Racism and Redneckery on the North Shore

Racism, bigotry, redneckery: it’s all on display in Devonport, an upmarket suburb on Auckland’s North Shore. The local residents have their hackles up over a treaty deal that will include a 3.2ha block at Narrow Neck. The block is currently used by the Navy.

Under the settlement, Ngati Whatua will be given the opportunity to purchase the block. Once the land passes into Ngati Whatua's hands, local residents fear the tribe will develop the land. This is unfounded. The Navy will continue to lease the land for the next 15 years at least. With this in mind, the character of the area will not change in the medium term. Put simply, the status quo will remain.

Even if Ngati Whatua refuses to extend the Navy’s lease, district plan rules prevent intensive development. Under the recreation rules in the North Shore District Plan, this plan is still operative in the absence of the Auckland Unitary plan by the way, any development on or adjacent to reserve land is restricted in height, must be compatible with “the character of the reserve”, the “qualities” of the area must be maintained and so on and so on. Effectively, planning rules prevent development that will detract from the purpose and character of the reserve. The resident’s fears of commercial development are unfounded.

Under the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (HGMP) the block was to be included in the adjoining reserve when the Navy vacated. However, the Act also stipulates that this is not operative if the land is or becomes subject to a treaty claim. Therefore, there is nothing illegal about selling the land to Ngati Whatua. As it happens, the Herald reveals that the land was subject to a treaty claim interest when the HGMP passed. Discussions over including the land in future treaty settlements begun in 1995 and were referred to in a 1999 court case that led to the creation of the HGMP. The Waitangi Tribunal also flagged the land in their Tamaki Makaurau report and the Herald referred to the possible sale as early as 2006. So, to be fair, the residents can’t argue that the sale of the block has come out of the blue - the land was earmarked for treaty settlement purposes before the HGMP was even formulated.

Access to the adjoining reserve will not and cannot be restricted. Nagti Whatua have publicly assured the residents that access will not be restricted, even though Ngati Whatua can’t restrict access to the reserve. The block is currently closed to the public and does not, even though it is closed, prevent access to the adjoining reserve. The block is only 3.2ha adjoining not blocking, key words not blocking, access to the 11.9ha reserve – access to the 11.9ha remains unaffected by the deal.

The Treaty Negotiations Minister, the excellent Chris Finlayson, has no obligation to consult the residents of Devonport, contrary to their belief. This is a matter between Maori and the Crown – not Maori and the community. Even if there was an obligation, former North Shore MP Wayne Mapp fulfilled that obligation when he briefed the local board last year. However, according to Dr Mapp, the local board failed to, excuse the awful pun, take it on board.

Finally, the government and iwi have secured approval from the Hauraki Gulf Forum. It was the Gulf Forum that secured the areas marine park designation so surely they are the most appropriate group to consult and seek approval from.

Residents, the local board and the Auckland Council are lodging submissions to the Maori Affairs Select Committee. It's shame to see the Auckland Council, most notably Len Brown, buy into the hysteria and misinformation. Only last year the Mayor delivered a "warm" speech and waiata at the signing of the deed of settlement.

There are a host of misconceptions surrounding the settlement – most driven by the bigoted residents and the filthy local rag. What underlies objections to land transfers, or in this case land purchases, is racism. Many New Zealanders have an unfounded fear that Maori will restrict access, develop the land in ways that will negatively affect the community and so on. I’d challenge anyone who operates under this mind set to point to more than one example where Maori have blocked access to previously public land, urupa (cemeteries) and other waahi tapu (sacred) sites excluded. Restricting access runs contrary to Maori values. After all, there is no such thing as private property in Te Ao Maori.

The racist residents should keep in mind how Maori suffered significant losses. As one example, shortly after the Treaty was signed the Crown bought 3000 acres of what is now downtown Auckland for 281 pounds. Within six months, it had on-sold 90 acres of that land for 24,500 pounds.

(For a level head see this report from Native Affair's Semiramus Holland). 

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. 

David fucking Farrar (updated)

David Farrar on the Taniwha Horotiu (I'm not linking to it):

Poor Horotiu. I imagine that the only thing which could make him feel better is a huge amount of koha. Maybe once the tunnel is built, they could do a side tunnel for him, so he can play safely away from the trains.

This does remind me of the last time a Taniwha held up a project. Someone wrote a letter to the editor saying they had solved the problem, as they shot the Taniwha at the weekend!

I do not know what Farrar is trying to achieve here. My take is that he is patronising Maori culture. The tone is denigrating and smug. I guess it is typical of the sort of cultural arrogance that permeates the National Party, but I must admit to thinking Farrar was better than this.

“A huge amount of koha”. Is that implying Maori can be pacified with hand-outs? Or that Maori are greedy and prone to accepting donations? “Once the tunnel is built, they could do a side tunnel for him, so he can play safely away from the trains”. Is that implying that the concept of a Taniwha is childish?

New Zealanders love to take the piss out of other cultures, as if their culture is the be all and end all. It is perfectly acceptable if David and his mates do not accept the concept of Taniwha, that’s there call and a fair one, but it is rude, disrespectful and borderline racist to go around disparaging other cultural beliefs. It is the worst sort of arrogance.

The implication I get from David’s post is that Maori are ignorant and childish. Whatever you do do not have a look at the comments section, unless you want to go on an anti-pakeha rage – possibly even a violence spree. The comments are repugnant, repulsive, hideous, obscene, racist, sick, malicious, hateful. The English language is inadequate, I cannot find the appropriate word.

All I have to say to the commenters at Kiwiblog is get fucked. Go and die. As for David – you’re just a disappointment. Fomenting happy mischief? Get real. Fomenting hate. That sounds more accurate.   

UPDATE: I have had a flurry of comments scolding me for believing in Taniwha (I have not published any due to racist content). Let me be clear, this post is not about whether or not Taniwha exist. This post is about the disrespectful stance David and his friends at Kiwiblog take against Maori culture. And for the record - I do not believe in Taniwha as a tangible and measurable phenomenon - take what you will from that.