As a young kid in the grammer school system back in the early 60’s of Britain every secondary school student wore an identifying uniform. No exceptions! I went to a newly constructed school called ‘Tudor Grammer’ and emblazoned across the left side of my chest was a ‘Tudor Rose’. It was to all intent and purpose a gang patch signifying my elevation to this prestigious institution.
So important was the identification associated with this patch that if I didn’t wear it, I could expect to be caned by the principal one Mr Bambury. I was a member of ‘Newton house’ whose colour was yellow. The others were Rutherford (green), Faraday (blue) and I think Griffen(?) (red). The school tie had one’s house colour added along side the stripes of the schools colours giving even more identifying kudos to inter school gang affiliation and rivalry along with my games outfit and athletics singlet. I played 1st XV rugby and proudly wore the schools paraphernalia at every occasion I represented the school. To not be correctly kitted out was the height of dishonour and harsh retribution was meted out in fatigues for failure to conform.
To be a member of Tudor Grammer School identification was paramount.
The ‘Cubs’ was another gang I joined and again the tie and ‘toggle’ of my local chapter of Baden Powell affiliates had a very specific set of identifying colours and designs. Jamborees were occasions to identify one’s allegiance within the greater Cub and Scout movement.
We are a tribal species and everything we do in almost every walk of life identifies us as a member within countless sub groups, whether they be of a chronological order, physical, or spiritual pursuit. Our very identification within these sub groups and orders very often has been a modifying brake on how we conduct ourselves. Bad behaviours whilst wearing identifying uniforms always ensured swift and corrective punishments. Arguably they were the reason for wearing the uniform in the first place.
Returning to school life. Hair length was very prescriptive. Shoulder length hair that touched one’s collar would immediately invoke suspension from school life until a corrective hair cut was sought. Crazily during the latter stages of my school career when ‘Skin-head’ cuts became the fashion, many students were sent home until their hair had grown back to the standard approved formula.
There is almost no area of employment that doesn’t require either an official, or unofficial formal dress code and we don’t bat an eyelid over such expectations. Mark Mitchell, Christopher Luxon and Andrew Coster each wear an identifying ‘patch’ every time they present to their respective places of employment. We judge them not by their uniforms, but by their actions. And I’m quite sure that whatever they wear in the confines of their own homes are of no concern to anyone else save their partners and families.
So just what is this obsession with proscribing affiliations to certain ‘gangs’ by this coalition ‘gang’? Are we all to be judged by what we wear and not our actions? Because if this is to be the case it seems to me it has absolutely nothing to do with either scenarios and everything to do with puffery, rhetoric and lies. Judging a book by its cover is the most crass form of censorship as a means to discriminate good from bad and as applied to political actions and legislation is the modus operandi of the scoundrel and the morally bankrupt. Surely we have moved beyond the savage tribalism of the Serengeti where knee jerk reactions to those wearing the wrong ‘colours’ could be a matter of life or death. I’m not going to get into statistics but I’m pretty sure that the public, by and large, are never the target of ‘patched’ violence.
We should all be judged by our words and actions, not by our choice of regalia. And it is very telling that the very people demonstrating to me that they do not operate in this morality paradigm are those who, if they were to be judged accordingly, would be found wanting.
The right honourable Christopher Luxon and Mark Mitchell dog whistle fear and loathing for a brand of people who most certainly are involved in activities that many Kiwis find objectionable and harmful, but they don’t address this behaviour or law-breaking, instead they focus on removing gang regalia as if this of itself will fix the problem. It is the epitome of ‘window dressing’ and serves only to satisfy the ignorant and beguiled.
Both politicians have chosen to focus on the ‘appearance’ of addressing crime whilst handing Andrew Coster a hospital pass that he neither has the resources nor finances to address.
At this moment in time if Christopher Luxon, Mark Mitchell and Nicola Willis, were really ‘honourable’ people, they would have resigned since all three have failed to deliver outcomes that each expressed freely to the public would be cause for such action.
So yet again 51% of our gullible ignorant public have saddled the rest of us with the consequences of their voting patterns in 2023. No tax cuts for those in need, $14 billion loans to finance tax cuts for the rich and crime statistics that have not met what was promised.
Who among us believes that it is right that the police be given the powers to enter our homes to rummage through our possessions to censor what we can or can’t wear?
Totally agree. Both on the appearances issue and the unvetted legislation permitting police to access homes without a warrant. Insanity.