(Written 14th April, 2016)
So here we have it, once again: a(nother) declaration of absolute defiance - of the law of the land - and the evident, undisguised actions to match; on this occasion by Helen Kelly, former long-serving Secretary of the CTU, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions.
But do I - can anyone, for that matter - really fault Ms Kelly, whether one identifies with or subscribes to her particular brand of left-wing unionist ideology or otherwise? Or who in their right mind, so to speak, if push came to shove - and upon virtually their death-bed, as it were - would not, in her situation, do the very same sort of thing? I.e. use whatever was available to one to save, maintain, and/or prolong one's life: to the very latest moment. Provided s/he felt that life was really still worth living, that is.
A rhetorical question if ever there were one, surely. Because equally certain is the answer of pretty well everyone, isn't it, wouldn't it be? Indeed. So again, can we really blame Ms Kelly for doing anything and everything in her increasingly disappearing power to prolong her life? Hardly.
And for that matter it seems a welcome and refreshing contrast to the endless hype our media has dished up to us over preceding months and years as to the need - the imperative supposedly - of bringing in voluntary euthanasia upon our kiwi populace. For here is someone - a high-profile personality, no less - who is evidently quite unprepared to simply lay down and die, or to unhesitatingly, submissively take the treatment meted out by New Zealand's orthodox medical fraternity as if it were the be-all-and-end-all, the final word as it were, on the all-important matter of one's personal health and well-being, and moreover in this instance of very survival itself. Someone with a mind to think and decide for herself, and the will to follow through with commensurate actions.
But here we once again are confronted with our originally-stated dilemma, are we not? That is, does not everyone - irrespective of background, position or status in our society - have the right, the privilege to be treated 'equally before the law'? Or put it another way - perhaps much more aptly, in this very instance - does anyone, again, irrespective of said background, position or status, have the privilege or right on the other hand to be given 'special treatment' before the law of the land? Which special treatment, favouritism quite bluntly, would arguably not be accorded Joe or Jane Average Citizen in the selfsame circumstances.
The answer, I'm sure you'll readily agree, is most certainly not! No, a thousand times "no" - whatever the situation or circumstances. One only needs to recall the pro-euthanasia advocate, Lucretia Seales, also of Wellington, not all that long ago. And let's for now put to one side the ever-present possibility, indeed oftentimes reality, of 'police discretion' in our land.
No, what we are presented with here - and let's give her all due credit, Ms Kelly neither sought to deny nor downplay the reality of her law-breaking nor claim she ought not to suffer the appropriate consequences for disregarding and breaking the law - is nothing less than a flagrant and public, if nevertheless perfectly understandable in the circumstances, show of defiance toward our legal system itself. Essentially calling the bluff, as it were, in probably the well-justified assurance - which some might well term presumption, even arrogance - that, like the proverbial dog that's all bark and no bite, the authorities that be will just 'do the usual' and look the other way.
Seeing as Ms Kelly's such a well-known, high-profile figure and all. And especially since the likes of former Prime Minister and now would-be Secretary-General of the United Nations, Helen Clark - not to mention seemingly endless numbers of other high-profile New Zealanders - have almost invariably, pretty well to a woman or man, managed to escape the clutches of the justice system; which myself and many others, rather less endearingly - and with remarkably little effort - see as much more an injustice system; Yes indeed, 'justice' that others of us lesser mortals are never so fortunate - or 'blessed' if you prefer - as to be able to evade. Oh, to be so lucky, I hear you say!
And so very lucky do some indeed appear to be (treated), don't they? And in this regard my mind reverts unavoidably to - no, not U.N.-Secretary-General wannabe Clark, with her own aforementioned succession of 'mini'-scandals from Paintergate to Corngate through to Speedgate - to name just a few, or at least those most easily identified or readily recalled - but wholly another former member of Parliament who served our nation in its halls of power concurrent with Ms Clark's nine-year tenure at the helm of NZ's levers of power in (what once was known as, anyway) 'God's Own'. A Mr Nandor Tanczos, whom I'm sure you'll readily recall.- unless you're a 'young 'un', as some comic-strip character once put things. Yes, the now married with children, then youngish, radical, pot-smoking Green Party M.P. with the unforgettable dreadlocks - whose graffitied facial image is still occasionally encountered in the odd urban centre's inner-city alleyway (and the like).Someone who - with all his immeasurable intellect, incisive reasoning and powers of perception and insight into the 'New Zealand project', early 21st Century and all, and his undoubted commitment to spirituality, let's give him due credit - also 'thumbed his nose' not only more generally at the 'establishment' itself but also more particularly and specifically at the very rule per se of the powers-that-be, i.e. at the law of the land itself, and in an equally open and defiant manner.
No comments:
Post a Comment