Privacy and Public Discourse

The Case of Two Coy Beneficiaries

How diverting the madding crowd has become. We have been thoroughly entertained by the brouhaha over Paula Bennett, the Minister of Social Development (an oxmoronish government department if ever there was one) publicly releasing the welfare benefits being received by two individuals.

Some (Sue Bradford, et al) have muttered darkly about beneficiary bashing. Others have claimed an illegal breach of privacy on the part of the government. Others have expressed outrage over two defenceless individuals being persecuted by the power of Big Brother. The media (some, not all), sensing an outrage in search of a scandal, have rallied round to posture breathlessly. The blogosphere, as normal, carries opinions and views of all stripes. Zen Tiger at NZ Conservative has opened a discussion thread on the rights and wrongs of government releasing personal information as part of a political debate.

So, let's recap. The government is axing certain welfare payments. Two individual solo-mother beneficiaries complain publicly. They use their own circumstances as case studies of why the axe is evil. They are perfectly entitled to do so. But having entered public debate, and having made their own circumstances public as case studies to promote their argument, they cannot--as the same time--claim the privilege of privacy. It does not work like that. Unless, of course, they believe they are above contradiction.

Imagine if an employee called up a TV station, complaining that employers were unfairly hammering vulnerable workers during the recession. As a case in point, he claimed his employer had reduced his wages so that he had been forced into a mortgagee sale, lost his house, and his family were now living on the street. After the inevitable outcry the employer in turn released a statement saying that it had not reduced wages, but it had reduced overtime. Then, the employee responded with a complaint that his privacy had been breached because the employer had no right to disclose publicly that he had been working overtime. That was a private, employment matter.

Yes, that is how stupid this whole brouhaha has been. Shame on cheap politicians trying to make political capital out of it. Shame on the two complainants whose coyness is unbecoming their political activism. Shame on the gullible and complicit media (not all) whose laziness and ineptness beggars belief.

Thankfully, it would appear that the vast majority of commoners have seen right through the posturing of the politerati and applaud the application of a common sense kick up the posterior.

Now the women are reporting they feel bruised. They deserve it. If you live in a glass house don't throw stones. By all means make your views part of public debate. When you do, you have a choice. You can either be completely silent on your personal circumstances, and focus instead upon the issues and principles in a general frame, or your can make your own circumstances intrinsic to your argument. If the former, you are entitled to privacy from your opponents. If the latter, you are not. End of story.