Add a Comment   Listen to Podcast   Up to OJB's Blog List

Stirring Up Trouble

Entry 2360, on 2024-08-22 at 20:00:25 (Rating 4, News)

Summary

I believe that "troublemakers" play a crucial role in society by challenging established norms and encouraging diverse perspectives. I argue that while sometimes these individuals may be motivated by amusement or malice, their actions can be valuable in promoting critical thinking and exposing flaws in existing ideas.

I highlight several figures in local and national politics who embody this role, including Shane Jones and Winston Peters in New Zealand and Lee Vandervis in Dunedin, New Zealand. I emphasise that even when disagreeing with these individuals, their contributions are valuable as they force people to confront different viewpoints.

As an example, I discuss a recent controversy involving Lee Vandervis, who expressed criticisms of certain cultural practices related to Maori culture, sparking accusations of racism. I defend Vandervis's right to question these practices, arguing that they should be open to discussion and scrutiny, even when dealing with protected groups. They criticize the council's "zero tolerance towards racism" policy as a disingenuous attempt to silence dissenting voices.

Ultimately, I advocate for a culture of open debate and encourages a fair and balanced approach to examining all viewpoints, regardless of their popularity or potential for controversy.

Full Text

I kind of like stirring up trouble, and I quite like other people who do it too. I fully agree that sometimes people just do this for a laugh, or for malicious reasons, but often it can be quite valuable as well, especially when commonly accepted standards are attacked.

So I don't comment on Facebook, X, YouTube, etc, or argue with people in real life (IRL) just for the fun of it... well, not often anyway. I usually hope to achieve something useful through my dissent, even if it is just to show that other perspectives exist, or to initiate a small amount of doubt in my debating opponents.

So being a "troublemaker" is a valuable, in fact essential, role in my opinion. When I see people causing trouble in a political context I generally approve of it, because although these people sometimes just argue for no good reason, or to waste everyone's time, or to cause division in groups, I still think the role is important for the times it does rationally challenge established views.

There are a few examples which stand out in local and national politics (for the benefit of my overseas readers, local here means Otago, and national means New Zealand, but these principles apply everywhere).

Nationally the best example of this, arguably, is Shane Jones. He is a member of the current government, and is a senior member of a minority party in that government, called New Zealand First. He does have a habit of being quite "robust" in his criticism of institutions and events which other people are far more subdued about. Sure, he sometimes gets things wrong, or goes too far, but that can apply to everyone, except in most cases people don't go far enough.

So despite the fact that I sometimes disagree with him, or think he has got too critical without sufficient evidence, I do think his role is important, and I always know that when he is being interviewed by the media that you will hear something interesting. Too many other politicians aren't prepared to say what they rally think (our prime minister being a great example).

The leader of this same party, Winston Peters, and to a lesser extent, the leader of the other minority part, David Seymour, also stand out in this area. They're not always right, but what they say matters.

Locally this role is held by a Dunedin City councillor by the name of Lee Vandervis. He has been a member of our council for years and has always had a reputation for being a maverick, for calling out the more conventional members when he perceives they are wrong, and for just generally being a trouble maker.

I vote for him every election, because his role is important. Again, I don't always agree with him, but I often do, and even when I don't I appreciate his alternative views being expressed anyway.

Here's an example of an unpopular view held by Lee. He was recently criticised for making "anti-Maori" comments at a public council meeting. According to our local paper he "objected to marae (Maori meeting house) protocol compliance requirements, a hui (meeting) agenda that was not understandable by non-Maori speakers, and to an expectation he sing waiata (Maori songs)." He also "took issue with Claude Monet's La Debacle work being accompanied by irrelevant 'Maorified' text at the Dunedin Public Art Gallery."

Of course, criticising anything associated with a "protected" group like Maori is always going to cause a reaction, even though similar comments for other groups most likely wouldn't, so he must have known this would be the result. But in general mavericks not only know what the reaction will be, they actually enjoy it!

So I think this was an entirely reasonable thing to question, but do I think he was right? Well, you might be surprised to hear I have a nuanced view on this! I'm not sure what the marae visit requirements were, but I suspect I might have objected to them too. Of course, the people who run the marae have the right (within reason) to establish their own protocols. If they don't suit a visitor's beliefs then maybe that person shouldn't visit, except sometimes these visits are required as part of a person's work.

If the agenda was not understandable then that is also an issue. I suspect it was interspersed with a lot of Maori words, as is common now, so a translation of those should have been provided. It's not just polite to do that, it is also common sense (remember when we used to have that?)

As far as singing the waiata is concerned, I cannot see how that is a valid part of any reasonable formal meeting so that should be optional, surely.

Finally the Maori text on the Monet work. Well, again I have a nuanced view. If there is the occasional use of Maori words, as long as the meaning is clear I guess it does no harm, but you have to ask why was this necessary. Maori have no obvious connection with Western art, and the use of the Maori language must have been purely for the purpose of virtue signalling, so sure, criticism of this is also fine.

The other councillor, who initiated the complaint, said "In the wake of the March 15th (2019) terror attacks in which 51 Otautahi Christchurch Muslims were murdered and 40 injured, council adopted a position of zero tolerance towards racism."

But what a load of BS that is. It's a completely dishonest attempt to link a terror attack with a simple opinion on culture. And even though it is BS, it is still OK to hold that view, although it should be open to criticism, just like the view it criticises was.

Let's just get every view out there and fairly debate them. Is that too hard?

Comment 1 (7706) by Ralph on 2024-08-22 at 21:24:08: Totally agree

Comment 2 (7707) by EK on 2024-08-22 at 22:07:28:

I also have a nuanced view on your musings but totally agree with the main thrust of your argument. Mavericks, jesters, dissidents, cynics, etc. perform a vital function, especially in a democracy. To enforce unanimity is the death of it.

Comment 3 (7708) by OJB on 2024-08-22 at 22:43:58:

Yes, very well put EK, thanks for the support, and also thanks to Ralph!

Comment 4 (7711) by OJB on 2024-08-25 at 21:05:50:

I see in the ODT that "DUNEDIN city councillors have questioned the sincerity of an apology by outspoken councillor Lee Vandervis for comments he made about Maori." Really? I'm shocked! Shocked!

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.