Complaint template

Further to my promise yesterday, here is a generic complaint template. Just copy and paste this and bang it off to the relevant person/organisation. This template mainly applies to complaints to the Herald, but you can play around with it to make it more relevant to the Human Rights Commission. You can complain to the Press Council here and use this as a base, but you have to complain to the Herald first and then there are a number of other criteria.

----------

Generic Complaint Template:


Dear Mr Hastings


Please consider this a formal complaint against Paul Holmes column published in the New Zealand on February 11.

1. Mr. Holmes employs unfair, offensive and discriminatory language when describing Maori. Mr Holmes describes Maori as “hateful”, “loony”, “irrational” and “greedy”. Such language serves to disparage Maori.

2. Mr Holmes characterises Maori in an unfair, offensive and discriminatory light. For example, Mr Holmes contents that “Maori” beat their children, “feed themselves silly” and live in a “perfect world of benefit provision”. This is a gross misrepresentation and does not serve any purpose other than to fuel negative sentiment against Maori.

3. The unfair, offensive and discriminatory language and characterisations Mr Holmes employs amounts to hate speech. Hate speech is not defined under New Zealand law, however the following definition is a useful guide: any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic, for example race. Mr Holmes, through offensive language and fallacious characterisations, disparages Maori as a race. Mr Holmes comments amount to sustained, racist abuse against Maori.

4. The first nine paragraphs, when viewed as a whole, actively encourage negative feeling towards Maori. In fact, the first nine paragraphs serve to vilify Maori.

5. Mr Holmes does not distinguish between individual Maori and Maori as a race. Mr Holmes describes Waitangi Day as a “loony Maori fringe self denial day”. This passage clearly refers to all Maori. Mr Holmes also refers to the “hopeless failure of Maori”. Again, Mr Holmes is referring to all Maori. Mr Holmes continues saying “no, if Maori want Waitangi Day”. Mr Holmes is referring to all Maori – there is no other reading of this sentence.

6. Mr Holmes makes a number of factually incorrect statements. For example he speaks of the “never defined” principles of the Treaty. The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are, after over two decades of judicial refinement, clear, well defined and widely applied. Mr Holmes also implies that Maori want Waitangi Day for themselves when he says “no, if Maori want Waitangi Day, let them have it”. Maori have never requested Waitangi Day to be a day for Maori only.

7. When Mr Holmes speaks of his ancestors who fought in WWI he actively encourages racial division. He draws a line between Waitangi Day, which Holmes incorrectly characterises as a Maori day, and ANZAC Day which Holmes implicitly paints as a Pakeha day. No only does this encourage racial division, but it diminishes the important role Maori played in WWI.

8. Free speech is not at issue here. Mr Holmes has a right to free speech, but free speech does not extend to hate speech. The line is drawn where speech disparages another person or group on the basis of some characteristic, in this case race. When hate speech is the case, freedom of speech is irrelevant.

9. Freedom of speech must always be accompanied by social responsibility. Meaning freedom of speech does not guarantee one the right to vilify another group.

10. In publishing Holmes racist rant, the Herald failed to uphold acceptable standards of media ethics. Media organisations are under an obligation to run a range of views, but those views must meet requirements of good taste, decency and acceptability. Holmes piece did not meet these, in my opinion, low requirements. The Herald also owes it to society not to print racist rants. If they do, they legitimise that racism and provide a platform for the other racists to perpetuate their views. This, more often than not, hurts the race, usually a minority race, on the receiving end.

11. The Herald’s decision to print Mr Holmes column serves to entrench poorly informed opinions and, more significantly, drags public discourse down to the sewers. The sick comments under Mr Holmes’ piece are a testament to this.

12. Mr Holmes’ column arguably breached s61 of the Human Rights Act 1993. Specifically s61(a) which makes it unlawful to publish written material that is likely to excite hostility or bring into contempt any group on the basis of race. The racist comments under Mr Holmes column, as well as comments on many blogs, prove that Mr Holmes’ column excited hostility and brought into contempt Maori as a race.

