In the first instance, another Pākehā man has voiced the usual tired and racist rants against Māori, with little variation on the old colonising view of our basic inferiority.
In the second case, the noted rugby player Israel Folau reached into the same colonising-sourced rhetoric, and condemned gay people to some mysterious place called “hell”.
The public and social media reaction was swift, and often encouraging, with the racist comments being quickly deleted — banished to the unbidden and embarrassing reaches of colonising disdain.
However, there’s no doubt that similar comments will be made in the future, as long as this country stumbles in the mistaken belief that colonisation (and its racism) is a relic of the past rather than a continuing presence.
The condemnation of LGBT people was similarly and quickly denounced by many people, and, perhaps surprisingly to some, by two All Black halfbacks. TJ Perenara’s rebuke, in particular, has been rightly praised — and his comment, that “Polynesia has been sexually diverse since forever”, was a timely reminder of a cultural and historical truth that is still too often denied in a Once-Were-Missionary type redefining of ancient Pacific realities.
Most of the early missionaries across the Pacific were like those in New Zealand, who the historian Michael Sorrenson once described as being so determined to remove anything they thought was “obnoxious, obscene and inhuman”, that they did not attempt to record “the Māori notions (but) attempted to stamp them out”.
Obnoxiousness was always in the eyes of the colonising beholder, of course, and like the many navigators and anthropologists and politicians who set themselves up as experts on us, they redefined or dismissed what they disliked or saw as threats to their power.
Most often, that meant a redefining of fundamental relationship values, which resulted, for example, in the subordination of Māori women, who were thus caught in both a sexist and racist trap of lesser worth.
At other times, it occurred through equally violent and pious pronouncements about the sin and immorality of those such as LGBT people, who were deemed to be, at best, obnoxious, and at worst, beyond “saving”.
Throughout the Pacific, we are still obviously burdened with that legacy.
The denunciations were heartening reality checks in the ongoing campaign against prejudice.
However, whether it was the old man’s racism or the rugby star’s homophobia, the debate was always framed in an unquestioning acceptance of their right of free speech.
Some writers spoke about the right as a cornerstone of liberal democracy, while others reached back to what Europeans call their Enlightenment and argued that, while a person could disagree with what someone else might say, they should defend their right to say it. Still others claimed that even offensive comments are part of the “marketplace of ideas” that make a society free.
Some of the noblest moments in human history have been struggles for freedom, but in the far from noble history of colonisation, the notion of freedom, and certainly free speech, has always been a term subjected to troubling interpretations.
The dispossession of indigenous peoples was pursued by European states as part of their self-proclaimed freedom to rule the world, but it always involved denying the freedom of those they decided to rule.
James Cook’s voyages across the Pacific were part of an alleged freedom to “discover” and take other lands, which resulted in a redefining of not just the power and way of life of the people he “discovered”, but the very freedoms which they had enjoyed for centuries.
When indigenous peoples embarked on the difficult process of drafting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the late 1980s, it was in many ways an attempt to reclaim those freedoms.
The long struggle to have the right of self-determination recognised in the Declaration, and the opposition of the New Zealand government and others to its inclusion, was about the right of indigenous peoples to determine their own destiny as they had before colonisation.
In a very basic sense, it was a struggle for the right to be free.
This country has always been reluctant to use the word “freedom” to describe the efforts by Māori people to oppose colonisation and assert tino rangatiratanga. It seems at odds with the preferred history of a mainly honourable Treaty-based settlement, in which the Crown introduced the norms of a liberal democracy and all its freedoms to a people who it believed had never had them before.
In the process, the freedoms of liberal democracy were always adaptable, and included the freedom to declare war on our people, and the freedom to ignore the convention of majority rule and instead assume the power to govern, even though they were the minority population at the time.
In 2004, when the Crown ignored the decisions of its own courts and confiscated the foreshore and seabed from Māori, it claimed it was acting to preserve the “freedom of all New Zealanders” to enjoy time at the beach.
