Ban Homeless People. Ah, Problem Fixed.

Can you believe that poor people actually exist. What’s more, we actually have to look at them! How dare they ask for money so they can eek out a bare existence sleeping on the streets of Auckland. Recently Larry Williams wrote an opinion piece in the New Zealand Herald, the right wing propaganda mouthpiece of middle class New Zealand. Apparently, homelessness has become a problem, nay, “scourge”, on the streets of Auckland and it’s high time the government do something about it.

I love how for people like Larry Williams and Bob Jones (whom Larry cites in his article), the solution to homelessness is to pass a law. Yeah, because laws just magically solve the problem. It’s not the system that puts these people on the street, no it’s simply their choice. To these people, being poor is a choice without actually thinking about the socio-economic reasons for poverty. If poverty was a choice then ostensibly no one would choose it, and we would all live in a utopia. Given the gross abundance of poverty in the world, I think it is safe to safe no one is choosing to be poor, the utopia doesn’t exist, and the right wing talking point of personal freedom is clearly shown to be baseless.

In regards to choice, however, people such as Williams will often point towards poor people’s bad spending habits. In this sense they claim people are poor because they are spending their disposable income on things they shouldn’t be. For this they rely on their own subjective anecdotal evidence, having seen ‘one of them’ in places such as McDonald’s. This leads to another common observation that they are also obese. Clearly they are eating well because is they were actually poor they wouldn’t be able to afford food and they would be skinny. Again, Larry and other right wing hacks fail to actually account for the psychological reasons underpinning people’s desire to eat unhealthily. Such phenomena are compounded by the low cost and mass production of this food.

Heaven forbid however the government actually attempts to tackle these underlying problems through means such as taxes on sugar and fat. So while its okay for Larry to patronise people he sees as beneath him, its not okay for the government to do so to him, even though theoretically the government is meant to be the manifestation of society’s will, which if anything is the only acceptable form of patronising. However I digress.

I think Larry Williams has a hard time thinking that other people actually exist. He mustn’t even think that other people might have the same, or similar, hopes, dreams, and desires as he does. He sees the poor, not as people he can relate to, but indeed, the Other. Someone to contrast and construct his own identity from. This process dehumanises and relegates the issue of homelessness and poverty to an issue that can be solved with positivist law.

The basic legality of any anti-homelessness law should also be brought into question. One fundemental human right recognised for hundreds, if not, thousands of years by humankind, is the right to free movement (slavery notwithstanding obviously). People should be able to move around as they please. It’s only with the invention of provate property have we made the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable freedom of movement. In New Zealand, we recognise this distinction legally between public and private land. When he forbid people from owning the foreshore around New Zealand we think it normal, right, and good that all Kiwis can access beaches and the ocean no matter where they are (there are exceptions to this of course but the point remain nonetheless).

Thus, how can Larry Williams claim that the poor shouldn’t be allowed to sit on the street. It is public property after all. No one owns that land, except perhaps the government. Even so, it is declared public land to be used by the public i.e. by everyone. Homeless people are using it, just not in the way that you like. If people are choosing to be poor, as Larry claims they are, then it follows also by his own reasoning that they are choosing to sit and sleep where they wish. It seems rather hypocritical for Larry to chastise these people for choosing to sit around doing nothing all day drinking and getting high, in other words, being poor, and in the same breathe say they shouldn’t be able to do.

Along this slippery slope Larry will continue to wander mindlessly. I bet that if pressed hard enough Larry would be in favour of forcing the homeless to work in exchange for food and shelter without considering for one second the ramifications of what he is actually advocating. But Larry does not care. And why would be? When he sits up there on his comfortable upper middle class high-horse wanting freedom and personal liberty, what he is really saying is freedom and liberty for me and the people I like, but sorry not for anyone else.

Larry Williams calls homeless people a scourge on our society. It is so ironic that in fact it is people like him, unsympathetic, ignorant, selfish, weaselly little men who see the world in black and white. For all their talk of freedom and personal liberty, these are the people are the most slavish of all. They are slaves ideologically, intellectually, and economically. Larry Williams is the face, or rather, the voice, of a system that oppresses  and exploits the poor and then turns around and blames them for being poor.


NZ Fun Police Strike Again

The political establishment from all sides have rallied this week against freedom of speech and expression. Wicked Campervans, a holiday van hire company, graffiti their vans with ‘offensive’ art and slogans for marketing purposes to distinguish themselves from the other players in the field. Admittedly the slogans are sexist, crass, and might even say, rude. In other news apparently government ministers from both sides of the aisle received memos from the North Korean regime instructing them on how to crush differing opinions that do not fit within the narrow band of white middle-class discourse.

New Zealanders think they are supporters of freedom, a centre pillar of which is the freedom to say and express whatever they will. It’s a shame though that New Zealanders wouldn’t recognise a political principle if it were a grain of sand on a beach. “Freedom of speech, but only in certain circumstances, and only for me”. Those that defend the company’s right to have these slogans on their vans generally say that it’s funny and people need to get a sense of humour. While this might be true, all one needs to do is point to the principle of freedom of speech. Voltaire has been misquoted as saying that, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” This doesn’t just apply to political rhetoric. All speech is protected, even the most heinous and odious.

People who disagree with the company’s rhetoric say they should be censored, and forced to change their vans because it offends them. One woman worried about the kids! Always the kids! Their precious little minds if exposed to such words might shatter into a thousand tiny pieces. Guess what fucktards your shitty arguments offend me, and my mind might explode in second if you don’t shut up. Does that mean I should censor you? No. Of course not, because that would be ridiculous. I’m being hyperbolic to get my point across. Since people disagree on what is and isn’t offensive in different times and places, the principle of freedom to express whatever one wishes, has the added bonus that we don’t have to decide. Everything is on the table, we all free to say what we will, and no one has the right to censor any other.

But how then do we stop an anarchic state of mud-slinging from developing in public discourse. Through reason. Liberal ideas that most of us all agree with in the 21st century have come about because they have been argued for with stronger reasoned arguments, not because we forcibly shut our opponents’ mouths. If you think sexism is wrong, have some reasons for that, not just because you were told to think that way. Censoring people like Wicked Campers does nothing to educate the young people of the difference between acceptable and unacceptable public discourse. If parents are worried that their children will be exposed to such content, they should do their jobs as parents and teach their children to think for themselves critically and to recognise of their own fruition that sexist comments are wrong.

The involvement of the government in all of this demonstrates firstly that they don’t give a crap about freedom of speech, and second, they will swing on the pendulum of public opinion in order to appear as though they are expressing the will of the majority. Some things are off the table for discussion for a reason; to stop dipshit governments from attacking fundamental rights. The worst part of the government’s role in this however is the crackdown on fun they are so hell-bent on pursuing. The vans’ slogans are intended as jokes, and are meant to be a bit of fun. As soon as anyone has fun outside the narrow band of middle white New Zealand the sky falls in and people go into a nervous meltdown worse than any Fukushima or Chernobyl.

New Zealanders like the person who wrote this article ( need to grow up, and maybe read a book or two on political rights. There are more important things happening in the world than some words on the backs of some vans. Instead of writing easy fluff pieces about how the nation is outraged at some “not very nice looking vans”, how’s about they do their job and critique the government.