i have to say i'm laughing a little at all the complaints lodged with the human rights commission regarding comments from mr hone harawira. not that i disagree with the complaints - i totally disagree with tarnishing a whole race of people because of the actions of some. if nothing else, it's a stupid move because it pisses off your allies within that group.
it surprises me though, that all of the complainants weren't aware that the commission is unable to act in this case. that's because we don't have laws against hate speech, and the commission is very limited in what it can do. the only time you can take legal action against speech is in the case of incitement to violence, and that comes under the crimes act, not the bill of rights nor the human rights act. and say what you will about mr harawira's words, they weren't a direct incitement to violence. they weren't even the coded messages inciting violence that we're hearing from the likes of mr beck and mr limbaugh these days.
there is also s61 of the human rights act 1993, which provides protection against any publication, broadcast, or speech at public places or meetings which are threatening, abusive or insulting “being matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons in or who may be coming to New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or national origins of that group of persons.” there are a couple of problems with this though, one being that the threshhold for a successful complaint is really high and secondly that it doesn't really cover the internet very well. mr harawira's "speech" was in a private email, although he knew it was going to be publicised.
the closest we've ever come to even considering the laws around hate speech was the select committee inquiry in 2004(ish). that inquiry arose out of the inquiry into the films, videos and publications classifications act, because there were some issues raised that couldn't be dealt with under that act and the MPs on the select committee wanted those issues investigated further.
how do i know this? because i submitted in written and oral form to both inquiries. and i had a spot on eye-to-eye against judith collins (and a couple of other guests) about the hate speech issue, arising directly as a result of my submission. but the select committee that inquired into hate speech never reported back to parliament. so all those submissions are still sitting there somewhere, gathering dust.
there was actually quite a lot of response to the inquiry. there were many people opposed to any legislation or regulation on hate speech, quite a few of them from the right-wing churches. their main concern (though they didn't quite put it that way) was that any such legislation or regulation might hamper their ability to speak out against muslims or homosexuality. they wanted to be free to discriminate in their public speech, and resisted any moves that would stop them.
others objected on the grounds of civil liberties and the freedom of speech provisions in the bill of rights. the supreme court had already ruled that freedom from discrimination did not over-ride freedom of speech (which in effect means that freedom of speech over-rides freedom from discrmination). this group had the stronger argument, in that limitations to freedom of speech had ramifications that could be oppressive.
so, there was a lot of opposition, particularly in the media, to this inquiry and it was quietly sidelined. but i just wonder, how many of the people who have lodged complaints against mr harawira would be the same people who would be opposed to any regulations against hate speech? and if that inquiry were to be opened up again today, would they support it? would they have supported my submission? i just wonder about that, and that's what makes me laugh. because i suspect (and yes, i admit that it is only wild speculation) that some of these complainants want to have discrimination against themselves penalised, but want to also be free to discriminate against others in their own public speech.
there's one point though, that these complainants may be missing. the impact of mr harawira's speech will, in actual fact, have little effect on them other than the emotional distress it causes them. no-one will hurl abuse at them in the streets as a result of that speech. they will not face barriers to employment, nor find it difficult when trying to get a rental house to live in. they won't face fear or restriction in their daily life.
compare this to hate speech against minorities. let me compare it to a direct and personal example, to make it more clear. the danish cartoons depicting mohammad were published by some fairfax newspapers on a friday. in the next 48 hours, i had 3 incidents of strangers shouting abuse at me or making rude gestures. i had no say when it came to those cartoons being published. none of these people bothered to ask me my views on the matter. but i was punished, and became afraid to go out because of resulting public speech by commentators and talkback hosts and callers that denigrated muslims as lacking humour, unable to take criticims, etc etc. that speech affected the public mood, which affected my ability to function.
what mr harawira said was wrong. but it's not the same. it's will never have the same effect as public speech that denigrates a minority group. and a minority group will never have the same ability to speak back in the way that the majority group does.
8 comments:
Thank you so much for this, I really appreciate it.
I do because I have been getting really annoyed by all the news pieces and politicians calling Mr Harawira's words "racism", because they're not.
Now, I don't agree with his words, nor his language, all which are very offensive, but in order to be racism, his words must involve a socio-historical structural component of a power imbalance based around race.
In other words, racism is not merely individual racial prejudice, it also involves a history of such between one group onto another, and because there is no such history of Maori onto whites, Mr Harawira's words cannot be racist. Are they racially prejudiced? Of course, particularly so, but they're not racism.
Misunderstanding how racism actually operates is one of the major contributions not to addressing racism and its effects, so that's why it annoys the hell out of me, so thank you for bringing this up.
I'm actually in favour of hate speech laws. After nearly a decade of living in and teaching university in the US, I've seen the damage unrestricted free speech does to a society. It equates all speech at a low level and does not acknowledge the differing power inherent in speech, devaluing people, groups, and speech itself. A civilised society can decide for itself which speech acts as violence itself and which does not, without descending into tyranny.
But that's a different discussion *smile* because as you say, Mr Harawira's words do not constitute such :)
You say "no-one will hurl abuse at them in the streets..."
Well hello ! That's what's happened to me in godzone, Maoris abusing me in the street on pureley racist grounds - It happens !
(which is why the complaints about Mr Harawira;s comments are fair - his language encourages hate).
Yeah I'm thinking 'they' yelled abuse at you because you put an S on the end of Maori.
Excellent post, I just wondering if you would of written the same post if Winston peters had of said "Asian MF's"
yes brett, i would have written the same post. because i have heard first-hand experiences of the kind of abuse asians were suffering at the time that mr peters was most successful with his rhetoric, back in 1996. being sworn at, having cars driven directly at them to threaten them, and the like. it affected their ability to get jobs, to get housing, as well as what their children had to face at school. i think you really haven't understood the post, nor thought about the impact of this kind of speech on minorities, otherwise you wouldn't have needed to even ask the question. mr harawira's speech is never going to have the kind of impact that mr peters' speech did back then.
what mr harawira said was wrong. but it's not the same. it's will never have the same effect as public speech that denigrates a minority group. and a minority group will never have the same ability to speak back in the way that the majority group does.
Wait a mo', Stargazer -- I'm totally opposed to so-called 'hate speech' laws, but let's not pretend there's isn't a power imbalance here.
The only reason anyone gives a fuck about Harawira's vapouring is that he's speaking from the bully pulpit of Parliament.
And personally, I think anyone in public life should be able to handle public scrutiny and public criticism without melting down and throwing around hateful abuse like "motherfucker" and trivialising RAPE for rhetorical effect.
In the end, you can't -- and shouldn't -- legislate again Hone Harawira being the poster boy for male entitlement. But let's not give it a pass either.
Instead of complaining to the HRC, I suggest pointing and laughing is the appropriate response.
The only reason anyone gives a fuck about Harawira's vapouring is that he's speaking from the bully pulpit of Parliament.
well no, he was speaking in a private email exchange that was then publicised, with his knowledge of course. i have no problem with anything else you've said - i don't think mr harawira is exempt from criticism and i've clearly criticised what he's said. i was just comparing the impact of that speech to other speech, and saying that the two aren't equal.
as to how we respond, well that depends on what power you have to obtain public speech. 13 years ago, for example, asians didn't get much public speech to provide an alternative voice to mr peters. reporters didn't interview them, they weren't published in op-ed pieces, there still aren't many (if any - maybe raybon?) talkback hosts that are asian etc etc. you're assuming equal access to public speech, which there often isn't.
This quote:
the danish cartoons depicting mohammad were published by some fairfax newspapers on a friday. in the next 48 hours, i had 3 incidents of strangers shouting abuse at me or making rude gestures. i had no say when it came to those cartoons being published. none of these people bothered to ask me my views on the matter. but i was punished, and became afraid to go out because of resulting public speech by commentators and talkback hosts and callers that denigrated muslims as lacking humour, unable to take criticims, etc etc. that speech affected the public mood, which affected my ability to function.
(sic)
This argument seems to contradict the arguments often put on this blog about rape.
Here you are basically saying that the cartoons made those people do the bad thing, therefore the cartoons should be stopped.
But if people say 'her short skirt made me want to rape her', writers on this blog say that it was the fault of the rapist, not of the victim.
Wasn't it the fault of the strangers who insulted you there, not the fault of the cartoon publishers?
I am sorry those people made you feel that way.
However, we should always be free to laugh at religion.
If we are not free to criticise or mock religion, then it is free to become an intolerant force in society.
History has shown many times that religion will often turn that way.
Post a Comment