A stoush between the Chief Human Rights Commissioner and a Jewish community leader has flared up following a showdown at Parliament.

Appearing before a parliamentary select committee today, Dr Stephen Rainbow was asked about his recent apology for incorrect comments he made about Muslims earlier this year.

“If my language has been injudicious . . .  then I have apologised for that,” he told MPs.

“I’ve apologised publicly. I’ve apologised privately. I’ve met with FIANZ [The Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand] to hear their concerns and to apologise to them, both in person and publicly, and I hold to that apology.”

The apology relates to a meeting he had with Jewish community leader Philippa Yasbek, from the anti-Zionist Jewish groups Alternative Jewish Voices and Dayenu, in February.

Yasbek said Rainbow claimed during the meeting that the Security Intelligence Services (SIS) threat assessment found Muslims posed a greater threat to the Jewish community in New Zealand than white supremacists.

In fact, the report states “white identity-motivated violent extremism [W-IMVE] remains the dominant identity-motivated violent extremism ideology in New Zealand”.

Rainbow changed his position
Rainbow told the committee he had since changed his position after receiving new information.

He said was disappointed he had “allowed [his] words to create a perception there was a prejudice there” and he would do everything in his power to repair his relationship with the Muslim community.

“Please be assured that I take this as a learning, and I will be far more measured with my comments in future.”

But Rainbow disputed another of Yasbek’s assertions that he had also raised the supposed antisemitism of Afghan refugees in West Auckland.

“It’s going to be really unhelpful if I get into a he-said-she-said, but I did not say the comments that were attributed to me about that. I do not believe that,” Rainbow said.

“I emphatically deny that I said that.”

‘It definitely stuck in my mind’ – Jewish community leader
Yasbek, who called for Rainbow’s resignation yesterday, was watching the select committee hearing from the back of the room.

Speaking to reporters afterwards, Yasbek said she was certain Rainbow had made the comments about Afghan refugees.

“It was particularly memorable because it was so specific and he said that he was concerned about the risk of anti-semitism in the community of Afghan refugees in West Auckland.

“It’s very specific. It’s not a sort of detail that one is likely to make up, and it definitely stuck in my mind.”

Yasbek said the race relations commissioner and two Human Rights Commission staff members were also in the room and should be interviewed to corroborate what happened.

“There were multiple witnesses. I am concerned that he has impugned my integrity in that way which is why there should be an independent investigation of this matter.”

Raised reported comments
Speaking to RNZ later, FIANZ chairman Abdur Razzaq said he raised the commissioner’s reported comments about Afghan refugees when he met with Rainbow several weeks ago.

“I raised it at the meeting with him and he did not correct me. At my meeting there were other members of the Human Rights Commission. He did not say he didn’t [say that].”

Razzaq said it was up to the justice minister as to whether or not Rainbow was fit for the role.

“When you hear statements like this, like ‘greatest threat’, he has forgotten it was precisely this kind of Islamophobic sentiment which gave rise to the terrorist of March 15, rise to the right-wing extremist terrorists to take action and they justify it with these kinds of statements.”

“[The commissioner] calls himself an academic, a student of history. Where is his lessons learned on this aspect? To pick a Muslim community by name… he has to really genuinely look at himself as to what he is doing and what he is saying.”

Minister backs Rainbow: ‘Doing his best’
Speaking at Parliament following the hearing, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said he backed Rainbow and believed the commissioner would learn from the experience.

“The new commissioner is doing his best. By his own admission he didn’t express himself well. He has apologised and he will be learning from that experience, and it is my expectation that he will be very careful in the way that he communicates in the future.”

Goldsmith said he stood by his appointment of Rainbow, despite the independent panel tasked with leading the process taking a different view.

“There’s a range of opinions on that. The advice that I had originally from the group was a real focus on legal skills, and I thought actually equally important was the ability to communicate ideas effectively.”

Speaking in Christchurch on Thursday afternoon, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said Rainbow had got it “totally wrong” and it was appropriate he had apologised.

“He completely and quite wrongfully mischaracterised a New Zealand SIS report talking about threats to the Jewish community and he was wrong about that.

