Add a Comment   Listen to Podcast   Back to OJB's Blog Search Page

Advice to Police

Entry 2358, on 2024-08-05 at 12:43:32 (Rating 4, Politics)

Summary

I argue that police forces, particularly in New Zealand, are increasingly exceeding their authority by creating and enforcing their own rules, rather than relying on laws created by elected representatives. This is exemplified by a recent "training program" on "hate speech" that I believe is political propaganda. I criticise the police for silencing opinions, even if they are based on factual arguments, and for selectively enforcing laws based on political leanings.

This trend is not unique to New Zealand, with similar issues observed in Britain and the United States, where institutions and companies are adopting politically correct policies that go beyond their legal mandates. I conclude that this erosion of trust in law enforcement is detrimental to both the police and society as a whole. I urge the police to focus on their core duties and avoid political agendas, emphasizing the need for open discourse and debate, rather than suppression of differing views.

Full Text

The police are an interesting institution. While I don't like the idea that a bunch of people have power over the rest of us, and I don't like the fact that they occasionally misuse that power, I also have to admit that they are necessary to maintain order.

So it is important that the police have the ability to do what they need to, but it is also important that their power is constrained to what is reasonable and necessary. This delicate balance is usually maintained by the police only enforcing laws which are created by our elected representatives in government, so it would be very concerning if they started creating their own rules, wouldn't it.

But increasingly this seems to be a thing. The police (I'm talking about New Zealand here, but similar arguments apply to most other modern, Western countries) are pursuing their own agenda and have been selectively enforcing laws for years, and now have gone even further and appear to be creating their own.

I'm talking about a "training program" the police management have recently forced their staff to take regarding "hate speech". Here is my comment on X regarding this program: Oh no, not a "training program". We know what that often means: "political propaganda indoctrination".

Here are some examples of things the police don't want you to say any more: that there are only two genders, anything involving the phrase "kiwi not iwi", anything which might be seen as negative to Palestine. For example, recently a woman arrested for "disorderly conduct" when she said "Where is Palestine? What is Palestine? It's not a nation."

It doesn't seem to matter whether these things are true or not. For example, it's reasonable to say that Palestine isn't a nation, and depending on the definitions you prefer, there are only two genders. I fully agree that you could make arguments against these two points too, but why can't we at least have the discussion about it?

It's not just New Zealand police, of course, this problem is affecting public and private institutions and companies around the world.

Police in Britain and the US seem to have a very uneven interpretation of laws depending on the group involved. For example, protests by left-wing extremists, like BLM, are allowed, and even encouraged, but similar situations involving the right (especially what is conveniently referred to as the "far right") are treated more seriously.

Many large companies have strong policies favouring modern, politically correct (or "woke" if you prefer) ideas even though they have no real mandate to hold or enforce those views.

And back to here in New Zealand, it seems almost universal that public institutions will have many policies granting special privileges to "minority" groups, especially Maori. Again, these are not part of law or even part of the current government's agenda. And the current government was voted in partly for their policies of removing laws and policies granting special privileges based on race.

For example, New Zealand's drug buying agency, Pharmac, has created policies based on what appears to be a fictitious reading of the Treaty of Waitangi and used that as an excuse for actions which are racist by any reasonable definition. The government is working on fixing this, but it is very clear that the heads of these organisations are going to resist government direction as much as they can.

Many people have many different perspectives on modern societal issues. If someone disagrees with your views it is just too easy to label that as hate and call the cops. The problem with hate speech is not the speech, it is the hate, and that exists whether it is given a means of expression or not. Also, what is defined as hate is highly subjective. Is it hateful to say that Palestine isn't a country? Whether it is or not is debatable, so let's debate it.

As I said at the start, the police have been given the powers they have as a necessary way to control the unruly elements of society, but this right should not be taken advantage of. If citizens decide they can't trust the police we have a problem. Sometimes the attitude that they cannot be trusted is false, as I have argued in the past when criticising BLM, but if they use their powers to suppress speech just because it doesn't suit their preferred ideology then we really do have genuine reasons to mistrust them. That is not a good situation to be in.

So we need to reject any attempt police might make to control the narrative, not just for the benefit of the people being targeted for inconvenient opinions, but for the good of the police as well, and of society in general. My advice to police is this: stop playing politics and get on with your real job.

Comment 1 (7695) by Anonymous on 2024-08-05 at 16:09:37:

But we have hate speech laws already, so what are the police doing wrong?

Comment 2 (7696) by OJB on 2024-08-05 at 17:16:46:

We do have laws prohibiting speech which encourages violence, but that law has only been used once for a particularly extreme case. Just making derogatory comments about another group is entirely a different thing, and does not appear to be covered by existing laws, which is why the pervious government wanted to extend them.

Comment 3 (7701) by EK on 2024-08-17 at 13:43:54:

Can I ask you for your source re the police training programme? That is most concerning.

Comment 4 (7702) by OJB on 2024-08-17 at 13:57:44:

It has been mentioned in mainstream media, especially RNZ, for the last few weeks. I did hear a story suggesting that might it have been cancelled now, but I haven't confirmed that.

Comment 5 (7703) by OJB on 2024-08-17 at 14:15:12:

It was initially reported by the Free Speech Union, here.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.