Human Rights Commission

So who in New Zealand stood up to condemn intolerance and hate?

194ff457609a0bd18f1c788355aa5389

Credit where credit is due. We do have in New Zealand groups willing to stand up and be counted and they deserve recognition. Below are the political parties and groups who responded to our article and video of Shaykh Dr Mohammad Anwar Sahib.

The Human Rights Commission says an Auckland man’s speeches condemning Jewish people are appalling and have no place in New Zealand…

“This kind of intolerance is not welcome here in any form: Prejudice against Jewish people has no place in New Zealand.”

…We have asked for an urgent response from FIANZ.”

The Human Rights Commission


The Administration Council of the Islamic Women’s Council would like to respond to the video containing clips of speeches posted online by Dr Mohammad Anwar Sahib.

Firstly, regarding the comments directed towards Jewish people, these are totally inappropriate and we unequivocally condemn any divisive comments of a similar nature.

… We regularly extend our hand in friendship to the Jewish community in New Zealand, and will continue to do so.

IWCNZ is particularly sensitive to the views represented by the comments towards women. The approach shown is a religious misinterpretation, in our opinion, and we are disappointed that certain religious leaders may encourage this damaging rhetoric.

-Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand


Read more »

It’s a start, weak, but a start, as Susan Devoy denounces Islamic hate preacher

Dame Susan Devoy

Dame Susan Devoy

Susan Devoy has been forced to act, even though it is a weak statement, it is at least a public statement from her:

The Human Rights Commission says an Auckland man’s speeches condemning Jewish people are appalling and have no place in New Zealand.

“We live in one of the most ethnically diverse nations on earth as well as one of the most peaceful: this is because we are a tolerant nation,” said Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy.

“This kind of intolerance is not welcome here in any form: Prejudice against Jewish people has no place in New Zealand.” Videos of speeches delivered by Shaykh Dr Mohammad Anwar Sahib at the Manukau mosque have been widely viewed online.

“We urge Kiwis to recognise that these are the views of a single person and are not held by every single Muslim New Zealander, however questions need to be answered,” said Dame Susan.   Read more »

The Australian and Cartoonist Bill Leak fight back against Aussie HRC

bill-leak-cartoon

In Australia, The Australian and their cartoonist Bill Leak are under investigation for the cartoon shown above.

The same thing happened here in New Zealand. The publisher was Whale Oil Beef Hooked and the cartoonist was Boomslang. Fortunately our Human Rights Commission is a toothless organisation and I simply ignored their bleating and that of the complainants.

The Australian and Bill Leak are fighting back against the Human Rights Commission.

Lawyers for cartoonist Bill Leak and The Australian have accused the Human Rights Commission of outright bias and warned of legal action to restrain the federal body and its head, Gillian Triggs, from investigating a drawing.

The newspaper yesterday ­issued its formal legal response to the commission after The ­Australian and Leak were put on notice that they were being ­investigated for alleged “racial hatred under the Racial Discrimination Act” for a cartoon ­depicting the neglect of indig­enous children by their parents.

The lawyers for Leak and the newspaper state that, if necessary, they will produce evidence to ­establish the August 4 cartoon was drawn in good faith and did not breach section 18C, and that indigenous people would ­testify they were not “offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated” by it.

Their letter states they will rely on evidence from “sociologists and criminologists, as well as ­witnesses having direct daily ­exposure to the problems associated with juvenile crime and ­recidivism in remote Aboriginal communities, to establish that the point made by Leak’s cartoon is both a ‘genuine’ matter of concern and a legitimate issue of ‘public ­interest’’’.

Jodie Ball, the delegate for commission president Professor Triggs, advised the newspaper this month that an investigation under section 18C had been triggered by complainant Melissa Dinnison, who says she has ­“experienced ­racial hatred” and been discriminated against as a result of the ­cartoon.

In Leak’s and the newspaper’s reply yesterday to Professor Triggs, who has faced resignation calls this week after falsely claiming to a Senate committee that journalists at Melbourne’s The ­Saturday Paper fabricated her quotes, the commission is charged with “playing politics” with the welfare of children.

Read more »

“Feelings should not be subject to the law”

Australian Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm has decided to test a new race hate law known as the “insult and offend” law after being called an “angry white male.” He is doing it to try to prove his point that feelings should not be subject to the law.He said that the only person who can decide if I am upset is me. Offence is always taken not given. We are not responsible for the feelings of other people.

He has been mocked because his feelings as a white male do not count to the MSM who think that only minorities’ feelings should count. Many of them are totally missing the point that he is making. His point is that feelings are subjective and should not be subject to the law.  We should not be able to criminalise someone because we chose to take offence to what they said.

To give an example of how subjective being offended is; one person might be flattered if I called them “a skinny bitch”  with a smile on my face but another woman  might decide that her feelings have been hurt by my words.  Crimes are crimes no matter who they happen to. If I steal from Sue and Helen both crimes are theft.  How can it be a genuine crime if Sue is not offended by my words but Helen is? I have no control over how those women will react. If I steal I know what I am doing is a crime whereas if I say something, I have no idea if a person will take offence at what I have to say.

Read more »

Human Rights Commission goes to war with the media

It seems the response to Dame Susan Devoy’s endorsement of decisions to not mention “Christmas” so as to not offend those precious thin-skinned Muslim immigrants has hit a nerve. She has lambasted media bias.

Most of us already realise our mainstream media has a powerful influence on people. What some of us do not already realise is that our media is neither neutral nor objective.

Chinese New Zealanders, Muslim New Zealanders, Jewish New Zealanders, Pacific New Zealanders, Indian New Zealanders, African New Zealanders and of course Maori New Zealanders: regularly tell the Commission that the media too often misrepresents, sensationalises or fails to include their voices in news stories about them.

