Cyber Bullying Laws--Satisfying No-one

Wanting It Both Ways

Choices, choices.  Too much choice.  One of our local bloggers, writing at Kiwiblog has blessed us all with his insight into the disputation over the recent NZ legislation restricting online communications.  The intent of the law is to proscribe cyber bullying.

David Farrar writes:

The Act stated digital communications “should not denigrate an individual by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.”

You can’t choose your colour.
You can’t choose your race.
You can’t choose your ethnic or national origin.
You can’t choose your gender.
You can’t choose your sexual orientation.
You can’t chose whether to be disabled.
But you do choose your religion.
Religion seems the odd one out to me.

The argument Farrar is running rests on the proposition that one should not be ridiculed nor mocked nor otherwise denigrated for matters over which one has no choice or control.  But if you choose to do or be someone, then the law should permit denigrating free speech over your choices.

We are not sure that the "Farrar principle" can withstand critical scrutiny.  But even so, his list has unfounded, contradictory, and tendentious assertions.  Let's have a look at some of them.
We acknowledge it is widely accepted that one cannot choose one's colour or race or ethnic or national origins.  However Rachel Dolezal recently claimed the right to be whatever skin colour and ethnicity she chose to be.  In her case she was indisputably white, but chose to identify as black and became the head of the NAACP chapter in Spokane, Washington.  She was ridiculed for her position and actions--on line--so she would have an excellent ground (were she living in New Zealand) to claim that was subject to cyber bullying and denigration.  And since Farrar's list makes human volition the absolute arbiter as to whether denigration is permissible or not, his position is already in trouble, courtesy of Dolezal.

Secondly, Farrar's list falls foul of avant garde post-modern thinking, when he avers, "you cannot choose your gender".  Trans-genderists will be up in arms at that assertion.  The whole point of Facebook having 65 (and counting) different genders is that people very definitely can choose their genders, don't you know.  His white supremacist male hegemonic oppressive world-view is deeply offensive at this point. Just to assert Farrar's  point will doubtless be deeply offensive and denigrating to any who have chosen any of genders number three through sixty-five.

Further, Farrar alleges you cannot choose your sexual orientation.  Whoa.  The whole argument of the Miley Cyrus's of the world is that sexual identity (in contrast to gender--since the two have been completely broken apart and disaggregated in modern secular discourse) is a choice.  To be sure, her choice is a perversion, but does Farrar really want to claim that "she was born that way".  How about those who are "orientated" to sex with animals.  No choice here.  Move along.  How about serial polygamy?  How about serial lechery? How about pederasty? All of these "behaviours" and "orientations" arguably reflect one's sexual identity, and who is Farrar to suggest otherwise?   None of these benighted states reflects a choice.  Of course, were one to introduce just the slightest hint of moral choice when it comes to human sexuality, Farrar's list goes up in smoke.

How about this:  Farrar asserts: "But you do choose your religion.  Religion seems the odd one out to me."  In Farrar's white, heterosexual, middle class, and male perspective religion is a matter of personal choice.  How glorious that such an emphatic dictat could be insouciantly plucked out of thin air.  We are curious how Farrar would plead his case in this matter if faced with a Yasidi woman who converted to Islam under the proposition that were she to refuse, she would be ritually beheaded.

David Farrar is speaking and reasoning out of his particular perspective: white, middle class, liberal, male, hegemonic, etc. etc.  His list about human determination versus choice is, therefore, meaningless outside of, or beyond, his particular perspective.  One wishes that Farrar would be more aware of, and sensitive to, post-modernist theory and modern Western relativism when he conjures up such normative lists.

Farrar's list will please no-one.  Not even himself, if he thinks a bit more about it.  Without a moral centre that is absolute, nothing holds.  Farrar should know this by now.