“He has subsequently apologised about that but equally Minister Goldsmith has or is talking to him about those comments as well.”

‘Not elabiorating further’
RNZ approached the Human Rights Commission on Thursday afternoon for a response to Yasbek doubling down on her recollection Rainbow had talked about the supposed antisemitism of Afghan refugees in West Auckland.

“The Chief Commissioner will not be elaborating further about what was said in the meeting,” a spokesperson said.

“He’s happy to discuss the matter privately with the people involved,” a spokesperson said.

“Dr Rainbow acknowledges that what was said caused harm and offence and what matters most is the impact on communities. That is why he has apologised unreservedly and stands by his apology.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Māori, Pasifika, Asian, as well as disabled and bisexual employees, are disproportionately affected by bullying and harassment in workplaces in Aotearoa New Zealand, according to new research out today.

More than a third of respondents to a Human Rights Commission survey say they have experienced some form of harassment at work in the past five years.

In the report, Experiences of Workplace Bullying and Harassment in Aotearoa New Zealand, 39 percent of people said they had been racially harassed at work.

Also, 30 percent reported being sexually harassed and 20 percent bullied.

Māori, Pacific Peoples, and Asian workers, as well as disabled workers, and bisexual workers were disproportionately affected.

The nationwide study found that 24 percent of those who reported being mistreated, raised a formal complaint.

Researchers said the 2500 workers involved in the survey in May and June provided a representative picture of the population.

‘Disappointed’ in the harassment
Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Saunoamaali’i Karanina Sumeo told RNZ Morning Report she was disappointed to see a “high prevalence” of racial harassment in the workplace.

She said the study looked at different industries.

“Healthcare seems to be the one that goes right across in terms of high prevalence of racial harassment, sexual harassment and bullying.

“In healthcare, you’ve got huge power dynamic. So the majority of people who perpetrate these behaviours occupy a more senior role to the victim. In those really hierarchical occupations, there’s a high risk of abuse of power.”

More young people reported being harassed in the hospitality and accommodation industry.

“It depends on the industry. It’s insane in terms for men [in] construction, manufacturing, communications … for women [it is] the health sector, and the public sector generally,” Sumeo said.

“This is real and it’s a shared suffering,” and it was important for people facing these circumstances to know that they were not exaggerating, she said.

‘No definition’ in laws
“We don’t have a definition of bullying in our laws at the moment and it’s really important that we have that. So myself, the Human Rights Commission, the unions and others are calling on government to ratify our ILO 190, which gives us the ability to identify and then we can allocate resources.”

She also called on the government to look at compensation laws “in terms of recognition and compensation and support to go to people who are suffering bullying and sexual harassment and racial harassment”.

Read the Experiences of Workplace Bullying and Harassment in Aotearoa New Zealand report.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

Vanuatu leaders have taken the podium at the United Nations General Assembly to speak out against the military repression of anti-racism and independence demonstrations in West Papua, reports SBS news.

Addressing world leaders at the New York gathering – which has so far been a platform for powerful climate change activism – Vanuatu Prime Minister Charlot Salwai said his country “condemns, emphatically” the ongoing human rights abuses in West Papua.

He also lamented how some Pacific territories are yet to break the shackles of colonialism, citing France’s territories of New Caledonia and French Polynesia, as well as Indonesian-ruled West Papua, reports RNZ Pacific.

READ MORE: Vanuatu and Solomons raise Papua at UN rights council

His colleague, Foreign Minister Ralph Regenvanu said the current situation in West Papua “fits the criteria for genocide” and implored world leaders to address it.

“History will judge us and we have to be on the right side of history.”

He targeted Australia specifically, saying that its status as a Pacific country meant that it had responsibilities in the region.

“Australia’s got to step up substantially on the issue of West Papua, particularly because it’s on the Human Rights Council, it is a member of the Pacific Islands Forum.”

Among the Vanuatu delegation to the UN was exiled West Papua Independence Leader Benny Wenda. Along with other Pacific leaders, he met with the UN Secretary-General António Guterres to stress the importance of a UN visit to West Papua.

