What is More Nazi?

Painting a swastika on your own roof; or...

Banning someone from doing it?

"Frankly, I'm astonished that it's permissible at all to paint gaudy symbols on the roof of your house..."

Frankly I'm astonished he's astonished!  Property rights are a basic human right, but the "Right Not to Be Offended" is the slippery slope to totalitarianism.  Unless you are forcing the exposure of pornography or violent images on children, free speech trumps all.

If you don't like swastikas on your neighbour's roof, why not put your own up?  It could read "Fuck off back to India, you culturally insensitive twat".  See, there are ways of dealing with these things that don't involve the jackboot of the State.  And nobody has the right not to be offended - ever.

UPDATE:  It's blogpoll time!

Comments

[Anon]

Aaron is a local body politician now. All he is concerned about from now until the middle of 2010 is votes. He, like all local body politicians do, has become populist and unprincipled all for a few votes.
Pathetic pissant.

[Cactus Kate]

It is pretty ugly and about as offensive as painting your house bright yellow and pink. Just think next up the Mongrel Mob will paint their logo on the roof, then the Black Power, then Grey Power, then NZ First, then Labour then it breaches the Electoral Finance Act and no one does anything about it.....

[Murray]

Aaron has fucked up on this one.

I didn't even see a nazi symbol when I saw the guys roof, I saw a Hindu one. A couple of years in Singapore will do that.

Its not this guys fault that other peoples percedtions are coloured by ignorance and predudice.

Even then the guy has gone to the trouble of adding tails to help clear up the missconceptions.

Some people - the media and Aaron are being wankers on this one.

Say sorry now Aaron, don't make me come to Auckland you know I hate the place!

We embracing diversity or crapping on it this week Aaron?

[llew]

Is it technically a swastika even? And can Aaron do something about the guy next door who puts a 3 metre reindeer & santa on his roof each Christmas?

[llew]

It's just that the neighbourhood browns out whenever he turns them on.

[Chris Diack]

Aaron comments:

“I appreciate that you, along with your fellow 1Auckland.com travellers believe that people should do whatever they like to their own properties without regard or respect for other people's private property rights.”

Oh dear.

It’s never been a recognised property right to be free from personal offence regarding religious symbols. Whether I find something offensive or not is really a subjective matter.

It will be interesting to see whether Auckland City Council is stupid enough to get involved in a matter that is really about neighbours talking with each other and reaching a better understanding. Perhaps Blair should do a LGOIMA 1987 request on this issue to Auckland City Council.

I thought citing By-laws was a bit OTT. There are BORA issues here too.

If the Council is going to meddle in what is an issue about religious symbols then it might be in trouble given that it has a glowing cross atop of Mt Roskill – public land. If one were an intolerant non-Christian one might equally find this offensive - and arguably worse since it’s a public expression of religiosity at some public expense as opposed to Mr Gupta’s private one.

[Bob]

I find the massive glowing white cross put on top of Mt Roskill every easter and christmas quite offensive.

If you read the Herald article, you'll see that he meant no harm and is going to modify it to make it more obviously Hindu. Considering the Nazis stole it from the Hindus in the first place, maybe we should be thanking him for reeducating us on its original meaning and purpose.

[Chris Diack]

Bob"

I find the massive glowing white cross put on top of Mt Roskill every easter and christmas quite offensive.

Actually I don't think its limited to Easter and Christmas - I think it glows year round.

[Chris Diack]

Bob"

I find the massive glowing white cross put on top of Mt Roskill every easter and christmas quite offensive.

Actually I don't think its limited to Easter and Christmas - I think it glows year round.

[Clint Heine]

Well we must get rid of that cross too. Highly offensive and hardly evidence that the church is being a good neighbour. :)

[Tom]

If someone was causing a massive racket and disturbing everyone, you would make them turn the noise down. What is the philisophical difference between sound waves that disturb people and electromagnitic waves(such as those from a swastika) that disturb people?

[Blair]

Sure, you should be able to make a case that the actions of your neighbour infringes on your own property rights and seek compensation of some description, especially if it lowers the value of your property. But it's still his property, not yours. Provided he is taking responsibility for the consequences of his actions, those actions should not be forbidden.

[Chris Diack]

Tom

It isn’t actually a philosophical question.

A subset of the law regarding quiet enjoyment allows one to be free from unreasonable noise from adjoining properties. Council by laws merely provide for public codification and enforcement of that.

There has never been a right under the quiet enjoyment head to be free from offence caused by the display of religious symbols by a neighbour.

The common law provides very few rights regarding views and the appearance of neighbouring properties – these are matters of taste.

[Tom]

That may be what common law says, but it is waveist.