Woke approved violence ...
A troubling trajectory towards violence is evident among some segments of New Zealand society. Plus some information of a new radio show I am hosting!
When I think of the various protest, or activist, movements of late one deeply troubling observation is becoming abundantly clear - there are those in New Zealand who genuinely believe that violence is acceptable when it comes to their cause. The classic, ‘the end justifies the means’.
This is the belief of zealots, fundamentalists, and of course, terrorists. Such people and groups are so morally certain of their position that they consequently feel enabled to act against all and any who oppose them. Those who disagree with them are so wrong, so in error, that removing them by force is appropriate. Naturally, this is a mindset at odds with a properly functioning democracy.
The terrible conflict between the terrorist group, Hamas, and the State of Israel highlights this very clearly. Many (not all!) supporting the Palestinians have made it clear they believe the terrible violence – murder, rape, and kidnapping – on October 7th was acceptable. The near inability of leaders of the various Palestinian groups here in New Zealand to condemn these actions of Hamas is striking. In recent months, they have sought to ignore this key catalyst to the current conflict or at least, downplay its significance. Sadly, many commentators in mainstream media are also willing to diminish the barbaric events, mostly against civilians, by justifying such deeds as ‘resistance’ or part of a colonial struggle.
Critically when reflecting on such matters, it is easy for any person to find reasons to justify actions, but that doesn’t make the actions ok. And this is ultimately is what is at the heart of the issue – there are those among us who believe there are reasons for violence to further their ends.
This is not simply related to events on the other side of the world. More locally in the Pacific, we see the same justifications arising with the violence now occurring in New Caledonia. Activists here in New Zealand are saying that the violence, looting, and intimidation are ok because it is rebellion against a colonial power. Put aside the complete inaccuracy of such statements, because the situation again simply illustrates that there are New Zealanders who think violence is ok.
Right here at home, last year, we had the violent protests in Albert Park. A few days back I met one of the women assaulted, Judith. She was punched multiple times and yet there are still those here that believe the violent suppression of speech was acceptable. Her and others view was supposedly so wrong, that violence was seen as the right response by those protesting. Mainstream media too sadly played it’s part in all of this, encouraging the protest and consequently diminishing what occurred. Implicitly, some commentators reinforced that violence was an acceptable response to this group of women seeking to meet and talk.
Ultimately, we all hold strong views on various matters. But for most of us, our convictions on such matters manifest in robust discussion, debate, or the pursuit of legislative change. We do not, and never will, turn to violence.
And so we should take very careful note of those in our society who are accepting of violence to further their cause or supporting those who act violently to achieve their ends. It is perhaps a harbinger of things to come for whatever next cause they feel drawn too. Such zealots are always a small group proportionate to the population, but acts of violence are an amplifier.
Violence is not acceptable. In a democratic society such as ours, it is better stop such moves towards violence early on rather than letting is spread.
NEW RADIO SHOW AND PODCAST
I have recently begun hosting a online radio show, on every Friday from 10am to midday. The first show was last week so feel free to check it out. I would love to hear what you think. My very first guest was my friend and Taiwan’s representative here in New Zealand, Joanne Ou. It was a wide ranging chat on everything from trade to defence, our shared cultural history to joining the WHO. You can check this particular interview here.
I also chatted with the Maxim Institute’s, Dr Stephanie Worboys. She has recently released a report called ‘Shaky Foundations’. It notes a decline in trust in our democracy. We discuss her findings, notably why she thinks trust has declined and what we could do to turn things around. You can hear the interview here.
Separately, I am also recording weekly podcasts for Family First. My first focuses on an Australian court case known as Giggle v. Tickle. Yep, you read that right! I chat with Sall Grover, the Australian founder of an independent female-only social media, networking platform, and app called ‘Giggle’. Sall shares how she set the app up so that women could connect safely and talk about issues important to them. Recently, she has been taken to court by Roxanne Tickle, a biological – trans identifying - male, because he was declined entry to the app. Will the court agree that it’s ok to say no to males in female spaces? You can see my interview with Sall here.
And finally, and top of all of this, I do a Facebook Live every Tuesday morning from 8am to discuss issues of the day and engage your questions. You can tune in via my Facebook Page.
So, no shortage of ways to engage ideas and debate alongside this Substack!
Well good on you Simon for actually going there, I don't think you've thought very deeply on the topic but,
"Violence can only be justified if the Government is non-democratic and repressive."
is at least a starting point, I think you're wrong but at least it's a start.
I don't want to get all "Philosophy Major" here, but the problem is you don't define your terms. I could do a series of weak definitions that make "Violence can only be justified if the Government is non-democratic and repressive" so obviously true it's trivial, or I could do strong definitions of the same terms that make the statement totally false. But they would be my definitions not yours, I can make some assumptions about what you mean but again they are just my assumptions.
For example, I assume that you mean political violence, not personal, and that you are mainly concerned with domestic internal political violence but then in this Substack post you mention the Israeli - Hamas war. Whether or not that particular war is an internal or external political matter is kind of the whole point of that war.
So, specifically what do you mean by "Democracy", "Government" and "Oppressive"? Each one of those terms has a spectrum of possible definitions anyone of which could be legitimate.
Again, I assume, and I assume that you mean a definition that is practical and effective, not just formal and nominal. For example, North Korea calls itself The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, nobody believes it's actually democratic, that's just nominal. Effectively it's a hereditary monarchy.
But also, what the heck is a "Government"? There are all sorts of institutions, formal, informal and semi-formal, ranging up from neighborhood street gangs and cliques, through civil societies, churches and boards of directors right up to formal national governments and transnational entities, all of which "Govern" us in some way.
There are multinational corporations today that have more effective power than medieval empires. Are they "Governments"? In some substantial way I would answer definitely YES!
One term that has been getting a lot of traction in certain circles is "Anarcho-Tyranny", it's not a formal system of government, but rather a lack of it. The formal government may still exist somewhere, in the capital maybe, still sitting in the committee rooms but it isn't here where you live. You are being terrorized by a bunch of punks or just left to rot and starve.
This is a situation (and probably not the only one) where the use of internal political violence is not only permissible but an absolute moral necessity. If the government is not there, then it is necessary to make one.
It doesn't have to be democratic, in fact in the beginning it almost certainly will not be, but it does have to be effective, and that means violent.
Organize whatever gangs, cliques and parishioners are needed to clear the punks from the streets to get the food and water flowing again.
Undemocratic, violent and morally necessary, and it's not a matter of "If" but rather "When".
Most concerning is the NZ police standing aside and allowing the violence. Why do they do that?