Idiot Savant has said that it is a "fundamental principle that everyone is born equal and should be treated as such" in damning Kevin Rudd's opposition to gay marriage or civil unions.
I agree, the state should treat everyone equally, the state should be blind to race, sex and (NIOF*) sexual orientation.
However, he doesn't carry that view consistently.
He has called abolition of the Maori seats (without the "consent of Maori") racism, although Maori seats do not treat everyone equally by definition.
He supports government policies requiring the state and private sector to give preferential treatment to women in employment;
He supports government policies to spend more on Maori health proportionately than other citizens, because Maori do not “choose” unhealthy lifestyles
He damned Don Brash for promoting equality before the law saying “Brash is just the latest in a long tradition of beneficiaries of unequal status quos using egalitarian arguments to defend their advantages. But the sort of formal, legal equality that they espouse is about as useful as the formal, legal guarantees of human rights in the old Soviet constitution.”
So formal, legal equality is useless then. The state should treat individuals differently on the basis of race and sex. If you're born Maori, you have guaranteed political representation, but not if you're born gay, or become a Muslim, or are a libertarian. If you're born Maori, the state should spend more money on your healthcare, not because YOU'RE unhealthy, but because on average others like you are.
Are redheads more likely to suffer mental illness? Blondes more likely to catch STDs? Brunettes more likely to be hired to managerial positions? Maybe someone should investigate and get the state to interfere to "fix" this.
So treating everyone equally isn't much of a "fundamental principle" then is it?
I agree, the state should treat everyone equally, the state should be blind to race, sex and (NIOF*) sexual orientation.
However, he doesn't carry that view consistently.
He has called abolition of the Maori seats (without the "consent of Maori") racism, although Maori seats do not treat everyone equally by definition.
He supports government policies requiring the state and private sector to give preferential treatment to women in employment;
He supports government policies to spend more on Maori health proportionately than other citizens, because Maori do not “choose” unhealthy lifestyles
He damned Don Brash for promoting equality before the law saying “Brash is just the latest in a long tradition of beneficiaries of unequal status quos using egalitarian arguments to defend their advantages. But the sort of formal, legal equality that they espouse is about as useful as the formal, legal guarantees of human rights in the old Soviet constitution.”
So formal, legal equality is useless then. The state should treat individuals differently on the basis of race and sex. If you're born Maori, you have guaranteed political representation, but not if you're born gay, or become a Muslim, or are a libertarian. If you're born Maori, the state should spend more money on your healthcare, not because YOU'RE unhealthy, but because on average others like you are.
Are redheads more likely to suffer mental illness? Blondes more likely to catch STDs? Brunettes more likely to be hired to managerial positions? Maybe someone should investigate and get the state to interfere to "fix" this.
So treating everyone equally isn't much of a "fundamental principle" then is it?
* Non Initiation of Force. Rapists of adults and children are not entitled to equal treatment on the grounds of sexual orientation.
1 comment:
...some are more equal then others
Post a Comment