NationStates Jolt Archive

NZ has its elections in 2 weeks. It is a very tight race at the moment between Labour (centre left,currently in power with a majority, we have MMP) and National(centre right).

The Exclusive Breathren Church endulged in a campaign to bad mouth a possible Labour/Green Coalition here (http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,13097-4740314,00.html) by mailing hundreds of pamphlets badmouthing and rumor mongering.

The Exclusive Breathren doesnt vote in elections due to their religeous (sp?) beliefs, so should they be allowed to have these campaigns to influence who people vote for? Or if you refuse to vote should you not be allowed to do this??

BTW, In NZ it isnt compulsory to vote, although I think you do have to be enrolled

Yes, they should be able to comment.

I reply I gave to another thread ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=440581&page=5&pp=15 ) applies equally well here, I think:

"We have now recognised the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the recieved opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigourously and earnestly contested, it will by most of those who recieve it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering and ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience."
-- John Stuart Mill, Chapter 2 - Of The Liberty of Thought and Discussion, On Liberty

Mill gives us four reasons why opinion should never be banned or restricted:

1) The banned opinion may very well be truth.
2) The banned opinion may contain a portion of truth.
3) The opinion not banned will no longer be held from reason or pursuit of truth...
4) ...Resulting in the loss of any truth that opinion may have held, replaced by zealotry, bias, and irrationality.

Temporarily ignoring the individuals right to freedom of opinion, wouldnt it be prudent to deduce that since it is against their beleifs to vote, it would be against their beliefs to comment on the future voting??

Temporarily ignoring the individuals right to freedom of opinion, wouldnt it be prudent to deduce that since it is against their beleifs to vote, it would be against their beliefs to comment on the future voting??
Deduce away, however such deduction is entirely beside the point. The issue is one of legal rights, not religious beliefs.

Should sports comments be restricted to season ticket holders?

He says the Exclusive Brethren's beliefs were born out of a view that the world polluted people and which is why they do not vote or associate with general schooling.
These right-wing "religious" groups are the most polluted of all.

No I think New Zealand should decide based upon how popular they think their government would be with the US. Oh wait no that's rediculous. US citizens can't even vote in NZ. It would be a violation of their national sovereignty! That wopuld be as preposterous as a bunch of other nations thinking they should tell the US what their foreign policy should be. Oh Wait, ummm yeah. OK so we should just let Bush pick your next PM OK?