Every journalist that “outs” a conspiracy theorist or extremist paints a target on their own back.

The anti-truth brigade thrives in dark places and shining a light on it and its associates is doing a public service. Yet it comes at a cost.

The tone of abuse that it generates is even darker than the places from which it emanates. New Zealand journalists — particularly female journalists — are being subjected to taunts and threats on an unprecedented scale and in forms that are deeply disturbing.

Paula Penfold of the Stuff Circuit team that produced the documentary Fire and Fury, which unmasked many of those behind the February-March protest in Parliament grounds, revealed in the Sunday Star Times last weekend that since its appearance she has been targeted with death threats, abuse “and, unsurprisingly, conspiracy theories”.

She told the newspaper: “I’ve had lots before but never as many or as ugly or as threatening than after this documentary.”

Penfold’s situation was outlined in an article about the abuse three female Stuff journalists had endured for doing their jobs. Alongside Penfold were Kirsty Johnston, who revealed MP Sam Uffindell’s record at King’s College, and Andrea Vance, currently revealing the anti- brigade’s associations with local body candidates.

“You can’t fight crazy,” Vance told the SST. “It’s exhausting. Half their tactics are to tie you up in pointless circular arguments but if people honestly think we’re being paid by the government they’re not well.”

Attitude about media
Her latter point was a reference to an all-too-popular suggestion that the media en masse had been suborned by the Public Interest Journalism Fund. Anyone who thinks New Zealand’s media can be instantly brought to heel by $55 million spread among all of them over a period of four years is, indeed, not well.

Then again, the attitude toward journalists is “not well” either.

I felt immensely saddened to see this quote from Kirsty Johnston about the spread of trolling and abuse: “All reporters know it. They go to parties and don’t say what they do.”

When I was young, the only people who had that attitude were undertakers and the people who worked in the local VD clinic. We were proud to say we were journalists, reporters, photographers, sub-editors and so on.

Our broadcasting colleagues were equally open about their profession.

What went wrong, and when?

Fire and Fury – the documentary                      Video: Stuff Circuit

It has been a long time since the public put journalists on a pedestal. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the last statue to a journalist in Auckland was erected in 1901 (remembering George M Reed and still standing in Albert Park).

Slow decline
There was a slow decline over the years but in the 40 years I spent in daily journalism I never felt despised. Yes, I received two death threats in that time but the first was written in crayon and the second wasn’t aimed only at me, or even only at journalists (which was why it was reported to the police). What journalists are now experiencing is either something new or something old harnessed to something new.

I think it may well be the latter. The old component is anarchy and the new is digital communication. Together they are dynamite (excuse the pun).

Anarchy is basically the repudiation of existing systems of government and ordered society, represented by institutions such as Parliament and the media (the latter is seen as the mouthpiece of politicians). In the past it had a capital A and was an intellectual breeding grounds for socialism, communism, and other then-radical politics.

However, even then, it had its hangers-on who were drawn to its sometimes-violent rhetoric with little understanding or interest in its philosophy. The crazy bombers and assassins were seldom actually card-carrying members of an anarchist body.

Today, anarchy has a small a. We use the term to denote disorder and disarray. And it underlies much of the anti-this and anti-that ranting that permeates social media.

Put simply, there are people out there who want to see the institutions of civil society brought down. They have no clear idea what should replace it and they don’t care. In a way, they are calling for destruction for its own sake. That is at the core of conspiracy theories.

Social media has become the new explosive. Much easier to come by than volatile nitro-glycerine or the “safer” dynamite, it can carry a destructive force over a far greater distance.

Digital bomb-throwers
The digital bomb-throwers use it in two ways. The first is by undermining truth, which casts doubt over the legitimacy of institutions. The second is by discrediting those who represent those institutions. They reserve special attention, however, for those who would presume to unmask, undermine and discredit them.

So, it came as no surprise that the verbal attacks on journalists rose to a new pitch after the appearance of Fire and Fury on the Stuff website and the series of revelations about local body candidates’ undisclosed affiliations with groups that spread conspiracy theories.

