Tuesday, September 22, 2009

GUEST POST: “No Blacks - No Dogs - No Mokos!”

Susan’s busy this week, so coming off the bench today as a replacement we have Suzuki Samurai with a little something to offend everyone.
NoBlacks Imagine the consternation, wailing, and gnashing of teeth a sign like this on the right would cause these days.
Geez, just look at the hullabaloo over the moko’d guy that was refused entry to a Christchurch bar. Have New Zealanders become more pathetic over the years? - so sensitive that adults, at the first sign of hurt feelings, run off to tell on each other to the media, or Fair Go . . . or their mums?
What’s happened  over the years is that, bit by bit, there’s been a corruption of what we understand by “individual rights.” At every turn we’ve seen a cultural shift towards becoming a nation of grizzlers demanding a “right” to everything from everyone else – towards an “entitlement” culture – towards the idea that everyone is owed a living at the expense of everyone else.  There is no such right. There is no such entitlement. This moko nothingness is all about the so-called right to not be offended, the so-called right to enter private property uninvited – regardless of the reasons you’ve been locked out. To make it easy for you (i.e. without having to go into a thesis on why no such rights exist), just think about the consequences of taking these rights to their natural conclusion – a place in which everyone is legally obliged to what every anyone else insists they do.
Is that the New Zealand you want to live in?
Now, no doubt you’ll be saying, “...but banning people from places, or not giving someone a job because of an aversion to someone’s race, age, religious persuasion, culture, gayness, choice of T-shirt is wrong, and should be illegal”. While I agree that most of these phobias are irrational, that doesn’t mean that holding these phobias should be illegal. Why not? – because phobias are ideas, not force; and therefore constitute nothing but a state of mind.
How do you make a state of mind illegal while holding to the values of the right to free expression & free speech? You can’t! While you may disapprove of someone else’s ideas – regardless of how awful those ideas are – that someone has a right to be wrong; your only right is to persuade them of their error or stay the hell away from them – that’s it, nothing else!
The point of law protecting free speech is simply to make the world safe for reason and rationality. It doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find it under rock you overturn.
Which leaves us with some pretty clear conclusions. That the property owner in Christchurch who’s been made the fall guy here is, as I said, quite rightly at liberty to decide who he serves in his bar.  That the moko’d one in question is quite at liberty to go somewhere else. That, in that way, everyone keeps their real rights intact. And that, if the Human Rights Commission were to penalise this bar owner, then that in itself would be a breach of free speech and free expression – and as such the only thing here that must be banned.
Freedom to be irrational. If you want to be free to be reasonable, then you have to expect some nonsense to be legal as well.  So get over it.






Labels: , , ,

26 Comments:

Blogger Greig McGill said...

I like you Russell, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. ;)

9/22/2009 12:15:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are more than one or two lefties out there who are convinced that Russell Watkins is the man behind Redbaiter. (seriously)

http://publicaddress.net/system/topic,2091,hard-news-the-conversation-they-want-to-have.sm?p=130476#post130476

9/22/2009 12:15:00 pm  
Anonymous Russell said...

Anonymous: Hahaha - That's a chuckle. If I was was deadbeater I'd give myself a damn good beating, and ask others to help out!

9/22/2009 12:20:00 pm  
Blogger Greig McGill said...

Well, if he is, he makes a far better argument as himself than as RB. Not that all RB's points are automatically invalid, but it gets tiresome to attempt to read beyond the hate filled invective most of the time.

9/22/2009 12:24:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

Anonymous, you appear to have confused two completely different surnames, allowing Rodbeater to pollute a thread without even appearing here. Well done.

Now, back to the topic . . .

9/22/2009 12:35:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous, you appear to have confused two completely different surnames"

So you didn't read the link then ? Nevermind.

In fact if I may indulge one last time, a leading proponent of the Redbaiter = Russell Watkins aka Fletcher is this guy:

http://www.solopassion.com/user/1281 (you'd think he would know better)

9/22/2009 12:43:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

Yes I did. No, he's not.

Now, back to the topic . . .

9/22/2009 12:52:00 pm  
Anonymous Russell Watkins! said...

Anonymous: Indeed - one last time.
I am not him, regardless of you beleiving it to be so.
You'll note that indeed I have the misfortune to share my first name: For clarity my first name is Russell and his first name is Russell, are you with me so far?
My surname is Watkins his surname is Fletcher. You'll note each letter in order in 'Watkins' is different to 'Fletcher' Q E D

9/22/2009 12:55:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I noticed over at Dimpost recently that the Watkins conspiracy is gathering momentum:

http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/obvious-but-worth-pointing-out/#comment-9312

Who is Redbaiter, is he the alter-ego of a Libertarianz party member ?

9/22/2009 01:01:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, I was just taking the piss. Not very cerebral I know but I just thought it might lighten the mood up a bit - apologies, my mistake.

9/22/2009 01:03:00 pm  
Anonymous Richard McGrath said...

The No Irish sign reminded me of a story I read in the paper this morning, about the worst air accident in Irish history. A two-seater Cessna went down in a Dublin cemetery last night. Police have so far recovered 1800 bodies as digging continues into the night.

9/22/2009 01:57:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who is Redbaiter, is he the alter-ego of a Libertarianz party member ?
Fuck no. far too pragmatic & realistic to ever be a member of the fucking Libz.

9/22/2009 05:14:00 pm  
Anonymous Elijah Lineberry said...

I think Russell sums things up well in his post; the bar owner should be able to serve whomever he likes and not be told what to do by the State.

I have found out something interesting in recent days; it seems Rodbeater is a loon everywhere and not just on pc.blogspot.com!

Reacting to provocative posts on here is one thing, and could explain oddball behaviour, but to realise he is 'for real' (so to speak), that he trolls the internet spitting bile and wild eyed hysterical ranting is just bizarre...

Poor chap.

9/22/2009 05:30:00 pm  
Anonymous Redbaiter said...

Anyone with a brain would know that Redbaiter would never write such piffling sermonising patronising shit as the stuff above from that droning bore Watkins. Good grief.

9/22/2009 05:35:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Red

You're trespassing. You were asked to go away. Be a good little eric and do as you were politely told to.

LGM

9/22/2009 05:50:00 pm  
Anonymous Redbaiter said...

Why don't you leave such instructions to the owner of the site you ponderous preaching fool.

(and you need to inform yourself as to the legal definition of trespassing.)

And did the idea ever enter your head that if not for your senseless attention seeking barking, there would have been one less post from Redbaiter anyway? Cretin.

9/22/2009 06:13:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

Yes you're right, Rodbeater. As Russell says in his post, I'm quite rightly at liberty to decide who I serves in my bar. And you're barred.

9/22/2009 06:16:00 pm  
Anonymous Mich said...

Or not giving someone a job because of...

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a lady from England a few weeks back. She was telling me she knew of employers in the UK, who, when they got a stack of resumes, would first look at the name of the applicant, and then where the applicant lived and sort accordingly. Those who had a foreign name, and/or lived in certain (undesirable) areas were put aside in the 'unsuccessful' pile straight away without even looking at education/job history. Personally I would be inclined to do exactly that myself if I was looking for staff. Terribly un-pc in todays non-discriminatory world.

Oh but I can hear the screaming and hand-wringing already. Those that would complain about not been given a 'chance'.

9/22/2009 10:12:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I like you Russell, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. ;)"

Oh, such unction.

9/23/2009 08:20:00 am  
Anonymous Elijah Lineberry said...

Mich, I think British employers doing that sort of thing is admirable.

If a chap has worked very hard to build a company the last thing he wants is some 'foreign' chap working there who planning to blow it up (along with half of London); or the 'Kevins and Garys' from 'Up North' eating chips and drinking pints of Best Bitter when they should be working; or someone from [*SHUDDER*] Essex with their appalling accents which require you to spend half an hour working out which words in the English language they are mutilating.

Sounds like British businessmen are a very sensible lot!

9/23/2009 09:47:00 am  
Blogger PC said...

Mich, I think British employers doing that sort of thing are odious.

When I was an employer in the UK i used to take advantage of antediluvian attitudes as those to snap up good people at good rates -- and then undercut our competitors with our lower cost operation. :-)

Some businessman might be misogynistic and xenophobic, but capitalism discourages it.

9/23/2009 09:53:00 am  
Blogger Greig McGill said...

Anonymous - don't be like that. I was just using a popular internet meme to express approval. Maybe you've not come across that one? I'm no zealot. ;P

9/23/2009 10:24:00 am  
Blogger Ruth said...

Mich, I think British employers doing that sort of thing are odious.

Yes. People from disadvantaged backgrounds are generally harder working and hungrier for success than those from 'good' addresses who drive the right car.

As a case in point - my children are the laziest people I know.

9/23/2009 02:10:00 pm  
Anonymous Mich said...

Ruth
It says a lot about your parenting skills when you say that your children are the laziest people you know.

Look, it may be odious for some employers to sort through resumes in such a manner, the point being, that is their right, even if it is irrational. When you have a few hundred plus applicants for a one job and time constraints... You may just want someone who speaks English as a first language, for whatever reason, and someone from an area where theft and welfare is not par for course.

I don't have a problem with foreigners, IF they come to make a better life for themselves and actually work, and not pray to Allah five times a day and bring with them a stone-age culture. Myself, I would be very hesitant to hire someone from a state housing area. Employers may miss out on a great staff member through such generalising. Remember though, it is very hard to get rid of staff these days, so perhaps when the employement laws relax somewhat and the culture of entiltement changes, those from 'disadvantaged areas' may get more of a look in.

9/23/2009 09:28:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Don't rely on a CV to get your job. It's contacts you need. Most jobs are filled by word of mouth. For example, I'd hire someone who I know or who has been introduced to me or recommended by someone I trust. I'd hire that person more readily than someone from a CV. Build up your contacts and become a "name" in your industry.

LGM

9/23/2009 10:09:00 pm  
Blogger Ruth said...

It says a lot about your parenting skills when you say that your children are the laziest people you know.

You obviously have little knowledge of the world children of the wealthy inhabit.

You are quite entitled to hire someone based on their school or address. However if you think you will get more value from an expensive "Hooray Henry" with other sources of income than from a 'working class' person who actually *needs* a pay packet to survive you are in for a surprise.

Unfortunately quite a few libertarians have a romantic, unrealistic view of wealthy folk.

LGM is exactly right, too.

9/24/2009 11:37:00 am  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home