In a recent editorial, the NZ Herald called on the NZ Race Relations Conciliator, Mr Joris De Bres to explain why it is right to practise "positive" racism. Clearly Mr De Bres has some kind of double standard influencing his conception of racism in New Zealand. It has been on brassy display over recent times.
When the Maori Party MP, Hone Harawira stated in a private e-mail that white people in general had been stealing land and property from Maori for generations, describing them in grossly coarse racial terms, De Bres hastened to assure New Zealanders that it was not a breach of the Race Relations Act. Mr Harawira, said Mr de Bres, had been exercising the higher right of freedom of speech.
But just two weeks before a group of Auckland Grammar School students had viewed a display at the Auckland Museum on the Nazi movement in Germany. They had "acted the goat" and goose-stepped and given Nazi salutes. That, said Mr de Bres was definitely racist. Why? Well, they did not speak but walked in a derogatory way, and lifted their hands in a saluting action. But, one presumes, that if they had stood in front of the exhibition and said, "Adolf Hitler was right to exterminate six million Jews as the Final Solution, and we think he is a hero" it would not be racist at all because they would have been exercising the right of freedom of speech. Right? Yeah, right!
To add insult to injury a pesky blogger pointed out that one of the country's leading opinion broadcasters at the time, Paul Holmes had several years ago criticized the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan. Holmes called him "a cheeky darky." De Bres's umbrage was incandescent. He huffed and puffed to blow Holmes down. Apparently, freedom of speech rights are selective also. Mr Harawira apparently enjoys them; Mr Holmes does not, at least not to the same extent. Mr de Bres defended his minatory stance against Holmes by arguing that a qualified freedom of speech applied to Mr Holmes. He was in a responsible position and he had a duty to exercise that responsibility, well, responsibly.
So, to summarise, according to Mr de Bres's abacus the Auckland Grammar School students, despite having no responsible and public position, were culpable because their freedom of speech was not verbal. Apparently, Mr De Bres's casuistry has never contemplated that legal scholars generally agree that the free speech is quite broad and includes non-verbal expression. But let's not get technical.
Mr Holmes guilt was that he spoke, but in his case his free speech rights were qualified because he was an important and influential person, in a responsible position. He was made to apologize and humiliate himself in public. We should note, here, by the way that Mr Holmes's remarks were clearly facetious and themselves meant to be cheeky. But that was not the point, apparently.
Mr Harwira's tirade, however, was (at least initially) given a free pass. It was an angry racial slur, not even remotely facetious. But his free speech rights in Mr de Bres's mind were whole and intact, not qualified. He was clear of any infraction of the Race Relations Act. The only possible conclusion one can draw from Mr De Bres's reasoning was that he believed that Mr Harawira to be an insignificant person of no importance who does not occupy a responsible or public position. Therefore, he deserved a free pass.
Clearly, De Bres's ever-changing positions left him twisting in the wind as an ephemeral lightweight. He now risks being seen as the court jester, the local village idiot. The NZ Herald clearly believes that De Bres has done a bad job, failing to communicate clearly on these matters. It turns its attention to helping him out. It condescends to tell us what Mr De Bres should have said, acting as a public prompter for the hapless Conciliator.
When we consider racism, gravely intones the Herald, we need to overlay the power structures in society. If a majority race (whitey) has political power and a minority (Maori) does not, then derogatory statements by whitey against darkey will cause a good deal more harm than when darky slurs whitey. Why? Well the majority holds political power and they can actually turn their hatred into material damage and harm.
The commissioner, Joris de Bres, initially rebuffed demands that he investigate the Harawira email, saying the MP was exercising his freedom of opinion. It is true that he would not have said that about a Pakeha MP using abusive language about Maori. He ought to explain the difference. The pride and place of a minority in any society ultimately depend on the laws supported by a majority. Not so in reverse. Instead of prolonging the Harawira pantomime, the commissioner should tell complainants what racism really is, and save his time and our money.Consider yourself "coached" Mr de Bres. You need to tell us all what racism really is. All we know so far is that strictures against it apply to Auckland Grammar School students and to Mr Holmes, but not to Hone Harawira.
So, what is racism, according to the Herald? It only occurs when a member of a political majority speaks or acts in a derogatory way toward a racial minority. This is what "racism really is". Therefore, according to the abacus kept on the top shelf of the Herald's editorial office, racism, by definition, cannot exist in the hearts, minds, words or actions of any minority race (Maori, Chinese, Arab, Indian--you name it) regardless of what racial bigotry may come forth. What applies to the goose very definitely does not apply to the gander. Mr Harawira, therefore, could never, ever be racist; only whitey. The Herald says that Mr de Bres should front up and be honest about this.
Apparently, the Herald believes that the Race Relations Act and the Office of the Race Relations Conciliator binds white people only in New Zealand. It has no bearing or reference to any other race in this country. There! They have said as much--just as many have suspected for a long, long time. Glad we could get that finally cleared up. How about it Mr de Bres? Has the Herald got it right. Or is the Herald itself expressing perniciously racist doctrines in calling for a position of special privilege in New Zealand for some on the grounds of race or colour?
We believe the Herald's position is a nonsense and that the law must be colour blind--rigorously so. But is the Herald's view Mr de Bres's position? If it is, we believe that you owe us all a clear, unambiguous statement of the doctrine--as indeed the Herald demands. Then we can debate it. But if you think the Herald editorial writer and its senior editors are on whacky backy, you must say so. If you fail to correct the editors, we will inevitably come to believe that your office does indeed hold that the sin and crime of racism is something that can be committed by white people only.
Postscript: the Office of the Race Relations Conciliator has clearly been shaken by these events. It reports that it has received more than 700 complaints over the Harawira incident--more than any other incident since it was established--by a long country mile. This has led it to take some action, and so reports that it is busy setting out an appropriate course of action for Mr Harawira to take. We applaud. Would it be churlish of us to suggest that if only one or two complaints had been received they would have followed the initial de Bres argument and dismissed any concerns?
We surely hope not. But this makes it all the more pressing for Mr de Bres to respond to the Herald and correct its implicitly racist view of how Race Relations law is supposed to work in New Zealand. Clearly our largest newspaper needs a primer in what "racism really is" and Mr de Bres owes it to them and to us to set the matter straight.
No comments:
Post a Comment