The crescendo of hate requires fortitude on the part of the journalists exposing conspiracy theorists and other bad agents. They can take some comfort from the fact that media organisations take seriously their duty of care toward staff — and freelancers — facing threats.

RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson told me the abuse was taking its toll.

“We have responded with improved security and health and safety planning, at our offices and in the field. We also have set up improved process for dealing with inappropriate and abusive feedback and social media. There are things we can do to mitigate the effects of the abuse but we cannot reduce the impact or risk to zero.”

Television New Zealand’s head of news, Phil O’Sullivan, is similarly conscious of the risks and effects.

“TVNZ has not made any changes to security arrangements due to recent incidents. But we have many existing safety precautions for reporters in place. Depending on the story, this can include traveling with extra security when covering certain events, reporting from safe locations and from a distance if a situation feels volatile and using technology solutions – for example drone footage, or footage recorded on mobile phones rather than a camera set up where needed.

“We have a responsibility to report on all the stories impacting New Zealanders — but ultimately, we need to do that in a safe way. At the forefront of this is the wellbeing and safety of our people and we have a number of measures in place to support this.”

Probing anti-fact organisations
He makes an important point: Media organisations must not let these diatribes and threats stay their hands. Investigation into anti-fact and extremist organisations and individuals must continue and are no more important than during election periods, be they local or national.

There is, however, a caveat. Journalists who call out conspiracy theorists and latter-day anarchists also have a duty of care. They have a duty to ensure they have the facts and that what they say is fair.

Last Saturday, the Wairarapa Times-Age investigated “local government candidates with controversial links” under the heading “Who is pulling the strings?” It “outed” a mayoral candidate, Tina Nixon, saying she “had been promoted by conspiracy website Resistance.Kiwi” and on Facebook had followed people associated with far-right groups.

Its source was FACT Aotearoa, a group that exposes conspiracy theorists.

However, the newspaper did not make direct contact with Nixon (it left an email saying she had two hours to respond but she did not see it within the required timeframe). Her only link with Resistance.Kiwi had been in giving them permission — along with several other websites — to reprint her submission on the 3 Waters proposals.

Like many of us, she follows hundreds of websites and social media users but does not support what many of them say. FACT Aotearoa offered Nixon an apology, saying there appeared to be a “miscommunication” with the Wairarapa Times-Age. In my view, the newspaper failed her and electors by not substantiating information.

There is potential here for witch-hunting or, as my former colleague Fran O’Sullivan put it on social media when calling out the mistake, McCarthyism.

In addition to fact-checking, media should give their targets an opportunity to explain their position before a decision is made to publish or broadcast. Tina Nixon is an object lesson.

There is a further reason why media must take great care in “outing” conspiracy theorists and extremists. Get one wrong and it might be seen as an unfortunate error. Get more wrong and the conspiracy theorists and extremists will say gleefully (and, irritatingly, with a very small amount of justification) that the media can’t be believed.

Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes a website called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Aotearoa New Zealand’s chair of the Māori Council, Matthew Tūkākī, has revealed the degree of “horrific abuse” he has been facing in a Today FM radio discussion about the forthcoming Tauranga byelection in the city claimed to be a hotspot of white supremacy and racism.

He joined Lloyd Burr on Today’s Lloyd Burr Live programme to discuss the safety reasons why the opposition Te Pāti Māori will not contest the byelection.

The party says it is because they feel “too unsafe” in the area, reports Today FM.

They say racist leaflets and threats are common.

Tukaki defended Te Pati Māori’s decision, saying: “I think they’ve done the right thing.”

He said he hoped that New Zealand could address racism, or the Tauranga controversy could be an indicator of things to come with next year’s general election.

“As somebody who himself, who’s been on the back end of a significant amount of racist correspondence, emails, letters and messages from people who sadly reside in my former hometown of Tauranga, [Te Pati Māori] are absolutely justified,” Tūkākī said.

