A top university academic, selected by former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to head a big project aimed at reducing division and extremism in New Zealand, is currently in trouble for lashing out at the new Government, accusing it of racism, child-hatred, and being a “death-cult”.
I seem to recall that Joanna Kidman, in the late 1980s, was involved with a small Wellington based group called the Permanent Revolutionary Group. In left wing terms they would be described as 'trotskyist'. It became known for destabilising the New Labour Party in its first year, and I remember Kidman was part of that. It is a bit ironic then that she leads a think tank against political extremism.
All this discussion is a way for the government to avoid talking about the real needs of NZ. We have rampant cost of living problems, inequality growing and no policies from this government to tackle them. The racism they show is a way of dividing people and focusing them away from effective criticism of the government.
Well she certainly has what most people would consider extreme views, here's a sample:
She endorsed the statement by a colleague that "dialogue as a human right reflects the whiteness of the mainstream approach to dialogue, which upholds as universal the values of the dominant white culture."
She criticised "white-centred responses" in academia.
She criticised the patriarchy "of colonized academic men, including those who are not Pakeha."
She believes those in media promoting meals on a shoestring budget [household budgeting?] are "sanctimonious middle class gits".
She believes that "settler denial" in sociology is "BIPOC erasure", that universities are "colonial institutions", and that "whiteness has a dress code."
And just to top it off there was this covert threat:
"Settler/coloniser we are your worst nightmare. And we're coming to a university near you."
Lovely, an anti white CRT extremist in charge of the anti extremism outfit. What could possibly go wrong?
I've no idea why you made that assumption "someone".
I'm well informed on the various manifestations of critical theory and the elaborations conjured up to give the gullible the impression that it has any validity and the malevolent an excuse for their resentment and hate.
I can recommend the book Critical Theories by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay for those looking to understand it and the fools, frauds and firebrands that promote it.
Social media is fraught and the cause of much of our current stark divisions. People tend to say what is on their mind without the filters that they would have in face-to-face discussions or in op-ed pieces.
But Joanna Kidman had a reasonable and rational point: "There is so much evidence that military-style youth boot camps don’t work and are expensive...it (the government) wants to snatch children’s lunches.". This is factually correct. Adding "death cult" was certainly overly emotive, but social media thrives with emotion.
David Seymour said, "we are very happy to have that debate on youth offenders". However, when he has been challenged to that debate in the past, he avoided the discussion with typical politcal diversions and red herrings.
We also saw that Seymour's ACT had several list candidates resigning over inflammatory online social media posts.
Seymour himself agreed with Sean Plunket *the day before this was written* that "there should be a pogrom" of government critics. But apparently that's not toxic enough to get a mention, only the uppity woman was.
Just white trash, making out she is a trendy new age maori, worst part is we tolerate this behaviour and reward them with high paying jobs paid for by us the tax payer.
I do worry that this Government seems to have little appreciation of history. I was in Local Government and chaired the Safer Community Council in Christchurch. I visited one of these camps on a number of occasions. They were being used as a method of cleaning up the lifestyles of young people.
The young people left (generally) with their heads held high. However, the good work came unstuck as they returned to the home life, or lifestyle, they had left.
I view these programs as being a palliative. My computer tells me the definition of "palliative" is: "something that reduces the severity of a disease or condition without curing it."
The disease is poverty, both financially and of spirit. Boot camps are a tool used by politicians with little, if any, understanding of these young people's lives.
A cure would indeed be better than palliation but what is the proposed cure and evidence that it will be effective?
Perhaps we are dealing with a social and economic cancer that needs aggressive therapy like surgery, chemotherapy and radiation?
In that case we might be better to realize that social welfare dependency and obedience to socialist central government authority is the cause of the disease that disables people from becoming independent, responsible, productive working adults and cut it out.
I agree that such a cure might be unpleasant for the patients but it might also save them from the misery of dependency on others for their existence and failure to grow into honorable adults.