That was a misleading falsehood, but it ensured that the Māori freedom to hold what little was left of our land was ignored in the catch-phrase of Kiwi not Iwi. Like some sad corruption of the old Kris Kristofferson song, the colonisers seemed to believe that “freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose”. Except that it assumed the freedom to make us lose nearly everything.
The right to free speech has often been similarly troubling, because it has too often meant the freedom to hurt, despise, and belittle Māori. Cartoons published a few years ago depicting fat and lazy Māori taking advantage of free school lunches were found by the court to be objectively offensive but protected by free speech and the fact that they weren’t offensive enough to incite a “reasonable person” to hatred or violence against our people.
The reasonable person in the common law was for a long time described as the “man on the Clapham omnibus”, and while that fictional being is now genderless, it is still presumed to be some amorphous Pākehā.
Rather, as the term “a trial by a jury of one’s peers” has a default meaning, where Māori can never be tried by a jury of Māori peers, so the reasonableness of a cartoon or speech is judged by the standards of an invisible and unnamed Pākehā.
In the court deliberations, that invisible-ness was an unspoken given, and the question of whether reasonable Māori would feel that the admittedly offensive cartoons incited hatred against us, was never even considered.
Freedom of speech, in effect, then became a shield for racist invective defined by those who were privileged by it, rather than those who were its objects and victims.
It has become a political cliché to say that one person’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist. And, in the context of colonising violence, free speech for the colonisers has often been a terrorising instrument used against Māori.
It can terrorise others who have been oppressed or marginalised too, of course. This is particularly the case when it is argued that sincere religious beliefs somehow enable or justify free speech, even when they are as hurtful as those uttered by Israel Folau. In fact, it seems a perplexing rationalisation that a religion ostensibly based on love can be used to justify such love-less comments.
Unlike the Western idea that “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me”, our people have always understood the contrary — that the thrust of a weapon may be pushed aside, but the hurt of words cannot.
In fact, words can be damaging simply because they can endanger others, and as many people have pointed out, his comments may put at risk those young gay people who may be struggling with their identity.
It seems a strangely illiberal idea that some notion of religious freedom can be used to justify or excuse endangering the vulnerable by turning it into a mere exercise of free speech. It seems particularly strange when religious freedom has never meant the freedom of indigenous peoples to retain and practise their own religions.
As this country works slowly, and often painfully, towards being truly non-racist and non-colonising, it is timely to debate the whole context and meaning of “free speech”, and to more honestly consider its meaning and its use as a defence.
In the case of race talk, it certainly seems timely to shift the burden, so that Māori no longer have to prove that a reasonable (Pākehā) person might feel the acts or words have incited hatred against us.
Instead, in a society which claims to be Treaty-based, it should surely no longer be enough to hide behind faith or the so-called cutting edge of humour, and assume that being “true to one’s beliefs”, or indulging in tongue-in-cheek offensiveness, is somehow harmless or funny.
The bliss of freedom enjoyed by those who have power should never mean the right to cause pain to those who are comparatively powerless. And no one’s exercise of free speech should make another feel less free.
Thank you for reading E-Tangata. If you like our focus on Māori and Pasifika stories, interviews, and commentary, we need your help. Our content takes skill, long hours and hard work. But we're a small team and not-for-profit, so we need the support of our readers to keep going.
If you support our kaupapa and want to see us continue, please consider making a one-off donation or contributing $5 or $10 a month.
Sadly, prejudice/stereotyping is a universal human characteristic. The “tribalism” of seeking our own family, tribe, and racial interests over others is widespread. Mr Jackson’s headline “No one’s exercise of free speech should make another feel less free” sets a high standard, met neither by many Pakeha (non-Maori) discourses, nor by much Maori comment on colonialism and racism. By his standard, both Mr Folau, and much anti-colonialism discourse, would be censored. I’m not sure this is a good idea. We need that discourse.
I’m a fourth generation Pakeha. I grew up in a society where post-war “colonialism” defined Pakeha society, and my freedoms were sometimes unfair advantages. It’s inevitable that Maori struggles for their perception of freedom makes me feel less free (a simple example is closing maunga to vehicles). And that my objection to some instances of Maori anti-colonial views, which sound anti-Pakeha to me, make some Maori feel less free.
But the freedoms of both Maori & Pakeha to articulate our views respectfully is the process that over time has taken us on a journey of reparation and healing. Imperfect, but infinitely better than many other European-indigenous journeys.
“Feeling free” reflects a tension between the ability to express one’s worldview without unacceptable/ unfavourable responses from society; and the sense that someone else’s expression of their worldview is so dangerous that society must threaten or censor their expressing of that world view. I think Mr Jackson sets the hurdle of acceptable discourse as “Feeling free” , too high.
Like Mr Jackson, I’d like to see ways to encourage a public discourse that was more respectful of others’ differing views. But I fear that banning speech using this criteria, is too powerful a weapon to entrust to a dominant culture.
Mr Jackson describes the “the usual tired and racist rants against Maori”, and alludes to Mr Jones as “the old man”. Mr Jackson is a much more sophisticated writer than I, but I experience a sense of playing the man, not the ball (idea). I believe that Mr Jones expresses his views offensively, but underlying them is what I hear as a genuine belief that the Pakeha invasion of New Zealand has improved the quality of life of Maori over the last century in some respects. I agree with Mr Jackson that offensiveness is neither funny nor harmless. But censoring that opinion would, in my view, establish a too rigorous, and dangerous precedent.
Similarly, I don’t doubt that Mr Folau sincerely believes what he says about gay people. I disagree with Mr Folau, but it’s hard to definitively set a restriction on freedom to express deeply held beliefs, without starting down a slippery slope of censorship by a majority (or even a minority).
I fear that the principle of banning expression of sincere beliefs would rebound adversely on the evolution of race relations in New Zealand. Finding creative solutions to differing world views depends on honest expression of those differences, listening to the presuppositions and beliefs that have generated those views, and tolerance of difference in creating solutions. Gagging opposing views is a barrier to progress, and if I wish to gag another, I must accept curtailment of my freedom to express my views.
Hate speech, intended to subdue & divide, can only be overcome by the contrary voices of reason and respect. “Free speech” in any society will be an arbitrary matter of interpretation. But where-ever we set the boundary, we run the risk of limiting our ability to negotiate social change. This suggests a pretty high tolerance level of differences in public discussion.
Creating and sustaining a nation of Aotearoa New Zealand will depend on our ability to integrate the strengths of several cultural streams into our society, and abandoning long held discriminatory views of “others” by Maori, Pakeha, and new arrivals. In my view, that requires a more generous attitude by both the national majority (currently Pakeha); and by the Maori seeking independent self-determination, and a high threshold on censoring free speech. I think Mr Jacksons threshold much too severe a constraint. In the next generation of the South Pacific, we must surely hang together, or we will inevitably hang separately.
Tena rawa atu koe e puare mai
Tena rawa atu koe e puare mai wenei tumomo kōrero. Another great thought provoker Māmari, haramai. I am always perplexed as a Maori who is Christian why so many other christians are reluctant to think deeply and expansively and to seek information and knowledge to appreciate themselves, their times and the ‘new covenant’ more fully. Whakawhetai ki te Atua.
Moana is right, but the fact
Moana is right, but the fact that freedom of speech shouldn’t make someone else feel less free doesn’t mean that it won’t from time to time and I don’t think freedom of speech should be curtailed or redefined. Isreal Folau’s comments have been shouted down and he has been marginalised as a result of having socially unacceptable views. Views that would not have been though so abhorrent 30 years ago. Society is moving in the right direction, albeit slowly, because of freedom of speech and all that it entails, not in-spite of it.
The grand irony of it all is
The grand irony of it all is that free speech was originally just a secular attempt to push against the Church’s blasphemy laws back in the days of yore. Now that it has come full circle, a Christians would be better of remembering that ‘turnabout is fair play’ and bringing those laws back in retaliation for trying to muzzle their speech.
Bring back temporal courts to enforce blasphemy laws that criminalise all blasphemies against God, including denying His being or providence, all contumelious reproaches of Jesus Christ, all profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures, and exposing any part thereof to contempt or ridicule, and punish violators with death, imprisonment, corporal punishment and fine.
Appreciating the clarity of
Appreciating the clarity of Moana Jackson’s thought and writing here. ‘Free speech’ embedded within the ongoing oppression of colonisation will always have a shaky base. As he indicates, people claim a ‘right of free speech’ with disregard of the harm thereby caused to Maori, to other indigenous peoples, to minorities like the LGBTQ communities.
Firstly to Allan Ong, Moana
Firstly to Allan Ong, Moana Jackson is a Maori MAN. I have found that if you are going to be angry when you read an article, you will have something negative to say about it when you are finished. I agree in most cases it is who has the biggest gun who determines what is going to happen, however, here in New Zealand when the British came to Colonise the country, they wrote a treaty document that said Maori would retain land and they broke their word … after signing the treaty …I don’t think that Indonesia and Timor had treaties to fall back on … Maori did and that they have taken advantage of the Pakeha education to say enough is enough. It’s like if you have a house and the person who sold you the house comes in and tells you that they are taking it, would you leave the house or would you say no! I have the contract that you and I signed to say I own it! I am disappointed that you would think that Maori would sit back and not get an education and let the world go by. Sounds like you have your own issues to deal with and maybe you should go and fight for the Timorese and Indonesians?
Your comment doesn’t fit what MR Jackson has written so by default it is non valid.
Personally I enjoyed the article if people don’t, they didn’t read it properly because the bottom line is it’s ok to have an opinion but if you are saying it to be cruel another person because of your beliefs then sometimes its best to keep it to yourself so people don’t think that your a loser.
Let me ask you, does Israel
Let me ask you, does Israel Folau have freedom of speech or not? I say he does. I agree with him.
Re. ”the right of indigenous
Re. ”the right of indigenous peoples to determine their own destiny as they had before colonisation.” How do Maori, presently 15% of our population, shortly to be outnumbered by Asians expect to determine their own destiny? Perhaps peacefully through parliament, to restrict what some would call essential immigration. Where do other ethnic groups sit in the face of the Maori Renaissance ?Are they to be quietly ignored after they decide it would be best for them to keep quiet? To appease? Are the first people to rule eventually regardless? Hard thoughts, but essential ones worthy of debate.
It would seem that the writer
It would seem that the writer would like to claim the right to be offensive to those who do not line up to her point of view, but does not appreciate being offended by those who oppose her positions politically or socially, cutting cultural sensitivities… It is the fact that the right to the freedom of speech was what allowed Maori to raise their grievances against the dominant Pakeha rulers and victors to be heard and to be granted reparations for injustices in civil Pakeha society and it’s politico-legal structures. What is missed is that this is a globally unique situation that indigenous peoples have taken for granted. Cast your mind to East Timor and the brutal and merciless put down of independence-seeking East Timorese by their Indonesian Colonial masters. Similarly Tibet and the Uighurs of Xinjiang… The global human default is that power lies the the end of the barrel of a gun… The liberties enjoyed in a Western liberal democracy is an anomaly of the human default and found only in this brief period in human history… It’s foundations are actually fragile so in shutting down dissent, Ms Moana Jackson with all her Pakeha education should realise that the rights to the freedoms that gained her and her cause a voice, should not be flippantly questioned when dissidents to her political and social positions exercise that same right.
Thanks for this excellent
Thanks for this excellent contribution. You are a gift to the church.