The Hon Dr. Michael Bassett was a Labour Member of Parliament from 1972 - 1975 and 1978 - 1990. He was a Minister in the Fourth Labour Government from 1984 - 1990. Since then, he has focused on writing books (The State In New Zealand) and articles.
Posted on 11/13/2005 5:57:16 PM PST by NZerFromHK
Over the years I’ve paid my dues to many liberal causes. I belonged to the New Zealand Peace Council and later took a leading role fighting New Zealand’s involvement in Vietnam. I voted for the DPB in 1973 and chaired the first parliamentary select committee to consider a bill legalising homosexuality in 1974. I’ve always supported a woman’s right to choose an abortion, and have strongly favoured their rights to equality. Racial discrimination gets to me where I live: at graduate school in America’s Deep South I joined picket lines against restaurants refusing to serve Blacks, then marched in 1981 against the Springbok Tour. I spent a decade on the Waitangi Tribunal hoping to help Maori help themselves. If I had to explain all this involvement it would be because of a deep feeling that society should try to be fair to everyone. That’s why I’m interested in Don Brash’s identifying political correctness as an issue that has gone too far.
One of the things I’ve noticed is that campaigners for causes are seldom fitted with ‘pause’ buttons. Once they programme themselves to crusade, many never pause to ask whether the end goal that inspired them in the first place has been achieved, or whether continuing the struggle might hurt more people than it helps. Let me cite examples. When we pushed for rights for homosexuals we weren’t intent on making it compulsory. Many of today’s crusaders sound like they do. A woman’s right to choose, her right to equality, and access to a DPB didn’t mean that abortion was the best form of birth control, or that women should be employed ahead of men if there was a man better qualified for the job. It certainly didn’t mean equal pay for unequal job commitment. Nor did it mean that by advancing women’s causes we rejected adoption as an option, preferring instead that a woman bring up her child on a benefit. Some women’s rights advocates even seem to think they must oppose heterosexual relations. Remember London’s Labour Wandsworth Council insisting 15 years ago that portraits of Charles and Diana be removed from the Council chamber because they ‘celebrated heterosexuality’?
And the more the evidence builds up that social problems are linked to single parenting and the mushrooming beneficiary culture, the more those lacking a ‘pause’ button keep pushing for bigger benefits. Their solution invariably leads to more single parenting, more child underachievement, more crime, and more poverty. Worse, if one asks where the good causes went wrong, some bossy crusader or pink journalist pounces on the questioner, and overlooks the question.
Wait, there’s more. My generation struggled for racial equality. It meant equal rights for all races. Somewhere along the line, the advance guards perverted that to mean that all cultures are equal. Nonsense. Over time some cultures became sophisticated; others remained rudimentary. The Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey has observed that when the British arrived in Botany Bay in 1788 a culture that had experienced the first industrial revolution and invented the steam engine came face to face with a culture that didn’t know how to boil water. In today’s claustrophobic intellectual environment the politically correct try to stop you saying such things. If a Maori minority asserts there is a taniwha along a projected route, or that women must accept second-rate status on marae, then this must be accepted.
Nor should we question powhiri at Pakeha gatherings; Maori rights are superior to Pakeha’s because Maori are the minority. As a general rule, when a campaign to help minorities or the disadvantaged becomes a crusade to privilege its own advocates, it loses touch with reality.
Political correctness stifles investigation, too. A landlord recently refused to rent to Maori, claiming a high incidence of unpaid rent and excessive property damage. Did anyone explore his claim? Not on your Nelly.
Instead we got a silly homily from the Race Relations Conciliator. The issue vanished. What I wanted to know is did the landlord have a case? If he did, then maybe his attitude was understandable. If not, the landlord should be held to account for false generalisations. Instead, everyone seems to have been frightened away from the debate.
Political correctness pushes valid views to extremes, then claims some superior human right to justify those excesses, then stifles legitimate investigation and debate. Let’s expose this nonsense before crusading do-gooders completely destroy the public standing of the minorities they claim to be assisting.
