By Chris Trotter*
It's a pretty confronting video. Recorded in Starship Hospital, it shows “Baby Will” being taken from his protesting parents for pre-operative tests. Perhaps the most jarring aspect of the video is the father’s loud and repeated accusations that the Police officers present are acting illegally. As if the court case, which the father witnessed, was of no significance. As if the judge’s decision – which found in favour of the medical authorities seeking guardianship of the infant so that the life-saving surgery he needed so urgently could go ahead – was not binding. Clearly, the “reality” inhabited by the father differed radically from the reality inhabited by the Police officers, the medical staff, and the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders.
Kate Hannah, of the University of Auckland’s “Disinformation Project”, characterises the situation depicted in this disturbing video as “a split reality”. Human-beings in the same room, breathing the same air, and utilising the same light, nevertheless believed themselves to be engaged in entirely different activities. “Baby Will’s” parent believed their child was in imminent danger and were trying to protect him. The Police and Starship’s medical staff believed they were doing what was necessary to save a baby’s life. Tragically, the impasse could only be resolved physically – by the Police officers interposing their bodies between the child and its parents.
Much of the responsibility for the emergence of this split reality lies with the augmented powers of communication vouchsafed to “ordinary” people by the Internet and social-media. It is now relatively easy to pour false or misleading information into the minds of tens-of-thousands of citizens.
Ironically, these extravagant lies have the power to effectively inoculate their victims against the truth. If people can be persuaded that, as Donald Trump insists, “the whole system is rigged”, then all the officially-sanctioned expertise in the world becomes untrustworthy. The alienated masses’ response to ‘the facts’, echoing Mandy Rice-Davies’, becomes: “Well, they would say that – wouldn’t they?”
It would, however, be wrong to think that this triumph of misinformation and disinformation is a new thing. Technological innovation has empowered all sorts of communications over the centuries. The equivalent of a twenty-first century video, recorded on a smart phone, for example, might be the anti-elite graffiti daubed on the walls of Ancient Rome; or the inflammatory religious pamphlets, illustrated with blood-curdling woodcuts, rolling-off the new-fangled Protestant printing-presses of the Sixteenth Century.
If ever there was a time of split-realities, it was during the Reformation. At stake in this great 100-year-long falling-out between Christians was nothing less than the individual’s immortal soul. The perceived existential threat, registered by Protestants and Catholics alike, wasn’t just to their well-being in this world, but to their long-term location in the next!
But, if religious disputes were bad, political conflicts proved to be even worse. In no other facet of human existence are split realities more common than in the hotly contested realm of political belief – and action.
Consider the following passage, drawn from an editorial published in The Dominion on election-day 1938:
“Today you will exercise a free vote because you are under this established British form of government. If the socialist government is returned to power your vote today may be the last free individual vote you will ever be given the opportunity to exercise in New Zealand.”
A level of paranoid hyperbole to rival even the most egregious National Party troll on Twitter!
Not that Labour Party voters took their lead from the Tory press – not in 1938. That was the election in which Labour received its greatest ever share of the popular vote, an astounding 55.8 percent. If reality was split in 1938, then Labour’s portion was a large one. Not even the united and venomous opposition of what we would today call the “mainstream” media could shake the loyalty of Labour’s voters.
The reality inhabited by working-class New Zealanders prompted an unequivocal endorsement of the government they had elected in 1935. Change had been promised, and change had been delivered. And “their” government wasn’t finished – not by a long shot. A vote for Labour in 1938 was also a vote for “Social Security”. An eponymous Act of Parliament, passed before the election, was due to come into force on 1 April 1939. If New Zealanders wanted a welfare state, then they knew what to do.
There are some interesting parallels between the elections of 1938 and 2020. Both came after a sustained period of crisis – seemingly overcome as the result of Labour’s inspirational leadership. The voters were grateful; they were keen for more; and they were willing to vote for it – even some National supporters. The big difference between 1938 and 2020, of course, is that Jacinda Ardern had nothing like Mickey Savage’s Social Security Act waiting for voters on the other side of the ballot-box.
