A special thank-you to Richard Prosser

We've all been giving Richard Prosser such a hard time this week, but he's actually done us a favour.

Thanks to Prosser's intemperate language and offensive views on race and religion, bigots have been flushed out from all sorts of hiding places.  He has made a fool of his publisher, Ian Wishart, and left various knuckleheads who usually agree wholeheartedly with his views scrambling to defend themselves on blogs and other forms of social media.

Would The Herald Run This One?

(click picture to enlarge)

Stupid Dog

It has been a day of terror: throughout Christchurch and throughout the Labour Party.

But I'm sure you'll agree that the biggest news story of the day concerns the altering of history.

One of the big questions hanging over Sir Peter Jackson's Dambusters film has finally been answered - the dog Nigger will be renamed Digger as it might offend Americans.

Only Americans?

The film's script writer, actor Stephen Fry, revealed the change to British newspaper The Daily Mail.

In the original 1955 film the name of pilot Guy Gibson's black Labrador is spoken 12 times as a code word to report successful dam breaches to the RAF's bomber command, The Daily Mail reported.

Fry said: "there is no question in America that you could ever have a dog called the N-word. It's no good saying that it is the Latin word for black or that it didn't have the meaning that it does now - you just can't got back, which is unfortunate ... Digger seems OK, I reckon".

However some historians and aviation enthusiasts were unhappy with the name change. 

The dog is buried at RAF Scampton in Britain, where the Dambusters 617 squadron was based. Curator of the RAF Scampton museum accused Fry of trying to "rewrite history".

"It's not a problem with coloured people, it's the people in power creating the problem. Sod their political correctness and sod human rights," said Mervyn Hallam. 

Quite. This PC nonsense must stop. We didn't fight two world wars to preserve human rights Tolerance? Bah!

I'll wager that the film ends up depicting a great many things other than as they occurred. If you seek historical authenticity in your blockbuster films then expect to be perpetually disappointed.

As any aficionado of Hollywood cinema will know, when it comes to historical pieces the British are almost always the villains. So the old buggers bleating about authenticity ought to just be grateful that for once the Brits are the good guys. If the film was being made in Hollywood it would probably have Mel Gibson as the lead, and he'd be playing a heroic Nazi saving the Fatherland from those evil Jew-loving Englishmen. A role Gibson was born to play, incidentally.

But despite the many liberties to be taken by the makers of the film, the only complaint we'll hear is that they changed the name of a stupid mutt from one that is utterly offensive.

The bigger question is whether it will be a serious enough offence for Murray Deaker to boycott the film.

The Howard Plan Version 2.0

You know it's election year in Australia when politicians over there start beating up on asylum seekers.

From the hysteria whipped up you'd think tens of thousands of the buggers were invading Australia's shores, threatening the Ocker way of life.

The sad fact of the matter is that the number of boat people who make it to Australia makes up a tiny percentage of the overall number of people emigrating there. There is no crisis, and there never was one.

But the new PM Julia Gillard is sounding more like John Howard on this issue. She is doing so because there are votes in it, not because it is the right thing to do.

Now John Key says people smuggling will become an issue for New Zealand. I'm not sure how. We already accept a tiny number of refugees into this country every year (up to 750), though the maximum number is seldom reached. Even if a few boats got here, it's hard to see this becoming a crisis, unless we want it to be. We could do a lot more than we already do, and comfortably.

Certain politicians have made a career out of whipping up hysteria over foreigners. A load of boat-people turning up would be just the sort of platform someone like Winston Peters needed to relaunch his political career. Could you imagine the mileage he'd get?

Australians and New Zealanders should recall their own settler origins. The people who came from Europe in the 19 Century were mostly poor and unskilled, and in Australia's case were often convicts. If we were vetting them now under today's standards they'd all be sent back.

Everything's Okay Because John Says It Is

It's apparently okay for someone representing the nation to use a racist word in public, so long as he apologises afterwards. Not immediately, but only after being harassed, hounded and cornered by journalists, and after initially showing no remorse. And by "apologise", I mean apologise for the offence - not the racism behind the remark.

Making an apology of that kind is like saying "well I'm sorry you're so prickly and sensitive and that my plain talking offended you. But, really, toughen up."

It's also apparently okay for someone representing the nation to use a racist word, because someone else did so once upon a time and was forgiven by the public. 

"Paul Holmes effectively used the same term, did actually apologise and the public accepted that."

I consider myself a member of the group John Key calls "the public", but I don't recall ever forgiving Paul Holmes for his "cheeky darkie" remark. However, if John Key says I did, then I must have.

I'm not sure how Key would know. He might have been within earshot when I said "I forgive that poor Holmes chap. He's been through enough." But I've only ever been in the same vicinity as John Key twice: once when I saw him crossing the road nearby (before he became all, like, famous and stuff), and once when he and his minders walked right past me in the lobby of my building. I'm pretty sure on both occasions I kept my lips sealed.