The Hon Dr. Michael Bassett was a Labour Member of Parliament from 1972 - 1975 and 1978 - 1990. He was a Minister in the Fourth Labour Government from 1984 - 1990. Since then, he has focused on writing books (The State In New Zealand) and articles.
Dr. Bassett, it took you ALL those years to figure it out?
Good for you. Now join Free Republic!
PC advocates ALWAYS skew the context of any issue.
Its their major weakness! Call them on it every time!
Ping!
If a Maori minority asserts there is a taniwha along a projected route, or that women must accept second-rate status on marae, then this must be accepted.
Nor should we question powhiri at Pakeha gatherings; Maori rights are superior to Pakeha’s because Maori are the minority.
>>
Translation please. WTF is/are "taniwha", "marae", "powhiri" or "Pakeha"?
These are Maori words:
Pakeha = Europeans i.e. whites
taniwha = monster
marae = Maori tribal meeting house
powhiri = a Maori welcoming ceremony welcoming visitors to their maraae. More details below:
http://maaori.com/misc/powhiri.htm
Good article. Says what needs to be said.
Which, of course, was the exact purpose of political correctness in the first place -- to stifle debate.
Does Dr. Bassett not realize this?
And, while I welcome his epiphany, I wonder exactly what it was that brought it about. Doubtless, his ox was gored. Which one...and by whom?
Because they do oppose them.
Bassett was one of the "good people" in the Fourth Labour government from 1984 to 90. He belonged to the reform faction with Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble as opposed to the leftist lot like David Lange, Helen Clark, Margaret Wilson, or the waffling lot like Geoffrey Palmer. When he was Minister of Health, he introduced flat charges for prescription drugs and GP visits. He was actually shown the door by the Labour party ranks' leftists.
Guess which faction remains in Labour today?
Have a look at post 9. He liberalized his economic views in the 1980s, and I suppose just like many mugged by reality leftists his views on social issues got changed alongside as well.
I thought everyone knew how to boil water.
I know. However, I am predicting recent events around the world will see a turning away from the left and political correctness.
The thoughtful leftists will wake up, but I suspect brain dead leftbots like Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Barbara Lee, Noam Chomsky, Bob Brown, Carolyn Parrish, John Pilger, Ken Livingstone etc will stick on to leftism until literally the moment they die.
I.e., he grew up.
The disillusionment with socialism that comes with adulthood...
You are correct there. And they are an important factor in the world's current problems. Muslim fundamentalists have, at least until now, been immuned from scrutiny. And why? Political correctness.
Do you know much about Al Grassby, the Minister for Immigration under the first Whitlam Government?
"One of the things I’ve noticed is that campaigners for causes are seldom fitted with ‘pause’ buttons. Once they programme themselves to crusade, many never pause to ask whether the end goal that inspired them in the first place has been achieved, or whether continuing the struggle might hurt more people than it helps. Let me cite examples. When we pushed for rights for homosexuals we weren’t intent on making it compulsory."
This is where some on the left miss the point. Expanding the definition of marriage to include two people of the same sex isn't expanding the institution of marriage. Rather, it is really the attempt to undermine and destroy that institution.
Some leftists realize this, and hope for that outcome. Others are True Believers and simply want equality for all. But the latter doesn't understand the motives of the former.
Its OK. The Mexica (better known as Aztecs) did not have a concept of the wheel for anything but toys for their kids. You would think it would pop into their head that the rolling devices on their children's toys could be made larger, combined with a box and pushed, but it took Cortes to introduce them to the wheel (and the horse, of course).
Sorry that I haven't heard of him. I only know White Australia policy was officially abolished (though already not enforced in the 1960s) in Whitlam's times. Was he the one attempting to introduce Canadian-style multiculturalism?
"I thought everyone knew how to boil water."
If you live among people and none of them have come up with the idea before, I guess not.
The relevent point would be that the Maori know how to boil water now. If they still didn't, then yes, you could say there's a serious problem with them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.