All New Zealanders ‘should be concerned’
“All Māori, all New Zealanders should be concerned.

“Not every person in the beautiful city of Tauranga is a racist or a white supremacist. I don’t think anyone’s alluding to that.

“What we do have is great concern for the activity that’s unfolding in that by-election.”

Presenter Burr asked Tūkākī about his first-hand experience with racism and hatred and supremacy.

“I get called n****r every single day in Facebook messages on fake profiles to my account. I had a six-page letter arrive at my home in Point Chevalier that was handwritten,” he told Today FM.

“He was emboldened enough so much to write his name, contact details and even sign the letter and the content. In that basically called me a black bastard. And I and any number of other things under the sun.

“I get messages calling me a dirty black bastard, you filthy gang mongrel. You this, you that.

‘It’s relentless’
“It’s relentless. It is absolutely relentless for the last couple of years, just because I choose to represent my people and pushed kaupapa that I know is going to change their lives for the better.”

Tūkākī told Today FM: “I don’t want [the abusers’] children to listen to this crap and then go to school and repeat it to little Māori kids or Pasifika kids or Asian kids — I’m tired.”

The byelection, for the seat left vacant by the resignation of former opposition National Party leader Simon Bridges, is on June 18. Tauranga is one of New Zealand’s most affluent and fastest growing cities with a population of more than 132,000.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

If there’s one thing Matthew Tukaki thought he and the protesters at Parliament might agree on, it’s the right to free speech. But after starting a campaign to end the occupation, he discovered that wasn’t quite the case.

“I started a campaign on Sunday, which kind of went viral, called #endtheprotest, via social media,” the Wellington-based chair of the National Māori Authority said.

The hashtag is now one of the top trending topics for New Zealand Twitter users and has been shared by close to 60,0000 people on Facebook, hitting a reach of 2.3 million accounts.

Tutaki said the backlash, which had included physical threats and racial abuse, was initially just online but it quickly escalated once protesters realised he was behind the campaign.

“I came out of a hotel on Sunday and someone recognised me, they grabbed me by the arm, and the force was so great, they ripped the sleeve off my anorak and left a bruise,” he said.

Never one to let a single incident perturb him, Tukaki passed the protests on his way to lunch a few days later.

“I was down there on my way to get some sushi and a group of about eight of them piled in, shouting verbal abuse and trying to physically intimidate me. One of them was about to lunge and if it wasn’t for the police, it could have turned into something much more brutal.”

No self-respect
He said the protesters seemed to have no self-respect, either for their own space or the environment they were occupying, given the amount of human waste that was swirling around Parliament grounds.

“It’s like someone has turned up at your house, put a tent in your lounge, and then shat in your sink. It’s another level of disrespect out there and these people have no respect for the whenua.”

Having attended many protests over his life as well as having many friends and family involved in different types of activism, he said the difference in how a Māori-led campaign operated was stark.

“Ihumātao was totally different, hīkoi to parliament are different,” he said. “With Māori, when we have a protest, our people will go down to Wellington, we prosecute our kaupapa, present our petition and members of parliament will often come out to greet you.

“It’s always well-organised, and it’s safe and then we clean up after ourselves and we continue to prosecute the kaupapa back home from our marae.

“This is completely different. It’s violent, it’s aggressive and they have no respect for the whenua.”

He noted that even after protesters sent out a press release welcoming visitors, “a reporter from Wellington Live went down there, and was beaten up”.

Māori culture appropriated
He said it was particularly concerning to see both Māori culture and New Zealand’s wartime history being appropriated.

“Unfortunately our Māori whānau are being used as clickbait by those in the alternative right, who are pushing messages from the United States,” he said.

“We’re being used, our symbols are being appropriated. Our tino rangatiraranga flag is flying next to the Trump flag, next to where a Nazi swastika symbol was painted on a war memorial.”

He said the prime minister had made the right call not engaging and he felt some blame could be laid at the feet of politicians who had helped stoke racist conspiracies.

