AT THE SERVICE marking the second anniversary of the Christchurch Mosque Attacks, New Zealand’s Prime Minister spoke of resilience.
“Many of us will remember, or indeed have seen children being taught from a very young age to be stoic.” Jacinda Ardern declared. “That if they face the harsh words of others they should adopt a stiff upper lip. Perhaps it has been our way of teaching children resilience in the face of those who might intend to cause harm.”
She’s right, that is the way New Zealanders used to bring up their children. Subjected to hurtful speech, those on the receiving end were taught to sing: “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
The Prime Minister was not convinced.
“Of course we want our children to be resilient,” she said, “but surely no more than we want our children to be kind?
“And so we have to ask ourselves, what does it take to create a generation that is empathetic but strong. That is kind, but fair. That is knowledgeable but curious. That knows the power of words, and uses them to challenge, defend, and empower.”
Jacinda’s question was rhetorical, but it deserves an answer.
What it takes is a society comprised of something other than human-beings – angels, perhaps.
Certainly, empathy confers a kind of strength: Jacinda proved that in the way she conducted herself in the hours and days after the massacres at Al Noor and Linwood. New Zealand was unquestionably strengthened diplomatically by the raw emotional power of its Prime Minister’s empathic response.
Jacinda’s empathy ran out, however, when confronted with the enormity of Brenton Tarrant’s crime. So unequivocal was her condemnation of its perpetrator that she vowed never to speak his name. Nor has she demonstrated the slightest curiosity concerning Tarrant’s motivation. On that matter, at least, she just doesn’t want to know.
But, how can words have power: how can they “challenge, defend and empower” if they are not imbued with the knowledge born of asking “Why?”
The Prime Minister’s own words notwithstanding, there is scant evidence that anyone in this government; the state bureaucracy; or the mainstream news media; has the slightest curiosity, or in-depth knowledge, of the forces that drive individuals like Tarrant. Indeed, within 72 hours of the massacre, New Zealand’s Chief Censor had declared his manifesto “objectionable” – thereby making its mere possession an offence punishable by imprisonment.
New Zealand has not been challenged to do anything about the Christchurch Mosque Attacks except condemn them.
And, of course, they should be condemned. They were cruel and wicked and utterly devastating of the lives of scores of innocent people. But, the overwhelming horror and disgust which such wanton savagery naturally elicits is all too easily harnessed to serve the interests of political causes that are neither kind, nor fair, nor innocent. Causes that have no interest whatsoever in encouraging the free exchange of words to “challenge, defend and empower” their fellow citizens. Causes whose purpose is, rather, to condemn, attack and weaken all those who refuse to endorse their ideology wholeheartedly and without reservation. Causes determined to silence all speech that does not echo their own.
In this regard, there is cause for New Zealanders to wonder exactly where their Prime Ministers stands on how free their use of words should be. What should we make, for example, of this rather oblique passage from her memorial address?
“We all own and hold the power of words. We use them, we hear them, we respond to them. How we choose to use this most powerful of tools is our choice.”
Is it drawing too long a bow to say that there is something vaguely threatening in the construction of those sentences? Something along the lines of: “Yes, of course you have freedom of speech – just be careful how you use it.”
The sense of menace is not dispelled in the sentences which follow:
“There will be an unquestionable legacy from March 15. Much of it will be heart breaking. But it’s never too early or too late for the legacy to be a more inclusive nation, one that stands proud of our diversity, embraces it, and if called to, defends it staunchly.”
Whenever political leaders begin to declare their intention to defend staunchly the ideas for which they stand – and for which they blithely assume the rest of the nation also stands – it is time to worry.
Stripped of its rhetorical finery, Jacinda’s speech boils down to this: If hateful words are directed at vulnerable groups, then legal sticks and stones will be deployed to silence those who utter them.
Jacinda wound up her speech by implicitly inviting her followers to be ready to respond, as she vowed to be ready, when empathy proves unequal to the darkness that dwells in the human heart:
“And [at] those moments, may I never, and may we never – be at a loss for words.”
The effectiveness of those words, however, will largely be determined by the strength of the person speaking them and the resilience of the society hearing them. Jacinda’s inspired words of 15 March 2019 – “they are us” – spoke much more to her strength than to her empathy. She imposed an explanatory framework on a society that was tough enough to carry it and make it work.
New Zealanders are not angels, and they should not be expected to behave like angels. In the hours and days after Tarrant’s attack, what mattered most was the swiftness with which the Prime Minister (unlike some of her left-wing fellow-travellers) moved to reassure her fellow citizens that they were not devils. That designation belonged to the terrorist alone.
Words didn’t kill 51 innocent human-beings on 15 March 2019 – bullets did.
It has been known since ancient times that the impact of words can be lethal: “The tongue can bring death or life; those who love to talk will reap the consequences.” Proverbs 18:21 The right to free speech cannot go unchecked in a civil society. Words are thoughts expressed, deeds are thoughts acted out. There is a direct line between thoughts, words and bullets
So, Diana, we should – by the logic of your argument – be concerned to control not only people’s words, but their thoughts as well?
