Drop the hate, not the debate

Politics is a minefield. A misstep or stumble can end a career, maybe even a party. There is an art form in picking your way through the destructive detritus while maintaining integrity, and some heat on your opponent over issues deemed important.

If things weren’t tough enough for Simon Bridges and National, they now have at least 51 more mines to negotiate in plotting that path. Many of us are similarly struggling. Immigration has always been a sensitive subject in this country, even though we take a small number of refugees compared with other nations, and our immigration policy is generally targeted at people who can bring desired skills, money or preferably both.

But as Bridges has discovered, post March 15 and the Christchurch mosque shootings, finding the right path through and around such a sensitive topic can be more hazardous than ever.

National’s leader has found himself on the uncomfortable side of recent history, promoting a stance on the United Nations Migration Pact similar to that of the alleged killer of 51 people, and the far-right nationalists who support his hateful ideology.

Some of those people made their voices known in public, open-air forums up and down the country, a few days and weeks before the shootings. At least one was held in Christchurch.

Along with a smattering of alt-Right voices and other disaffected people were those representing ACT and the New Conservatives.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has questioned whether Bridges and his party acted responsibly in the way they campaigned against New Zealand

signing the UN agreement, and by possibly highlighting the fear behind it, rather than the facts.

Bridges and Co raised concerns about the risks of diminished sovereignty and borders, despite Crown Law advice that dismissed such concerns.

Some of them have also been raised by other nations, notably the United States and Australia.

However, Ardern says such worries are unfounded; the document is non-binding and there is legal advice to support her position.

If genuine democracy is best represented by the breadth and robustness of debate, then our representatives should be free to raise issues that might have an impact on this country and its laws but they should have a basis in fact.

Clearly, in the wake of March 15, that debate should be sensitive to the ongoing suffering of victims, family and the wider community.

And those conducting the debate should be mindful of its impact in the various echo chambers that exist beyond the pale.

But not being able to hold strong, factual debate on subjects of importance to this nation would add another victim to the gunman’s awful tally, and hand one more victory to their ideological henchmen.

We have, of late, become more used to the idea that our words and actions can have more heft than intended, especially if the subject is around gender, sex and immigration.

Our politicians can show a great deal of leadership in helping us plot our own path through the minefield, by continuing to honour the democracy of debate, and applying just enough weight to inform, rather than inflame.

... not being able to hold strong, factual debate on subjects of importance to this nation would add another victim to the gunman’s awful tally ...