“So I hope that Indonesian government and President Jokowi will allow the UN High Commissioner to visit West Papua because this is a human rights crisis happening right now in West Papua,” he said.

According to Antara, Wenda was not permitted entry into the UN Assembly Hall along with the Vanuatu delegation as the UN rules stipulate that diplomats must be nationals of the country they are representing.

Indonesian authorities have blamed Wenda for inclinting the West Papua unrest, including last week’s clashes which reportedly claimed the lives of at least 40 people.

According to The Guardian, testimonies of the clashes from eyewitnesses differ greatly from the official Indonesian account.

While authorities maintain that those killed were mostly non-Papuans who died as a result of the destruction caused by the Papuan demonstrators, one eye witness said that police directly opened fire on protestors killing “16 to 20” of them.

Another witness said that children were among the dead, reports The Guardian.

The unrest has prompted further tension throughout the Wamena community, with non-native residents allegedly arming themselves with machetes to protect their properties.

Others have fled en masse to military bases where they are awaiting evacuation to safer parts of the region, reports ABC.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By RNZ Pacific

Vanuatu and Solomon Islands have raised the issue of human rights abuses against West Papuans at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The two governments made a statement which also noted that Indonesia had not yet given access to Papua for the UN Human Rights Commissioner.

The statement was delivered at the council’s latest session by Sumbue Antas from Vanuatu’s Permanent Mission to the UN.

READ MORE: FLNKS calls for West Papua self-determination, condemns violence

It followed weeks of protests and related unrest in Papua which left at least ten people dead and dozens of Papuans arrested.

The Melanesian countries told the council of their deep concern about ongoing rights violations against the freedoms of expression and assembly, as well as racial discrimination towards Papuans in the Indonesian-administered provinces of Papua and West Papua.

They echoed last week’s call from the UN human rights chief, Michelle Bachelet, for Indonesia to protect the fundamental human rights of Papuans.

“Related to this agenda item, we are concerned about the Indonesian Government’s delay in confirming a time and date for the Human Rights Commissioner to conduct its visit to West Papua,” Antas said.

For years, the UN Human Rights Commissioner’s office has been trying to secure permission from Jakarta to visit Papua region.

Indonesia’s government has indicated that, for the time being, access to Papua would remain restricted because of the security situation created by the recent unrest, which was triggered by racist harassment of Papuan students in Java last month.

Six thousand extra Indonesian military and police personnel were deployed to Papua to respond to the widespread protests. The government also implemented restrictions on internet coverage in Papua, although this was gradually being eased as of last week.

However, even before the current surge in unrest, Pacific Islands countries voiced frustration that Jakarta had not responded sufficiently to repeated requests by the UN Commissioner for access to Papua.

At the recent 2019 Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Summit in Tuvalu, regional countries called on both Indonesia and the UN Commissioner to finalise the timing of a visit to West Papua, and to submit an evidence-based report on the situation before the next summit in 2020.

“We call on the High Commissioner and the Government of Indonesia to expedite this arrangement so an assessment on the current situation is made, and a report can be submitted to the Human Rights Council for its consideration,” Antas said.

• This article is published under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand. 

