Richard Dawkins goes from rational man to befuddled snowflake

I see Richard Dawkins, celebrated scientist, atheist and author of The God Delusion, is talking up New Zealand as a possible bolthole for disillusioned liberal refugees from the northern hemisphere.

Dawkins thinks our little country suddenly looks very attractive following Britain?s exit from the European Union and Donald Trump?s victory in the US presidential election.

He suggests New Zealand should seize the opportunity to lure great scientific and artistic minds from America and Britain ? ?talented, creative people desperate to escape the redneck bigotry of their home countries?.

I?m not entirely sure we should be flattered by Dawkins? attention. He?s the personification of what is pretentiously termed a ?public intellectual? ? a towering figure to whom we lesser beings are supposed to look for enlightenment and moral guidance.

But I note that his intellect doesn?t stop him from resorting to simplistic, undergraduate name-calling. What he calls ?redneck bigotry?, others would call democracy: ordinary people exercising their right to choose who will govern them.

Agreed. ?A remarkably emotional reaction from Dawkins. ? Petulant even. ?

Dawkins regards New Zealand as a ?deeply civilised? country that cares about the future of the planet, and suggests we should promote ourselves as the Athens of the modern world. Cue visions of a glorious, golden new realm where Trump would become just a nightmarish memory.

We?re on other people?s radar screens too. US Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg told the New York Times in July that she couldn?t contemplate America under a President Trump, adding with a rueful smile: ?Now it?s time for us to move to New Zealand?.

The actor Billy Crystal is another who visualises New Zealand as a potential sanctuary. Asked for his reaction to Trump?s success on the campaign trail back in April, Crystal said he might consider buying a ?nice little ranch? here.

Of course they would be welcome, but it all suggests a rather idealised vision of New Zealand ? one far removed from the reality of a country blighted by some of the same social and economic ills, albeit on a lesser scale, that afflict America and Britain.

Still, the attention of such luminaries reminds us that we inhabit a very desirable little haven, safely distanced from the world?s pressure points and weeping sores.

Perhaps the most striking thing about Dawkins? glowing assessment of New Zealand is that it conflicts sharply with the image we have of ourselves.

Day after day the media bombard us with gloomy reminders of all the things we imagine are wrong in God?s Own Country. The picture is of a nation permanently mired in crisis.

There?s a housing crisis and an inequality crisis. The health sector is struggling to cope, our rivers are shamefully polluted and our major cities need huge infrastructural investment.

Our prisons are bulging and we?re not doing anything meaningful to arrest climate change. Our native birds are in danger of extinction. The Maori language is dying and there?s a booze outlet on every corner. Children are going to school hungry and there?s an epidemic of morbid obesity.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Listen to Radio New Zealand?s Morning Report any day and you?re likely to hear a litany of grievances from agenda-pushers and interest groups clamouring for government action (which invariably means money) to ease their grievances.

That’s one of the reasons Whaleoil is gaining such solid report. ? Our “More good news” series is one of the stand-out differences between us and traditional media.

We, together with a lot of New Zealand ‘red-neck voters’, don’t see New Zealand the same way as our media and our leftie politicians do.

It’s actually pretty good here. ?We like it, and we want to keep it that way.

Instead of liberal refugees coming here, they might consider staying away, and perhaps inviting all the negative nellies that see New Zealand a a permanent glass half empty.

We are a civilised, liberal and tolerant society. Dawkins got that bit right ? although, speaking personally, I?m not sure our tolerance should extend to pompous, condescending intellectuals who don?t bother to conceal their disdain for people who disagree with them.

As I explain to someone ysterday, tolerance only works if all sides commit to it. ?But the funny thing about tolerance that is insisted on and not returned is that it turns into a weapon for social change against the tolerant.

And I, for one, say “no more”.


Karl du Fresne