A gratuitous intervention

If anyone was to compile a list of the enemies of free speech in New Zealand, the name of Joris de Bres would have to be on it. The Race Relations Commissioner was in full cry again today, demanding that TVNZ do something about Paul Henry for his silly comments about the Governor-General, Sir Anand Satyanand.

I’m neither a cheerleader for Henry nor one of those people who splutter with indignation every time he offends someone. I do think that on this occasion he made an oaf of himself, and he probably realises it himself. It’s not just a matter of whether Henry's question to John Key about whether Satyanand was a real New Zealander had a racist undertone (which it did). Almost as shameful was the fact that it was downright ignorant and unprofessional, since a broadcaster of Henry’s standing could surely have been expected to know – or made an effort to find out – that Satyanand has as much claim as anyone to call himself a New Zealander.

But we don’t need a state commissar like de Bres to point all this out. People are perfectly capable of coming to their own conclusions about Henry’s behaviour without guidance from left-leaning government functionaries as to the proper exercise of free speech.

As de Bres himself pointed out more than once when interviewed on Morning Report, anyone offended by Henry’s line of questioning can seek a remedy through the broadcasting complaints procedure (as they appear to be doing). So why does de Bres need to butt in? His intervention struck me as completely gratuitous.

His justification was pretty wobbly too. In an attempt to demonstrate his commitment to free speech, de Bres argued that it wasn’t a question of whether Henry should be allowed to say what he said, but rather whether his employer should condone it. Hmmm … that seems a pretty fine distinction. One way of interpreting it is that de Bres regards Henry as beyond redemption, but sees TVNZ – as a state broadcaster – as politically more open to correction.

I was also intrigued by his comment that one of the Breakfast programme’s major advertisers is Heritage Hotels, which he pointed out has a lot of Indian employees who have reason to feel aggrieved by Henry’s remarks. The clear implication was that the hotel company might consider withdrawing its advertising. I wonder, is it the function of the Race Relations Commissioner to raise the idea of an advertising boycott as a way of exerting pressure on a rogue television host? I wouldn’t have thought so – but it wouldn’t be the first time de Bres has overstepped the mark.

Harawira shelters behind a double standard

I regard Maori Party MP Hone Harawira’s comment that he would feel uncomfortable if one of his children brought home a Pakeha as infinitely more offensive than the email that caused such a stir last year, in which he ranted about “white motherf**kers raping our lands and ripping us off for centuries”.

That email merely expressed a one-eyed interpretation of history, one that is not uncommon among radical Maori activists, and I was surprised at the outrage it provoked.

But Harawira’s latest statement in an interview with the Weekend Herald was something else. It expressed a deeply personal and divisive form of racism that we normally associate with white rednecks.

Harawira seems to be saying that no one with white skin is good enough for his children. This is racism by any definition. It promotes a racial separatism that is alien to our culture and history.

Imagine the reaction if a white politician made a similar statement about Maori. As ACT MP David Garrett said on the TV3 News last night, his political career would quickly be at an end.

But as happened last year, Harawira’s statement is being laughed off. Oh, that’s just Hone sounding off again, his protectors in the Maori Party tell us. When is someone going to make the point that Harawira is being given a degree of latitude that would never be extended to a white politician?

And what of our staunchly even-handed Race Relations Commissioner? True to form, Joris de Bres reportedly tut-tutted that Harawira’s statement was “unwise”, but added that the fuss would soon blow over. Oh, well that’s alright then.

I invite anyone to contrast the commissioner’s breezy tolerance of Harawira’s exercise of his right to free speech with the zeal with which de Bres pursued the newspaper editors who dared publish the Mohammed cartoons several years ago.

Readers of this blog will know that I believe in free speech, even when the views expressed are contemptible. Better out in the open than hushed up, I say. But free speech is abused when double standards allow a bigot like Harawira to mouth off in a fashion that no Pakeha politician would dare emulate.