A good dose of responsibility and discipline might also help to overcome the detrimental influence of having irresponsible, incompetent, selfish and useless parents.
Perhaps it is time for people to smarten up, grow up, harden up and accept the obligation to provide something useful for others in return for what we receive from them?
She may have a good point but a rational debate would list that evidence not just state it. I would expect that from a lay person but not an academic. From my observation of people we generally have a confirmation bias from her comments I would say he is in the camp of strongly against this view point. I am not saying David Seymour or ACT don't have the same problem, they are human they so probably do.
That is why I think David's idea measuring the outcome is a very important one, because we make mistakes, we all have our biases, even Professors. In proper science you have a hypothesis and then you test it, without the testing its not science.
Also ACT candidates resigned, and I assume you think that was right, if so shouldn't she also resign. I think its even true of a public servant, as a political party you are expressing your opinion and seeing if people vote for you so even though some people may not like it, if enough people vote for you then that's democracy.
Ok, now do the bit where last night while being interviewed on The Platform, Sean Plunket said "I use the word advisedly, there needs to be a pogrom. This new government needs to clean house in a whole lot of areas" and David Seymour agreed, although said he'd use a "different word"
Now, maybe I'm a fucking idiot, but when someone says "I use the word advisedly", it means you've thought carefully about what you're saying, and you're not obfuscating what you mean.
Or is David Seymour, a co-deputy prime minister of the country, and leader of the act party, agreeing that there needs to be a pogrom of government critics not toxic like someone rhetorically asking if a government that's pushing policies that will harm children, is a death-cult?
If Ms. Kidman has reasonable evidence and arguments to support her opinions she has every right to present them in a mature and adult way.
If all she can do is viciously attack, label and slander people she disagrees with she is motivated by primitive instincts and emotions instead of reason and common sense.
She seems rude, aggressive and dishonorable and deserves to be discharged from her current roles or influence, influence, authority and power because of her immature and childish behaviour.
I most strongly disagreed with the opinions, values and agendas of Prime Minister Ardern and her socialist colleagues of the last government BUT also with nasty trash talkers who expressed hatred and even proposed violence toward her.
Unfortunately, we have allowed the so called Social Justice WARRIORS to get out of hand and indulge in uncivilized and destructive behaviour instead of demanding that they grow up and behave as responsible civilized adults.
The many benefits we gained from the wise people of the Age of Reason have been lost because of the abandonment of reason in our current Age of Feelings.
This adoration of "feelings" is simply acceptance that we are irrational creatures whose behavior is motivate by unconscious, primitive instincts and emotions.
We are better than that and can avoid tiny tot tantrums (like Ms Kidman's) if we just stop and think like rational adults before opening our mouths and making fools of ourselves.
These aggressive and threatening Social Justice Warriors do not seem to want to grow up and become responsible rational adults and that is a serious problem for them and the rest of us as well.
The problem is not Prof. Kidman herself, but the idea of establishing an academic institute with specific political objectives. That in itself is a political interference and creates bias and distortion. She was only acting out the role given her to act; cookie cutters only produce one shape of cookie. It's fundamental that we can't have any genuine academic enquiry if we've already decided upon the results and conclusions that we want.....
The only good thing to come out of this is it has highlighted the existence of a government agency and sinecure that I, as a taxpayer, would rather see disestablished and the money put into areas such as mental health services, youth training etc. There are agencies worldwide looking into counter extremism; a local version is a $2m + luxury we can do without.
I seem to recall that Joanna Kidman, in the late 1980s, was involved with a small Wellington based group called the Permanent Revolutionary Group. In left wing terms they would be described as 'trotskyist'. It became known for destabilising the New Labour Party in its first year, and I remember Kidman was part of that. It is a bit ironic then that she leads a think tank against political extremism.
Red baiting?? Talk about toxic over reactions. ("I seem to remember" is not fact.)
