to prior historical events.
Some researchers on indigenous health and historical trauma warn against cultural revival and “toxic meta narratives”
“We are one nation with many cultures living together within its boarders. ”
No we are not. We are a state of many nations otherwise Guyon Espiner would have been sacked for calling people who disagree with compulsory te reo on RNZ “uglies”.
I’m not sure how cohesive we are. We would need Professor Spoonley and our “ubiquitous and all encompassing” news media to tell us
” Molyneux and Southern threatened the whole narrative”. I think this goes some way to explaining the hysteria over their visit from the far left and media cabal. Whether you agree with what they say or not, one thing Molyneux and Southern appear to understand and expose is the philosophical underpinnings of the authoritarian left and it roots in cultural Marxism/post-modernism.
I think this label of “alt-right” for these two individuals is misplaced – it’s just their commercial genre. They seem to me to be two people trying to earn a living from speaking engagements and Youtube promotions – not unlike Madonna (or insert any vocal artist) earning a living from singing engagements and royalties from the output of their work.
And I agree, the media gave them too much attention.
[…] Michael Reddell backgrounds the issues with his usual penetration. […]
The MediaWorks Standards Committee is responsible for considering formal complaints about MediaWorks’ online news content, and deciding whether or not it complied with the Principles set out by the New Zealand Media Council.
Your complaint relates to a video created by a third-party and published by Youtube. MediaWorks is only required to consider complaints about content published by MediaWorks. Therefore, we are not required to accept your complaint.
In any event, we are satisfied that The Project material you referred to in your complaint complied with the Media Council’s Principle of Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
Discussing Canadian right-wing personality Lauren Southern’s attempts to prevent a refugee ship from docking in Sicily, presenter Jesse Mulligan stated:“She says that women and children would be better to die than come into Europe”.
The Committee has determined that Mr Mulligan did not quote something Ms Southern had actually said, but rather inferred her views from her actions. Having considered Ms Southern’s actions, we are satisfied that Mr Mulligan’s characterisation of her views was accurate.
For the MediaWorks Standards Committee
A talk back host called them “holocaust deniers” (three times). After all they were “alt-right” and “alt-right ” includes holocaust deniers according to Wikipedia (that’ll do).
All in all they were “extreme right wing” and the devil incarnate.