If a child-sex-offender and a man-slaughterer have in the past been jailed for their respective offences, does that make them currently venerable people?

Furthermore, if a man and by implication a party of people was then emphatic in their support of the liberation of the above, does that make them venerable people?

What about if another man made negative assertions using this aforementioned supporting party’s intentions as fuel for his derision, would that make him any less of a venerable person?

If that venerable man’s tirade of derision was purported to result in the affront of some members of that supporting party, should that man then be forced into a retraction of his statement?

Should that venerable man be sympathetic to the fact that those members of the supporting party misconstrued his assertions, ultimately misunderstanding his words?

Should that venerable man be forced to apologise to members of the support party, effectively saying he was wrong in his meaning?

Should that venerable man be forced to embrace the actions of New Zealand’s offenders – past or present – based on nothing more than political popularity?

Should words unspoken hold as much strength as those actually heard?

Should ‘implied’ mean the same as ‘said’?

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by Lai Boor Wynn-Jyrs

Photography by Polly Ticks