All this discussion is a way for the government to avoid talking about the real needs of NZ. We have rampant cost of living problems, inequality growing and no policies from this government to tackle them. The racism they show is a way of dividing people and focusing them away from effective criticism of the government.
Well she certainly has what most people would consider extreme views, here's a sample:
She endorsed the statement by a colleague that "dialogue as a human right reflects the whiteness of the mainstream approach to dialogue, which upholds as universal the values of the dominant white culture."
She criticised "white-centred responses" in academia.
She criticised the patriarchy "of colonized academic men, including those who are not Pakeha."
She believes those in media promoting meals on a shoestring budget [household budgeting?] are "sanctimonious middle class gits".
She believes that "settler denial" in sociology is "BIPOC erasure", that universities are "colonial institutions", and that "whiteness has a dress code."
And just to top it off there was this covert threat:
"Settler/coloniser we are your worst nightmare. And we're coming to a university near you."
Lovely, an anti white CRT extremist in charge of the anti extremism outfit. What could possibly go wrong?
I bet you can't even define critical race theory.
I've no idea why you made that assumption "someone".
I'm well informed on the various manifestations of critical theory and the elaborations conjured up to give the gullible the impression that it has any validity and the malevolent an excuse for their resentment and hate.
I can recommend the book Critical Theories by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay for those looking to understand it and the fools, frauds and firebrands that promote it.
Thank you for proving a) that you can't define it and b) you think james lindsey, a far right charlatan, can.
If that's what you consider proof it's hardly surprising you're in thrall to the critical theory cult.
Seriously "someone", do you really expect me to waste my time responding to your baseless assumptions, accusations and insults.
davina, it's ok to be ignorant. you could look it up, but you're too much of a stupid old racist to ever change your ways. fix your heart.
Social media is fraught and the cause of much of our current stark divisions. People tend to say what is on their mind without the filters that they would have in face-to-face discussions or in op-ed pieces.
But Joanna Kidman had a reasonable and rational point: "There is so much evidence that military-style youth boot camps don’t work and are expensive...it (the government) wants to snatch children’s lunches.". This is factually correct. Adding "death cult" was certainly overly emotive, but social media thrives with emotion.
David Seymour said, "we are very happy to have that debate on youth offenders". However, when he has been challenged to that debate in the past, he avoided the discussion with typical politcal diversions and red herrings.
We also saw that Seymour's ACT had several list candidates resigning over inflammatory online social media posts.
Seymour himself agreed with Sean Plunket *the day before this was written* that "there should be a pogrom" of government critics. But apparently that's not toxic enough to get a mention, only the uppity woman was.
The government is entitled to expect senior civil servants and advisors to implement its programmes
If they can't or won't for ideological reasons they should resign or be fired
I wouldn't call it a pogrom, I would call it a neutral, professional public service
Just white trash, making out she is a trendy new age maori, worst part is we tolerate this behaviour and reward them with high paying jobs paid for by us the tax payer.
There will be deaths as a direct result of this Govt's policies, perhaps the Professors comment isn't as far off the mark as it may seem
I do worry that this Government seems to have little appreciation of history. I was in Local Government and chaired the Safer Community Council in Christchurch. I visited one of these camps on a number of occasions. They were being used as a method of cleaning up the lifestyles of young people.
The young people left (generally) with their heads held high. However, the good work came unstuck as they returned to the home life, or lifestyle, they had left.
I view these programs as being a palliative. My computer tells me the definition of "palliative" is: "something that reduces the severity of a disease or condition without curing it."
The disease is poverty, both financially and of spirit. Boot camps are a tool used by politicians with little, if any, understanding of these young people's lives.
Hi Garry, how are you?
A cure would indeed be better than palliation but what is the proposed cure and evidence that it will be effective?
Perhaps we are dealing with a social and economic cancer that needs aggressive therapy like surgery, chemotherapy and radiation?