“Many politicians have used Māori issues as a political football over the last 12 months,” he said.

“What they have done is they have set free the sorts of racist attitudes that have been hiding in dark corners, and look at what those same politicians have done now — blame the government for it all.”

Peddling of racist ideas ‘normalised’
This wasn’t the first time Tukaki had received abuse, given his role with the National Māori Authority, which advocated for iwi and Māori business and community service organisations around New Zealand, but he was concerned by how normalised the peddling of racist ideas was becoming.

“I was getting racist and threatening messages before the protest, but what this has taught me is the issue of racism is out there more, because people are now emboldened to show their names and faces.

“And to be frank, people like [David] Seymour and [Judith] Collins, [Winston] Peters and Matt King all need to take responsibility for the beast in the cave they have conveniently let loose.”

Justin Latif is a Local Democracy Reporting project journalist. Read more of his stories here. Asia Pacific Report is a community partner.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

It is common practice for journalists to share contact details and locations in hostile environments such as war zones. Something is very wrong when news organisations in New Zealand share those details about their staff covering a story in downtown Wellington.

Stuff’s head of news Mark Stevens disclosed last Friday that “competing media have shared contacts of journalists in the field to provide a safety network if things get dangerous”.

It followed incidents during the “Convoy 2022” protest in the grounds of Parliament when journalists were abused, spat on, and assaulted. A Stuff reporter was pushed and shoved and a protester abused a Newshub news crew member and threatened to destroy his video camera.

Protesters told reporters to “watch your backs on the street tonight” and that they would be “executed” for their reporting. Placards read “Media is the Virus”, “Fake News”, and accused journalists of treason.

One placard parodied a covid-19 health message: “UNITE AGAINST MEDIA 22”.

Anti-media sentiment is nothing new. The 2020 Acumen-Edelman Trust Barometer showed New Zealanders scored media poorly — and below the global average — in terms of competence and ethics and only 28 percent thought they served the interests of everyone equally and fairly.

Those results did make me wonder what news media Kiwis were actually seeing and hearing but, in such things, perception is everything.

Journalists reasonably thick-skinned
But journalists are reasonably thick-skinned: They can take criticism and even insults. I doubt there is a reporter in the country who hasn’t been on the receiving end. Even death threats are something that goes with the territory.

I’ve received a few in my career. Most were of the “Drop Dead” or “You don’t deserve to be here” variety and only one was a credible threat. That one could have endangered others and was not specifically directed at me (it was reported to the police).

However, something has changed.

A reporter I hold in high regard told me last week that he had received more death threats in the last three months of 2021 than in the previous three decades. I’m not going to name him because to do so will simply increase the likelihood of further attempts at intimidation.

He told me reporters had become the focus of a great deal of anger and resentment:

“A few recent events I’ve covered have seen members of the anti-crowd deliberately moving to within a foot of me, maskless, and breathing or coughing at me, or trying to physically rub against me. That’s not an uncommon experience for those out in the field. And there’s the odd occasion, too, where the threat of physical violence is such that I’ve needed to back-peddle quickly.”

We are seeing a migration of behaviour. The US Press Freedom Tracker recorded 439 physical attacks on journalists in that country in 2020 (election year) and a further 142 in 2021. That compared with 41 in 2018 and 2019.

Tightened security
Last June the BBC tightened security around its staff after an escalation in the frequency and severity of abuse from anti-vaxxers. During Sydney anti-mandate protests last September, 7News reporter Paul Dowsley was sprayed with urine and hit in the head by a thrown drink can.

Then, in November, it came here. A 1News camera operator on the West Coast graphically recorded a foul-mouthed middle-aged man carrying an anti-vaxx placard who shoved him backwards and tried to dislodge his camera: “Do you want this [expletive] camera smashed in your face, you [expletive]?”