Not everybody was on-side with Savage’s agenda. In the wake of Labour’s landslide victory, and with the Social Security Act’s coming-into-force date fast approaching, forces on the other side of the Thirties’ fractured reality struck back – torching the new Social Security Building that was rising out of its Aitken Street building-site, barely a stone’s throw from Parliament. The smoke that swirled around Parliament in February/March of 2022 was not without precedent.
Those ugly scenes in Starship Hospital this week are an echo of the unprecedented divisions that opened up in the months immediately following the 2020 Labour landslide. Future historians will sift through those months for explanations as to how and why the love for Labour and its leader was lost. Much will be said about vaccination mandates and extended lockdowns, but those, alone, will not be enough to explain the steady erosion of Labour’s position.
Perhaps, we should ask ourselves what would have happened to the mood of New Zealanders if, in the wake of the arson attack in Aitken Street, Savage had announced that, in the name of national unity, he was going to repeal the Social Security legislation. Imagine the sense of betrayal, the sense of loss. Imagine the level of animosity ordinary working-class voters would have directed towards the Labour Party. We can only speculate as to whether or not it would have exceeded the disappointment experienced by the New Zealand electorate in 2021/22 as kindness was cancelled, and the Team of Five Million disbanded. One outcome, however, is easily predicted – reality would have become even more dangerously fractured.
Except, of course, Mickey Savage did not do that. This is how I described his response to the arson in Aitken Street in No Left Turn, published in 2007:
“We have got to get the Social security Act working on April 1st and it’s going to work”, Savage told the country […..] and his government were as good as their word. “We are not going to weep,” said the irrepressible Minister of Public Works, Bob Semple. “It is a question of getting our backs into it, and getting the job done.” While firemen were still dampening down the smoking ruins on Aitken Street, Semple promised the construction of a replacement building within six weeks. The Public Works Department, Fletcher Construction, and the building firm of R.C. Love began work immediately on a site in Aotea Quay. James Fletcher admitted that this schedule would “necessitate the working of two 10-hour shifts, and it is anticipated that approximately 150 men will be required for each shift”. It is a measure of how vital the replacement of the building was seen to be that the normally obstreperous building trades unions agreed to work the site around the clock. Even more remarkable is the fact that the contractors agreed to take no profit!”
On March 27th 1939, Savage opened the new building. As the economic and social historian, Bill Sutch, later recalled: “The ceremony took place in the presence of thousands of people, in time to mark, five days later, the end of poverty.”
That’s how you hold a country together.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
59 Comments
CT makes good points and I note he focus's on his preferred Labour party for examples. But I would go further to add that politicians of all ilks have on multiple occasions sold the public of NZ a BS raft of policies with little opportunity to validate what they have claimed, or to hold them to account.
Even the debates on this site routinely demonstrate that many are reluctant to put responsibility for much of the policies in NZ on the politicians, but rather blame the voters who put them in power. And they manage to do that while blithely maintaining their blinkers for the politicians they would prefer and whether they would have done anything different.
In the end though what can be done about it? We are a democracy, and the means of keeping our politicians honest is only effectively at the ballot box, so no matter who we favour, we must get out and vote when the opportunity presents itself.
Seems to me a big factor in the 'split reality' issue is that as a society (and this isn't just NZ of course - America, for example, is even more extreme) we seem increasingly incapable of holding middle ground, balanced views, and this forces people into more extreme camps; at least those willing to publicly express their views.
Take the whole vaccine issue.
To those in the vocal pro-vaccine camp, anything less than prostrated worship at the feet of Albert Boula and belief that "N+1" is the right number of doses, meant you were a dangerous conspiracy theorist hell bent on wiping out every OAP and immune compromised person in the country.
To those in the vocal anti-vaccine camp, any attempt to point out that there is clearly some benefit in terms of reducing hospitalisations and deaths, and that the health system was at potential risk of collapse, meant you were a jack-booted fan of government tyranny and oppression.
I'm sure there were plenty of us in the 'middle ground' who could see the individual and societal benefits but weren't on board with mandates (and can accept that the vaccine isn't some miraculous wonder drug, at least based on current performance) but sticking your head above the parapet with that line of reasoning would lead to shots being fired from both sides.
Because only the vocal extreme sides get airtime (and that was definitely the case with Covid, at least until recently) it pushes those falling out of the middle even more to the sides.
It seemed like common sense that a number of people of all ages should stay unvaccinated. There were a group of people willing to volunteer to do that. This nanny like behaviour of the state is extremely dangerous. Let people make their own decisions whether it be a mistake or not. Treat all people the same. There was definitely a high degree of unconscious racism in the government's rationale for forcing vaccinations.
Would you apply that to which side of the road a motorist should use and if not why not?
Actually I agree with you on Covid vaccinations but that has a chunk of hindsight. When the vaccine first arrived my fear was that being over 70 could mean an about 10% chance of a nasty death if I became infected. If that meant having my four young adult children vaccinated to reduce the risk of an out of control epidemic then I was in favour.
I suppose what I want is best action for the information available but politicians willing to say the facts have changed and so will our policy. That applies to other matters - a government that admitted it had made mistakes might sway my vote.
Good point about the 'middle way' - it's been promoted by philosophers and religions since forever;
Some issues don't fit. I went to a British grammar school and then Britain changed to a comprehensive system. Some argued you could have both and you can't. Then consider pornography - the extreme remains effectively illegal but the middle way means some fairly objectionable stuff is easily accessed; when I grew up my parents and the community I lived in controlled my access but now with toddlers on the internet it is not possible.
But it does fit even those examples. Where the internet is concerned regulation very early on would likely have been the way. No idea how that might have been achieved but we're now looking in a rear view mirror and asking how did it all go so wrong. I see the problem as simple - ethics. We never applied an ethical lens to its development - nor the development of technology in general. It seems we only react once the problem is upon us - a bit like the reaction to Dolly, the sheep.
Your first paragraph is a good point. I've argued before that most people when debating tend to be extremists. They're all or nothing. It's a bit like Darwin's evolution v creationism. The biggest argument comes from the religious. But they don't seem to be able to accept that God, who know all, when he created the creatures, had to also know that their environment would change, and therefore he must have built in an ability to evolve, to adapt to the changing environment. So evolution is as much a creation of God as the creatures he created.
Today people argue that governments shouldn't regulate markets, even when they know that the players manipulate the markets. The argument is not about governments controlling markets, but simply regulating against extreme behaviours and actions. Some where in the middle is where the most effective solutions lie for most issues.
I get that. But many clearly don't. But it was just an example to demonstrate the position.
I grew up with a partial quote from Rudyard Kipling "...the twain shall never meet", that was often used in reference to opposing parties. Politicians are good examples. It is perhaps that people are insistent on winning an argument (by implication being 'right', but that is not what winning means) or appearing weak. Being reasonable on the other hand and being able to accept another's point of view or perspective and compromising when there are recognisable merits to that perspective, in my view demonstrates a greater strength over winning.
This also applies to scientists, who regularly make unscientific statements that must be accepted or else you're the dummy on the other side. There's a difference between scientific statements (which can be expressed mathematically) and statements by scientists (which can be faith-based or demonstrably false). Both sides of that particular debate are guilty of not accepting that the other side occasionally make accurate statements, preferring to take a 'them or us' approach to debate.
...any attempt to point out that there is clearly some benefit in terms of reducing hospitalisations and deaths...
This is just a minor point, but is there any actual solid evidence to show the covid19 vaccines reduce death? The official Pfizer clinical trial that involved about 46 thousand people and which ran for 6 months certainly did not show any reduction in deaths among the vaccinated. Some argue however, that there was a weak non-statistically-significant increase in deaths among the vaccinated from cardiovascular issues though.
Hiya - I'm by no means an authority - but this is what I understand:
Maintaining blood safety requires a large, homogenous pool of donors that allows for other blood-borne illnesses and issues to be 'smoothed' - and the key processes in place to allow for this can't easily be replicated to hold another 'pool' (of unvaccinated donors) safely and cost effectively.
The decades taken to get this right, following international convention, make it a difficult thing to offer - especially when most (if not all) scientific advice and evidence appears to make the need for this redundant.
D
Ye,s we could not offer a separate pool but we could require a stand down measured in days (it's 28 days for Moderna) instead of hours to help reassure people. Despite, the tiny risks I don't want a partial of dose of the vax again.
https://www.nzblood.co.nz/knowledge-hub/covid-19/covid-19-vaccines/
For vaccines and booster doses that require no stand down, please wait until the day after receiving your vaccination or booster dose before donating, provided there is no inflammation or infection at the vaccination site.
I believe they had 200 unvaccinated blood donors available to them. But (a) it would have imposed an extra cost in taking and storing their donations separately and (b) who given a choice wouldn't prefer the 'unvaccinated blood' - just one less factor to worry about. You end up with a situation like the UK where less than 5% of the population insist on halal meat but that is what most restaurants provide. It would only be practical if you paid for blood (is that done in the USA?) and our society considers that wrong.
I used to crossmatch blood for transfusion. More than once us lab staff would take blood off each other to provide really fresh blood for the patient in need. Anyone who talks of extra expense of getting unvaxxed blood for donor use is just talking rubbish. It is no big deal organising something like that.
The problem the authorities have is that the people in charge of transfusing, and the people in charge of vaxxing, and the people in charge of paediatric heart ops are in the same team. They have to stick together. Otherwise they think that their whole empire will fall apart. Nobody has asked the opinions of the medical people at the actual coal face of the above three departments. We would find they would be in breach of their employment contracts if they went public. Only people from the PR firm hired to spin the project are allowed to speak. The big spin is that the whole medical world is walking in step against the parents.
In some ways Labour are trying to solve too many problems at once and mistaking their endorsement in 2020 as a license to do whatever they wished. Forgetting the old adage of ‘carry the people with you’ when implementing change. Which of course means listening to them and keeping them well informed every step of the way. They have lost their mandate by a combination of ‘too much too soon’ like the eighties and not listening to their constituents.
Perhaps true but there was a push for transformational change with that second term being such a landslide;
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/is-the-pm-a-transformer-or-just-a-manager
Perhaps they just picked the wrong sorts of transformation - and I suspect the 'big' miscall relates mostly to shared/co-governance that sits behind the reform proposals for 3Waters, RMA repeal, health etc. The bad policy decision to my mind is trying to implement this ideal via individual pieces of legislation rather than via open, transparent and inclusive discussion around actual constitutional change.
Thing is you can't do the latter inside a single term, but they should have made a start on the process/discussion that was robust, professional and equitable such that the impetus would survive a change of government.
I agree. The shared/co-governance is the problem. That in itself pretty much dooms most new reforms - people will not read past that point.
The govt is blind to the anti M sentiment of the ever-growing migrant population. Labour will be disenfranchising this group with their M agenda (of which I am not defending or supporting)
Trouble lies ahead between as ill feelings grow between them.
I agree - my impression is that there is far more opposition from homegrown NZers. Seems to me (again anecdotally) that the more generations ago their families migrated to NZ - the more 'invested' they feel they are in the issue, and the less interested they are in applying a rational lens to what effect colonisation, followed by neoliberalisation has had on different sectors of our population..
The impression will be based on whom you mix with.
As for home grown. The home grown lower class, yes I'd agree. The reason of course is that they are equally as disenfranchised, however don't see much 'help' coming.