In that case we might be better to realize that social welfare dependency and obedience to socialist central government authority is the cause of the disease that disables people from becoming independent, responsible, productive working adults and cut it out.
I agree that such a cure might be unpleasant for the patients but it might also save them from the misery of dependency on others for their existence and failure to grow into honorable adults.
A good dose of responsibility and discipline might also help to overcome the detrimental influence of having irresponsible, incompetent, selfish and useless parents.
Perhaps it is time for people to smarten up, grow up, harden up and accept the obligation to provide something useful for others in return for what we receive from them?
Indeed, "ambulance at the bottom of the cliff" comes to mind. Sadly, "the fence at the top" is typically derided as "too costly" or "too PC".
She may have a good point but a rational debate would list that evidence not just state it. I would expect that from a lay person but not an academic. From my observation of people we generally have a confirmation bias from her comments I would say he is in the camp of strongly against this view point. I am not saying David Seymour or ACT don't have the same problem, they are human they so probably do.
That is why I think David's idea measuring the outcome is a very important one, because we make mistakes, we all have our biases, even Professors. In proper science you have a hypothesis and then you test it, without the testing its not science.
Also ACT candidates resigned, and I assume you think that was right, if so shouldn't she also resign. I think its even true of a public servant, as a political party you are expressing your opinion and seeing if people vote for you so even though some people may not like it, if enough people vote for you then that's democracy.
Ok, now do the bit where last night while being interviewed on The Platform, Sean Plunket said "I use the word advisedly, there needs to be a pogrom. This new government needs to clean house in a whole lot of areas" and David Seymour agreed, although said he'd use a "different word"
Now, maybe I'm a fucking idiot, but when someone says "I use the word advisedly", it means you've thought carefully about what you're saying, and you're not obfuscating what you mean.
Or is David Seymour, a co-deputy prime minister of the country, and leader of the act party, agreeing that there needs to be a pogrom of government critics not toxic like someone rhetorically asking if a government that's pushing policies that will harm children, is a death-cult?
If Ms. Kidman has reasonable evidence and arguments to support her opinions she has every right to present them in a mature and adult way.
If all she can do is viciously attack, label and slander people she disagrees with she is motivated by primitive instincts and emotions instead of reason and common sense.
She seems rude, aggressive and dishonorable and deserves to be discharged from her current roles or influence, influence, authority and power because of her immature and childish behaviour.
I most strongly disagreed with the opinions, values and agendas of Prime Minister Ardern and her socialist colleagues of the last government BUT also with nasty trash talkers who expressed hatred and even proposed violence toward her.
Unfortunately, we have allowed the so called Social Justice WARRIORS to get out of hand and indulge in uncivilized and destructive behaviour instead of demanding that they grow up and behave as responsible civilized adults.
The many benefits we gained from the wise people of the Age of Reason have been lost because of the abandonment of reason in our current Age of Feelings.
This adoration of "feelings" is simply acceptance that we are irrational creatures whose behavior is motivate by unconscious, primitive instincts and emotions.
We are better than that and can avoid tiny tot tantrums (like Ms Kidman's) if we just stop and think like rational adults before opening our mouths and making fools of ourselves.
These aggressive and threatening Social Justice Warriors do not seem to want to grow up and become responsible rational adults and that is a serious problem for them and the rest of us as well.
The problem is not Prof. Kidman herself, but the idea of establishing an academic institute with specific political objectives. That in itself is a political interference and creates bias and distortion. She was only acting out the role given her to act; cookie cutters only produce one shape of cookie. It's fundamental that we can't have any genuine academic enquiry if we've already decided upon the results and conclusions that we want.....
The only good thing to come out of this is it has highlighted the existence of a government agency and sinecure that I, as a taxpayer, would rather see disestablished and the money put into areas such as mental health services, youth training etc. There are agencies worldwide looking into counter extremism; a local version is a $2m + luxury we can do without.
It is fact, and I'm still Left. She isn't, not if she accepted a job from Ardern.