Of Slippery Slopes and Human Rights

An Illustrative Example of the Slippery Slope

Yesterday I dealt extensively with the Slippery Slope argument, which roughly holds that a sequence defined as "Things I Don't Like" will inevitably occur, because they're "Things I Don't Like", and we all know that "Things I Don't Like" are all the same, working together in a grand conspiracy to destroy all that is good and right in this world. It is the black-and-white binary thinking the claims that people supporting something innocuous like Same-Sex Marriage aren't actually supporting Same-Sex Marriage, oh no, they're really supporting Bestiality!

Those advocating the Slippery Slope go about it in a number of ways. They claim moral degeneracy. They believe if the definition of Marriage can be changed, then ALL conceivable changes will immediately be adopted (the burst dam principle) despite the fact that Marriage has been in a state of continuous change since its inception. They state that if the pro-SSM arguments are respected, then there's no logical reason to oppose polygamy or paedophilia. They accuse SSM-supporters of hypocrisy if they don't also support incestuous marriage, because clearly equality between two things (same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage, for example) is not really equality unless EVERYTHING is equivalent (you can't have equality between homosexual and heterosexual couples until fish can marry bicycles!).

I'm not free until I can marry beer!

The 'Rights' issue:

As mentioned in the preceding article, one particular(ly ignorant) version of the argument is "If you make it a rights issue, then we have to respect the rights of paedophiles to marry kids!" etc. This just so happens to have a very handy parallel that we can all point to. So rather than clutter up the previous article with yet MORE words, I figured I would turn it into the addendum you are now reading. So without further ado, I present to you:

 The Slippery Slope to Suffrage

Haven't they suffraged enough?

When it comes to political rights, what could be a more central right than the participation in the democratic process? It's commonly accepted that government governs by consent, and the right to vote is how we establish that consent, so all other political rights flow from the right to vote, no?

The thing is, the definition of 'voter' has changed since its inception. Especially as regards who may be considered a 'voter', and who is deemed incapable or unworthy of voting responsibly. This gradual broadening of the 'voting public' can be seen as a lowering in quality, a general degradation of the character and requirements of eligible voters, a view that has certainly been expressed in the public discourse. In other words, a Rights-based argument leading to a Slippery Slope towards undesirable voters who do things like elect MPs that support Same-Sex Marriage, a problem we wouldn't have if we hadn't granted the vote to soft-hearted intellectual invalids such as women and itinerants!

So, let's take a look at the brief history of New Zealand voting rights! 

Firstly, from the 1853 election, the right to vote was restricted only to adult British men of means, either landowners possessed of £50 worth of land, or significant rental tenants. This would mean that men of substance, invested physically and financially in the prospects of the country, would be able to determine its future. A reasonable requirement, rather (eh wot!). As most Maori-owned land was held under communal title rather than private, independent ownership, the ability of Maori to vote in these initial elections was certain curtailed.

In 1862, the requirement that voters must own land was waived for those holding mining rights. This allowed itinerant miners to vote, despite their roaming, unsettled nature. In 1867, with the establishment of four Maori Seats in parliament, the right to some political representation was extended to the savages (good heavens!), with Maori being able to vote for their four representatives even if they did not privately own land.

When you give people rights, you have to acknowledge them as people?!

In 1879, the requirement to own land was discarded entirely, meaning any male British subject aged 21 or older could have a say in how he was governed. One of the direct consequences of this was the rise of working-class politics, which resulted in the ultimate moral degeneracy: The New Zealand Labour Party! Not convinced? Well the Labour Party introduced the bill that made homosexuality legal, and you can't have gay marriage without gay people now, can you?

Actually, let's entertain a brief tangent here a minute, shall we? The 1986 Homosexual Law Reform saw some of the most bitter and bellicose discourse in our political history, with National MP Norm Jones telling homosexuals to 'go back to the sewers where you came from'. It was a simpler time. The Homosexual Law Reform passed by the slimmest of margins, 49-44 in favour. Truly a nation divided.

1,000,000 people thinking about two dudes boning

So, a number of conservative and Christian figureheads formed the Coalition of Concerned Citizens, a lobbying group opposed to any and all homosexual law reforms in the 1980s. As you can see to your left, these stalwart defenders of Tradition and Morality decided to make themselves heard by delivering a petition to Parliament, to show the nation did NOT support any act that would allow consenting adults to do what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. A petition they claimed was signed by one million New Zealand citizens! Quite impressive in the days before the internet and social media. 

There's just one tiny little problem with this. Apparently the petition wasn't entirely kosher, and in fact contained an extensive number of fake signatures. When the Marriage Amendment Bill was drawn from the Members' Ballot last July, the ironically named Family First formed the 'ProtectMarriageNZ' advocacy group, and figuring that a discredited petition that failed to affect the political process in any way was such a good idea, they'd do the same thing again! EXACTLY the same thing, because it turns out they've managed to collect a petition with no quality control, so that it contains a myriad of prank pseudonyms (like Homer Sexual), duplicate signatures, signatures from foreigners without NZ citizenship, and the ringing endorsement of fictional characters from popular television shows and cartoons. Go look at the link and see for yourself, I don't mind waiting. The kicker? It's been running for a year and isn't even a tenth of the size of the CCC petition, despite the larger population and the ease of access afforded by the internet. They'll have to work a lot harder to be taken as the 'moral majority'. Of course petty vote-stuffing for their own vanity and self-justification isn't entirely unheard of for ProtectMarriageNZ, considering they picked up 99% of their fans on January 13th, all from Istanbul, Turkey. Totally legit, right?

So, suffrage, right?

Suffragette, and Captain of the Starship Normandy

Alright, back to the illustrative example. After abolishing the land requirements, a determined effort by the Suffragettes, spearheaded by Kate Sheppard, won women the right to vote in 1893. The final relaxation in voting requirements were age based, with eligibility set at 20 in 1969, and 18 in 1974.

So, we've seen a gradual expansion in voting rights in this nation. Or, to put it another way, extending voting rights to Miners was the first step on a slippery slope to Maori voters, poor voters, women voters, and young voters! It's a degeneracy of the sacred democratic principle of an informed and invested voting public! It worked so well to start, and it all went horribly wrong. Mark their words, this nation will surely fall to ruins over a century ago!

They expect the world, don't they!

And the argument that they use? That citizens of the nation contribute to the national economy whether they own land or not, that those affected by the law should have a say in who makes the laws and how those laws are made? Why, that could be extended to so many things! Our livestock and our trees contribute immeasurably to our economy! Our children and our automobiles are affected by the laws our government enact! Surely this means that we'll soon be extending the vote to children and sheep, rivers and bicycles, right? I mean we'd already lowered the age restriction TWICE!

It is the exact same reasoning, is it not? We relaxed standards and extended rights to different demographics already, so there's nothing stopping us relaxing standards further and broadening the aegis of human rights once more, right? It's a slippery slope to Fido deciding the next election, as much as extension of marriage rights to homosexual couples entails granting those rights to polygamists (and, by illogical extension, bestiality). Which is to say, not at all.

Just as we acknowledge and accept that children and animals and inanimate objects are incapable of granting or withdrawing informed consent regarding votes (and hence are in the custodial care of the relevant authorities, or simply completely outside of the political process), we can also acknowledge when a lack of meaningful consent (amongst other reasons), serves as a satisfactory reason to oppose the relationships Slippery Slope advocates claim will surely be legitimised by allowing Same-Sex Marriage. And in the case of the arguments raised in opposition to Same-Sex Marriage, I have yet to encounter one that cannot also be applied to people we already allow the right to marry.