The S-Files

Dr Cindy Kiro: The Ex-Nihilo Creator of Human Rights

Contra Celsum has nominated Dr Cindy Kiro, Children's Commissioner for an S-Award.

Citation:

Dr Cindy Kiro has argued before the parliamentary law and order committee considering the anti-tagging and graffiti bill that the bill will adversely affect young people under eighteen. The good doctor is nothing if not profoundly insightful. If you are under eighteen and you are a tagger, we guess it is pretty much right on the nail to argue that the bill will adversely affect you. We are sure the interests of the taggers are being properly defended by their Commissioner.

What is far more difficult to accept is that we, the people, have to pay Dr Kiro's salary. Yes, we actually have to pay for this kind of scintillating social commentary. It is really far too valuable not to have to pay, after all.

But Dr Kiro went on to argue that for some people, graffiti and tagging was a legitimate art form. It provided a sense of community and reflected an expression-based culture. (NZ Herald, 10th April, 2008)

So, let's get this straight. If a group of people think something is a legitimate art form, the rest of the community should make room for it. In a Clockwork Orange world, some people think violent sado-masochistic torture is a legitimate art form. Should we tolerate that too? Violent serial sociopaths have a consistent tendency to see themselves as artists. Would Kiro have us respect their art as well?

One wonders what Dr Kiro means when she uses the adjective “legitimate” art form. Is she claiming that some people think that graffiti is a genuine art form? Or is she claiming that the act of painting graffiti and despoiling people's property should be lawful (that is, not a criminal act because it is a genuine art form? )

If the former (graffiti is a genuine art form), one is left scratching one's head at the relevance of her submission. For surely, if some people regard graffiti as a genuine art form they are absolutely free to hold the opinion and view. Moreover, they can create and express their art to their heart's content—as long as they do it on their own property. Who can object to that? We imagine that everyone on the parliamentary committee would want to defend a person's rights of free expression in that regard. How could this be construed as adversely affecting young people under age eighteen?

If the latter, Dr Kiro must have lost any moral compass she once might have had. It would seem that Dr Kiro really is arguing that despoiling people's property should be accepted as a lawful act by the community because it is a genuine art form.

But it gets worse. In her submission, Dr Kiro urged that the bill should be amended to balance appropriately the rights of property owners against the rights of young people. As we have argued above, there is absolutely no way the current bill traduces the rights of anyone to graffiti their own property if they wish to do so. What Dr Kiro is arguing is that a certain group of young people, who are genuine artists (in their own eyes), apparently have a right to graffiti and despoil other people's property—a right warranted because they are “artists”—and that the community should respect their rights.

Dr Kiro is apparently an expert on rights (in her own eyes). She sees them here. She sees them there. She sees them everywhere. She can even create them out of thin air.

Well how's this, Dr Kiro. We, the people, have rights too. We have a right not to be afflicted with such monumental stupidity from our public servants. Please respect our rights, sit down, cease, and desist from egregious, asinine behaviour.

Dr Cindy Kiro—S-Award Class II for behaviour that is Stupid, Short Sighted and Stupefied.