The current anti-vaxx movement in Canada has generated similar behaviour. Brent Jolly of the Canadian Association of Journalists said several reporters covering the trucker convoy in Ottawa have said they have been harassed on the scene and online and feel like they have a “target on their backs”.

Evan Solomon, a reporter for CTV, told the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) that he had a full can of beer thrown at his head. It missed but exploded inside a camera case. All CTV crews now have a security person with them when filming outside, no longer use lights or tripods, and in one province have removed CTV identification from vehicles.

In Ottawa people have asked reporters to remove their names from stories because they are getting death threats. Broadcasting journalists have been targeted – probably because their presence is more obvious – although one print reporter told the CPJ that she does not wear a mask during protests because it draws attention to her (she is triple vaccinated), does not go into protest crowds at night, and liaises with other reporters to advise current locations and risks.

None of this should suggest a coherent and organised anti-media campaign is sweeping the globe. We are seeing something that is a good deal more orchestrated than organised, in which the anti-vaccination movement is no more than a rallying point, and the media are a target because they are messengers for inconvenient truth.

The proof of that became apparent while I was watching the live feed of the protest in the grounds of Parliament.

‘End the Mandate’ signs
A string of images spelled out how incoherent it was. There were printed “End the Mandate” signs, “My body, my choice” t-shirts, a loony sign saying natural immunity was 99.6 per cent effective, Canadian flags, a figure in Black Power regalia wearing a full-face plastic mask, someone wearing a paramilitary “uniform”, and a man waving the ultimate conspiracy theory sign: “Epstein didn’t kill himself”.

Then there were the actions of the protesters. A few were gesticulating to police and the media, uttering things I could not (and arguable did not want) to hear. Many more were gyrating to rhythms playing over loudspeakers, beaten out on the plastic barriers on the forecourt, or generated in their own heads. It was a sort of group euphoria.

And in a perverse sort of way I think that is what is behind the attitude toward media. 1News reporter Kristin Hall had been reporting the protest and wrote a commentary on the broadcaster’s website. In it she said that despite their varying opinions and causes, the protesters were “united in their distaste for the press”. Then she gave an example of just how incoherent this united front can be:

“‘You’re all liars,’ a man told me today. When I asked if he could be more specific, he said he doesn’t consume mainstream media. People have asked me why I’m not covering the protests while I’m in the middle of interviewing them.”

Unfortunately, it is this lack of logic that makes abuse of media so hard to counter. Media cannot make peace with leaders of a movement because it is a moving feast and the orchestrators are hidden from sight. It cannot be remedied simply by stating facts because these people accept only what supports and ennobles their own disinformation-fuelled world view, a view fed by inflammatory social media that conflates then amplifies discontent on a global scale.

Nor can media offer immediate solutions to pent-up anger aggravated by two years of pandemic.

What media can — and must — do is prevent contagion. They need an inoculation campaign to ensure that the malaise infecting a small group of people does not spread.

Duty of care a priority
Mark Stevens alluded to cooperation between media to keep staff safe and that duty of care is a priority. However, media organisations need to go further. They must, on the one hand, earn the trust of a population that does not generally hold them in high regard. It is best done by demonstrating that journalists are following best professional practice and that means quality reporting and presentation.

On the other hand, they must ensure that the community understands that journalists have a right (indeed, a duty) to report on events in its midst — irrespective of whether or not its members agree with what they are being told.

The United States has an excellent track record in openly discussing professional standards and the role of media in society. We should take some leaves from their book and bring the community more into the conversation.

That is challenging, because the problem does not lie solely with the media but with the system of democracy of which it is a vital part.

Rod Oram, in a commentary on the Newsroom website last weekend, discussed the need for democratic reform:

“We have really struggled, though, to conceive, plan and execute deep systemic change, let alone get as many people as possible involved in that and benefiting from it. But that’s the only way we’ll tackle our deeply rooted economic, social and environmental failures.”