Chris, controlling people’s words IS controlling people’s thoughts.
Since Diana started using the best-selling book I will mention that it has the only answer that will bring peace, when we love others as we love ourself then transformation will happen. Obviously, that is not an option for most people so governments seek to control people instead with the result that some agree with state rules & others react against them. Church & State combined have caused untold damage in the past & current problems suggest that the same combination is about to happen as people seek answers to damaging world events.
Well Diana, if indeed “there is a direct line between thoughts, words and bullets” then tell me what is left over if the thoughts and words that you disagree with are not allowed.
Along with the right to free speech comes a requirement for restraint and self-discipline. Any hate speech legislation should not overstate the power of words from the average citizen. The propaganda agents of the State and any self-appointed rabble rousers are another matter. Our socialist overlords should pay heed to another bible verse: “In all toil there is profit, but mere talk tends only to poverty.” – Proverbs 14:23
“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence.” (Krishnamurti)
History confirms the truth of what he says.
Indeed.
Tarrant was a white supremacist fearing the ‘replacement’ of white culture by black and brown migrants. This is the logical consequence of the European nations invading and dominating non-European cultures and living off their wealth for centuries. In Aotearoa white settlers stole Maaori land and extracted the rent, displacing Maaori as largely landless labourers.
That imperialist world system is coming to an end as the capitalist rip-shit-and bust world economy is destroying the material base in nature it lives off. Naturally this means everyone is staking their claim and defending it from incursions by outsiders. White supremacy therefore is the extreme reaction to non-white outsiders competing for the diminishing stakes of the white empires.
But that is futile as cultural wars are but the expression of underlying economic wars.
The result appears as a race war, and the solution, banning racism in language and deed.
Moreover it is a total contradiction when we beg the 1%ers state with a monopoly on force to do this on our behalf. Inevitably that state which default is authoritarian becomes fascist.
Our survival as a nation among other nations is to wake up and recognise the true enemy – the capitalist 1%ers who fool the masses into embarking on race wars so that they, the 1%ers can divide and rule, let the masses destroy themselves in useless racewars, instead of uniting along class lines.
90% of the world’s population are poor workers of one sort or another. They range from wage workers, unpaid domestic workers, small traders and small farmers to name the largest segments.
They include all ethnicities and nationalities but unite in the one common cause.
The enemy, is also not exclusively white, but comprises the corporate elites, or ruling classes, along with the middle classes who attach themselves to the bosses and look down on the workers. They comprise the the professional military, bureaucrats and paramilitaries. That’s 10% parasites armed to the teeth vs 90% working people whose labour is required for the system to exist.\
The only meaningful question facing us is how can the 90% organise, defend themselves and bring about a revolution that succeeds in preventing the 10% from killing us all in a climate, nuclear or biological apocalypse.
There is no doubt about the willingness and courage of the 90% when we look around the world at Myanmar, Syria, India, and the street mobilisations in the West. What we need to find is the willingness to unite, organise, defend ourselves, and win back the world for the vast majority of humanity before it, and we, are destroyed.
Class struggle is as old as civilisation. Human beings naturally struggle to get to the top of whichever hierarchy they think best serves their wants and needs. Have you watched Adam Curtis’ latest BBC documentary series? You might find it worth your time as it contains themes that you discuss above. It’s on the youtubes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can%27t_Get_You_Out_of_My_Head_(TV_series)
“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence.” (Krishnamurti)
History confirms what he says. Diversity is great, but only if out of it something new is created. Krishnamurti also says, “Tradition becomes our security, and when the mind is secure it is in decay.” Locked in to what was, seems to be destructive. Being open to new ideas creates healthy change and renewal. What we are, is not what we were, nor what we could be.
Beautiful.
If Jacinda really cared she would take our AstraZeneca vaccine live on television like the other world leaders, to take a stand against rona hate, to show that public medical procedures are safe, to unite the tribes and to show that actions speak louder than words. Innoculate for the people Jacinda, take the dose of holy sacrament as under cover brother joeboxerparker did before you – “it’s the best stuff out”.
This is a well-targeted statement, aimed at the success of Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony. The progress it has made on behalf of the “political causes that are neither kind, nor fair, nor innocent” is extraordinary. Countering ‘this evil that cannot be named’ is a challenge that parallels but dwarfs the Thucydides Trap in complexity. The one subject that no one talks about is comparative morality, thanks to Franz Boas. Yet that should be considered the fundamental issue – universalist deontological ethics, versus the West’s liberal democratic ethics which allows for utilitarianism, consequentialism, virtue and situational ethics, and above all, freedom.
Stick and stones didn’t break our bones (Maori) legislation did taking much of our land denying us our language for fifty years and denigrating our culture.
Well, I dunno what happened there but I must have bumped the wrong keys and my handle came out as ‘ay as were’ L0L !,… its me , – WILD KATIPO,..but ‘ay as were’ sounds kinda cool anyways… I think…?
If words matter, can we at least talk about the bullets that murdered the 51 in Christchurch? Were they sold/brought in the same shop as the Aramoana massacre?
Comments are closed.