Does the opposition know that it's controlled?

 

-Andrew Atkin

As long as the opposition is threatened - it's controlled.

Does the opposition know that it's controlled? Yes and no. I don't think the opposition sees itself that way, but I believe it's almost always critically controlled. It operates within strict unspoken boundaries.

It's simple. If you look at the media that 'officially' opposes government, which includes universities, well known commentators and think tanks, etc, you will notice they never hit with words and assertions that could become a real threat to big brother. They're always too polite, immature (sassy) or petty, to provoke a serious public reaction. And I think it's silently deliberate.

Opposition to power doesn't see itself as working for government, but materially they do. They know that if they say things the wrong way, too much, they'll win a target on their backs. For example, the government would then go through their history with a fine-toothed comb, and look for any excuse to somehow do them over, directly or by proxy, or somehow threaten people that they're dependant on, etc (as happened with media giants like Facebook and Twitter).

Insofar as media will not risk creating enemies who can hurt them, they will help the government in practice. Opposition media will then diffuse public irritation by superficially satiating it, as it never talks head on or opens 'dangerous' cans of worms. 

For example, opposition media in New Zealand is challenging the government on having an honest Covid enquiry, which in itself is all well and good. Yet they never state the obvious of which requires no inquiry at all. As follows:

"The government mandated experimental-class injections for a bug with a flu-like mortality profile, which is a serious crime against humanity according to both the Nuremberg code and common sense"...

That hard-hitting but accurate statement is dangerous to government - the preoccupation with the official inquiry is not. So, let's keep it safe, guys. Just stick to the inquiry issue. Yep. Good distraction. It helps stop the public from demanding an outright criminal investigation. The worst that'll happen with an inquiry is a few fall-guys getting hand slaps. No Nuremberg-2.0, so roll on the next "pandemic"...and we, the media, get no target on our backs. Phew. Back in business.

I can give another personal example. The forum, The BFD, published an article of mine that I originally titled "Is the New Zealand government Evil" which was [too?] hard-hitting. The BFD published the article, but changed the title to a basically meaningless and non-clickbait "Does evil lurk behind the mask". Again, I presume the BFD didn't want to provoke to the point of finding themselves targeted by government.

Alas, there's been only one person from the past 30 years in New Zealand that I can recognise as a true non-controlled opposition - Liz Gunn. And sadly, she did indeed find herself in the crosshairs of state power... 

After videoing a friend coming into Auckland airport, the police somehow managed to arrest and significantly injure Liz for her video "crime", and without explaining the law she was breaking. She was later convicted of assault for lightly touching an airport personnel's shoulder, though only to get her attention. Yes, they got Liz on an obviously pathetic technicality. Basically, the state let Liz Gunn (and everyone else) know who's boss. Gunn's new political party, New Zealand Loyal, is now over. It seems there will be no true opposition in New Zealand, thank you. Power talks.

I believe the world we're living in is run by killers. As power is a competitive game, is makes sense that the most ruthless players will gravitate to the top. It seems our world is run by people who take their agenda's so seriously, that they will do whatever it takes to protect them - including assassinations as required. As long as this is the case, as I believe it is, real opposition will be forever hard to find. It takes too much courage.

On sexual harassment and the Law

 

-Andrew Atkin

Assertion: No one should know about an accusation of sexual harassment, until a conviction has been achieved.

Argument: Some years back, there was a story in New Zealand about a schoolteacher who was accused of sexual harassment by a couple of his students. He lost his job. Later, the girls who made the complaint came clean and admitted that they had made it all up, and that they just didn't like him and so wanted him gone.

Now here's the thing. If those girls didn't have their change of heart, that schoolteacher's life would have been over. All his family and friends, and any future friend, would hear him declaring "they made it all up!" but it wouldn't matter. There would be an ugly cloud of doubt hanging over him forever, and the humiliation would be permanent and relentless. 

No future employer would want to have much to do with him either, even if they believed the original accusation was a lie. This is because they wouldn't want to be associated with his 'cloud of doubt'.

So how do we solve the problem? How do we protect people from false accusations, considering an accusation alone can be so terribly damaging? 

First, I will point out that complaints can be false. The schoolteacher incident is probably not unusual. For example, a person can badly over-react to a comment or behaviour, especially if they've been triggered due to a history of personal abuse. Some may even lie for a selfish or vengeful ends, as was the case in my previous example. Also there can be mistakes. If a man accidentally brushes up against a woman the wrong way, yet the woman does not agree it was an accident, then he could be in serious trouble. These sort of things can and do happen.

The solution, I think, is simple. It should be illegal to go public with a complaint of a sexual nature, until some kind of conviction is achieved (the courts should decide). Until then, an open complaint should be considered a serious form of slander and come with proportionate legal consequences. If you believe in innocent until proven guilty, then this is how it needs to be - because, again, a complaint alone is damaging. Materially, is creates a conviction without a trial.

I can imagine some people disagreeing with me, because as Hilary Clinton once said [paraphrasing] "If a woman has been abused, she has the right to be believed". Hilary was doing politics of course, because there must always be evidence to support a conviction. Your word is not enough. This is the way it is, because if it isn't then we might as well abandon our evidence-based legal system, and go back to the stoneage where any corrupt or mistaken accuser can destroy a given target. 

Sadly, this does mean that many real abuse cases will not lead to firings or convictions, which will of course be happening today, but the fact remains you simply must retain the standard of innocent until proven guilty. 

If a women (or man) is worried about the risk of being sexually harassed, then they should organise their life around that risk so to make it as tolerable as possible - there's nothing else you can do. In an ideal world, all bad behaviour would be provable and dealt with. But alas, until we all wear 360-degree bodycams 24/7 (no thanks?) it simply won't happen. And again, proof must be the standard.