Entry 2160, on 2021-10-28 at 13:19:54 (Rating 4, Politics)
What right does one person have to force his or her political views on another person? What if the person doing the enforcing is an employer, or a manager, or a team captain, or anyone else in a more senior position of power? What about if the "political view" might be alternatively portrayed as an important social issue? What about if it has been entrenched in a policy or rule of some sort?
Most people would initially find this whole idea quite abhorrent, yet it happens a lot and very little ever gets done about it. It seems that most people just avoid conflict by accepting the inevitable and just pretend to go along with the imposition. Of course, there are also people who agree with the view and happily accept it, but those aren't the ones I'm talking about here. Also, imposition of political views, whether the person agrees or not, is still unacceptable to many people, including me.
So let's have a look at some examples...
First, the event which motivated me to write this post: Quinton de Kock, a South African cricketer, withdrew from the team for a T20 World Cup match because he didn't want to "take a knee" as required by team management.
Of course, the usual politically correct types immediately criticised him, saying he refused to support the drive for eradicating racism. The problem is that Black Lives Matter, and the symbol associated with that, taking a knee, might or might not be associated with reducing racism, depending on your political views.
I would also refuse to carry out that action, because in my opinion BLM is a grossly corrupt, violent, irrational political movement which I don't want to support in any way. Other people might disagree, but it is a matter of political opinion and no one should have the right to impose support for a group like that on another person.
If the management of that team wants to signal their opposition to racism, then they can do it themselves, or ask members of the team to do it in a way that they are comfortable with. It might be reasonable for the management to insist that the players perform in a way that enhances the team's sporting performance, and that might extend to well recognised ancillary activities, like interacting with fans and the media, but there has to be a limit, and supporting a political perspective is going too far.
By the way, unfortunately South Africa won the match, despite not having de Kock (who is a very good player) in the game. That is unfortunate, because maybe if they lost they might have learned some sort of lesson.
So what about another example?
Many people are thoroughly sick of having Maori culture inflicted on them. It is now a requirement in many workplaces to have the Maori language, various customs, and a particular interpretation of Maori history, mostly consisting of a set of real and imagined disadvantages, pushed on them by specialist "educators".
Again, I see this as a political view. Generally the "training" (which is usually closer to propaganda than a genuine learning experience) has nothing to do with the core requirements of the job.
Of course, people should be allowed to learn the Maori language, customs, and history (accurate or otherwise) if they want to. But, unless is is an integral part of the job, I don't think any employer has the right to force their employees to participate in this clearly political activity.
What would happen if the facts were changed around a bit. What would happen if a white business owner forced his employees to learn French or German, and a sanitised version of the country's history? That doesn't seem appropriate, does it? Again, some people might quite enjoy that and do it voluntarily, but if it isn't relevant to the job it seems like an unnecessary and unfair imposition.
Finally, a more interesting case, and one even I have mixed feelings about: mandatory vaccinations...
The latest catch-phrase used by the New Zealand government and its propaganda partners (also know as the mainstream media) is "no jab, no job", meaning that to continue working in certain jobs, you need to be vaccinated. In addition, even if you might be able to continue working without being vaccinated, you would be denied other freedoms, such as travel, attending concerts, etc.
As I said in a post "Just Another Conspiracy" from 2021-10-14, we were initially assured that mandatory vaccines would never be introduced, yet here we are. They might not yet be technically compulsory, but they might as well be given the penalties for failing to comply.
I am a supporter of vaccines (and have had two doses of the COVID vaccine myself) but I am also a supporter of personal freedom. Despite what we hear, the case for COVID vaccines is not 100% settled. On balance I think the case for it is far stronger than that against it, but other people might not share that view. What right does society have to force people into a health intervention essentially against their will?
In this case you might say there are plenty of other similar requirements designed to protect the public: compulsory seat-belts, speed limits, no smoking zones, etc, but that doesn't automatically mean adding another restriction is justified. As I said, for me it is, but I don't like that opinion being forced on others.
The classic libertarian commentary on personal freedom is that we should be able to do anything we want, until it affects others. Which of the three cases above fits into this criterion is a matter of opinion. I would say the taking a knee is entirely a personal choice with negligible direct affect on others. A similar argument applies to the forced into learning Maori culture and language.
But the vaccine case does have a significant component of public interest. Anyone who isn't vaccinated creates a risk to others. I might be persuaded that compulsion is OK in that case. But in the others, definitely not. We need to draw the line somewhere, and forced supplication to a violent, corrupt, irrational movement like BLM is definitely a good place to draw that line.
Not only should Quinton de Kock be allowed to play, but the management should be forced to apologise to him and withdraw all politically motivated requirements on the team. Anyone who genuinely believes taking a knee is a worthwhile contribution to making the world better should be able to do that, but leave the rest of us out of that, and all other similar gestures.
Comment 1 by OJB on 2021-10-29 at 10:22:14:
I see de Kock has apologized, but judging by his comments it looks like he was bullied into it. Kind of ironic, really. No room for alternative views today, apparently.
Comment 2 by Anonymous on 2021-10-30 at 19:56:03:
Personal and societal freedom is important, no doubt. I basically agree with your argument but would like to give example 3 a stronger emphasis. It is like claiming the right to be able to infect between 6 to 10 others with a potentially deadly virus, some of those with a likely lethal outcome. It’s statistics but in real life it has the flavour of a licence to kill.
Comment 3 by OJB on 2021-10-31 at 10:08:40:
Yes, as I said in the post, I have mixed feelings about that one. I think the argument about infecting and killing others is a bit overdone. I think the danger isn't quite as bad as is being suggested by vested interests, but I can also see a case for controls for the greater good of society. But the controls have been arbitrary and unnecessary in many cases. No COVID in the South Island for a year but we still had lockdowns. Why?
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE