Email of the day

I’ve decided to give voice to some good emails that I periodically receive.

This one came in yesterday.

A recent statement issued by the Human Rights Commission is calling out the use of “the ‘N’ word” as not OK in New Zealand. Putting aside the arguments about free speech and the right to be offended, made on WhaleOil in numerous places – let’s agree with the HRC that certain words should be banned and that making some comments is just “not how we roll”. That would be fine if Dame Devoy was consistent.

She says clearly in the release “it’s important for New Zealanders to talk about what is acceptable and what isn’t”. However, she wanted no debate about banning Christmas. She couldn’t even respond to Lindsay Perigo when he gave a speech about what was acceptable from Kiwi Muslims. The Dame of squash says one thing and does another.  

If it’s so important to talk about what’s acceptable and what isn’t, why has there been no discussion from the HRC on the hateful BDS movement? Why hasn’t Dame Devoy come out and said anything at all about the Muslims who were arrested on charges of having violent ISIS material in their possession and threatening to kill Kiwis? Where is the HRC statement standing with the Kurdish community instead of only with the Federation of Islamic Associations? What is the HRC doing to understand if a large proportion of the NZ Muslim community also think that terror attacks are justified (like European Muslims)? Why does Dame Devoy continue to tell us that terrorism has NOTHING to do with religion?

It seems there is one standard for Muslims and another for the rest of us when it comes to the HRC. If they were honest about it we might have reason to respect the organisation more but as it stands, pure hypocrisy deserves no respect. The office should be dismantled and the Dame should go back to hitting a small ball in a box – she was very good at that.

Once you start banning words it doesn’t take long before ideas are banned too.

This sort of nonsense must be fought at every turn.

We need to return to our ability to speak freely.

 

– tipline

  • lyall

    i dont know why anyone cares about the N word in NZ, whenever i hear about the unacceptability of the word as opposed to words such as cracker or honkey, it is always down to the legacy of slavery in American History (no other reason escapes being a double standard except this one) therefore if we are not in America and we never had African slavery here why is it so unacceptable, but known slurs like pakeha are never condemned?

    • Jonat

      Pakeha is a slur because of what it literally means. But the other word just means black. Negro is Spanish for black. Google told me that Negro got translated to French, nègre, which got translated to English, neger, which later morphed into the N word. It’s just a word to describe a person with a dark skin colour, it doesn’t jump out and attack you. The word may have been used derogatively in the past, but that doesn’t make the word bad.

      My wife had a student who told her off for using the word ‘black’. “You can’t say ‘black’, that’s racist!” Thing is, my wife wasn’t even saying black in the context of race, she was referring to an object that happened to be black! She informed the student that it wasn’t racist at all. People aren’t being taught what real racism is. I thought racism was about inexcusable discrimination, but now it’s about certain words.

      • InnerCityDweller

        Reminds me of a story I heard many moons ago.

        A South African teacher let the kids she was teaching know, in no uncertain terms, that one does not use the word cafeteria. Apparently it’s a racist thing to say. You see “Kaffir” is a bad word and must not ever be used.

        I kid you not. Cafe-teria v Kaffir-teria, sure feels, looks and sounds the same…

      • Rick H

        Latin word for black –
        feminine = nigra
        masculine = niger
        neuter = nigrum

  • Isherman

    Can anyone, anyone at all show me one instance where the cost of this ridiculous office has been justified by measurably achieving anything? With $1,000,000.00 being pumped in for this ‘Commissioners’ term, is it not reasonable to ask what that expenditure has achieved?

  • XCIA

    The first thing we should look at banning, or doing without is the curse upon this land that is the office of the Race Relations Conciliator. It was meant to pour olil on troubled waters, but all it has ever done is fan the flames.

    • Isherman

      I think also, an argument could be made that the commission goes outside it’s brief. Its stated purpose is to ‘promote and protect’ the human rights of all people in Aotearoa New Zealand. However, on their own website, this office is actively encouraging our refugee quota to be lifted, and I would argue that’s going outside its purpose…and its taking a political position on an issue that does not involve people currently in NZ. Its the do-gooder version of mission creep.

  • oldmanNZ

    So how many rap songs do we need to ban? Tv shows and films.
    And black rap singers must be racist, or it does not apply as they are black,
    Like me calling chinese chinks?

    If we all accept, it just a word, as bad as many others, the one i find most offensive now is ” tolerance”
    Means giving up on your freedom..

  • cows4me

    The tales of the HRC should be written into a child’s fable with characters straight out of the mad hatters tea party. The premise for the fable will be an organisation that stands for multiculturalism , equality and free speech while at the same time this organisation is quick to silence or censure those that challenge these ideals. This will be a lesson in hypocrisy.

    • Boondecker

      I read that HRC as “Hillary Rodham Clinton”, and got all confused. I have to get off InfoWars and back to spending more time on WO quite obviously.

55%