Wednesday, March 29, 2023

New Zealand's most useless public servant

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 making exceptions for 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.

You have to persevere well into Hunt’s piece before he grudgingly acknowledges that Parker was entitled to share her views without being assaulted or shouted down. But you have to wonder at the sincerity of his position, given that he’s spent the preceding few paragraphs effectively excusing the behaviour of the Albert Park mob on the grounds that trans people have historically been oppressed and brutalised. (Really?)

Even then Hunt can’t bring himself to condemn the bullies. It turns out he believes it was the responsibility of the state to ensure Parker could speak safely. Not a word about the protesters’ violent disregard for her rights. It was all the fault of the police.

It’s a rambling, irrational and contradictory article that in the end, dissolves in a morass of meaningless woke-speak.

Meanwhile, we read that the Human Rights Commission has received more than 90 complaints about Marama Davidson’s deranged claim that cis white men are responsible for the world’s violence. We’re still waiting for a journalist to ask Davidson whether she categorises New Zealand gang wars (to take just one example) as non-violent, given that the participants are nearly all non-white. But then she’s so fixated by retributionist ideology that she’s beyond reason.

As for those complaints, expect them to be buried for as long as it takes for the commission’s dissemblers and apologists to find a reason, no matter how spurious, to dismiss them.

Hunt, of course, has been silent on Davidson’s explicitly racist outburst, as he always is when it’s the woke Left inciting ill-will and division.

Is he New Zealand’s most useless public servant? It’s a crowded field, but I think he has that title safely in the bag.


Gary Peters said...

This article needs to be sent to David Seymour, Chris Luxon and all National and ACT prospective MPs with a request for comment.

Believe it or not but there is a war happening right in front of our faces and only one team is fighting.

rouppe said...

“No one’s exercise of free speech should make another feel less free”.

The trans rights group love to say they were exercising their right to free speech.

One can safely assume that Parker felt particularly "less free" as she had to be bundled away. So where is Moana Jackson's spirit when you apply that quote to them?

Paul Peters said...

I agree with the comment regarding a war under way. And if the Labour-Green-Maori Party block does not win the election and any unwoke measures are introduced I expect to see a violent reaction . Hence the Nats will waffle this way and that.

I got told by Labour folk I know that the opposition ''cannot be allowed'' to win the election as so much ''progress'' is in danger. Cannot be allowed....interesting.
I know hardline Labour people personally who see it as that... a war of their ''values'' against the rest...and they say democracy does not work and needs changing to that governance is a means to an end...but who is using who? Radical ''Maori'' have their own agenda and are using Labour at the same time Labour are using radical ''Maori''...will there be a parting of the ways at some point?

I pointed out to the Labour folk that requiring appointed ''Maori'' reps with voting reps to councils (not just seats as such) and requiring clip-on ''Maori'' advisors and reps on all manner of state bodies and institutions, with power, is designed to maintain power for the ''Left'' side of the fence as ''Maori'' generally are heavily that way.

They also want Parliament changed to require all candidates to pledge loyalty to the treaty (their version and rules) or you can't stand if you refuse.
Also that all legislation must be approved by a Maori supreme panel or tribunal as fitting Maori values and world view. In effect parliament becomes a neutered lower house with no final say. Even if 80pc voted non-Left block in general seats and party preference they would not govern. Those labour folk smirked ...says it all. I have known them for years -all ex subs/reporters/media who assume I am on board with it all...and angry I am not.

Diplomatic ties are at consulate level these days . We can talk cats and weather. Contrary views to theirs are ''not welcome'' ...quote.

If there is a wrong election result expect occupations and far worse I expect. Paul Peters

Brendan McNeill said...

This cringeworthy speech from the HRC is a product of the DEI ideology with its totem of victimhood fully on display. DEI has no bias towards competency and no place in a functional public service. It might be hoped that an incoming Government will undertake a radical reform of the Public Service. It's long overdue.

Don Franks said...

Hunt's offering on the situation reads like a try hard fourth school kid's essay. I just hope you're mistaken about the size of the man's salary.

Max Ritchie said...

If this man is the most useless then Meng Foon must be a close second. The sooner an ACT (National will be too busy wringing hands) minister does away with the whole shebang of the HRC the better. AND it’ll save a whole lot of money. Win/win.

Karl du Fresne said...

The salary figure comes from the HRC's annual report.

Trev1 said...

Hunt is worse than useless. There is no human right requiring biological men to be admitted to women's changing rooms or to participate in women's sports events. I sympathise with women who feel their sex and their rights are being obliterated by horrific newspeak like "chestfeeders" or "vagina-owners". I'd be glad for transgender to have their own toilets or sports competitions if that's what they wanted. But as for women, who have fought hard for their rights over many years, leave them alone for God's sake.

