Key's actions just not trivial

DUTIES: Wherever he goes, whatever he does, the Prime Minister is representing us.

IT IS no source of pleasure when my worst predictions come true.

There has been an effort by several political opinionators to trivialise the behaviour of the Prime Minister despite the fact that he admitted to repeatedly violating the personal space of 26-year-old waitress Amanda Bailey while she was performing her work duties.

Some of the Key sycophants have employed scoffing humour to take the onus off Key and place it on any who might take issue, using name-calling such as "PC" as descriptive. In this, they have slavishly followed the leader's example, calling the misbehaviour "fun" - all too reminiscent of those radio blowhards calling the predations of the Roastbusters "mischief".

One legal expert, Bill Hodge, offered an opinion that was dismissive of the injury to the young woman and her chances at recovery from the court. Hodge claims that the woman's hair is "not sexual" and pulling it is therefore "de minimis" - in other words, trivial.

Question for Mr Hodge: If woman's hair (often called "her crowning glory" ) is not sexual, why do they spend so much time and money on it? And why do some men find it "tantalising"?

In the scoffers' zeal to trivialise and thereby shield the Prime Minister from responsibility for his repeated misbehaviour, their "collateral damage" is the woman and her right to privacy free of harassment. Not at all incidentally, these political attack dogs are demeaning the rest of us, too.

Where does the Prime Minister's mana derive if not from us? Wherever he goes, whatever he does, the Prime Minister is representing us - he's carrying out acts in our name. That's why the real comic take of the matter comes from foreign reactions. Here is the way John Oliver, a New York-based British comedian saw it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihReeJg08ns

The joke, if there is one, ought to be on the one with the power, not as the nattering nabobs would have it, on his victim.

There is a more serious side to this and it is one the sycophants ignore at their peril and yours. The fundamental right of a citizen in a democracy is the right to privacy. All the enumerated rights, as in the NZBORA, flow into that one.

Correspondingly, a basic obligation of democratic government is to provide safety for its citizens, safety even from arbitrary actions of government. That distinguishes us from authoritarian regimes, such as the former East Germany, where no one had privacy and no one was safe from the reaches of government.

Perhaps the demographics of the sycophants is explanatory. Overwhelmingly they're angry older white males with PMS (Phony Machismo Syndrome). It seems to have escaped the notice of these folk that in their zeal to deflect criticism of the Prime Minister for his several violations of Amanda Bailey's privacy they are trampling on those very democratic principles that form the safeguards of all of us.

The several incidents do raise questions about John Key. Character is what you do when you think no one's watching. It's also how you react when you find that they were.

No, I don't think that these repeated offences warrant the gibbet. What is fair is a real apology for abuse of power and demeaning another human being. Genuine contrition would consist of his stepping forward to protect Ms Bailey from her critics, his supporters. Their actions were probably not at his instigation but would almost certainly cease at his insistence.

Then the PM should pay compensation. And given his riches, a proportional amount would be a sum that would get Amanda Bailey the education he had at Harvard. He's always touted his belief in education as a means of advancement. That serious sum would show his contrition consistent with his values.

After that he should go back to his old Grammar School, wear a dunce cap for a week while he writes on the blackboard a thousand times, "No means No!"