So the only other possibility is that I'm talking in my sleep and his men are bugging me. I've no doubt that my highly subversive blogging activities ("Down with that kind of thing! Death to all extremists!") have got the attention of the SIS, and they of course report directly to the PM. On a hunch I ransacked my bedroom in the hope of finding where they'd planted the bug, but all I got for my troubles was an evil glare from my wife.

But I did find a few missing socks and a plastic Lego man my son's been missing for weeks. So thanks to the SIS for that, I guess.

If I am talking in my sleep it seems strange I would be dreaming about Paul Holmes. On the other hand, what other explanation could there be? It also seems strange I would continue to harbour a lingering ill-will towards a man I have supposedly forgiven. Maybe forgiving someone is like taking a course of antibiotics: if you don't complete the entire course, the disease comes back. Perhaps if I'd just avoided all contact with Paul Holmes' work for the full ten day treatment I'd now be an ardent admirer of the man.

All that is by the bye. Key says Holmes has been embraced in a loving way by a public keen to show their affections towards the small wizened one, and Key's word has to be good enough for me.

Quite what Holmes' redemption has to do with Andy Haden, however, is still beyond me. Holmes was the host of a commercial radio show. Haden was appointed by the Government to represent New Zealand, and his job title even has the word "ambassador" in it.

Our ambassadors are supposed to be paragons of dignity and discretion - or at least that is the image we expect them to convey, even if behind closed doors they are ordinary dirty sinful folk just like the rest of us. But they don't let the screen drop like Haden did. A momentary lapse can be forgiven, but Haden's conduct afterwards suggests it was no mere lapse.

One slip, and down the hole we fall
It seems to take no time at all
A momentary lapse of reason
That binds a life for life
A small regret, you won't forget,
There'll be no sleep in here tonight

If only.

Who's The Bigger Racist?

The Race Relations Commissioner’s report on the Hone Harawira incident is worth a read. The Commissioner Joris de Bres has been criticised by Muriel Newman and others this week for failing to take any action against Harawira. And Newman has launched a general attack on the Office and claimed it compounds racism and is a waste of money.

But when you read the report, you realise that de Bres really has very little power to do anything. So what exactly were they wanting him to do? Condemn the language used by Harawira? He did that. Prosecute him? He has no power to. Kick Harawira out of Parliament? Again, he has no power.

Muriel Newman has been writing and talking a lot about race relations lately. You may wonder why we should give two hoots what one of the crazier ex-MPs of a loopy political party thinks about Maori. After all, there never has been a shortage of crazy people ready to opine on race relations. But Newman seems to have drawn to her a number of prominent people in the business community (I will explore these links in a future post). Her views on race may be odious, but they appear to have the support of many on the right.

Newman seems to believe we live in a society where people are already treated equally, and where discrimination does not exist. This opinion should not surprise anyone. Newman represents the views of a small minority at the very top end of society, people with money and privilege who don’t want others telling them what they can do. She dresses up this call to selfishness as an equality issue, by describing the institutions that exist to promote and protect the vulnerable, the Human Rights Commission and Race Relations Commission, as “promoting racial superiority and separatism”. Newman says those institutions are a waste of money and ought to be abolished.

Newman will readily acknowledge that Maori and other ethnic groups are over-represented in crime and prison population statistics. But she says this has nothing to do with racial inequality.

For the race relations watchdog to try to blame the fact that Maori commit over half of the crimes serious enough to land them in jail on racism is a complete and utter cop-out.

Newman identifies a number of other reasons why Maori fail – poor education, alcohol and drug problems, poor health and welfare dependency. But she refuses to acknowledge a racial link to these factors. And that is where the flaws in her argument stand out.

Because it just doesn’t make sense to say racial inequality has nothing to do with these problems, when the statistics themselves show that Pakeha do better. Maori and Pakeha have been living side by side for generations. If racial inequality does not exist, why are Maori not doing just as well?

It follows then that if you don’t believe racial inequality exists, or that our societal structure (largely based on European values) plays some part in disadvantaging Maori, you must have to believe Maori are lazy and stupid. Because what other explanation is there?

Is that what Newman is so carefully trying to dance around? It might explain why she is so hostile to Maori, and to institutions designed to represent them. Newman’s support of the nonsensical theory that the Celts and Chinese arrived in New Zealand before Maori (her "expert" Gavin Menzies has been widely discredited) might also be motivated in part by this hostility.

To pretend that racism doesn’t adversely affect minorities is to ignore the bleedingly obvious. It is as laughable as the claims frequently made about “Maori privilege”. Those claims are usually made by people who enjoy the privileges most Maori can only dream of.

