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

With the protest hīkoi from the Far North moving through Rotorua on its way to Wellington, it might be said ACT leader David Seymour has been granted his wish of generating an “important national conversation about the place of the Treaty in our constitutional arrangements”.

Timed to coincide with the first reading of the contentious Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill yesterday — it passed with a vote of 68-55, the hīkoi and other similar protests are a response to what many perceive as a fundamental threat to New Zealand’s fragile constitutional framework.

With no upper house, nor a written constitution, important laws can be fast-tracked or repealed by a simple majority of Parliament.

As constitutional lawyer and former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer has argued about the current government’s legislative style and speed, the country “is in danger of lurching towards constitutional impropriety”.

Central to this ever-shifting and contested political ground is te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi. For decades it has been woven into the laws of the land in an effort to redress colonial wrongs and guarantee a degree of fairness and equity for Māori.

There is a significant risk the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill would undermine these achievements, as it attempts to negate recognised rights within the original document and curtail its application in a modern setting.

But while the bill is almost guaranteed to fail because of the other coalition parties’ refusal to support it beyond the select committee, there is another danger. Contained in an explanatory note within the bill is the following clause:

The Bill will come into force if a majority of electors voting in a referendum support it. The Bill will come into force 6 months after the date on which the official result of that referendum is declared.

Were David Seymour to argue his bill has been thwarted by the standard legislative process and must be advanced by a referendum, the consequences for social cohesion could be significant.

The referendum option
While the bill would still need to become law for the referendum to take place, the option of putting it to the wider population — either as a condition of a future coalition agreement or orchestrated via a citizens-initiated referendum — should not be discounted.

One recent poll showed roughly equal support for and against a referendum on the subject, with around 30 percent undecided. And Seymour has had success in the past with his End of Life Choice Act referendum in 2020.

He will also have watched the recent example of Australia’s Voice referendum, which aimed to give a non-binding parliamentary voice to Indigenous communities but failed after a heated and divisive public debate.

The lobby group Hobson’s Pledge, which opposes affirmative action for Māori and is led by former ACT politician Don Brash, has already signalled its intention to push for a citizens-initiated referendum, arguing: “We need to deliver the kind of message that the Voice referendum in Australia delivered.”

The Treaty and the constitution
ACT’s bill is not the first such attempt. In 2006, the NZ First Party — then part of a Labour-led coalition government — introduced the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill.

That bill failed, but the essential argument behind it was that entrenching Treaty principles in law was “undermining race relations in New Zealand”. However, ACT’s current bill does not seek to delete those principles, but rather to define and restrain them in law.

This would effectively begin to unpick decades of careful legislative work, threaded together from the deliberations of the Waitangi Tribunal, the Treaty settlements process, the courts and Parliament.

As such, in mid-August the Tribunal found the first iteration of ACT’s bill

would reduce the constitutional status of the Treaty/te Tiriti, remove its effect in law as currently recognised in Treaty clauses, limit Māori rights and Crown obligations, hinder Māori access to justice, impact Treaty settlements, and undermine social cohesion.

In early November, the Tribunal added:

If this Bill were to be enacted, it would be the worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty/te Tiriti in modern times. If the Bill remained on the statute book for a considerable time or was never repealed, it could mean the end of the Treaty/te Tiriti.

Social cohesion at risk
Similar concerns have been raised by the Ministry of Justice in its advice to the government. In particular, the ministry noted the proposal in the bill may negate the rights articulated in Article II of the Treaty, which affirms the continuing exercise of tino rangatiratanga (self-determination):

Any law which fails to recognise the collective rights given by Article II calls into question the very purpose of the Treaty and its status in our constitutional arrangements.

The government has also been advised by the Ministry of Justice that the bill may lead to discriminatory outcomes inconsistent with New Zealand’s international legal obligations to eliminate discrimination and implement the rights of Indigenous peoples.

All of these issues will become heightened if a referendum, essentially about the the removal of rights guaranteed to Māori in 1840, is put to the vote.

Of course, citizens-initiated referendums are not binding on a government, but they carry much politically persuasive power nonetheless. And this is not to argue against their usefulness, even on difficult issues.

But the profound constitutional and wider democratic implications of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, and any potential referendum on it, should give everyone pause for thought at this pivotal moment.

Dr Alexander Gillespie is professor of law, University of Waikato and Claire Breen is professor of Law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Waikato Tainui estimate at least 10,000 people have been welcomed onto Tūrangawaewae marae to participate in an Aotearoa New Zealand national hui called by Kiingi Tuuheitia.

Kiingi Tuuheitia extended the invite last month after iwi leaders highlighted the need for a unified response to coalition government policy impacting Māori and the 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The iwi say it is the largest contingent of people they have welcomed since the tangi of Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu in 2006.

A flood of people during the pōwhiri saw groups dispersed to the riverside and a series of overflow marquees all fitted with large screens, water, seating and shade.

Iwi representatives from across the country have spoken on the pae with some composing waiata and haka specifically related to the coalition government and the hui.

Taiha Molyneux, RNZ’s Māori news editor writes that this is the first of a series of national Hui A Iwi touch point and a reference for Māori for many many years to come.

Kiingitanga chief-of-staff Ngira Simmonds said Ngāruawāhia was buzzing with activity.

“It’s quite logistical magic to pull this off, and there are several marae involved in not only the hui itself, but the night before.

“Seven of our marae will be hosting some of the iwi that will be coming from a long distance, so it’s a big undertaking.”

Simmonds said: “This hui will probably be a touch point and a reference for Māori for many many years to come, we will all be able to say that at this time in this place we all agreed to this, and what we all know is there is power in kotahitanga.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Methodist Church of Fiji is seeking forgiveness from the descendants of Indian indentured labourers, or Girmitiyas, for the transgressions of the last 36 years.

The racially motivated violent coups of 1987 and 2000 and the military coup d’état of December 2006 have left a permanent scar on race relations within the country.

The 1987 and 2000 coups were supported by the church’s then-leadership.

But in a historic move, the church is launching a 10-year campaign to heal the wounds of the past — starting with an apology to coincide with the inaugural Girmit Day celebrations next Sunday.

Reverend Ili Vunisuwai is leading the official apology at the national reconciliation service on May 14 as the head of the largest Christian denomination in Fiji.

“The time is right to launch a campaign for national reconciliation and give the people of all races a chance to confess their weaknesses,” Reverend Vunisuwai said.

“Let’s seek forgiveness from those they regard as their enemies. We strongly believe that by confession with pure hearts and humility, our transgression can be forgiven,” he said.

“As we look back, the dark days of social upheavals of coups of 1987, 2000 as well as 2006, and then, unfolding events of hatred and discrimination, which resulted in fear and uncertainties, I think there’s a lot to be done by the church to bring the two races together.”

The timing of the event has much significance as the country of under a million people marks 144 years since the arrival of the first of more than 60,000 indentured labourers or Girmitiyas as they later came to be known.

Girmitiyas were brought to Fiji between 1879 to 1916 by British colonial rulers to work in plantations across the island.

As a result of the indentured labour system, Fijians of Indian descent make up the second largest ethnic population in Fiji today — slightly over 34 percent, while the iTaukei or indigenous people comprise 62 percent.

Chair to the Girmit Celebrations, Assistant Minister for Women Sashi Kiran, is calling the apology efforts a start of a peaceful future for the nation.

‘We acknowledge the pain’
‘I’m very humbled, and I’m very, very touched at the strength of the Committee and of the leadership of the Methodist Church,” Kiran told RNZ Pacific.

“They’re willing to look at the problem in the eye and say, ‘Well, let’s talk about it. We apologise, we can’t change the past, but we are sorry for the hurt that we have caused’.”

But while Kiran accepts the apology from the church, she acknowledges that many in the Indo-Fijian community may not be ready.

“Any pain cannot be underrated,” she said. “What people went through was their pain, and it’s their journey so by no means can we judge what people are feeling or going through”

“We acknowledge the pain. We acknowledge the pain of the past,” she added.

However, she admits that events of the past cannot be undone, and the way forward is through healing.

“In the interest of healing the nation, in the interest of future generations that they born into a healed nation…we ask you to please open your hearts and open your inner feelings,” she appealed to Fijians.

“Let’s talk about it [past atrocities], and let’s work on healing and come into that space.”

She said it was also “okay” for those people who still “need time” to heal from the racial troubles, adding “at least we begin to talk about this.”

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, who has publicly apologised for his actions in 1987 repeatedly, accepts that many will still remember the dark past that made him notorious worldwide.

“The man that we did not want to know about, we shied away from his name, addressed us…and he does not bite, he’s not an angry young man,” Rabuka told the 12th World Hindi Conference in Nadi in February.

“He is just an old man who understands the feelings of the descendants of the Girmitiyas who are now his age, looking at their grandchildren and children growing up in the land they now call home.”

RNZ Pacific asked Reverend Vunisuwai why it has taken the Methodist Church of Fiji 35 years to apologise to the Indo-Fijian community?

“The current government has allowed the celebration of the Girmitiyas, and that’s probably a good time for national reconciliation regarding all the upheavals of the past 30 years or so.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The “politics of fear” pervading Fiji must go away, says National Federation Party (NFP) candidate Agni Deo Singh.

The former general secretary of the Fiji Teachers Union (FTU) attacked the “politics of fear” aimed at the hearts of voters, especially Fijians of Indian descent.

“Every time we hear about politics of fear from the FijiFirst government,” he claimed.

“They are doing it currently. Trying to instil that fear in the Indo-Fijian community.

“The worst part is that this is bringing about an ethnic divide.

“We are here to bring the two major ethnic groups together.

“We don’t talk ethnicity, we don’t talk race or religion.”

Singh said people should not worry and leave security to the authorities such as the police.

Shayal Devi is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

When the Polynesian Panthers (PPP) activist group began calling for an apology for the Dawn Raids two years ago, we went into the process with eyes wide open. Government lobbyists seldom get everything they ask for, but our intent was honest and real and fuelled by our Panther legacy and love for the people.

We believe that the apology was, and is, a necessary step towards the healing and restoration of trust and relationships between the Pacific peoples and families who were adversely affected by government actions during the Dawn Raids and the Aotearoa New Zealand government.

The prime minister’s emotional ritual entry into Auckland’s Great Hall and her address to Pacific people and communities assembled there last Sunday drastically relived the shameful and unjust treatment of Pacific peoples by successive governments during the Dawn Raids era of the 1970s, when police, hunting for immigrant overstayers and armed with dogs and batons, would burst into the homes of Pasifika families in the early morning hours.

These experiences and the subsequent deportations have created layers of intergenerational shame and trauma for Pacific victims and families in New Zealand and in the homelands. Studies have since shown that Pacific people made up only 30 percent of the overstayers, and yet almost 90 percent of the deportations.

The bulk of the migrants who overstayed their visas were from the US and UK. Since the apology was announced there has been a flood of victims’ stories –- stories no longer silenced by the guilt, shame and trauma of the raids and random checks.

What was missing from Sunday’s apology was a list of concrete actions the government will take in addressing the injustices. Instead, what was delivered were four “gestures”: some national and Pacific scholarships, and two other educational “gestures” that were really already in place — a publication about experiences of the Dawn Raids and the provision of resources to those schools already teaching about them.

Why has the government remained silent about setting up a legacy fund to allow education about the Dawn Raids — as requested in the petition signed by more than 7000 people and presented to Parliament by Josiah Tualamali’i and Benji Timu — to prevent future generations of New Zealanders from carrying out the same or similar racist actions?

Educate to Liberate
The only programme currently addressing this is an unfunded one run by the PPP for 50 years and more specifically for the past 10 years with their Educate to Liberate programmes in schools.

This was a far cry to what the Panthers were calling for.

In its submission for healing and restoration to the government in May, the Panthers were clear about what they wanted: an apology as well as 100 annual scholarships, and the overhaul of the current educational curriculum to include the compulsory teaching of racism, race relations, the Dawn Raids and Pacific Studies and the significance of the Treaty of Waitangi as the cornerstone of harmonious race relations in Aotearoa New Zealand, across all sectors, and assessed as “achieved standards” across appropriate non-history subjects.

If what we Panthers called for was granted and acted on, it would provide a clear message to all Pacific peoples and communities and to all New Zealanders that the government was ready for a truly liberating education and a world-leading pathway to the best race relations — Kiwi-style — in the world.

Alas, what the apology delivered was a watered-down version of what the Panthers called for. By perpetuating a myopic view of our long-term educational needs, the short term gestures outlined in the apology will not be enough to grow a truly liberated and informed youthful leadership for the future.

This oversight suggests a rocky future for the New Zealand government and the va (the social and sacred spaces of relationships) with Pacific peoples. The Polynesian Panther demands to annihilate racism in New Zealand might seem too revolutionary and drastic, and will probably fuel anti-Pacific sentiments, but is this really the absolute maximum that the government can do?

What we were given in this apology did little to dismantle systemic racism. Much more work needs to be done to decolonise and re-indigenise our education system. Why is the teaching of the Dawn Raids only optional and not compulsory? The Panthers platform of peaceful resistance against racism, the celebration of mana Pasifika and a liberating education is as relevant now as it was in the era of the Dawn Raids.

If the changes the Panthers have fought for over the last 50 years don’t materialise, then we have no alternative but to — as Māori scholar and activist Ranginui Walker puts it — “ka whawhai tonu matou [we will continue the fight]”.

Dr Melani Anae is a foundation member of the Polynesian Panthers and an associate professor and director of research at the Centre for Pacific Studies, Te Wananga o Waipapa, University of Auckland. Her books include The Platform: The Radical Legacy of the Polynesian Panthers (2020), Polynesian Panthers: Pacific Protest and Affirmative Action in Aotearoa NZ 1971–1981 (2015), and Polynesian Panthers (2006). This article first appeared in The Guardian and has been republished here with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Stuff has introduced a new company charter with Te Tiriti o Waitangi at its core, after a major internal investigation uncovered evidence of racism and marginalisation against Māori.

The media organisation issued an historic public apology today following the Our Truth, Tā Mātou Pono investigation which saw around 20 Stuff journalists scrutinise the company’s portrayal and representation of Māori from its early editions to now.

The findings unearthed numerous examples of journalism practices denying Māori an equitable voice in Aotearoa.

Stuff chief executive Sinead Boucher said it was imperative the company reckoned with its past, but denied the investigation was an exercise in political correctness or being “woke”.

“I don’t buy into that at all. If you think the job of the news media, in our company and others, is to hold the powerful to account, well, we are the powerful.

“We really have had an enormous impact in shaping public thought in New Zealand and societal norms, not just reflecting them, and I think it is only fitting that a progressive company can pause and have a look at itself,” Boucher said.

She acknowledged the presence of racism and unconscious bias in the digital and print products over the company’s 163-year history, and too often a monocultural approach had been taken that prioritise Pākehā worldviews.

Boucher was adamant Stuff could not hold others to account without facing up to its own past as a first step towards repairing the harm the company’s history has caused its relationship with Māori.

“When the project started, we didn’t know what we were going to find. They didn’t start off with a particular agenda … we just thought it was really critical that if we were going to embed the Treaty principles into our charter, that we need to do that examination and be up for whatever difficult finding might come out of it.

“After doing a deep examination … the finding was that over time, there had been many instances of where you could say that the work that our papers produced could have perpetuated negative stereotypes or misconceptions against Māori.

Boucher said she “struggled to think of a more important piece of work that our newsroom has produced”.

The new charter lays out Stuff’s commitment to “redressing wrongs and to doing better in future ways that will help foster trust in our work, deeper relationships with Māori and better representation of contemporary Aotearoa.”

Boucher also acknowledged Māori were under-represented in Stuff newsrooms, something the company “definitely [had] to address and redress”.

In May, Boucher took control of Stuff from its previous Australian owners, Nine – the shift into New Zealand ownership provides the company with the opportunity to reset and reposition the business, and its value system, she said.

“Our people advocated for the Treaty principles of partnership, participation and protection to be embedded in our new strategy.

“The Stuff Charter sets down a pou tiaki (guard post) to ensure we guard against this kind of inequity in our reporting and business practices in the future.

”Our wish is to be a trusted partner for tangata whenua for generations to come,” Boucher said.

This article was first published by Stuff here. It has been republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In the column, freelance journalist Teuila Fuatai detailed her concerns about the Herald’s record on race and her efforts to raise those with her editors.

It wasn’t what she was originally commissioned to write.

Her editors had asked for an article about racism in New Zealand more generally, covering systemic issues in institutions like Oranga Tamariki, the police, and the justice system.

Fuatai says she started out trying to follow that brief before a conversation with the New Zealand organisers of Black Lives Matter left her feeling she couldn’t follow through on that brief without addressing the Herald’s coverage first.

“I suppose it was just a week after the first protest march in New Zealand and I thought they’d be a great group to speak to as an anti-racism group,” she says.

“It changed when they basically said they didn’t want to talk to me because the Herald and its coverage was racist and upheld structures of white supremacy.”

Criticism hard to bear
The criticism was hard to hear, but Fuatai agreed with the organisers.

The Herald has been criticised over its coverage of race in the past, notably when it published a 2012 column by Paul Holmes calling Waitangi Day a “complete waste” and in 2014 when it printed a white fist on its masthead along with a promise its Waitangi coverage would be “protest-free”.

More recently journalist Madeleine Chapman highlighted the lack of diversity in the paper’s editorial department.

However, the Herald has responded to the Black Lives Matter protests with examinations of racism and colonial legacies in New Zealand – among them, the piece Teuila Fautai was asked to write.

In late June for example, Herald Māori affairs reporter Michael Neilson looked at “a local dispute about trees, which for many is about much more than just trees” under the headline: How Ōwairaka/Mt Albert tree protest became a flashpoint for racism, colonisation debate.

Nielsen has also written in depth about the “statues issue” under the explicit heading “George Floyd protests and racism”.

Fuatai is now a freelancer, but has been on staff at the Herald, and she says many of the paper’s issues with race are structural and systemic.

Newsroom lack of diversity
“I do think that there is a lack of diversity in their newsroom and I do think that we’ve seen, publicly, problematic coverage pointed out – both recent and historic,” she says.

“From my personal perspective I think that we operate in inherently racist structures. So for the Herald to not be like that – it would be an outlier.”

Fuatai went back to her editors offering to write an assessment of the Herald’s coverage of race.

She cited the example of National Geographic which carried out an audit of its history of racist reporting in the leadup to Martin Luther King day in 2018.

That sort of harsh self-reflection is taking place in an increasing number of news organisations around the world, as journalists are called on to re-examine their treatment of race in light of the Black Lives Matter movement.

In the US, The New York Times underwent a staff revolt after publishing a column by the Arkansas senator Tom Cotton which called for the government to send in the military against Black Lives Matter protesters.

Dozens of journalists said the column put the paper’s Black staff in danger, eventually prompting the Times’ Opinion section editor James Bennet to tender his resignation.

Editors forced to resign
The Times wasn’t alone. A top editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer resigned after printing the headline “Buildings Matter Too” during the Black Lives Matter protests.

Editors at other outlets including Variety, Bon Appétit magazine and the fashion and culture website Refinery29 stepped down under employee pressure.

Some newsrooms have moved proactively to improve their coverage. In a tacit acknowledgement of its own failure to cover the issue adequately, The Washington Post has set up a dedicated unit covering race in the US.

Similar discussions are starting to take place here in New Zealand. Under its new owner Sinead Boucher, Stuff is looking to set up a section devoted to covering Te Ao Māori, the Māori world.

Fuatai says editors need to understand the value in promoting people of colour to positions of influence, giving platforms to diverse voices, and catering content to diverse audiences.

“Understand that in 10 years time, your audience and your readership or your viewers – you want to be right there with them in understanding the issues and the conversations that they’re having. Part of that is looking at the makeup of your newsroom. To do that you have to understand the value in actually diversifying,” she told Mediawatch

Fuatai’s first conversation with a Herald editor ended with her being told to stick to her original story brief.

Lengthy editing process
The column published on Monday was the result of a lengthy editing process.

She is pleased with the final result, and with the fact that the paper was willing to confront its record in public.

That sort of self-examination needs to keep happening, not just at the Herald, but in newsrooms across the country, she says.

“You have to work hard to be anti-racist. You have to work against the status quo. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to stand up and say ‘let’s look at ourselves’.”

Challenging racism often means challenging ourselves and those immediately around us. It is difficult and risky, especially in the workplace. A piece about doing it at the NZ Herald – one of the toughest ones I’ve tackled.https://t.co/YtSYmYxBEB

— Teuila Fuatai (@teuilafuatai) June 28, 2020

Herald: ‘We hope to be agents of change’
New Zealand Herald editor Murray Kirkness responded to Teulia Fuatai’s column on Monday with a statement of his own under the headline “We hope to be agents for change”.

“Being accused of racism is a difficult pill to swallow,” he wrote.

“But it would be reckless to dismiss it and say, ‘not on our watch’. We accept the criticism and accept we must do better.”

“We cannot agree with Black Lives Matter’s refusal to engage with Teuila Fuatai. For what hope is there without debate? What future without striving for a shared understanding?

But we can understand their insistence that it is not that group’s responsibility to educate the Herald. No victim should carry that burden,” he wrote.

Kirkness said the Herald’s publisher NZME – which also owns half the country’s radio stations – is committed to accountability and monitors diversity of voice. It formed a diversity and inclusion committee in 2016 overseeing all the company’s media outlets, he said.

“We hope we can be agents for change across society — a role the Herald has fulfilled for more than 150 years,” he wrote.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New opposition National leader Todd Muller is backing his front bench, saying he chose the shadow cabinet line-up on merit and talent.

While three out of National’s top four ranked MPs are women, there are no Māori MPs on the front bench, or of any other ethnicity.

Māori Party founder Dame Tariana Turia told RNZ she was “gobsmacked” by National’s new line-up given her experience working closely with the party in government.

READ MORE: Todd Muller’s car crash of an interview on Q & A

“Here is a political party that I thought valued the Māori voice… It’s very disappointing to now see that in 2020 there is no Māori voice on the front bench,” she said.

However, Muller told RNZ Morning Report he went with who he believed were his best MPs.

“I looked at it through the lens of my shadow cabinet and I looked at it through the lens of the talent that I have at my disposal which is quite extraordinary in terms of my 55 MPs and the third thing I did, which is different to what has happened in the past, is rather than loading up the shadow cabinet with all the portfolios, I spread the critical and substantive portfolios across the whole team, including Dan Bidois for example who has Workplace Relations and Safety.

“When I put it (party list) forward I didn’t rank it and I also said this isn’t our final list ranking.”

Māori MPs in shadow cabinet
Muller pointed out that his shadow cabinet does contain Māori MPs.

“From my perspective the shadow cabinet is what counts,” he said.

“In that shadow cabinet I have Dr Shane Reti who I brought beside me when I won the leadership as someone who I rate highly and think is already a huge contributor to the National Party and the country and will be a substantive senior minister in my government, and of course Paula Bennett … then beyond that a caucus with Māori representation that is connected hugely in the Māori community.”

Dame Tariana also acknowledged the likes of Dr Reti, ranked 17th, and Harete Hipango, ranked 39th, and believes they deserve a promotion.

“One thing I know about politics – everything is about votes. And if they think that the Māori vote is not going to go their way, are they going to choose any Māori people to be in their top 10? Doesn’t look like it.”

There was also confusion at yesterday’s announcement when Finance spokesperson Paul Goldsmith was declared Māori by deputy leader Nikki Kaye.

Muller said he didn’t consider Goldsmith Māori when sorting out his front bench.

‘That was an error’
“That was an error and we admitted that yesterday,” he said.

“She (Nikki Kaye) obviously wasn’t 100 percent clear on his whakapapa. Mistakes happen and that was acknowledged at the time.

“Certainly from my perspective I am very comfortable with the team we have, I think it is remarkable talent.

“I think my shadow cabinet bests this government’s cabinet in terms of person for person contribution, capacity life experience, lived experience and the ability to help frame up with the wider team a recovery plan for this country that will have substance.”

Muller’s front bench was not only criticised by those outside his party but inside as well.

National list MP and Māori development spokesperson Jo Hayes publicly critiqued Muller’s front bench on Radio Waatea.

“This is not good. We need to remedy this or you need to front it and take it head on and say why. You need to give a better explanation,” she said.

Muller would not say whether he was happy with Hayes voicing her concerns but said he had a conversation with her last night about the issue.

“She was passionate and she obviously shared a view and we talked about it.”

Muller would not disclose if he told her not to speak about the issues in the future.

• This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.
• If you have symptoms of the coronavirus, call the NZ Covid-19 Healthline on 0800 358 5453 (+64 9 358 5453 for international SIMs) or call your GP – don’t show up at a medical centre.
• Follow RNZ’s coronavirus newsfeed

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

It is very telling that the biggest conflict around Waitangi Day this year was over whether National Party leader Simon Bridges should have given an overtly political speech on the Treaty Grounds on Tuesday. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of this, it illustrated how little conflict there was, but also just how depoliticised the event has become.

Waitangi Day 2020 ended up being the most harmonious for many years, if not decades. This is largely because the politics have been deliberately exorcised, and Māori critics have largely been disarmed. This is a point I’m reported as making yesterday by Jamie Ensor and Heather McCarron in their news article, Waitangi Day 2020 least political in years, Māori feel listened to – commentator.

I’m quoted as saying: “I think a lot of Māori leaders have been almost disarmed by this Government because they are being listened to… That doesn’t necessarily mean that the Government is going to be able to solve those issues or sufficiently get Māoridom back onside on those issues, but at this moment they do seem to have convinced Māori leadership to give them another chance at least.”

The newfound harmony – or, at least, the neutralising of conflict – is very much in the interests of the Government. And the Prime Minister and her colleagues have largely succeeded in their attempts to disarm and assuage the discontented.

The new mood of Waitangi Day is nicely discussed in yesterday’s Southland Times editorial, praising the evolution towards a more low-key mood, which the newspaper says better reflects the national character – see: Waitangi as it should be.

Here’s the editorial’s main point: “The nation has let it be known, and clearly, that the Waitangi commemorations aren’t to be seen as open slather for naked political point scoring, at least not vainglorious protests that assume extravagant or distasteful conduct is somehow sanctified, let alone excused, by the day of commemoration. The message is clear; you can make a point but not be a jerk about it. Nationwide, Waitangi was commemorated and speakers sought to evoke messages of unity and paths for progress.”

The newspaper also approves of the Government’s symbolism in the way it deals with Waitangi, especially the ministerial breakfast cook-up for the masses on the Treaty Grounds, “which is fine, if not exactly the sort of loaves-and-fishes miracle one or two commentators inflated it to be. Foodsafe checks may have been in order, given her Government’s tendency to roll our undercooked delivery of policies. The PM also took a turn paddling a waka, which again is an agreeable metaphor as far as political optics are concerned, and her toddler Neve was seen helping pack away boxes for recycling. Again, some eyes may roll at this as a photo-opportunity, but that’s a bit sour. Most would surely recognise it as garden-variety parenting of a sort that could be seen up and down the country.”

Probably the best commentary in regard to the new mood at Waitangi this year, comes in Simon Wilson’s reflective piece, The passions of Waitangi (paywalled), in which he tries to explain that “something has changed at Waitangi”.

So, what’s different? Wilson explains: “The pleasure on people’s faces – all kinds of people – is palpable. It’s not that race relations, poverty and inequality have been consigned to history. Nor that everything is now sweetness and light. Passions still run high, some higher than ever. But a space for reflection has been created and, in that space, it’s become clear the loudest people are not always the most passionate people, and anger isn’t the only passion. The sense of respect is strong, the sense of discourse too. Nothing much gets thrown. If you could get everyone to visit, or if you could bottle the spirit of Waitangi and put it in every town’s water supply, we’d be such a richer country.”

Wilson says much of this evolution is due to the change of government: “Jacinda Ardern was intent on reducing poverty, reaching across the race divide and, very clearly, restoring the Government’s commitment to the abandoned art of oratory.” And the PM, Wilson reports, has been anointed a “wahine toa” (warrior woman) by Māori at Waitangi, putting her in a category with the likes of Whina Cooper.

But is the newfound depoliticisation of Waitangi real or artificial? One political journalist thinks it was actually “one of the most intensely political Waitangi Days in years” – see Thomas Coughlan’s Tense commemorations in Waitangi set the stage for hotly contested election.

Even so, Coughlan’s column emphasises how much Māori leaders and activists were placated: “Leading up to the event, there had been much focus on issues around Oranga Tamariki, Whānau Ora, and Ihumātao, none of these issues appeared to cause massive concern at Waitangi itself. Whānau Ora was raised at a closed-door meeting with iwi leaders on Wednesday, but it appears the Government’s increase of funding for the agency quashed most criticism about the way it was being run. Ihumātao was the topic of a small hikoi, but there seemed to be satisfaction with the process being run to find a resolution to the standoff. Andrew Little won plaudits for his speech at the Tuesday powhiri, which was entirely in te reo Māori.”

In another report, Coughlan explains the Government’s depoliticisation strategy for Waitangi, and for Māori politics in general: “The Government wants to depoliticise Waitangi Day. The idea is to take the emphasis away from the day itself, creating a week of commemorative events. You can’t take the politics out of the day completely of course, but it’s true that even the protests this year are not what they have been in years and decades past. There’s no mud slinging, and absolutely no projectile dildos” – see: Jacinda Ardern to tell Māori ‘progress not perfection’ at key Waitangi address.

The success of the Government’s strategy was evident in the fact that even the Ihumātao protestors were kind about the PM, with one protestor giving her the “wahine toa” title. Clearly Ardern’s new line – that the Government’s achievements are “progress but not perfection” – is working. And this phrase goes alongside Ardern’s refrain that “There is more mahi to do”.

As to the Government’s notion Waitangi should be politics-free and that National breached that convention, Coughlan points out, “It was a pretense of course – Ardern and Peters’ remarks were made at an event where the Government was announcing the allocation of millions of dollars of Provincial Growth Fund money, a transparent push from NZ First for rural votes.  The event underlines the incumbent advantage Governments enjoy: they can be nakedly political while claiming not to be. The opposition enjoys no such privilege.”

Newsroom political editor Sam Sachdeva also reported the less political or conflictual mood at Waitangi this year: “It was a relaxed end to what was a fairly tranquil visit for the Prime Minister, if only in terms of politics rather than scheduling. The drama and controversy that accompanied Waitangi Days past seems to have receded, with only a handful of protesters voicing their concerns and without any need for security to intervene” – see: Patience, positivity on display for Ardern’s Waitangi visit.

Although he points to some of the changes in the way the events are organised at Waitangi that have contributed to this, the Government’s orientation to Māori has played the central role: “Ardern and company have succeeded in convincing Māori that while they may not have all the answers to the problems they face, they are willing to have a real discussion about how to find them.”

Sachdeva points out that there remain “many justified criticisms of this government, including a number of significant issues for Māori that may be difficult to resolve”, but, by and large, iwi leaders are praising rather than complaining about the Government’s role. For example, after the Iwi Chairs Forum meeting with the PM, “Te Rarawa iwi leader Haami Piripi told RNZ the hui was ‘was one of the best meetings that we have had yet between ourselves and the Government’.”

A key role in winning Māori leaders over to the Government’s line that they are making good progress for Māori was played by the Minister of Treaty Settlements, Andrew Little, who gave an eight minute speech in te reo Māori without notes.

The strategic smarts of this is explained by Pattrick Smellie: “it was impressive – but it was also pure politics. The idea that at least one Labour minister should speak at length in te reo was born eight or nine months ago, and designed to do two things: shore up Labour as the natural party of choice for Māori voters and, as one highly placed observer put it: ‘to make Simon Bridges look dumb'” – see: Election year phony war in full swing at Waitangi (paywalled).

Most observers were duly impressed. Simon Wilson wrote: “Andrew Little, now known to some as Anaru Iti, took a decisive step to show willing on that, speaking for the Government on Tuesday entirely in te reo. He walked over the bridge to Te Ao Māori, as the PM put it, and they embraced him for it” – see: Andrew Little steals the show at Waitangi (paywalled).

Wilson reports that in response, “The tangata whenua then sang back to him. It was a rare and extraordinary honour.” In contrast, he says Bridges gave a highly political speech and “made a fool of himself”. In Wilson’s view, Bridges was trying to speak to those beyond Waitangi: “His message wasn’t for the people in front of him, it was for the voters at home. And he’d decided the only way he’d even get to deliver it was if he ruffled some feather cloaks in the process.”

In his account, Smellie agrees with this, but suggests that it was a bit rich for the Government politicians to accuse Bridges of politicising what was already a highly-political event. In fact, Smellie goes further and suggests that the whole Waitangi set-up has become something of an artificial Davos-like elite and media-managed event. He says, “the formalities are a highly controlled environment where the audience is largely the media, a lot of cops, along with grandees of Northland and national politics.”

Furthermore, without the grassroots politics, it all feels a bit staged: “There’s a slight ‘Potemkin village,’ feel to the whole thing now that proceedings have moved away from the comparative anarchy of the ‘lower marae’, where the politics tended to overheat and give TV cameras a reliably divisive spectacle on a day of intended national unity. (A Potemkin village is a fake village created for propaganda purposes.)”

And Smellie’s evaluation of the PM’s showing on Tuesday isn’t as positive as the rest of the media: “Perhaps the limpest performance of the day was from the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, who promised to continue being held to account, acknowledged there is ‘always more mahi’ to do and did what she will do all year: rattle off a long list of the government’s announcements to date. Compared to two years ago, when she first spoke at Waitangi, it was a flat performance, phoned in for a friendly crowd.”

Finally, despite all the attempts to depoliticise Waitangi Day this year, politics is still vitally central to the whole week, and Leonie Hayden has captured this in two excellent columns, ‘Hold us to account’: has Jacinda Ardern honoured her 2018 Waitangi pledges?, and Waitangi Day without the politicians is the best Waitangi Day of all.

Pacific Media Centre Newsdesk

A New Plymouth Boys’ High School student has won a national race relations competition with a speech citing examples of past and present New Zealand leaders who have helped forge unity in Aotearoa.

The year 11 student, Robbie White, used the metaphor of a tui building a nest to explain how to unify people of different backgrounds.

“What is a tui? A leader, a march, a call, a movement, a word, an action, a stand, a physical structure, an event, the voice of unity, bringing people together with common purpose, understanding and connection,” he asked during his speech in the Race Unity Speech Awards at Auckland’s Te Mahurehure Marae last night.

“…I think of Te Whiti O Rongomai and Dame Whina Cooper.”

READ MORE: The national Race Unity Speech Awards

White also recognised former New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd as a leader who has built racial unity.

“On my doorstep, in my forest, Andrew Judd is also a tui. Once a self-proclaimed racist himself, …his ‘peace march’ stamped a monumental mark on race unity in the Taranaki region,” White said.

The student wove te reo Māori strongly into his speech.

At the prizegiving last night, chief judge Wallace Haumaha, Deputy Commissioner of Police, joked that Robbie White was from the Taranaki iwi Te Āti Awa because of his excellent use of te reo Māori.

Struggle over hair
Zimbabwean New Zealander Takunda Muzondiwa of Mt Albert Grammar School talked about internalised racism and her struggle to accept her natural hair due to society’s narrow concept of beauty.

Muzondiwa recited a poem she wrote about a recent incident where a man had touched her hair on a train in Auckland without asking.

“But luckily my hair, my hair speaks volumes. Tangled and twisted there are stories in these in curls. Stories of a mother, father stamped with a number marked as objects sold for property,” she said.

“Stories of my ancestors shackled in cages displayed in zoos the same way you stroke me like an exhibit in a petting zoo.

“It’s twisted and tangled there are stories in these curls. A beautiful possession of my history’s oppression.”

The national final of the Race Unity Speech Awards at Te Mahurehure Marae featured the top six speakers from 180 students who had entered this year’s awards.

The speech awards provide a national platform for senior high school students to express their ideas on how New Zealanders can improve race relations.

Increasing diversity
Organisers said participants this year again reflected New Zealand’s increasing diversity of more than 200 ethnicities and 100 plus languages.

Speech finalists represented immigrant communities from Egypt, Philippines, Russia and Samoa who now call Aotearoa home.

In a letter, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern acknowledged the students who participated in the speech awards.

“Following the tragic events in Christchurch, this year’s Race Unity Speech Awards and hui hold even greater significance,” she said in the message.

“We need to think deeply and carefully about our country’s rich and precious diversity, and what we need to do to remain an inclusive, multicultural country.”

Many of the speeches touched on New Zealanders’ response to the terrorist attack on two Christchurch mosques that killed 50 people with another dying later.

Runner-up Nina Gelashvili of Kuranui College in Wairarapa said: “It shouldn’t take 50 lives for us to finally realise that racism still lives in New Zealand and it shouldn’t take 50 lives for us to come together as one.”

‘Oneness of humanity’
The Race Unity Speech Awards are organised by the New Zealand Baha’i Community, a religious community concerned with promoting the oneness of humanity at the local, national and international levels.

The awards are also sponsored by NZ Police, the Human Rights Commission and the Hedi Moani Charitable Trust, and supported by Multicultural NZ, the Office of Ethnic Communities and Speech NZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

by Dr Bryce Edwards

Debates over regulating free speech, hate speech, and the treatment of hate crimes are now in full swing. The Government and a number of state institutions had already been keen to bolster laws around hate speech and hate crimes before the Christchurch terrorist attacks. Therefore, it’s hardly a surprise to see an announcement that the Ministry of Justice and the Human Rights Commission are fast-tracking their attempts to pursue reform in these areas. 

The announcement was covered by RNZ in a news report on Saturday, Little plans fast-track review of hate speech laws. Here’s the key part: “Justice Minister Andrew Little says he’s fast-tracking a law review which could see hate crimes made a new legal offence. He said the current law on hate speech was not thorough and strong enough and needed to change. Mr Little said the Christchurch shootings highlighted the need for a better mechanism to deal with incidents of hate speech and other hateful deeds. He has asked justice officials to look at the laws and he was also fast-tracking a scheduled Human Rights Act review.”

According to this report, Little believes that the current Harmful Digital Communications Act doesn’t properly deal with the “evil and hateful things that we’re seeing online”, and other laws that deal with hate speech and discrimination are also inadequate.

Little is reportedly sensitive to the needs of free speech to be balanced against harms: “There will be important issues to debate. There will be issues about what limit should be put on freedom of expression and freedom of speech… We should reflect on where the lines need to be drawn and therefore, whether the laws should be struck so that they’re effective and provide some protection to people who’re otherwise vulnerable.”

Another news report explains that under current laws, crimes involving hate and discrimination are already factored into the judicial process as “hate-motivated hostility can be considered an ‘aggravating factor’ in sentencing, and staff can note when a crime was motivated by a ‘common characteristic’ such as race, gender identity, sexual orientation, or religion” – see Michelle Duff’s Hate crime law review fast-tracked following Christchurch mosque shootings.

But these processes are, according to Little, “woefully inadequate” and “Since the events of March 15, we are more conscious of the impact of what we are seeing and we need to do better”. Therefore, according to the article, a decision needs to be made about whether “hate crime should be established as its own separate offence, as it is in the United Kingdom.”

The article also raises the issue of whether Police collect enough data about the victims of crime, which might allow analysis to be made about the extent to which hate crimes are a problem. According to Duff, “Police have also told Stuff they will review their policy on the collection of ethnicity data. This is currently collected for all alleged perpetrators, but not routinely collected for victims.” And Little has responded to this prior lack of information gathering with surprise, saying “I would have thought it would be useful data to have.”

Calls for new hate laws have been supported by many. One Muslim leader has spoken out recently about the need for such laws – see 1News’ report about Canterbury University Muslim Students Association president Bariz Shah’s argument for new laws: “Ideally I’d love for the Prime Minister to say that they’re inacting a new law which basically charges anyone who says any hate speech to anybody, whether it be Muslim or non-Muslim… anything along those lines would be very reassuring” – see: Calls for new anti-hate speech law from Christchurch Muslim student leader.

Shah does however point to limitations with such laws and suggests other solutions are needed: “Obviously this is not a long term solution because people who have these types of ideologies they’ll just go in hiding and they won’t express themselves. So the long term solution would be to provide people with knowledge.”

Academic expert on ethnicity and extremist politics, Massey University’s Paul Spoonley, is also very supportive of the introduction of specific laws to outlaw hate. Talking to Newstalk ZB, he said, “I don’t think we can delay, because if you delay, then the changes of something else occurring like the events of last week might be a possibility” – see: Govt urged to introduce separate hate speech laws.

Spoonley has been very active in the debate on hate speech, and in another article is cited explaining that hate speech “provides an enabling environment which green lights racial and religious vilification”. He says it’s a problem because it “provides unfiltered ideas and arguments for those who are pliable and interested. And it tells others what you have done and got away with” – see Michael Andrew’s Online hate speech ‘gives green light’ to attacks.

In the same article, another academic, Camille Nakhid of AUT, is also quoted discussing what she sees as hate speech, which includes the concept that hate is intrinsic to our everyday life, saying “This country was founded on hate speech… I suppose they didn’t call it hate speech at the time, but the taking of Māori land, the denigration of people considered worthless, the marginalisation of their customs through laws and media, I’m still struggling to think why New Zealanders cannot see the correlation.”

In contrast, the article reports fellow AUT academic Paul Moon arguing that “while a desire for censorship was an instinctive response to hate-based events, it would not address the root cause of the problem”. He agrees that there is a need “to re-evaluate the limits of free speech in New Zealand”, but believes that “stifling speech could often create a dangerous climate of isolation” which could make things worse.

Moon says: “Censorship would be fruitless as a means of prevention because it addresses only a small part of the symptom, rather than the underlying cause.”

Opposition politicians are reacting with similar caution. Both the National and Act party leaders have been vocal this morning in pointing out that the problems of hate in society require a sophisticated response. Simon Bridges is backing Andrew Little’s plans to review the laws, saying “I think he is doing the right thing having a review” but emphasising that laws around speech and hate are “so fundamental to society that it can’t be rushed or fast-tracked” – see Jason Walls’ National Leader Simon Bridges backs hate speech review but warns against limiting free speech.

Bridges advocates that the Government “treads lightly on this”, because “Freedom of speech is so incredibly important to us as a society”, and “Where that line between free speech into that hateful and incitement of violence and the like is, is not easy”.

The same article quotes David Seymour on RNZ’s Morning Report, being even more alarmed by the Government’s plans, saying “When the Government makes it its role to start working out which opinions are right and which are wrong and which ones should be punished, that’s when you get into real difficulty”. Furthermore, according to Walls, Seymour argued that “a new hate crime law would exacerbate divisions and fail to stamp out prejudice in New Zealand”.

For more on Seymour’s views on hate crimes and hate speech regulation, as well as some background on the earlier debates on these matters in 2017, see Albert Redmore’s Act leader David Seymour says any possible hate crime laws would be divisive and ineffective.

Possibly the single best media item discussing the issue of hate speech and hate crimes is Sam Hurley’s Christchurch mosque shootings: Does New Zealand need hate speech laws after terror attacks? – which was published in the Herald prior to Andrew Little’s announcement.

The article is important because it provides detail on how the current laws work, and their inadequacies. Current legislation, such as the Human Rights Act, does in fact allow prosecutions – but the article points out that although it prohibits material that is “likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt” against “people based on their colour, race, or ethnic or national origins”, “the law does not specifically mention discrimination based on religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability.”

Various cases are cited – such as the conviction in the 1970s of a man for “distributing a brochure around Auckland with a photo of Adolf Hitler and a quote from the Bible”, and then the failed High Court case against newspaper cartoons taken recently by Labour MP Louisa Wall.

Again, Paul Spoonley is quoted on the need for new hate crime laws to be balanced against political freedoms: “We need a severity test and of course that severity test shouldn’t be too low, we don’t want to infringe on free speech.”

University of Canterbury Law professor Ursula Cheer, who specialises in media, censorship, and political freedoms is also quoted, warning against a “knee-jerk reaction” of new laws, saying “I would rather the Government looked at what’s already there and decide whether any of that can be improved and made to work properly.” She’s against “over-criminalising society”, arguing that “You can’t reduce everyone in society to a child-like state.”

Cheer also points out that restrictions on speech in order to combat racism and hate, can actually have unintended consequences for politics: “You think [with hate speech laws] that you are getting people who might be an anti-Islamist … but you might also take in valid protest and discussion elsewhere.”

Finally, blogger David Farrar is also opposed to the establishment of specific hate crime laws that attempt to suppress hate speech, and points to a long list of disturbing outcomes from such laws in the UK, saying they are “a great example of how well intentioned laws end up criminalising many different types of speech” – see: Government looking to introduce hate speech laws.

AL JAZEERA – A three-year undercover operation by Al Jazeera has shown Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party lobbying the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) for millions of dollars to roll back Australia’s strict gun control laws.

* Australia’s One Nation Party Lobbying the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) for Millions of Dollars
* One Nation’s Chief of Staff, James Ashby, hoped to secure $US20 million political donations to “own the lower house and the upper house”.

The party vows to reverse laws banning automatic and semi-automatic weapons in Australia as it sought up to $US20 million in funding from members of the U.S. gun lobby.

The meetings between a delegation from One Nation with officials from the NRA and other pro-gun groups in America were covertly recorded by Al Jazeera’s Investigative Unit as it followed One Nation on a visit to Washington, DC, in September 2018.

During that visit, Steve Dickson, the leader of the One Nation party in the Australian state of Queensland, told the NRA:

“If we don’t change things, people are going to be looking at Australia and go, ‘Well, it’s okay for them to go down the path of not having guns, it’s ok for them to go down that politically-correct path’. And it’s like a poison. It will poison us all unless we stop it.”

Laws banning automatic and semi-automatic weapons were introduced in Australia following a massacre there in the town of Port Arthur in 1996. The NRA has said it opposes the Australian gun laws.

New Zealand’s prime minister, Jacinda Ardern announced the introduction a similar ban on all military-style assault rifles last week, following the attack on mosques in Christchurch that left 50 dead.

Dickson was accompanied on the U.S. visit by One Nation’s Chief of Staff, James Ashby, who was covertly recorded saying he hoped the trip would lead to him securing the $US20 million in political donations from pro-gun groups there.

“If you had 20, you would own the lower house and the upper house,” Ashby said, referring to Australia’s House of Representatives and Senate. Australia is expected to hold a federal election in May of this year. Dickson added: “You’d have the whole government by the balls.”

Al Jazeera’s Investigative Unit infiltrated the U.S. gun lobby to find out how it operates. The unit engaged an Australian undercover reporter, Rodger Muller, to pose as the president of a pro-gun organisation, Gun Rights Australia.

Muller attended the U.S. gun lobby group meetings with Ashby and Dickson and was warned by Ashby to keep their discussions secret.

“We wouldn’t put it in writing. We keep everything out of writing,” Ashby said. “If this gets out, it will f**king rock the boat.”

The murder of fifty Muslim New Zealanders on Friday has triggered intense soul-searching and debate about hatred in our society. As part of this, attention has turned to politicians and political parties and the role they play in furthering racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia

Allegations have been levelled at every party in Parliament for fostering xenophobic concerns in recent years. Mostly these relate to immigration, and in some cases explicit Islamophobia.

One of the first prominent expressions of this was made in Wellington on Sunday at the Basin Reserve Vigil, where migrant and refugee rights campaigner Gayaal Iddamalgoda made a powerful speech imploring New Zealand political parties to reflect on their role in escalating hate: “When will politicians, left and right own up to the fact that they have scapegoated and blamed migrants and refugees, for so long, for social and economic problems that they are not responsible for? And when will they admit that while they have been doing this, they have allowed unspeakable hatred to brew under their noses? I want answers. I want accountability. I want something to change.”

You can read Iddamalgoda’s full speech here: Kia Ora Te Whanau. He presents some immediate actions politicians can take to atone for past sins: “I call upon the New Zealand Government to immediately remove the previous Government’s ban on Middle Eastern and African refugees, that is still in place and based on bogus security concerns and; I call for New Zealand to triple the refugee quota.”

For the best account of how New Zealand First, Labour and National have utilised such negative politics, see Thomas Coughlan’s Time to recall MPs’ anti-migrant rhetoric. He looks at speeches by Winston Peters, the National Party’s campaign against the UN’s Global Migration Pact, and the Labour Party’s Chinese-sounding names campaign, as well as anti-immigration campaigning by all three parties.

Coughlan is very clear from the start of his article that there is no direct link between the actions of the politicians and the terrorism in Christchurch: “No one in Parliament can be expected to wear the blame for Friday’s tragedy… Blame belongs almost exclusively to the terrorist himself. But hate does not breed in a vacuum, and the time is long overdue to hold our leaders to account for playing fast and loose with rhetoric — particularly when it comes to Islam.”

In terms of Peters, Coughlan looks at a range of statements from the NZ First leader. For example, “In a 2005 speech titled The End Of Tolerance and delivered in the wake of the London bombings, Peters singled out Muslim migrants for special attention.”

Here’s one of the quotes from Peters’ speech: “This two-faced approach is how radical Islam works – present the acceptable face to one audience and the militant face to another. In New Zealand the Muslim community have been quick to show us their more moderate face, but as some media reports have shown, there is a militant underbelly here as well. Underneath it all the agenda is to promote fundamentalist Islam. Indeed these groups are like the mythical Hydra – a serpent underbelly with multiple heads capable of striking at any time and in any direction.”

The National Party’s recent campaign against the Global Migration Pact is highlighted, with Coughlan pointing out that National’s warnings about New Zealand losing sovereignty if the pact was signed was “a fear which has been stoked and disseminated by online far-right groups”.

National has now removed its online petition against the pact. The controversy over this is reported by Jason Walls – see: An ’emotional junior staffer’ is responsible for deleting National’s UN Migration petition.

The incident has been embarrassing for National. Nonetheless, leader Simon Bridges has used the controversy to assert his party’s pro-immigrant credentials, saying “If you look at our immigration position, I think we have the strongest pro-migration position across the Parliament.”

On the political left there have been some been willing to criticise both sides of the divide. Former Green Party chief spin-doctor, David Cormack, has called out National, Labour and New Zealand First, saying “When politicians stoke fear of ‘them’ or ‘others’ coming to New Zealand, or blow racist dog whistles when they claim we’re giving up ‘our sovereignty’ when we sign up to international migration compacts, we should call them out. Because words cause fear” – see: Words matter.

Cormack continues: “When politicians say there’s a housing crisis in Auckland and the evidence is that people with ‘Chinese sounding names’ have bought so many houses, we should call them out. Because words stoke bigotry. When political parties make entire ethnic groups the target of their election campaigns and make jokes like ‘two wongs don’t make a white’, we should call them out. Because words embolden racism.”

Even the Greens have not escaped criticism, with leftwing blogger John Moore saying “the socially progressive Greens have dabbled in anti-immigrant rhetoric, such as when former Green co-leader Russel Norman complained of Chinese investment in NZ and of Chinese businesses using ‘foreign Chinese workers'” – see: The politics of the mosque shootings tragedy.

Moore argues that there is no “direct link between anti-immigrant sentiments promoted by mainstream politicians and the actions of an extreme nationalist terrorist” but politicians still need to be accountable for the attitudes that might result from their campaigning. He argues that the form of “othering” is particularly pernicious: “The argument goes that the politics of Othering – the demonisation of the ‘foreign’ Other – provides the necessary fertiliser for more extreme and violent forms of nationalist, communalist and sectarian politics. And a number of New Zealand politicians have all played a role in promoting various forms of xenophobic politics in New Zealand.”

Writing for an international audience, Branko Marcetic lays into New Zealand First as being part of the problem – see: Right-Wing extremism won’t win. He categorises Winston Peters’ party as “economically nationalist” but gives details of them allegedly “appearing to flirt with the alt-right” in 2017.

On the political right, Cathy Odgers points out that in the wake of this atrocity, Winston Peters hasn’t yet had to account for what she regards as past Islamophobic campaigning – see: Put a fork in him Winston is done. She argues that Peters’ past rhetoric has put New Zealand at more risk of political violence.

Generally, Odgers believes New Zealand First is in more electoral trouble now, as although the party might normally benefit from increased concerns about domestic security issues, in this case it involves an extreme nationalist rather than a Muslim fundamentalist who has carried out the terrorism. She also details Peters’ past opposition to increased gun control as a result of terrorist attacks, which raises questions about how much support his party will really give the reform efforts.

Today, veteran political commentator Richard Harman has also questioned the role of the Deputy PM in the Government’s response to the terrorism, reporting that “Peters seemed reluctant yesterday to accept much New Zealand responsibility for what happened in Christchurch” – see: What lies under the rocks?

Harman reports on what Peters apparently told Turkey’s Vice President and Foreign Minister, who has just visited New Zealand: “Peters said he told them that New Zealand did not start nor bring about the disaster.”

Although Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern backed up Peters, saying he was “absolutely right”, she added a very pointed statement that some have suggested might actually apply to her coalition partner: “However, that is not to say that there are not those who live in New Zealand who hold values and ideas and use language that is completely counter to what the vast majority of New Zealanders believe… I don’t think we can ignore that.”

Finally, although he wrote it prior to the terrorist attack in Christchurch, Liam Hehir has detailed some of the reactionary and ethnic-conservatism of Winston Peters and New Zealand First, and he ponders why the Greens won’t criticise him – see: Why are the woke set not battling to de-platform Winston Peters?

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was written for, and first published by, German magazine Cicero.de (ref. Attentat in Christchurch – Willkommen in der Hölle). Thanks also to Prof David Robie, Pacific Media Centre AsiaPacificReport.nz for providing the featured image for this article.

OUT OF THE BLUE:

It was 1:39pm, Friday March 15. As was usual for a Friday hundreds of people had turned up to pray at the Al Noor Mosque in Riccarton, Christchurch. All was peaceful, women, children, men, people of all ages young and old, both Sunni and Shia, were in contemplative repose free of worry. It was a mild, late summer, 20 degrees celsius day. Earlier, the touring Bangladesh Cricket Team had briefly visited the mosque, but left early to attend a press conference. By 1:39pm, they had returned and were outside exiting a bus, intending to continue with their prayers inside the mosque.

At 1:40pm, ahead of the team, a man entered the mosque walking quickly up the front steps. He was carrying an assault rifle and dressed in combat uniform. He immediately began shooting people who were kneeling in prayer. The shots rang out and the Bangladesh team members realising they were witnesses to an attack, retreated, and fled on foot to nearby Hagley Park.

Back inside the Al Noor Mosque scores of worshipers were being gunned down, some killed instantly, others bleeding to death. The victims included little Mucaad Ibrahim who was three years of age.

Mucaad was known by his loved ones as a wise “old soul” and possessed an “intelligence beyond his years”.

Eye witnesses said that once the killer began shooting people, little Mucaad became separated from his family. In the chaos, his family could not find him. The next day Police confirmed he too had been shot dead by the killer.

The murders continued at the Al Noor Mosque until the killer’s firearms ran out of bullets. Then, he simply walked out of the mosque, got in his car, and drove six kilometres to the Linwood Mosque. There too were people who had gathered for their regular Friday afternoon prayers.

Mr Aziz picked up an EFTPOS (electronic funds transaction) machine from a table inside the mosque. He ran outside. He saw a man he describes as looking like a soldier. He said to the man: “Who are you”. Mr Aziz then saw three people lying on the ground dead from shotgun blasts. He realised the man was the killer. He approached the attacker, threw the EFTPOS machine hitting the killer, who in turn took from his vehicle a second firearm (a military style semi-automatic assault rifle) and fired four to five shots at Abdul Aziz, missing him. Then, in an attempt to lure the killer away from other people, Mr Aziz shouted at the killer from behind a car: “Come, I’m here. Come I’m here!”

Mr Aziz said he didn’t want the killer to go inside the mosque and kill more people. But the killer remained focussed. He walked directly to the entrance, once inside the mosque he continued his killing spree. Survivors speak of the killer wearing “army clothes”, dressed in “SWAT combat clothing”, helmeted, wearing a vest and a balaclava.

Inside the Linwood Mosque, another witness, Shoaib Gani, was kneeling in prayer. He heard a noise like fireworks but he and others weren’t too concerned and continued with their prayers. Then, as he and his fellow worshipers were kneeling speaking verses from the Koran, the man next to him fell forward with blood pouring from his head. He had been shot and killed instantly, Mr Gani said. Then others too began falling to the floor dead.

Mr Gani crawled under a table. He saw the killer and his firearm. “Written on the rifle were the words, ‘Welcome to hell’,” he said.

Victims, who were wounded and bleeding, were pleading with Mr Gani to help them. But he was frozen to a spot under a table knowing that the killer was walking around the mosque killing as many people as he could. Mr Gani believed he too would also soon be dead, so he reached for his cellphone, he called his parent’s back home in India. But no one answered. He tried to call his father’s number, but the phone kept ringing. He saw people around him bleeding to death. Others with fatal head-wounds “their brains were hanging out. I just couldn’t do anything. I didn’t know what to do.” Mr Gani phoned 111 (the New Zealand emergency number) and told the authorities people were dead and injured: “The lady on the phone asked me to stay on the line as long as I could.”

Outside, Abdul Aziz picked up one of the killer’s discarded shotguns. Inside the mosque, the killer’s assault rifle ran out of bullets. The killer then “dropped his firearm” and ran back to his vehicle. He got in the driver’s seat. Mr Aziz then ran toward the car. He threw a discarded shotgun at the killer’s vehicle: “I threw it like an arrow. It shattered his window.” Mr Aziz thinks the killer thought someone had shot at him with a loaded gun. The killer turned. He swore at Mr Aziz. When the window burst it covered the inside of the car with glass. Mr Aziz said the killer “then took off” driving in his car. He then turn right away from the mosque driving through a red traffic light and out into Christchurch suburban streets.

Some minutes later, Police and ambulance officers arrived at Linwood Mosque. Anti-Terrorist armed Police entered the mosque. Inside, Mr Gani said the survivors were ordered to put their hands up above their heads. The mass murder scene was covered in blood. The Police then secured the area. Some victims survived because they were under the bodies of the dead. Police told survivors to gather near a grassed area outside. There, people began weeping for their husbands, wives, parents, children, friends.

THE ARREST:

Seventeen minutes later, two Police officers identified the killer, apparently driving his car. They drove the police car into the killer’s vehicle, ramming it against a curb. Immediately, they disarmed the killer, cuffed him, noticed home made bombs in the vehicle – IEDs (improvised explosive devices). They arrested the man and secured the scene.

The rest of Christchurch was in lock-down, children were kept safe inside their classrooms, hospitals began to prepare for casualties, the city’s streets became eerily quiet, people were locked in to libraries, shops, their homes. Police and armed forces helicopters networked the skies. No one knew if the terrorist attacks were committed by a group of people or a lone gunman.

But back inside and entrances to the two mosques, 50 people were dead – one of the dead was discovered the next day by Police, the body was laying beneath others who had been killed. Scores of others were in hospital fighting for their lives, at least another ten were in a critical condition in intensive care. Pathologists from all over New Zealand and Australia were heading to Christchurch to help with documenting the method of murder of the dead.

Within hours of the killings, Australian media named the alleged killer as an Australian born citizen named Brenton Tarrant, 28 years of age. On Saturday morning The Australian newspaper’s front page read “Australia’s evil export”.

Other media in New Zealand followed with details of the man’s background. Brenton Harrison Tarrant appeared in court the next day charged with one single count of murder. Other charges will follow. His duty lawyer did not seek name suppression nor bail, the lawyer told the judge: “I’m simply seeking remand and a high court next-available-hearing date.” Tarrant stood cuffed, smiling at those in the courtroom, at one point signaling with his fingers a ‘white supremacist’ sign. He will next appear in the Christchurch High Court on April 5.

THE AFTERMATH:

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern later told media: “It was absolutely his [the offender’s) intention to continue with his attack.” PM Ardern said: “Police are working to build a picture of this tragic event. A complex and comprehensive investigation is (now) underway.” To balance the requirement of investigation with the customs of Muslim burials, PM Ardern said liaison officers are with the victims’ loved ones to help “in a way that is consistent with Muslim faith while taking into account these unprecedented circumstances and the obligations to the coroner.”

PM Ardern said, survivors of the massacre had indicated that this attack was not “of the New Zealand that they know”.

One day later, Survivor Shoaib Gani (mentioned above) told media he still could not sleep or eat. The sounds and sights were still vivid in his head: “I still can feel myself lying on the floor waiting for the bullets to hit me.” He said, he will travel back to India to visit family, but he will return to Christchurch: “It’s just a few people, you know. You can’t blame the whole of New Zealand for this… It’s a good country, people are peaceful. Everybody has helped me here. One right wing (person) doesn’t mean everyone is bad. So I can come back here and live and hope nothing like this happens in the future.”

In the hours after the attacks, all around New Zealand, in the cities and in small country areas, Police were stationed and were ready in case others were involved and were preparing further crimes.

Beside the Police officers, people, of all races and religions, began laying flowers at the steps to their local mosques. Messages included read: “Salam Alaikum, Peace be unto you”, and, Aroha nui”, “Peace and love”, “You are one of us”. The outpouring of grief swept the South Pacific nation, and as this piece was written, a mood of support, comfort, reassurance and solidarity with those of Muslim faith was in evidence.

In Australia, Sydney’s landmark Opera House was like a beacon in the night; coloured blue, red, and white – the colours of the New Zealand flag embossed with the silver fern (Ponga) an emblem of Aotearoa New Zealand. Australia’s peoples, like in New Zealand, began laying flowers at the steps of its mosques in a gesture of inclusiveness.

In the aftermath, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has committed to ongoing financial assistance to dependents of those who have died or are injured, and assistance, she said, will be ongoing.

Questions are being leveled as to how a person with hate can enter, live, and purchase weapons in New Zealand while expressing hate toward other cultures and harbouring an intent to kill others.

PM Ardern said: “The guns used in this case appear to have been modified. That is a challenge Police have been facing, and that is a challenge that we will look to address in changing our laws… We need to include the fact that modification of guns which can lead them to become essentially the kinds of weapons we have seen used in this terrorist act.”

When asked how she was coping personally with the tragedy, she said: “I am feeling the exact same emotions that every New Zealander is facing. Yes, I have the additional responsibility and weight of expressing the grief of all New Zealanders and I certainly feel that.”

That responsibility includes ensuring New Zealand’s Police, the nation’s intelligence and security services and “the process around watch-lists, including whether or not our border protections are currently in a status that they should be, and, including our gun laws.”

THE BACKSTORY:

Indeed, New Zealand is part of the so-called ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence network that includes the USA, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Global surveillance is coordinated and prioritised among the Five Eyes member states. While significant resource, technology and sophistication is committed to the Five Eyes intelligence agencies, New Zealanders fear that those who find themselves as targets, or within the scope of intelligence officers, are predominantly of the Muslim faith.

In contrast, the accused killer who allegedly committed the horrific Christchurch mosque attacks, has been active both on social media and the dark web expressing, with an intensifying degree, his ideology of hate and intolerance. It does appear of the highest public interest, certainly from an open source intelligence point of view, to ask questions of why New Zealand’s (and indeed the Five Eyes intelligence network’s) surveillance experts did not detect the expressed evil that had radicalised the heart and mind of the perpetrator of this massacre.

It is also fact, that New Zealand is a comparatively safe and peaceful nation. But within its midst are people and groups fermenting on racially-based hate ideas. Whether it be in isolation or among organised groupings, the threat of racially driven terror crimes exists.

The alleged killer, Brenton Tarrant, has lived among those of New Zealand’s southern city Dunedin for at least two years. It appears he was radicalised around 2010 after his father died and he toured Europe. He wrote about becoming “increasingly disgusted” at immigrant communities. In early 2018, Tarrant joined a Dunedin gun club and began practicing his shooting skills and allegedly planned his attacks.

Regarding Christchurch, while it has a history of overt white racist gangs, at this juncture, it does not appear they were directly involved in this series of crimes.

But this leads to many unanswered questions, including:

• Was the killer a lone mass murderer, a sleeper in a cell of one?
• Were those with whom he communicated and engaged with on the web in extreme white racist ideologies aware of his plans?
• Was Christchurch chosen by the killer for logistical reasons?
• Was it because the city is easier to drive around than Dunedin, Wellington or Auckland?
• Was it because Christchurch has at least two mosques within easy driving distance?
• Were the Bangladesh Cricket team in his scope of attacks?
• Was the killer attempting to incite a violent response from Christchurch’s burgeoning Muslim community, or, expecting a response from the Alt-Right, from white racist groups such as the Right Wing Resistance (RWR), the Fourth Reich, and Christchurch’s skinhead community?

THE FUTURE:

Survivors of Friday 15th’s terrorist attack say they have complained of an increase in racism and expressed hate in recent times. They say, their concerns have not been taken seriously. These are the concerns that Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has committed to listen to, has committed to represent, and, as the prime advocate for her country’s peoples, to act on to ensure cracks in New Zealand’s border, security and intelligence apparatus are corrected.

And, what of New Zealand’s social culture? How will it be affected? That will be determined by the actions of each individual person, each community, town and city and how as a nation New Zealand redefines “The Kiwi Way”.

Members of New Zealand’s media will also need to act responsibly. It is fair to say some have a reputation for argument that verges on alt-right intolerance, for example, on Twitter only two days after the mass murders, a prominent radio journalist, who is employed by one of New Zealand’s largest networks, tweeted: “28 years on an [sic] we still haven’t stopped madmen getting guns. #ChChMosque… [Replying to @Politikwebsite] And the neo nationalist right are the result of the virtue signaling exclusionary left.”

Perhaps such examples are out of step with New Zealand’s population. But such attitudes do create a dialogue of justification for those who harbour intolerance. However, if the outpouring of love and compassion continues to bind rather than divide, then perhaps New Zealand has received, as they say, ‘a wake-up call’, where racial intolerance and extreme ideologies have no place among peoples of all kinds, Maori and Pakeha, of all religions, political persuasions and creeds.

One thing is certain; to stamp out the evil of hate extremism, New Zealanders will pay a price that will be charged against the Kiwi lifestyle. Personal liberties of freedom, of expression and privacy will certainly be eroded further as this nation of the South Pacific grapples with how to keep its peoples safe. The means of how to achieve relative safety will be hotly debated, but it is a necessary juncture in this nation’s history, a moment when we all must confront and challenge ourselves so that people of innocence, people like little three year old Mucaad Ibrahim, can go about their days in trust, in peace, in joyful purpose and achieve their deserved potential. Anything less is a second killing for the victims of Friday 15, New Zealand’s darkest hour.