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Concerns about bigotry and harassment in New Zealand are ongoing, or even rising. Yet the primary state agency that deals with these issues – the Human Rights Commission – has been discredited and is in turmoil. The latest ministerial report is incredibly damning, illustrating that the Commission is not living the values it wants everyone else to live by. For its supporters, the Human Rights Commission (HRC), plays an important role in fostering inclusion, understanding and harmony, by campaigning publicly against sexism, racism, homophobia and other forms of discrimination. But to its critics, it’s proved itself not up to the task of protecting human rights and, in the eyes of some, become a “politically correct” activist state agency, that goes beyond its proper purpose by policing free speech. So, how can the Commission be reformed? Or should it be scrapped? How the scandal started Back in February, journalist Harrison Christian published an expose on the HRC in the Sunday Star Times: Human Rights Commission finance boss sexually harasses young intern, keeps job. The whole scandal was somewhat of a paradox – not simply because a human rights agency might be expected to be the last place that sexual harassment should be occurring – but particularly because the agency was entirely remiss in the way they dealt with the intern’s complaint. As reported in the article, the intern claimed that the HRC did not have her interests as their main concern: “I felt it wasn’t so much about me any more, it was about protecting the organisation, and them hitting all the right points that they had to hit legally. Ultimately I felt it came down to making sure they could move on as an organisation.” Writing at the time, Alison Mau was shocked: “you’d think of all places the HRC would have a gold-standard way of investigating in a fair, balanced, independent and transparent manner” – see: After Human Rights Commission harassment scandal, how can victims trust the process? She also hoped that the scandal would “not reflect on the work that the HRC does for New Zealanders in the wider sense. It would be a shame if confidence in its public role took a knock.” Then in May, Harrison Christian followed up with more detail on what had occurred in the HRC, how his own investigation was carried out, and he drew attention to the uncooperative and murky role of its managers in the scandal – see: Analysis: The road to the truth about the Human Rights Commission. The CEO, Cynthia Brophy, comes out of this account poorly. The extent of the problem with the Human Rights Commission Given the controversy, a ministerial inquiry was commissioned by Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, which produced a damning report by retired judge Coral Shaw. This is covered in RNZ’s HRC report: ‘Deep divide’ between staff and managers. The report details bullying and dysfunctional leadership in the agency. In the wake of the review, most of those at the top of the Commission have been moved on. First to go was the Chief Commissioner, David Rutherford – see Harrison Christian’s HRC chief commissioner David Rutherford to go following damning report. Then, on Friday, two of the Human Rights Commissioners, Susan Devoy and Jackie Blue, announced their departure. Devoy wrote an “exclusive guest essay” about this for The Spinoff website (a media outlet that receives sponsorship from the HRC) – see: How the Human Rights Commission can rebuild trust. While worth reading, you won’t find much in the way of interesting reflections – or much real contrition – from Devoy. Instead this is a PR piece is about the achievements of herself and colleagues, how they have been “speaking truth to power”, and how she feels “vindicated”. She also “calls on those who failed staff in relation to sexual harassment allegations to do the right thing and step aside.” Apart from this, there is very little in her essay about how the HRC can be reformed. Can the HRC be reformed? The ministerial report was very clear that the latest problems at the HRC were about more than just the personnel, with former commissioners reporting that the dysfunction had been present for “many years”, and under previous commissioners. There are signs that with the departure of some of the problematic managers, it might now be “business as usual” at the Commission. Andrew Little even said on Friday: “So it’s time to look further afield and see if we can get some new blood”,  suggesting he may not accept the need for bigger reform. Andrew Little and his government clearly also need to look at the appointment processes for new commissioners. This is explained very well by former commissioner Peter Hosking in his article, Drop the politics from human rights. He asks why the government doesn’t consult with the opposition over the new appointments. For a long time now, the commissioner appointment process has been party political, with the government of the day making the decision, sometimes even ignoring officials’ advice. Hosking says that the process should be bipartisan, pointing out that the United Nations has previously recommended this to New Zealand, and the ministerial review makes a good suggestion in this regard: “the Judge recommending consideration be given to whether the commissioners should be officers of Parliament, similar to the Ombudsman, Auditor-General and Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.” Other suggestions for reform come from David Farrar, who has written one of the most interesting commentaries on the ministerial review – see: The Human Rights Commission review. He says the extent of the problem is made clear in the review: “Government reviews are normally diplomatically worded. This review is damning in the language used such as toxic, unprofessional etc. Andrew Little has his work cut out for him with the HRC. The status quo is clearly untenable.” Here’s Farrar’s main point about the need for a structural change in the organisation: “I think the issue may be structure as much as people. Most organisation have part-time governors who sit strategy and policy and full-time staff who do the work. The HRC has full-time Commissioners who lead the work program but also collectively are meant to govern the organisation. There is also a CEO and a Chief Commissioner. So very blurred accountability in my opinion… I prefer the traditional models with a clear line between governance and management. Effectively the HRC has multiple bosses as each Commissioner has control over their area, plus a Chief Commission and a CEO.” Maybe the HRC is simply too tarnished and broken to be reformed, and needs to be scrapped. That’s the view of Damien Grant, who draws a parallel with Britain’s News of World publication being shut down: “One the best things Rupert Murdoch did was shut the News of the World. As his son, James, explained at the time: ‘The News of the World is in the business of holding others to account. But it failed when it came to itself’… The Commission, like News of the World, preaches one thing and practices another” – see: Shut it down – rights watchdog fails to practice what it preaches. Damning the organisation, Grant quotes a staff member saying “There’s a culture of victimisation and secrecy, no one feels that they can speak the truth or be heard”, and he points to the ministerial report stating that “78 per cent of its staff did not believe their employer treated everyone fairly”. Grant believes the HRC to be generally redundant, suggests that trade unions are better at dealing with harassment and discrimination: “The best organisation to challenge bullying and harassment in the workplace isn’t a dysfunctional government agency but unions. Asserting the rights of workers is exactly the sort of role a successful union would aspire to and, if effective, will gain new recruits as a result.” Has the Commission also become victim of “mission creep”? According to John Drinnan, it has become increasingly activist, which is a problem for a state agency – see: Dysfunctional HRC targets hate and disharmony. Drinnan reports that AUT academic Paul Moon “sees as evidence of an ‘ideology’ developing at the Commission”, and criticises its lack of transparency. Drinnan says the HRC continues to promote restrictions on free speech, and he points to a recent forum about online hate speech, in which there was a complete lack of ideological diversity: “None of the speakers are promoters for free speech.” Drinnan also reports Andrew Little as saying a review of human rights laws is coming up, and “It may well be that is the time to consider whether there has to be a beefing up over the coverage of hate speech”. Finally, maybe some lessons can be learnt from the UK’s equally controversial version of our agency, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which was headed for ten years by Trevor Phillips. While running the EHRC, Phillips was a highly controversial public figure akin to some of New Zealand’s commissioners such as Susan Devoy. But he now says he’s had a “Road to Damascus” change of heart about the agency and now takes an entirely different approach to human rights issues and debate. You can listen to his 2015 interview with RNZ’s Katherine Ryan here: Straight conversations about racial and religious differences. And you can watch his recent British documentary: Has Political Correctness Gone Mad?