That democratic reform must include the media rethinking how it engages with the public. They must introduce open industry-wide governance to replace anachronistic and sometimes self-serving structures. They must demonstrate their commitment to accuracy, fairness and balance. They must find new ways to be inclusive and pluralistic. They must secure recognition as trusted independent sources of verified facts.

Calling out manipulation
That will take time. Meanwhile the problem of media abuse will continue. The short-term solutions will include calling out those who seek to manipulate a minority to destabilise our society. Here are two good examples:

The short term also requires media organisations to continue to meet that duty of care toward their staff. The Committee to Protect Journalists has developed a four-part “Safety Kit” to provide journalists and newsrooms with basic safety information on physical, digital and psychological safety. It’s a good starting point for any journalist.

Of course, journalists also need to keep matters in perspective. The threats represented by a group of disorganised protesters remains relatively small and, with the right training, journalists can judge the level of risk they face in most situations.

When it came to death threats, for example, I soon learned that I could bin the ones that were written in crayon.

Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications – covering both editorial and management roles – that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes a blog called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

• Read the full Gavin Ellis article here:

Copycat media abuse from ragtag bag of protesters

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Two high-profile University of Auckland academics raised important questions about academic freedom with their complaint to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) that their employer had failed its duty of care to them.

Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles and Professor Shaun Hendy have become well known for their work explaining the science behind covid-19 and guiding the public and government response.

But not everyone has agreed with that response or valued their contribution, and the academics have been threatened by what they have called “a small but venomous sector of the public”. They argued the university had not adequately responded to their safety concerns and requests for protection.

The case has now been referred to the Employment Court and the outcome for all parties remains unknown.

My focus is on the initial determination by the ERA, which referred to a letter from the university to Wiles and Hendy in August 2021 that urged them “to keep their public commentary to a minimum and suggested they take paid leave to enable them ‘to minimise any social media comments at present’.”

According to the ERA, this advice was “apparently given after [the university] received recommendations from its legal advisors to amend its policies so as to ‘not require’ its employees to provide public commentary, in order to limit its potential liability for online harassment.”

The ERA also noted the university “says that the applicants are not ‘expected’ or required to provide public commentary on COVID-19 as part of their employment or roles with the respondent, but it acknowledges they are entitled to do so.”

This issue is central to my concerns about academic freedom.

Some words from me on the abuse and harassment I’ve been subjected to on a near-daily basis for almost 2 years as a scientist speaking to the media about the pandemic https://t.co/qpvy2VJHMs

— Dr Siouxsie Wiles (@SiouxsieW) January 7, 2022

Freedom and risk
The academics argued that the university is statutorily required to “accept a role as critic and conscience of society” – as is set out under section 268 of the Education and Training Act 2020.

Universities routinely fulfil this role when academic staff and students state controversial or unpopular opinions and the results of their independent scholarship. Asking academics to step back from those roles to avoid risk seems to acknowledge that the threat derives from them doing their work.

I also fail to see how it would mitigate risk. An electrician who tried to mitigate the risk of electrocution by spending less time around wires hasn’t actually reduced the risk of electrocution when doing their job. They’ve just reduced the amount of time they are doing their job.

The Auckland academics are not the first to receive threats because of their “critic and conscience” activities. In the US, my former boss Dr Anthony Fauci says he, too, has received death threats from members of the public because of his work on the pandemic.

Less visible but still damaging threats or derogatory comments can come from within the university community, too. Systemic discrimination based on gender and race is well documented in academia. And increasingly, there are conflicts arising out of commercial interests in public research organisations.

Elsewhere it can be even more dangerous, such as the state-sponsored attacks on academics reported in Turkey. As a fellow scientist, I empathise with colleagues forced into the spotlight by virtue of their expertise or conscience.

Uses and limits of institutional power
Universities provide an important protection of academic freedom by not using their power as employers to stifle opinion. But it’s not enough. Universities should be more active in enabling academics to fulfil their role as critic and conscience of society so that, as expected by parliament, academic freedom is “preserved and enhanced”.