Trevor Hughes

Scott Lelievre said...

Yes it appears all the good and the great are on the side of the trans people. Free speech doesn't matter, it's all about the blue haired people feeling good about themselves.

Chris Hancock said...

“from where I sit with my multiple privileges and advantages” how many times do we hear such from the quislings in positions of power. They bleat about how wrong such privilege is, yet none of them are ever prepared to step aside and open a place for someone less privileged, willingly forgoing the excessive salary.

Perhaps their desire for riches supplied by the taxpayer is their true calling. They are happy to abase themselves for such a result, forever twisting the true to justify their immoral behavior to themselves. Bowing and scraping to whoever appears to hold the upper hand. I hope their sleep is fitful at best.

Andy Espersen said...

Bravo Karl, I just love your oratory, your satire, your strength of conviction about Paul Hunt, this discreditable public servant - another hand-picked, woke-biased appointment to the post of Chair of our Human Rights Commission by the abominable, anti-democratic Labour government under which New Zealand has now suffered for 6 years.

I absolutely refuse to believe there was no suitable New Zealander to take on that job.

Roll on October election.

R Singers said...

What I want to know is why NZ Media don't seem to know about the large drag queen assaulting a seventy year old woman, yet foreign media does.

I think this is what the Green Party are referring to as a victory of love over hate.

Karl du Fresne said...

To the regular reader who submitted comments on Paul Hunt’s British background: I decided against publishing them because I’m not sure they can be substantiated. It's true that Hunt was associated with a British Labour Party faction led by Jeremy Corbyn, who was accused of anti-semitism, but to the best of my knowledge there was no more to it than that.

Paul Peters said...

Regarding why NZ media do not report things like a drag queen assaulting a 70yo woman.
From my own contacts and observations there was a view among msm here not to print anything that would incite racism and hate against , for example, Muslims.
So I noticed that when bombings occurred in Europe they were mentioned fleetingly here or ignored .
I recall the outrage over the Crusaders name...folk like Waldegrave were waxing away about the evils of the Crusaders (religious) way back quite selectively of course. Some other broadcasters were of similar vein. Gosh we were the bad people all along. We were lied to in school.
No context of the conflicts in Europe right up to the siege of Vienna and the battles to push the Ottoman Empire out of Europe.
There was also a letter to a newspaper by a young woman lambasting the Crusaders for their ''evils'' and the of the bigger ones here, made it their letter of the week for the research shown. Ummm. I compared it with a Wikipedia entry and it was simply a precis of a one-sided history, I noted the similarities in wording.
As a work colleague told me some things are factual but if they are deemed ''hate facts'' then they are ignored. Facts that portray a minority (deemed) race or religion or whatever (unless deemed right wing) in a negative light are to be ignored or denied or airbrushed out. We see that with the new version of NZ history in schools. Debate and discussion is seen as a tool of the ''haters''.

Linda Reid said...

Is it possible a random member of the general public could do a better job? And if so, can I put my name in the hat? I'm sure I could pontificate at least as well as Paul Hunt.

“No one’s exercise of free speech should make another feel less free”.
I am not responsible for how you feel about what I say. The same words could make someone else feel the exact opposite of what you feel.

Therefore you have no right to silence me. You do have the right to argue with me, to put a counter point of view, and even to not listen. You do not have the right to stop others from listening if they want to.

Alex said...

When your job depends upon your impartiality and you practice bias then, not only are you derelict in your duty, but you have become the problem.

There seems to be similar bias from the police. When the police choose sides they become a gang. They are the police because the public give them the social license to protect all citizens equally.

A biased police is worse than no police.

A biased human rights commissioner is worse than no commissioner.

R Arlidge said...

At $365K pa you'll have a lot of competition, Linda. Hell, for that I'd even learn te reo. But it is truly ridiculous when the vast majority agree that free speech should be a given cornerstone of democracy, barring naturally that which incites violence. Posie, aka Kellie-jay, certainly didn't do that for the facts are she never even spoke, leastwise publicly at that band rotunda or in NZ.
Both Hunt and Foon are incompetent, for neither of them can parse what is "free speech" and that which incites violence. We had the recent instance of Tusiata Avia's "poem", which patently, by even a child's understanding, incited and condoned grievous bodily harm, yet neither of these two could recognise it and call it out for what it was. To think that these two, in themselves, are costing us likely more than $600K per annum, and many times that when adding in their support staff and overheads, all for what precisely? So they can sit and pontificate woke nonsense for no material benefit to society whatsoever. By any measure this is an extravagance we can ill-afford and, to paraphrase Don Brash, they should both be gone by lunchtime.