by Karl du Fresne
The man masquerading as the guardian of New Zealanders’ human rights has weighed in, from his Olympian heights, on the Posie Parker affair.
As usual, Paul Hunt’s opinion is worthless and leaves us wondering once again what we did to deserve this third-rate British import and how much longer we should be expected to put up with him.
The chief human rights commissioner writes, as if we all eagerly awaited his insights, that he wants to provide a human rights perspective on the issues raised by Parker’s visit. He adds, in Uriah Heep fashion, that he does this “from where I sit with my multiple privileges and advantages”.
Oh, please. Breast-beating liberal white guilt has rarely been more cringingly displayed. We can only hope his $365,000 salary eases the pain.
Hunt wrings his hands over the scenes that forced Parker to abandon her rally in Auckland last weekend but conspicuously refuses to condemn outright the behaviour of the mob that assaulted her, harassed her and shouted her down.
He gives away his bias in his very first sentence by revealing he attended the rally because he wanted to show support for his “trans friends”. Ingratiating himself with the wokerati is more important to Hunt than demonstrating the impartiality we’re entitled to expect from a senior public servant. Clearly, it’s also more important than standing up for free speech.
Hunt doesn’t just pass up the opportunity to emphatically defend free speech; he effectively aligns himself with its enemies.
At one point he pays token lip service to freedom of expression, acknowledging that it’s “a vital pillar of our democracy”. But he negates that in his very next sentence by quoting the late radical Maori lawyer Moana Jackson, who said “No one’s exercise of free speech should make another feel less free”.
So free speech is okay just as long as it doesn’t make anyone feel bad? That’s a novel new take. If the elected representatives who make New Zealand law took that view, they would have written it into the Bill of Rights Act, Section 14 of which unequivocally guarantees freedom to “seek, receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form”.
Nothing about injured feelings there, but apparently the chief commissioner of human rights thinks we should regard Moana Jackson, rather than the New Zealand Parliament, as the ultimate authority. That’s a very peculiar position for a senior public servant to take.
Hunt goes on to remind us of a supposed link between transphobia and colonisation. He quotes Tina Ngata, another radical activist, as saying “Transphobia was brought here on a boat”.
No one who approvingly cites such palpably absurd extremist rhetoric can expect to be taken seriously on anything. That whooshing sound you just heard was Hunt launching himself in the direction of Planet Woke, which orbits in a distant ideological universe no one realised existed. Tina Ngata is probably already there.
As previously reported, the ACT Party want the HRC, including Meng Foon (‘Foon the Goon’.)’s position disestablished.
K R Bolton said:
“Human rights” is a social control mechanism by which – according to Liberal ‘social contract theory’ (Locke, Rousseau) a ‘general will’, once established, can be maintained by whatever repression is deemed necessary by the custodians of the ‘social contract’. The Treaty of Waitangi is one such ‘social contract’, England being the home of the doctrine to which it had already succumbed.
The constitutions of the USSR from its beginning guarnateed f ‘human rights’ to all Soviet citizens, similar to the UN declarations on ‘human rights’, which have served to legitimise U.N. wars against sundry dissident states, and as the blueprint for repressive legislation for member states such as NZ.
The Jacobin ideology, expressed as the ‘Declaration on the Rights of Man & the Citizen’, guaranteed, liker the later Soviets, a long list of ‘human rights’, likewise upheld by spilling copious amounts of blood. Orwell satirised the use of ‘human rights’ in ‘Animal Farm’, when the pigs presented their declaration on ‘rights’ which is subjected to provisos that end in upholding their tyranny.
Paul Hunt is employed to impose the same ideoology that motivated Robespierre and the Commiittee on Public Safety (a deceptive title, like the Human Rights Commission) and the Soviet Cheka. The doctrine is a fallacy and, therefore, must be upheld by increasing repression.