Often news stories about ethnic minorities have negative themes and present minorities as problems and not as people. This is not a new phenomenon and with the advent of social media, these prejudices are often amplified.

Dame Susan Devoy, Race Relations Commissioner, who recently spoke at the Ethnic Migrant Refugee Community Engagement Summit about this issue, says that while the media may not be neutral or objective, it does reflect the society we live in.

“There have been a number of examples in recent times of the media’s incorrect treatment and portrayal of ethnic communities in New Zealand.

“The “ban on Christmas’ coverage last year was particularly telling – taking The Commission’s defence of a Migrant Trusts right to use secular language and turning it into a story about how New Zealand’s way of life was at risk from migrants and newcomers.

“The article pushed the buttons of fear and intolerance and served an existing undertone of anti-migrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric: and the immediate response from many New Zealanders was angry, abusive and offensive.”

The article definitely got people talking, but after a month or so the majority of editorials and commentators had realised what we had been saying for weeks: no one was banning Christmas; Kiwis can decide for themselves; New Zealand’s way of life was not in danger.

Read more »

Nowhere on the HRC website does it list the right to not be offended

human_rights_banner

human_rights_banner

Hurty feelings and being offended are not listed as a human right on the Human Rights Commission website. What it does list is our our right to freedom of expression. The people who made a complaint about our cartoon are trying to stomp on our human rights but I can find no right of theirs that we have tried to stomp on. If you look through the list our cartoon has not prevented the complainants from enjoying any of the below rights but their complaint about us is an attempt to deny us our human right to freedom of expression.

Why are the Human Rights Commission even looking into these complaints? None of the below rights have been affected in any way.

What are human rights?

Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that every person in the world should have. There are two main types of human rights – civil and political rights, and social, cultural and economic rights.

Read more »

The Human Rights Commission still hasn’t asked for our side of the story

www.returnofkings.com

www.returnofkings.com

I am getting a little bit sick of how we at Whaleoil have been treated by the Human Rights Commision over the cartoon complaint. They didn’t even bother to inform us of the complaint until I wrote a post about it and pointed out that the media were informed and had written articles about it but that the HRC hadn’t bothered to inform us. Now despite the fact that they have stated that they are looking into it they have not contacted us for comment or to hear our side of the story. I have therefore reacted by doing a series of posts about political cartoons in an attempt to get this issue well aired in public before the HRC make their decision.

Read more »

Left Wing Blog published ‘racist’ cartoon and no one took offence

Photo-The Daily Blog

Anti-Al Nisbet cartoon Image-The Daily Blog

In 2013 when award winning cartoonist Al Nibet’s cartoon was accused of racism and a complaint was made to the Human Rights Commission, a left wing blog in protest published a similar cartoon. In their version both the white and brown faces of the adults dressed up as children in the original cartoon were substituted with white politician’s faces.

Read more »

Is the cartoon complaint an orchestrated political hit?

Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox (Getty Images)

Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox (Getty Images)

To begin with I just assumed that the perpetually offended were behind the complaint to the Human Rights Commission about the cartoon by BoomSlang that we published. Now, after coming across an article on Voxy I am not so sure.

The headline screams, ‘Maori Party ‘saves HRC roles and condemns Whaleoil.’ It looks like there may be a link between the complaint and a political push to justify the role of Race Relations Commissioner within the Human Rights Commision by the Maori Party. This is of real concern to me as it makes me wonder if they need a conviction in order to justify their continued existence. Has Whaleoil been set up as a sacrificial lamb? Are we to be slaughtered to appease the need of the Human Rights Commision to appear relevant?

Read more »

Ta Moko cartoon: Whaleoil reader is offended [guest post]

133233fb-6e7e-4385-952e-ff9a8b99bafc

I’m seriously offended, and as offence can only be taken, not given, I decided to sit and think about it.

I’m offended over the reaction from the Ta Moko cartoons depicting a little Maori boy beaten with visible bruising. Not the cartoon itself, it’s quite factual, and I maintain if it was depicting a little Pakeha boy, or an Asian boy, or even a Jewish boy, it would be okay, or those communities would accept it and move on even though statistically, they are 4 times less to be the subject of family violence than a Maori, or 3 times less than a PI child.

Naida Glavish is a prominent Maori woman, and holds a lot of Mana within Maori, she COULD be an effective change agent, if she stood up and championed change instead of taking offence. Or, could she be offended mainly as she has been the subject of things in Whaleoil previously? My belief is she really needs to sit down and look at the real problem, that the main group of people or communities committing these violent offences are still in DENIAL, and instead of accepting there is an issue and doing something about it, she and many like her run out and decide to take a fence. Surround themselves with a shield, ignore, bury their heads and claim there is nothing wrong, and don’t you dare single out my community/culture, that’s racist. I wonder how many of the abused children, the ones who were killed, do they think its racist, was their abuse and murder racist?   

I’m also offended by the Human Rights (Wrongs) commission, they are simply adding fuel to the fire, instead of coming out with the truth the rest of NZers already know and understand, and what is a massive thorn in NZ’s side on the international stage, they often side with the offended, and give them another reason to ignore the stats, the violence and the abuse of children. By siding with the perpetually offended, they are enabling the very abuse and violence that is so deeply rooted in those communities and cultures.    

When you break it down, the role of the Human Rights Commission is to set and to keep standards for ALL Kiwis, all means ALL, not just the leaders or the offended from certain communities or cultures, so I ask the Human Rights Commission, who stood up for the following children’s human rights, and who will stand up for the other kids who are being violently abused, murdered, deprived, and so on, who will stand up for their human rights, as currently, their parents and caregivers and collective communities are not, they seem to have adopted a silence on domestic violence, and especially of violence against children: Read more »