13. Mr Holmes column may also be unlawful under s131 of the Human Rights Act 1993 – inciting racial disharmony.

14. Mr Holmes column was inaccurate, unfair, offensive and undeniably racist. The Herald was irresponsible to publish the column.

15. I ask that you sack Paul Holmes without delay. His racism has no place in New Zealand society. I will be boycotting the New Zealand Herald as long as Paul Holmes remains as a contributor. Please do the right thing.


Kind regards,
[Insert name]

Remember Hasting's email address is David.Hastings@nzherald.co.nz

More on Holmes and the Herald

We all know this Paul Holmes rubbish annoys me, but to be honest, I don’t care so much about what he said, it’s the fact that the Herald published it and that 99% of Pakeha don’t care when Maori are on the receiving end of abuse.

In publishing Holmes racist rant, the Herald failed to uphold acceptable standards of media ethics. Media organisations are under an obligation to run a range of views, but those views must meet requirements of good taste, decency and acceptability. Holmes piece did not meet these, in my opinion, low requirements. The Herald also owes it to society not to print racist rants. If they do, they legitimise that racism and provide a platform for the other racists to perpetuate their views. This, more often than not, hurts the race, usually a minority race, on the receiving end.

Holmes piece, and the Herald’s complicity, serves to entrench poorly informed opinions and, more significantly, drags public discourse down to the sewers. The sick comments under Holmes piece and on some right blogs is a testament to this. I’m not going to quote any of it, if I do I’ll probably throw up on my keyboard. Holmes has really brought the scum out of the woodwork.

Another aspect of this that disappoints me is the lax, don’t care response of most Pakeha. Sadly, Bryce Edwards (who is very sensible 99% of the time) holds that Holmes has raised legitimate views. This is a common sentiment. However, he hasn’t. Holmes is resetting the Treaty debate and taking race relations back to the 80’s. In terms worthy of the 19th century, Holmes is relitigating things that are settled. The Treaty is an accepted and important part of our constitution and society. Maori are an important part of our political system. Maori grievances are legitimate and work is progressing to heal the wounds. Historical grievances and contemporary struggles still fuel Maori anger. There is no debate over these things.

Imagine if the situation was reversed and a prominent Maori broadcaster slammed greedy Pakeha land thieves, slammed paedophilia as a Pakeha problem, slammed the propensity of loser Pakeha men to take Asian brides, slammed fraud as a scourge on all Pakeha. There would be outrage and rightly so. It’s untrue, it’s unfair and would constitute racism. Holmes rant is on a similar level. Slamming Maori as hateful, loony, irrational, fat and so on. Imagine for one second that Holmes was vilifying you. And imagine it from the position Maori are in. Powerless. No one listens (hell, no one cares), you don’t know how to respond (i.e. don’t know about complaint mechanisms, public pressure etc), the list goes on.

Complaint template

I've had a few people ask me to draft a complaint template. I think it's a good idea and will encourage more people to actually do something. Tomorrow I'll post a template to complain to the Press Council, the Human Rights Commission and David Hastings. I'll also post a template for you to ask our Maori MPs to stand with us on this.

Herald rushes to defend Holmes (updated)

The Herald is compounding the Paul Holmes problem with this generic response to complaints:

Thank you for your formal complaint regarding the Paul Holmes column of Saturday Feb 11. 

As you are no doubt aware, it is one of many messages we have received on both sides of the ledger since publication. Those supporting his right to his opinion have markedly outweighed those against. Having said that, we are concerned that a number of people have taken such strong exception to it.

There is no question the piece was written in a raw and provocative style. But we do not believe it constitutes "hate speech" or close to it. It is not, as many people have suggested, a commentary on all Maori people or Maori culture generally but on the few protesters who disrupted proceedings. Nor does it breach Press Council principles, which accommodate freedom of opinion in comment pieces. 

It was one of a series of opinion pieces discussing Waitangi Day and its place in New Zealand society which began the previous Saturday with a front page cover story by Buddy Mikaere and included an editorial which recognised the obvious divisions in society but supported the idea of the day as being our national day. 

The column in question was clearly aimed at the behaviour and attitudes of Waitangi Day protesters at Waitangi itself – similar to criticism by former Prime Minister Helen Clark of protest leaders as ‘haters and wreckers’, in another context. Disparaging and critical words, but neither intended to cast all Maori in that light. Holmes expressed his opinion as a columnist as he is entitled to do in a country where freedom of speech is regarded as a central pillar of public discourse. 

Although many have objected to it -- as is their right -- I hope they can recognise that the very ‘freedom’ in the concept of freedom of speech is meaningless if it applies only to speech that offends no one. As has been recognised by the Press Council, true freedom can mean the freedom to be ignorant, offensive and wrong.

The same points can be applied to his comments about anti-fluoride campaigners, La Leche and Syria. They are, as you point out in paragraph 12, opinion.
We strive to publish the breadth of opinion on major public issues and no doubt will carry strong views in the paper and on our website in response to the latest Holmes column. 

Yours sincerely
David Hastings
Editor
Weekend Herald

Hate speech is, outside of the law, any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic, in this case race. Holmes consistently casts Maori in a negative light, calling us, among other things, “irrational”, “loony” and “hopeless”. Holmes speaks of the “hopeless failure of Maori to educate their children and stop them bashing their babies”. Holmes continues saying that Maori should be left to go and “raid a bit more kaimoana” and “feed themselves silly”. This isn’t disparaging Maori, it’s vilifying us. I don’t know how the Herald can, in the face of this, say that Holmes’ column did not amount to hate speech. The message of the piece, whether intended or not, was that Maori are misbehaving, ungrateful, failures. The first nine paragraphs actively encourage negative feeling towards Maori. Those paragraphs describe us in offensive and unfair terms (in other words racist stereotypes) and, at the same time, perpetuate incorrect perceptions about the Treaty. If the Herald doesn’t think that what Holmes has written is hate speech, then they have glaring double standards. The Herald launched a crusade, and a crusade that continues may I add, against Hone Harawira in the wake of the white motherfuckers comments. Of course, that comment was racist and hateful and I’m sure the Herald agrees. But why are Holmes comments not? After all, where Hone’s comment was more of a throwaway than anything else, Holmes comments are sustained. He launches a systematic tirade against Maori – paragraph after paragraph. Although he falls short of using profanities, the terms he describes us in are much more hurtful.

The Herald is also claiming that Holmes was not targeting his verbal diarrhoea towards all Maori. Again, I don’t see how the Editor can make this claim in the face of what Holmes has written. In reference to Waitangi day Holmes says “it’s a loony Maori fringe self denial day”. Maori, in this context, refers to us as a group. Holmes does not distinguish. He also speaks of the “hopeless failure of Maori”. Again, Maori is referring to us as a group. Holmes continues “no, if Maori want Waitangi day”. No surprise, Holmes uses the word Maori again, and again referring to Maori as a group rather than an individual(s).

No one says Holmes shouldn’t be allowed to say what he wants, but he cannot say racist, offensive, unfair and ignorant things without consequence. Nor can he hide under the cloak of free speech. As I said in a previous post, free speech does not extend to hate speech. And this is hate speech even under the most onerous definition.

So, given the Herald’s lax response, it’s time for more complaints. Here is a link to complain to the Press Council. Remember you can also complain to the Human Rights Commission here. Finally, you can send a complaint to David Hastings, the editor of the Weekend Herald (sorry, Tim Murphy is the editor of the weekday Herald, I’m sure he forwarded your complaints though) at David.Hastings@nzherald.co.nz. Oh, and there will be a picket of the Herald’s office on the 16th. Here’s the link. Keep up the pressure and don’t let the racists legitimise Holmes’ bullshit.

(ps where is Maori TV and Maori radio on this story??)

UPDATE: for further perspectives see this from Reading the Maps, Tumeke and this from the Jackal. 

Holmes: morally repugnant and deeply racist

I don’t read Paul Holmes – the man has no credibility, little sense and somehow, god knows how, his arrogance jumps off the page and strangles anyone in sight. With that in mind, I wasn’t going to give this piece the time of day, but someone needs to call Holmes on his racism.

In the vilest column I’ve ever seen, Holmes comes out swinging against Maori. The column is undeniably racist. At several points Holmes slurs the entire Maori race. For example, Holmes taints Maori as “loony” and “irrational”. The offensive and unfair language he deploys and the overall message of the piece encourages discrimination. Take this, my favourite passage in which Holmes asserts the following:

“No, if Maori want Waitangi Day for themselves, let them have it. Let them go and raid a bit more kai moana than they need for the big, and feed themselves silly, speak of the injustices heaped upon them by the greedy Pakeha and work out new ways of bamboozling the Pakeha to come up with a few more millions”.

Initially, I was furious with this. Well, I was furious with the whole piece actually, but this paragraph really rarked me up for some reason. After stewing on it, I just found it sad. Sad that someone would say something so nasty, hate filled and utterly unfair. This would go unnoticed in private, but this was published in New Zealand’s leading daily – the Herald. It was totally irresponsible for the Herald to publish Holmes’ hate speech. And that’s what it is, hate speech. Holmes, in the most blatant terms I’ve ever seen, disparages and vilifies Maori, thus encouraging prejudice against Maori. That satisfies the definition of hate speech for me.

Sadly, Holmes doesn’t distinguish between individuals and Maori as a race. Although Holmes’ bases his hate on the actions of a few individuals, he taints the entire Maori race. It’s unfair and it’s racist. What also annoys me is that Holmes is furthering highly offensive and unfair stereotypes.

There is no place for racism in the media. Of course, some people are going to rush to Holmes defence. This is the saddest part. No doubt some people will prasie Holmes for ‘telling it like it is’, but he isn’t telling like it is. Holmes is basing his claims on spurious grounds. He isn’t taking into account the deeper meaning of Waitangi day, he isn’t taking into account the socio-political context and, quite simply, he is misinterpreting the actions of Maori at Waitangi. Waitangi protest needs to be interpreted taking into account the history of the day, the history of Crown-Maori relations and the contemporary political situation. You can’t boil it down to lunacy or irrationality. I guess it goes to show that Holmes mind operates on a very, very shallow level.

Others will defend Holmes right to free speech. A right he undeniably has. However, free speech does not extend to hate speech. The line is drawn when ones speech incites prejudice or disparages another. There is international consensus that hate speech is irrelevant to free speech. Importantly, hate speech is also illegal under both domestic and international law.

Unsurprisingly, Holmes also makes a number of factual errors. For example, he speaks of the “never defined principles of the Treaty”. This is a ridiculous claim. The principles of the Treaty are well defined and are, to quote a legal expert, not vague and unknowable. After over two decades of judicial refinement, the principles are unambiguous.

Holmes then takes aim at breast feeding advocates. This part of the column was just as nauseating as the beginning. No mean feat may I add. Holmes then tops it off with a crude and simplistic reading on the situation in Syria.

He must be in a bad place, old Paul Holmes. I tend to think his column was an attempt to comfort and confirm his own self righteousness. Pretty sad really. If the Herald had any sense (or dignity), they’d sack Holmes. The rubbish he produces is unbecoming of our major daily. You can make comparisons with Michael Laws, but Laws knows where to draw the line – and at least he’s literate. I suspect Holmes is not. He must go.

Over the next few days I’ll be laying a complaint with the Editor of the Herald, Tim Murphy, I’ll also be laying a complaint with the Race Relations Commissioner. Lastly, I’ll be boycotting the Herald as long as Holmes remains. I encourage you to do the same. Send the message that there’s no place for Holmes and his hate in our public discourse.

As an aside, it's interesting to compare the contrast between Holmes piece and this from John Roughan. Where Holmes is offensive, ill considered and rude, Roughan is sober, analytical and fair (even though I don't really agree with what he says, but that's for a post on Monday).

(You can, I think, complain to Tim Murphy at tim.murphy@nzherald.co.nz)

(You can also lodge a complaint with the Human Rights Commission here)

(For another perspective see this at Reading the Maps, this from TW.com and Danyl writes here)