But there are also limits. No university in Aotearoa New Zealand has the scale to protect its students and staff from the concerted actions of a hostile country, a multi-billion dollar multinational company, or even the whispers of co-conspirators at coffee breaks during the ranking of grants.

What universities should do cannot exceed what they can do.

A coalition of government, universities, unions, staff and students needs to work together to redefine what can be done.

The government could reaffirm its commitment to critic-and-conscience activities by creating or re-purposing funding explicitly for these. Accountability will follow because universities would be required to expose that activity to public oversight.

The expectations of the university and the government to preserve and enhance academic freedom should become a normal conversation.

The risk is governments might want to influence what does and does not constitute being a critic and conscience of society, and use funding to stifle criticism of its policies. While this risk exists already, the temptation to constrain academic freedom could become stronger.

But balance would be provided by using the United Nations’ higher education declaration as a benchmark, through the transparency of the funding accountability exercise, and the declared precondition the funding allocation process be subject to ongoing and open scrutiny by university staff and students.

Accepting risk with freedom
Universities would be expected to use their additional resources to enable students and staff, as safely as possible, to use their academic freedom for public service.

Jurisdictional responsibilities could be negotiated between universities and government so that, where appropriate, a threat requiring more than campus security would be covered by the country’s police or defence resources.

But students and staff have some responsibilities, too. The university community cannot and should not leave its own protection to others. It needs to take a greater role in self-policing prejudice, privilege and conflicts of interest within the academic community itself.

Confronting the ultimate holders of power within their own academies and professional bodies will be the most painful action for members. But it would be worse for the community to fail in this and therefore do less as the critic and conscience of society.

If the use of academic freedom did not create risk, parliament would not have needed to legislate for its protection. But that risk should not be shouldered by Wiles and Hendy, or anyone else, alone.

Dr Jack Heinemann is professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Canterbury. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A Northland high school principal says she has been accused of being “complicit in mass genocide” by people opposed to getting vaccinated.

After today, anyone who works or volunteers in an education setting in New Zealand and who has not received at least one dose of the covid-19 vaccine will be barred from school grounds.

Last week, thousands of people marched up the streets of Wellington to Parliament to protest for various covid-19-related reasons.

Some were angry at the covid-19 vaccination mandates, the lockdowns or the vaccine itself.

The protesters screamed abuse at police and media, demanding an end to covid-19 restrictions.

This level of anger is all too familiar for Whangārei Boys High School principal Karen Gilbert-Smith.

“I appreciate that what’s happening for a lot of people is really challenging, but the kind of things that have been happening from my end, and I know speaking to other colleagues, they’re experiencing similar things, is relentlessness that we’re doing something to others,” Gilbert-Smith said.

‘Worst message’
“I think the worst message that I got was that I was complicit in mass genocide by supporting the vaccination mandate,” she said.

“We get a lot of emails from parents: the vast majority of those are positive, but the ones that kind of take the wind out of your sails and that require the most thoughtful response are the ones that are really awful and vindictive.”

The abuse was coming from all angles and although it was a minority, their voices were loud, Gilbert-Smith said.

“I think it’s the ill-informed or misinformed anti-vaxxers that are really whipping up that hatred. That just feels really abhorrent to me that misinformation just gets so widely spread and is leading to that sense of lack of safety for people in their communities.”

But today the no jab, no job policy for education staff officially kicks in.

Teachers need to have received at least one dose of the covid-19 vaccine if they want to continue to work with students in a face-to-face learning environment.

‘Where are we going to find those replacements?’
Gilbert-Smith preferred not to comment on their own staffing situation at Whangārei Boys High School, but did say she was nervous.

“As principals, many of us have had conversations about the impact in our own schools and certainly in Te Tai Tokerau, it’s likely to have a significant impact on staffing across our schools, so we’re not just talking about teachers,” she said.

“We’re talking about groundsmen, canteen staff, support staff, everyone. We can ill afford to have staffing shortages and in Tai Tokerau it’s difficult enough.”

