Below is their response into my complaint concerning Maoridom's chief 'wasted space'.
They're actually suggesting I take my complaint to the Mana Party!!!!
The HRC is a toothless tiger and an apology for the indefensible.
Mr English ... here's the axe, use it.
Ref
#90779
Confidential
14
September 2012
Dear xxxx,
Thank you
for contacting the Human Rights Commission about a comment made by MP Hone
Harawira on Facebook and widely reported elsewhere, accusing other Maori MPs of
being the Prime Minister’s ‘little house niggers’.
The Race
Relations Commissioner, Joris de Bres, recognises that this is a highly abusive
term and will be offensive to many people. He considers it deplorable that Mr
Harawira continues to use language so unbecoming of a Member of Parliament.
The use of
such an abusive term is however not, in itself, a breach of the Human Rights
Act. While the Act does cover serious threats to racial harmony, it is not
enough that a comment offends people who read it, is racist or factually
inaccurate – such comment is protected by s.14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights
Act 1990 which affirms the right of freedom of expression. Only comments that
actually incite racial disharmony, rather than merely offend, are unlawful under
the Human Rights Act. Most instances of racially offensive language are instead
dealt with through the enforcement of standards such as those promulgated by the
Broadcasting Standards Authority, the New Zealand Press Council or an
organisation of which the person complained against is a member, employee or to
which they are in some other way accountable. In this case that would be the
Mana Party.
In light of
the above, your complaint is not one on which the Commission is able to take any
formal action under the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act. If you
disagree with this decision, you are entitled to take your complaint to the
Human Rights Review Tribunal, either directly or by seeking representation from
the Director of Human Rights Proceedings. These agencies can be contacted at
04 4626680 and 09 3758623, respectively. In making this referral, we are not
suggesting that the Tribunal’s consideration would be different from that of the
Commission.
We
recognise that this matter has caused you offence and appreciate you bringing
your concern to our attention. A record of your complaint will be retained by
the Commission.
Yours
sincerely,
Maxine
Aoina
Team
Leader, Infoline
29 comments:
What do you want them to do for you? You can always avail yourself of the Human Rights Review Tribunal. That's if you're actually genuinely offended and stuff, and not just being a frivolous wanker and wasting taxpayers' money with your faux outrage.
Or perhaps you want to give the HRC more power? Is that it? Instant fines maybe? That would bankrupt Adolt in a week.
Judge. That says it all. FFS the HRC is out of this world.
If I were anything but white they would be lathering at my bigotry.
Vet you are right. Disband this waste of space agency (and a few others) and we will be back in surplus. De Bres, 1st prize in the oxygen thief of the century contest.
Judge your continued commenting here is a mystery to most.
You are either A. Determined to re-program the posters to your way of thinking.
Or B. A cunt.
I am picking it is the latter.
Harawira and the rest of the troughing maori grievance industry have possibly over played their grasping hands this week.
I expect we will see a snap election within three months, that should see this nonsense end.
Judge ... yes, I am offended.
Why arn't you?
Take it to the Tribunal ... didn't you read the last sentence of their penultimate para???
More power. Only a wanker would suggest that. Disband it.
Yep, disband it! Who needs human rights, when the Nats are in charge? They're all so benign. Especially Bennett. Can I have a tax cut now?
Are you going to the Human Rights Tribunal Vet, or are you just having a wank?
Judge .... so I take it you're not offended by the comment.
Interesting values you exhibit but I guess it goes with the territory ... National bad, Labour perfect.
And no, not going to the Tribunal.
Why bother when the HRC sez in effect 'don't bother'.
If the HRC showed any sense of even-handedness then one might support their continued functioning ... they don't so I don't.
Like I don't expect any rational debate from you.
I don't feel my human rights have been violated, like you obviously do, Vet. I suspect you don't in actual fact, but are taking an opportunity to pretend to be outraged so you can have a go at agencies responsible for protecting citizens' rights. That's very nice of you. Perhaps next you could suggest that the courts be disbanded because they don't do everything you want to either. Bennett and Joyce can determine guilt and punishment.
Go to the review tribunal. Why are you giving up so easily? You're letting the commies win!
The term used by Honi is not unlike a "spawn of quislings" which was also challenged on another blog.
Fact is the law is deficient in these areas and it the politicans that allow it.
Talk to Judith Collins. She is Justice Minister isn't she.
1 Much as I detest Harawira and his ilk, we fortunately don't have the right not to be offended.
Let people spew their hatred and bigotry. It only shows them in their true light.
The Western world is under constant threat of losing the right to freedom of speech. The Religion of the Perpetually Outraged would like nothing more than to see that right removed.
If we lose our freedom of speech, then no other right matters. Freedom is never free.
Mrs Danvers
Shouldn't we all be shouting from the rooftops how awesome it is that we live in a country where the only hate speech laws are those that call for actual violence (or close to it) and where the most even the appointed protectors of political correctness can do is *ask* people to be more careful with their speech?
This is exactly what I want a Human Rights Commission to be doing: telling everyone we have free speech, but that maybe we should take politeness into account when we're thinking about what to say, but that if we decide to say something impolite there is nothing anyone in the government or the police can do about it.
Graeme. A well reasoned and sensible comment as always. Completely misses the point though.
Barnsley doesn't know what the point is so let me help.
Vet made a frivolous complaint to the HRC. When they, rightly, told him to sod off he complained that it was toothless and demanded in be disbanded. That was always his intention. If they had acted on his complaint he would have complained that they were jack-booted thugs trying to stifle free speech. Point? Right-wingers have no respect for human rights and don't want them protected.
Judge ... my complaint was NOT frivolous. I have Maori grandchildren. I am offended.
My family is offended.
So STUFF YOU AND YOURS .....
I think Judge is right. To be offended by an uneducated dark age self centered ruffian like Harawira is ridiculous. I'm amazed that he can, on occasion, be other than a foul mouthed troughing idiot.
He's not worth the time of day. Use him to teach your grandchildren what they should never become.
3:16
Shouldn't we all be shouting from the rooftops how awesome it is that we live in a country where the only hate speech laws are those that call for actual violence (or close to it) and where the most even the appointed protectors of political correctness can do is *ask* people to be more careful with their speech?
I don't have anything to contribute to the debate, just thought the above really is worth repeating.
Graeme/PM .... yep, agreed and another argument for doing away with the HRC.
Thank you for your support.
I was not so mush responding to the post as to some of the comments. My point was intended as a refutation of them, and not so much as a refutation of the original post.
"another argument for doing away with the HRC."
I'm beginning to think you don't actually understand the role and functions of the HRC, Vet. This is unfortunate given your shrieking for its disbanding.
I was more insulted by the Drill Sargeant when doing National Service in UK many years ago.
He was a professional, not like wanker Hadfield
Anonymous said
"The term used by Honi is not unlike a "spawn of quislings" which was also challenged on another blog."
I remember that incident. A veteran and his wife started a blog for those Vietnam Veterans who were not members of the EVSA and RNZRSA who were the only veteran parties to the then been negotiated MoU with the then Government.
Someone wasn't happy with the pending outcome and used the term to describe the negotiators.
This prompted a heavy handed "I have sought advice from a QC and you had better moderate things" type message. Unfortunately the threat was pointed not only at the originator but also the moderators.
Needless to say the threat was never followed up but the moderators were deeply hurt by the whole episode.
Advice from a universtity legal specialist was that this area had never been tested in the courts.
QC must have been having an off day.
Noel ... I too recall that incident. I put that in the same category as Hone's remarks.
House Nigger/Spawn of Quislings ...
both deeply offensive.
Thank you for reminding me.
But neither is in breach of the Human Rights Act.
It's probable that calling a person a "wanker" would be offensive to many people but again not in breach of the Act.
Noel ... 'wanker', you must be kidding.
What it demonstrates is that the Act is essentially meaningless ... and reason par excellence for the HRC to ne consigned to the dustbin of history.
Nuff said. Going to be a good night tonight ... the 'Naki' kept the Shield. I'm off celebrating.
Ok have a good night.
I'll just amuse myself with the fact those offensive words in both examples were not directed at you, but others who haven't approached the Human Rights Commission.
"What it demonstrates is that the Act is essentially meaningless ... and reason par excellence for the HRC to ne consigned to the dustbin of history."
Yes. It should be legal for people to discriminate on the basis of race and gender for example. Otherwise it's communist!
Section 61 of the Act makes it unlawful to publish material which is, ‘threatening, abusive or insulting,’ and ‘likely to excite hostility’ against a group of people or bring them into contempt on the ground of their colour, race or ethnicity. This means that it is not enough that the material offends the people who read it – it has to have the potential to excite hostility in those who hear or read it.
I don't remember a punch up between Mana and Maori party members over the comments?
Noel ... good that we agree on the 'offensive' bit.
Judge Holden ... keep on keeping and never mind that you are quite prepared to tread the ageism path when it suits you to do so (see your recent response to Gravedodger).
Hypocracy rules ok.
sigh
Yah "wanker" can be considered offensive in some contexts.
Anonymous said
"Section 61 of the Act makes it unlawful to publish material which is, ‘threatening, abusive or insulting,’ and ‘likely to excite hostility’ against a group of people or bring them into contempt on the ground of their colour, race or ethnicity. This means that it is not enough that the material offends the people who read it – it has to have the potential to excite hostility in those who hear or read it."
Gee I bet the US would love to have this legislation at the present time.
Post a Comment