An Apology is About Right

Never Forget the Lesson of the Gypsies

Oh, what a kerfuffle. TV breakfast host, Paul Henry has said that the current Governor General does not look nor sound sufficiently like a New Zealander. The Race Relations Conciliator, Joris de Bres has weighed in, arguing that his employer, the state run television company should take action against him, because, well it is a state organ, so everything which is done on the state TV company is quasi-official.

We believe strongly in the right of freedom of speech. Like all such rights, it is not absolute. There are always limits to such freedoms. But freedom of speech is important because it limits the authority of the community and the state over the individual. If the State can tell me what we can and cannot say, it is claiming control over my body and mind; my ideas, thoughts and beliefs.  We have been reduced to slavery.

Freedom of speech rights mean, as everyone always points out, that we have to hear some pretty offensive stuff from time to time. In our view, verbal discrimination on the basis of race, or viewing humanity through the prism of race, is ignorant, wrong, stupid, anti-Christian, and derisory. But that does not make it an ultimate sin, nor ought it to be a crime. It does not make it beyond the pale of free speech--regardless of the state of our current human rights legislation which we believe is anti-free speech.

On the other hand, argument, debate, mockery of, scorn, and rejection of false or stupid ideas is fine also. That too, falls under the rubric of free speech. Thus, the fact that folk have expressed outrage, disgust, hostility, or strident disagreement with Henry's comments is just fine, too. But the fact that his speech, in this instance, offended many and enraged some, does not mean that Henry's speech should be outlawed, proscribed, or fall, therefore, under the interdiction of censorship.

Therefore, our view is that Henry's apology for causing offence is about right. As to whether he should be allowed to continue as the host of a breakfast show, that is a matter for his employers. In the end, they have to meet market. Their argument has been, well, actually Henry accurately reflects the views of a surprisingly large number of people. They may be right or wrong about this. If they are wrong, they will eventually pay a commercial price. If they are right, they are providing a helpful and needful window on the true state of affairs in this country. Hiding it, or covering it over, or ignoring it will not make it go away. Far, far better to have it out in the open so it can be debated, refuted, affirmed or otherwise argued over.

But to call for more is not appropriate. If society can shut Henry up because his comments have been offensive to them, society can move to shut up anything that becomes offensive to it in the future--which, incidentally, translates inevitably into "offensive to those in positions of power". Just as Hone Harawira's coarse and offensive characterisation of white people was "sorted out" by an apology, that is about the limit of what we believe would be appropriate with respect to Henry's latest "contribution" to society. Anything more would make us very nervous indeed. We need to continue to stand up for Henry's right to speak freely. 

As the adage goes, "I was silent when they came for the gypsies, and then . . ."