I recently had the experience, shared by a few of you I know, of dealing with cases involving “sovereign citizen”–adjacent arguments and world views. (Can I give a quick shout-out to the Court of Appeal for a commendably succinct and on-point decision, Walker v R [2024] NZCA 440, giving short shrift to the jurisdictional nonsense these cases advance.) At the same time, I have been enjoying a podcast, Revolutions, by Mike Duncan. This series moves from the English Civil War through the American Revolution, the French revolutions, from the fall of the Ancien Régime to the Paris Commune, taking in Haiti, South America, Mexico and now Russia. It provides a digestible overview of events in what are complicated situations.
It is an interesting theme of the Revolutions podcast how quickly one-person rule can degenerate into structural inefficiency, where sycophantic loyalty to the “great one” (usually a man) is the most valuable or only quality required. This view is reinforced by slavish devotion to the oft-claimed divine nature of the great one’s appointment, or the inevitable forces of scientific materialism at play — take your choice. Meanwhile, obvious problems threatening the very fabric of the community, if even acknowledged to exist, are unable to be addressed due to lack of talent, entrenched interest, ideological blinkers or fear of offending the powerful one. But those close to power do get well compensated for their abasement, as grift and corruption run rife. Eventually, all this ends badly.
What is the antidote to this? The traditional Western liberal answer has been the rules-based system. This is founded on a belief that rigorous rules of evidence and procedure give the best chance of finding an objective factual basis for decisions. The fair and impartial application of known legal principles to those facts gives the best chance of a just result. A fair system of justice, recognised as such by the community, is one of the fundamental building blocks of a cohesive society.
I consider that, at this traditional time of year, the traditional Western liberal answer remains true. But it is being squeezed. At the micro end, there are those who wish to enjoy the benefits of a community and the protection of the law when it comes to their security and property, but who consider they can exempt themselves from any personal responsibility for their actions when they harm others or the community. They claim victimhood at any opportunity but are oblivious to the feelings or rights of others. At the macro end is a debasement of institutions of good government by those in power, who want to use the justice system for retribution against perceived enemies or for coercive control. There is open corruption to enrich oneself, one’s family and close supporters. At both ends, the moral vacuum is covered up by a lack of civility.
Over the last week we have seen the consequences of these forces attacking our traditions play out. There was the appalling murder of members of the Jewish community celebrating Hanukkah. The most immediate concern arising from what happened at Bondi is the tragedy of loss to the family and friends of those killed and wounded. Our hearts go out to them at this time.
The shock of what happened is intensified because this occurred in a country we would identify as closest to us in culture. The recognition of the equal dignity and value of all individuals, regardless of race, religion or belief, is fundamental, as is their right to be safe. It is hoped that a rules-based system will constrain the worst of those who live in our society. Of course, we of all people know that does not always work.
A further illustration is the reaction of the President of the United States to the murder of Rob and Michele Reiner. It is hard to imagine a more crude, self-absorbed and offensive statement. This is from the leader of what many would call the leading Western liberal democracy.
“So this is Christmas. What have you done?” You have continued to be the antidote to those who would replace the rules-based system that recognises the inherent human dignity of all with an inefficient, corrupt, rapacious grouping of individuals who mistake narcissism for a virtue. The loud, the stupid, the self-absorbed and emotionally unregulated cannot be allowed to suck all the oxygen from the room and dominate social discourse. Relentlessly, fairly, doing our work with civility is a bulwark against that.
Have a restful break and come back ready to continue the fight.
Noel Sainsbury