Not every kiwi got gifted a bundle of land when they are arrived...very few in fact.
A fairly indirect way to get to it but your centre sentence points to the real problem. In that it is the quality of economic policies being put in place that are the problem. They favour wealthy over the rest and the disenfranchisement only ever gets worse and harder to fix. Especially when it spans generations.
Yes Kiwi. I am somewhat against 3waters. But it's not a biggie, just one of a number of disfunctional plans and processes we are dumped with.
However I am extremely hostile to the undermining of democracy 3waters is the Trojan horse for. I don't believe the instigators are concerned about water at all.
Democracy has: one person one vote:. secret vote: and minimisation of gerrymander.
I particularly like the secret vote. You can tell your employer, your workmates, your loved one, your Iwi, etc etc that you think one thing. Then vote as you wish.
In case you haven't read it - a great interview with our newest MP;
https://e-tangata.co.nz/korero/tama-potaka-for-maori-theres-no-economy-without-identity-and-society/
What a wonderful asset for the National Party.
I agree. The co-governance distracted from a basic problem with three waters: it may or may not be a good idea for drinking water and waste water to be controlled by fewer, larger, better resourced but remoter agencies but clearly storm water is best handled locally. For example run off from my property is quite different to the house next door or the house across the road. This seems to never be discussed.
The second term election landslide for the current government was 100% based on the positive perception of the voters towards the government's handling of the covid pandemic. The government at present is trying to favour a minority against the wishes of the majority of Kiwi voters. Democracy never works for people who try to do this. The next election will show this. So far only 6 government MPs have pulled the pin, as they have realised the futility of trying to carry on as MPs. The numbers will grow over the coming months.
Mostly but not exactly 100%.Suggest two other elements at play too. Firstly dismay in the electorate about the upheavals and some shocking exposures of behaviour in the National Party simply turned voters off. Secondly a perceived swing of some National voters to vote Labour to sideline the Greens from cabinet. Next year the latter won’t apply for good reason, the former has been addressed as revealed in the polls. As well next year National has in ACT the long awaited prospect of a viable coalition partner, something missing in the last two elections at least. National is now much better based for the next election but it will need to provide some more substance in terms of both policy and the selection of MPs it will,present to the electorate.
They had no mandate in the first place, not because of "too much too soon" & "not listening but because they never announced the antidemocratic policies that they are implementing prior to the elections.
Also remember: "we will govern for all NZdrs" & "we will be the most open & transparent Govt ever".
Yeah, nah.
Certainly no mandate for the co-governance direction that rapidly burgeoned post the 2020 election. Suggest though, there were hints in the previous term that WP & NZF dampened down, just as they did for example the three strikes legislation that Andrew Little set about repealing with almost obscene haste, a personal pet priority. Therefore during that period of let’s say passivity, things were obviously pent up, fermenting and once the handbrake came off, all and sundry lurched forward at high speed. Whatever may have been the cause and reason, it certainly surprised an unsuspecting electorate and is a development which is plainly obvious unpalatable to the far greater majority of New Zealanders.
The old monopoly on discourse collapsed with the advent of the internet. It should not be lamented.
The internet lets you discover what the establishment doesn't want to publish. There are currently widespread protests ongoing across Europe against the War in Ukraine, calling for the EU to reconcile with Russia. Hundreds of Thousands attended these. It is probably why these governments are going around arresting right wing dissidents right now in Germany and elsewhere. No reporting whatsoever.
Who remembers how the media lied about the Parliamentary protests, constantly shifting their lies and their disdain day by day. Who remembers the public polling with 30% support being quietly reported and the online polls showing over 50% support being memoryholed?
The fractured reality is a sign of social alienation and decay, that is true. But the illusion of unified opinion was projected by the consensus makers who used their power in the media to project the overton window onto our society.
The revolution won't be televised, but it sure as hell will be livestreamed.