The Human Rights Commission hosted a discussion on the importance of the United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as part of a Indigenous Rights Information Series. The panel discussed the process of adopting the UNDRIP in New Zealand, how it affects indigenous peoples in the country and suggestions for implementation. Video: Human Rights Commission

By TJ Aumua in Auckland

Former Māori party co-leader Sir Pita Sharples described te reo Māori as being on “life support” at a Human Rights Commission forum this month.

He said he would lead an initiative of revitalising the Māori language and would hope to encourage the Government in supporting the notion, as a fundamental right in the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

“I am determined this year to lead a charge with the Declaration and with the Treaty of Waitangi and for Government to be meaningfully supportive of the growth of te reo Māori in New Zealand.”

‘forbidden’

Sharples talked about his parents who, in the past, were forbidden to talk te reo Māori in New Zealand.

As a result “our language was killed in one generation”.

He told the Pacific Media Centre an environment that would support the learning of the language and its use in everyday conversation needs to be established in New Zealand.

“When our kids go to the mall, they talk Māori the whole time. But the world around them doesn’t support what they are doing.”

Sharples also emphasised that New Zealand media have to be trained in Māori pronunciation in order to foster an environment that encourages and respects te reo.

Indigenous law

Expert member on the UN Permanent Forum of Indigenous Issues, Valmaine Toki recommended mandatory indigenous law studies in New Zealand as part of implementing legal understanding of the UNDRIP.

She also said constitutional recognition of the Declaration in New Zealand is key to reflecting indigenous rights.

Listen to the full audio story:

Traditional knowledge

Toki also touched on how indigenous knowledge is key to solving Pacific climate change.

“The Pacific is really vital and key at the moment because of climate change-it’s a huge issue. And traditional knowledge cuts right across that.”

Listen to the interview with Valmaine Toki: