The season for apologies

I'm sorry about my tweet last night calling for the murder of all black people. I have now deleted the offending tweet.

Forgive me please

I make a habit of attacking, mocking, and vilifying people on this blog, but I try now and again to put things right.

I do try not to get too personal when I'm writing a piece, but I'm not perfect and this is the internet, so sometimes I will cross the line into nastiness or pettiness.

An Apology

Now updated with even more apologising!

It's time for me to grovel and beg forgiveness.

Occasionally I get it wrong. I've done it before. In an effort to be witty or clever I end up making an arse of myself and then have to fix what I've done.

I've always considered it important to own my mistakes. I see a whole lot of bloggers out there who will never admit their errors, and who will never say sorry even though it's obvious to everyone that they're in the wrong.

I don't ever want to be one of those people, so when I get it wrong I like to think that I will own up and deal with the consequences.

So I screwed up again. A few weeks ago I made some inappropriate remarks about the English rugby team. Remarks that were hurtful and totally uncalled for. What makes it worse is that I repeated some of them on Jim Mora's show on Radio NZ a couple of days later.

I'm so sorry.

If my remarks in any way implied that the English rugby team were not to a man worthy of our contempt, then I am truly sorry.

If what I wrote led anyone to think that the unprofessional and juvenile way in which these supposedly professional sportsmen carried on was okay, then I apologise. It's not okay.

England were a rubbish team, a leaderless rabble, and were one of the most disappointing teams at the Rugby World Cup.

So if I have in any way led people to believe that England were worthy of our respect, I apologise.

And to all those hard-working players, coaches and managers from other teams who may have been offended by any suggestion that the English team were really no worse than anyone else, a huge apology.

Update: I have just dug an even bigger hole for myself. I now owe an apology to Dr Don Brash and the ACT Party.

Dr Brash, when I called the English team a leaderless rabble, I realise that most people will have have immediately drawn a comparison to your party.

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone in ACT.

How To Apologise

Dear Mr Henry,

It seems you're in need of help. You think the world's against you because you "tell it like it is". Your so-called apologies have been insincere, and your reaction when confronted by journalists suggests you're still in denial. Deep down you probably think you've done nothing wrong.

Your PR people haven't exactly helped, but maybe you could take a leaf from Andi Brotherston's book. After your outburst TVNZ's PR manager issued a quote that was ill-advised and suggested you were merely saying what everyone was thinking. It was an appalling thing to say, no question.

But then Ms Brotherston fronted up and apologised. Properly. Here's her apology:

Hi everyone,

I have asked and been given permission to email you to apologise. I have made an horrendous error of judgement and I want to apologise for the offence I have caused to you personally and the embarrassment I have caused to you as employees of TVNZ.

By way of background, I viewed the comments Paul Henry made online after being asked by NZPA for a comment for their afternoon papers deadline. In my haste I didn't reflect upon the wider aspects of what he said, I just focused on the question he asked John Key and emailed a quote to NZPA.

This is not an excuse it is just by way of background, my comments were wrong and I take total responsibility for my mistake.

In hindsight it seems unbelievable that I didn't seek a second opinion from Peter or Megan or even pause for breath but I didn't and only have myself to blame.

I am deeply upset that my comments have impacted the reputation of TVNZ, which I know all of you work so hard every day to protect and enhance.

I'm in Corporate Affairs, the department that's charged with protecting the reputation of the company, so in my view that makes my error of judgment so much worse.

I have offered my resignation to Peter Parussini.

Although he is particularly upset about my comments he has graciously declined to accept it.

However, I would really like you to know that I am deeply sorry. I was wrong. 

I apologise unreservedly for the offence I caused to so many of you inside the company and also the wider community.

Yours sincerely
Andi Brotherston

You see what she did? She was genuine and remorseful. Why don't you try it?

Saying Sorry Is Hard To Do

The blogosphere is filled with angry people all too willing to smear those they don't agree with as tyrants, corrupt or evil.

A good example of this was a blogger from The Standard, Eddie, who on the strength of a flimsy TV3 story accused Social Development Minister Paula Bennett of corruption and bribery.

The blogger is now backing down, but instead of apologising to Bennett for the disgraceful slur, is now attacking TV3.

Anyone who reads this blog will know what I think about Bennett's policies. But calling someone corrupt is serious.

It's often hard to apologise when the person you've wronged stands for everything you despise.

But allegations of corruption should only be used when there is actual evidence of serious criminal wrongdoing. The TV3 story never met that threshold.

This One's Not Worth The Effort

Our news media are climbing all over the British politician, Godfrey Bloom, who congratulated the French for sinking the Rainbow Warrior in 1985.

He appears to have been unaware when he made his comments that the bombing claimed the life of one person, Fernando Pereira.

He clearly does not regret the words he used. He was given the opportunity this morning on Morning Report to apologise for the offence, but instead he said this:

I am very very sorry, my belated deep condolences to him and his family. I think it's a great shame that you lose any innocent lives in something like this, I deeply regret that

There's a "sorry" in there, but it's not clear what he's sorry for. So it hardly counts as an apology. And given that he spent the rest of his interview going off about the evils of the environmental movement, it's clear he's not sorry the Rainbow Warrior was sunk.

It is easy to get worked up over the giving of offence, especially when the person doing the offending should know better. But Bloom is a member of the UK Independence Party, a political party not known for sensible policies (as one of many examples of this I could cite, when potty peer and climate change denial Viscount Monckton recently joined the party it was worthy of a press release), and some of his comments on other issues show him to be at best an eccentric crank and at worst a reactionary.

From the Times:

The newly-elected UK Independence Party MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber has gone on television to say that no businessman in his right mind would employ a woman of child-bearing age.

Unfortunately, Mr Bloom chose the day that he was nominated to the women's rights committee of the European Parliament to make his remarks.

The new champion of equal opportunity told an interviewer in Strasbourg: "The more women's rights you have, it's actually a bar to their employment.

"No self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age.

"That isn't politically correct, is it? But it's a fact of life. I know, because I am a businessman."

The investment fund manager opened his mouth to change feet when invited on television to justify remarks he made earlier to journalists, who were there to interview him about his new role.

He told them that he was keen to deal with women's issues "because I don't think they clean behind the fridge enough".

He continued: "I am here to represent Yorkshire women who always have dinner on the table when you get home. I am going to promote men's rights."

If his views on women show him to be out of date, then it should be no surprise that the environmental movement frightens him.

His past form does not excuse the latest remarks. But it reveals a man not known for sensible or temperate commentary.

So we could all offer obligatory outrage over the odious opinions expressed by Bloom. Or we could just ignore the fool. I intend to do just that (having already written more than I intended on this topic).

A Thousand Apologies

Dear readers

There have been a lot of apologies in the news recently. Certain public figures have been caught out spending money that they now regret spending, and taking diversions from trips when they should have been working.

And while I am not a public figure*, I have decided to examine my own behaviour. And, readers, I must confess I have been less than perfect!

I feel a terrible sense of shame in admitting this to you, but I have to get this off my chest. I have systematically and consistently been cheating the system – taking time off work when I should be slaving, and enjoying the benefits of my employer’s generosity when I should have been walking the streets in sacking or eating stale bread.

My indiscretions are too numerous to recall. Turning up to work a couple of minutes after the official start time can never be excused. I’m paid to work the full day. I’m simply ripping off the people of New Zealand. Why am I rorting the taxpayers and not just my employer? Because if I was at my desk at the right time maybe I would be just that tiny bit more productive, would earn more income for my employer, and would lead my employer to pay slightly more tax.

I know we are talking about small amounts, but it's the principle, isn't it?

And before anyone should mistakenly attempt to defend my disgraceful behaviour, let me be very clear about one thing. The fact that I’m at work almost every other day before 8am is no excuse. Rules are rules, and I have broken them. 
And then there are the benefits I’m permitted to enjoy – wasteful indulgences. Such as after work drinks, team coffees, staff lunches, work social functions and employee benefits. What kind of disgraceful message does my indulging in such luxuries send to the community? Some people have barely enough to eat, and here am I living the high life. Mea culpa! I’m so ashamed!

So I’ve decided to pay it all back**. I’ve sat down and calculated the total cost to the taxpayer of all the outrageous rorts committed by me, and the total loss of taxpayer revenues resulting from my sins. And I’m paying it back**.

I promise never to do any of these things again, until the next time I feel inclined to do them. And that's a promise I intend to stand by.

*  Not yet. My monstrous clone army is not yet ready to be unleashed on the world. Soon, my children, soon…

** I am also a disgraceful liar. I’m not proud of that either.

When To Apologise

I have often pondered to what extent a nation, or a group of people within a nation, can be held responsible for the actions of previous generations.

And what I also want to know is this: when does it become acceptable to make a joke out of a historic grievance or atrocity? Does it ever?

Our own country has struggled to deal with historical grievances. Very few people would argue that the treatment of Maori in the 19th century wasn’t a disgrace, or that the confiscation of their lands was not an abominable injustice. Some have argued, however, that the current generation owes no duty to Maori, and that the recognition of any duty at all merely perpetuates the “grievance industry”.

That argument overlooks the inconvenient truth that we (and when I say “we” I am talking as a Pakeha) continue to enjoy the fruits of those land confiscations, and so continue to profit from historical wrongs. And that the current appalling Maori crime and health statistics are attributable, at least in part, to the loss of economic viability and social cohesion that arose from Maori land dispossession.

This blog post and discussion thread today on Public Address today got me pondering further. The guest writer, a German, gives her views on the recent controversial German-themed party held by students at Lincoln University. The event is reported here, and if you caught the footage on TV you would have seen a predominance of Nazi uniforms, and numerous tasteless references to the Holocaust. News of the party caused a stir, with opinion in the media, talkback-land and the blogosphere divided over whether the students had done anything wrong.

Saying sorry

Being a German means carrying war guilt. Most of us would agree it is right for a nation to renounce the evil ways of the past, but at what point do the crimes of the past stop becoming your responsibility? It is clear that for some people no apology will ever be enough. If an apology is given it is picked over for signs that it might not be sufficiently fulsome or self-abasing. Is compensation being offered? Is it enough? Is the person giving the apology personally sorry, or merely expressing regret for the deeds of a few bad people?

At what point is it okay to stop apologising? And what should a nation be expected to apologise for? Demands are often made for Britain to apologise for its history of slavery. Many of the splendid buildings that adorn London and other English cities were built using money earned from West Indies slave labour. And yet it was so long ago. Is an apology owed? And if so, should reparations be paid? Because surely for an apology to be meaningful it must be followed by reparations. But who would be eligible for compensation?

And how far back in history should we go? To me it seems reasonable, for example, that Russia ought to apologise to Poland for the dreadful things it has done to Poland this century. But it would seem plain silly if the Italian PM were asked to say sorry to France because of the slaughter Julius Caesar inflicted on the Gauls in the first century BC.

I don’t know why one feels right and the other wrong, other than because one event happened long ago. These are not easy questions to answer.

Offensive?

Back to the Lincoln party.

Most people (I think) would agree that attempting to depict a concentration camp inmate in comedic terms is likely to offend. And yet it can work. The Roberto Benigni film Life is Beautiful told the story of a father who hid his son from the Germans inside a concentration camp. It is hilarious in places, while still managing to retain a desperate sadness.

There is also a long history of Jewish comedians (think Mel Brooks of Jack Benny) making jokes about Hitler or the Holocaust.

There is nothing remotely funny, however, about what appeared to go on at Lincoln University. It may be arguable that dressing up in Nazi uniforms is okay, because let’s face it, the Germans did have the coolest uniforms in WWII. The SS, as ghastly and murderous as they were, were natty dressers. And TV shows like Hogan’s Heroes have presented the Germans in WWII as bumbling harmless fools. So it may be that you can get away with a uniform at a party without being grossly offensive. Yet the Swastika is such a powerful symbol for evil that anyone who wears it, no matter why, risks being branded as a racist Nazi anti-Semite. Even though the Swastika has a very different symbolism in India.

If the Swastika is an icon with just too much “baggage”, what other symbols might qualify for such treatment? Most who understand 20th century history would agree Joseph Stalin was at least as awful as Hitler, and that Mao deserves a pedestal in any pantheon of monsters. So why is it “cool” to adorn yourself with badges or icons from those regimes? You have probably seen t-shirts displaying the red star, or the hammer and sickle. And the iconic propaganda posters of the Soviet regime are still popular - and yet what do they represent? The face of a totalitarian regime that was responsible for the murder of millions.

When I was in Berlin several years ago, memories of the Berlin Wall were still fresh. But there was a thriving market supplying Cold War trinkets to tourists, and buying a fragment from the Berlin Wall was de rigueur. The locals didn’t seem traumatised by this dark period in their history, at least outwardly. During my stay in Berlin I acquired a Ukrainian Communist Party banner from a dealer in memorabilia. Here is one side of it.

And the other.

But I’m hesitant to put the banner up in my house, or on the wall of my office. I certainly can’t bring myself to display the side in which the face of Lenin appears. He was not the monster Stalin was, but nor was he a very nice person. Am I being unnecessarily sensitive worrying about this, particularly when you can see similar things in many Russian-themed bars and clubs?

I really, genuinely, don’t have the answers to many of these questions. My gut usually tells me when something is “wrong”, and yet as a supposedly intelligent person I should be able to rationalise why. Why is it okay to joke to a Scottish friend that it’s a pity his ancestors weren’t all mown down on Culloden Field (and, actually, is it okay?), while any kind of joke about the Holocaust is, rightly, grossly offensive? No doubt it has something to do with the passing of time, but how much time must pass? Must all the survivors of the tragedy/genocide have died? If so, why are calls made for the UK to apologise for its slave past?

Like I said, I don't have the answers to many of these questions.