Dog-Whistling Up Some Votes

The Dom Post reports:

Maori Party policies are racially divisive and will turn New Zealand into the Zimbabwe of the South Pacific, NZ First leader Winston Peters has claimed.

Mr Peters used a speech to Wanganui Grey Power to launch a stinging attack on the party, targeting renegade MP Hone Harawira's "white motherf.....s" email and the looming repeal of the foreshore and seabed law.

"We should beware of any ethnic or religious group that seeks power.

In his prime Winston Peters was like a crocodile in the mud, waiting for some poor animal to venture into the water. Many a politician fell victim to his sharp tongue and muck throwing.

But that was a few years ago. Now he just comes across as desperately opportunistic. He sees a brown man being widely attacked for racism, and hopes some of the anger directed against Harawira will translate into votes for NZ First.

But it's not enough to attack Maori. There are other non-whites to slam:

But while accusing Mr Harawira of sowing racial division, he also launched into the growing Asian population, which he said was projected to hit 400,000 in Auckland in seven years.

He said increased Asian immigration and a growing trend towards multiculturalism was a "force for disintegration".

He referred to studies he claimed showed many people born under China's one child policy who now lived here were using immigration policies to bring in their parents and grandparents, turning New Zealand into a rest home for Asian pensioners.

I've yet to hear a compelling reason why the small number of immigration we permit from Asia is a bad thing. Are Asians "bad people"? They talk funny and look funny. So? They drive badly. Wait, there is actually no evidence to back that up.  They drive up house prices. So do UK immigrants.

Most Asian immigrants are hard workers and contribute enormously to the country. We need more immigration, not less.

We've heard this dog-whistle before. Thankfully most people recognise it for what it is - a desperate attempt by a cynic to return to power.

Winston's luck ran out last election. I wouldn't completely discount a return to Parliament, but nor do I expect it. He would need to lose some of the arrogance and swagger that so disgusted the electorate in 2008.

Who Is The Real Racist?

The Hone show rolls on and on.

The Harawira apology that wasn't really an apology didn't help to calm the anxieties of the public. It was probably a time best used for reflection, rather for than launching a tirade aimed at Phil Goff.

But all that aside, why do we care about this man and what he has said and done? He bunked off when he was supposed to be working. So give him a telling-off. Big deal. He used some "colourful" language in an email to a former supporter (a private email, might I add). So we have established that he's an idiot. But is he really a racist villain?

I smell a double standard.  If we want to castigate our politicians for using racist language, let's start with Michael Laws, mayor of Wanganui. The things he has said, both in print and on radio, are far more inciting than anything Harawira said in his (again, private) email.

And the newspapers and media networks that continue to whip this story up include Fairfax, for whom Laws writes a weekly column, and Mediaworks, the owner of RadioLive (which employs Laws to spew hate and racism across the airwaves) and TV3. So those media outlets are clearly quite happy for a racist to go about his work. But when it's someone else's racist, it's a different story.

Here's another double standard. When Paul Holmes made his "cheeky darky" comments on live radio in 2003 there were a large number of complaints to the Race Relations Commissioner. The number of complaints re3ceived by the Race Relations Commissioner about Harawira is well in excess of that number, and complaints are still being received.

Why? I'm not convinced Harawira's comments were any worse than Holmes'. Both were offensive, perhaps even grossly offensive. And remember (and I'm sorry to keep labouring this) Harawira's words were contained in a private email. Holmes was live on air and intended to be heard. So why the record number of complaints about Harawira? To quote Ali G:

Is it cos I is black?

That is not to excuse the comments, but the reaction indicates that when a brown person makes a racist comment we take it more seriously. And that it's not as bad when the racist is a white man.

Isn't that racism?

"I'm Not A Racist, But..."

The Huffington Post Reports:

A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

I wonder which bathroom he lets them use.

Look Who Else Is Back

And what has changed? From the Stuff website:

New Zealand had suffered a "tsunami" of immigrants, he said, and large scale immigration could not be justified when 140,000 people were out of work.

He said the country was being taken for a sucker and immigrants were not needed in many occupations. Some immigrants were using New Zealand as a "transit camp" before moving to Australia.

The burden of immigrants on welfare and pensions was bemoaned.

"These people are feasting on your pension pie ... the pension pie you and other Kiwis paid for."

Other topics included the perils of foreign ownership and the importance of agriculture to the economy.

Mr Peters said New Zealand needed to be wary of foreigners buying agricultural assets and "hovering" around Fonterra.

The kiwifruit industry was "being stalked by jackals".

Not much then.

The use of the word "tsunami" is deliberate and cynical. Peters is using a tragedy for political gain.

Peters stokes up this racist hate every time he's down. It will give him a lift in the polls and some profile. He only needs one in twenty voters to go for it next election, and he's back in Parliament, possibly as kingmaker.

Depressing.