"It is probably why these governments are going around arresting right wing dissidents right now in Germany and elsewhere. No reporting whatsoever."
Yeah, nah. Nutters all. Germany coup plot: The extremists who tried to topple the state - BBC News
'No reporting' but it makes the 6AM RNZ bulletin on the other side of the world. I know because I heard about it on RNZ news. And then had a chat about it with a family member, who saw it on the front page of a major daily website and bought it up in conversation.
Memories are short in Europe if the protestors are suggesting appeasement is the best policy because the effects of non-appeasement hurt. The alternative to supporting the smaller war could be letting territorial ambitions continue until they go too far = WWIII with an egomaniac with his thumb on the red button.
The closer Ukraine gets to “victory” the closer we come to nuclear war in Europe. Provoking the war, facilitating the war, blowing up the nord stream gas pipelines, and arming a bunch of neonazis who’re shelling a nuclear power plant. All of that was chaos was created by the USA. Russia isn’t innocent though. They’ve been threatening the dollar upon which our prosperity seems ti be based. Look what happened to Gadaffi. He went from giving speeches at the UN to having a knife in his rear end on the back of a Ute. If you mess with us we will F?;k you up. You, your country, your continent, whatever. That’s the message.
Geez Pat you've gone deep in that rabbit hole if you persist in believing the US drove the war in Ukraine?
How did the US 'provoke the war'?
Where is the evidence of just who is shelling the nuclear power plant?
Who are the 'neo-nazi's'?
Seems you're a subscriber to Putin's Twitter stream?
Lol I just say it how I see it. Whether it’s climate change, vaccines, politics or whatever. Re Ukraine the 2014 Maidan coup probably had a CIA hand. If you want to know why the US is afraid of Eurasia just look at the combined GDP and energy independence of Russia, China, and Western Europe.
I think, this was the year we got to the "We know that they know that we know they are lying [or too stupid to figure out the facts]" stage. Sure, the majority are still lagging behind but there's a growing group that have lost all trust with authority and the MSM on many issues due to cumulative abuses of this of this trust. People with different intelligence and temperaments handle this state differently. The protestors are the most visible extream of this and then there are those who are more agreeable who just choose to ignore the contradictions and want everyone else to do so as well.
As far as "Baby Will" go, I am still not sure if they could have reasonably accommodated or mitigated some of the parents concerns or if it really was not safe. The first story they gave us was it was not safe due to the selected donor maybe lying on their questionnaire and then realising this was a rather weak reason they later followed up with adding that not all the possible required blood products could be made locally. I would prefer not to revive blood donated the next day after the covid vax, if there was an alternative and while I think the perceived risk to the baby was blown out of proportion there could have been more safeguards to reassure people.
This incident also continues the debate around the extent of parental rights with regard to their children's health. I think the right decision was made with the child receiving life saving surgery eventually. This is the first situation I am aware of where the reason for the parents refusal had to do with the vaccination status of the donor. I presume the covid vaccine in this case. They were presumably OK with the other non-covid vaccines that most donors would have received in their lifetimes. The covid vaccines have certainly created a ‘split reality’ in our country.
Ian Taylor sums it up in an opinion piece in granny herald today.
Labour are not listening to their own voters and are driven by radical ideology not commonly accepted rationale for change.
The only rational explanation is that Jacinda has already decided to leave politics after the landslide loss, The fractions inside Labour will cause it to splinter. They will each blame the other for the loss on election night and together they are unelectable going forward.
Good on David Carter seeing the writing on the wall and getting out, It will be interesting who else gets out . It is likely that their will be further "Mistakes" from the team as it is clear now the PM is not in control.
Let me frame it for you
National was responsible for past messes, thats why we voted them out.
Labour are responsible for the current mess, thats why we are about to vote them out
National will eventually be held responsible for future mess, thats why we will eventually vote them out.
Edit; Winnie can be somewhat responsible for all past sins, thats why we want to never see him voted for again.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.