She is concerned that it will impact on students.

“It’s hard enough to put well qualified, passionate, knowledgeable, smart teachers in front of students, which is what they deserve. And now we’re in a situation of being a little bit further behind than that.

“Where are we going to find those replacements? Particularly teachers. That is very worrying to me.”

She said the constant hate and abuse was wearing her down and was making it harder for her to do her job.

‘Creating reassurance’
“Principals are creating reassurance for everyone in their community, but also fielding all the negativity that comes. Anyone with aspirations of being a principal right now, they might be reconsidering at this point,” she said.

“We are obliged to uphold the law, and that’s what we’re doing as principals, and we’re doing the best that we can. We’re managing people’s expectations and we’re dealing with their upset and distress.

“And keeping the school running as we’re supposed to do on any other day of the week, or any other time of the year. It is a lot of work.”

Gilbert-Smith said she loved her job, but the current conversations had moved too far away from being about creating better outcomes for young people in Aotearoa.

“That’s a real shame because they are the ones that will suffer, those young people in our schools.”

The impact of the vaccine mandate on teacher supply will not be known until the vaccination deadline has passed and numbers are clear, according to the Ministry of Health.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Samoa found itself in a constitutional crisis this week when the caretaker Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP) government locked the doors to Parliament in an attempt to stop prime minister-elect Fiame Naomi Mata’afa being sworn in to office following her FAST party’s one-seat election win.

Samoa now finds itself in the position of having “two governments” claiming a mandate to rule, and the United Nations is urging the party leaders to find a solution through discussion.

Saturday Morning host Julian Willcox (Ngāpuhi, Te Arawa), broadcaster and Te Reo orator deputising for RNZ presenter Kim Hill, talks to Lagipoiva Cherelle Jackson (pictured). She is the Apia-based editor of Pacific Environment Weekly and has been covering events surrounding Samoa’s election.

Jackson also talks about the abuse faced on line by her and other Pacific journalists when reporting unwelcome facts and says it is part of the territory of being a journalist.

Cherelle Jackson on Twitter

‼️I do not condone offensive name-calling, purposeful embarrassment, threats of physical violence, online harassment and insinuations of sexual harassment on my Tweets through comments and/or in the sharing of content on Samoa election.
‼️They are still Chiefs
‼️Keep to topic!

— Lagipoiva Cherelle Jackson (@lagipoiva) May 28, 2021

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Prosecution of perpetrators of gender-based violence around the country still remains a massive problem for Papua New Guinea, says National Capital District Governor Powes Parkop.

He said while the issue of GBV continued to escalate in the country, perpetrators were not being brought to account and this gave them a “licence to continue”.

Parkop said this while addressing a workshop conducted by United Nations Women in Lae last week.

“We need to fix this referral pathway, because we cannot let perpetrators of GBV [avoid] the law for their actions.

“It is simply hard for women who are victims and survivors of GBV to go and get the support they need in terms of counselling, medical support and court, and for some it is hard to get justice,” Parkop said.

“Most are not able to get justice due to lack of financial support and other factors.

“There must be a support system established so that victims of GBV cannot go back to abusive relationships where some of them end up losing their lives.

Dynamics ‘unchanged’
“It is important that we fix this referral pathway and allocate money and resources to effectively address this…..because despite work done over the years to address GBV issues in the country, this has not changed the dynamics.”

He said all stakeholders, including the government and political leaders, must ensure that this issue was dealt with and must not be something that the future generation could continue to do.

A participant in the gathering and an advocate of GBV in Lae, Nellie McLay, said there was a serious need for the government to look at recommendations made some years ago and implement these to help address the issue of GBV.

McLay said women were important, equal to men and were bearers of human beings, the most important resources in the world.

But many women in PNG continued to be abused, tortured and some killed at the hand of their partners, she said.

Several participants said that when there was not much support given to victims of GBV, women continued to stay in abusive relationship and this needed to change.

Janet Kari is a PNG Post-Courier reporter.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz