Tūi Tūi Tuituiā

Te Wairoa Reorua 2040

“Kia ora everyone, nau mai, hoki mai, leading your news bulletin tonight: Wairoa officially becomes the first bilingual town in Aotearoa”. This is the news headline that will be greeting TV viewers in the year 2040, or even sooner than that, thanks to Te Wairoa Reorua 2040.

Te Wairoa Reorua 2040 is the vision of four kaitiaki organisations, Te Kura Motuhake o Te Ataarangi, Ngā Kōhanga Reo o te rohe o Te Wairoa, Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Ngāti Kahungunu o Te Wairoa and Te Taiwhenua o Te Wairoa. Together with the Human Rights Commission, they are working on a strategy to set their community on the path to becoming bilingual by 2040.

The local kura and kōhanga reo in Wairoa often reported that people encountered barriers to speaking te reo Māori when they were in the community. The aim of Te Wairoa Reorua is to enable Māori, English and other languages to be valued and kept alive in and around Wairoa.

In 2013, Te Wairoa Reorua 2040 marked its first year. It hopes that by 2040 reo will be spoken in most homes and in the street, that schools will deliver their curriculum in te reo Māori and there will be regular use of reo in local shops and workplaces.

Pāpāho – Media

The media − television, film, print, radio, online and interactive − influence how we view the world. It presents messages about culture, race, ethnicity, and religion − and can promote positive representations as well as reinforce negative stereotypes. Media also provide an important space for debate and discussion on race relations issues.

Cartoons spark racism debate

Cartoons about free school meals faced a strong backlash this year, with complainants alleging that the cartoons were stigmatising, offensive and stereotyped Māori and Pacific peoples as spending their money on cigarettes and gambling.

The cartoons were published at the end of May in the Marlborough Express and The Press. The first depicted two overweight adults dressed in children's school uniforms joining a line for free school meals. One of the adults, says: "Psst! ... If we can get away with this, the more cash left for booze, smokes and pokies!"

The second cartoon showed a large family sitting around a table littered with Lotto tickets, beer cans and cigarettes with an adult saying: "Free school food is great! Eases our poverty, and puts something in you kids' bellies!"

Amid claims that his illustrations were ‘racist’ and ‘not funny’, cartoonist Al Nisbet defended the cartoons saying it was the right of cartoonists to cover controversial topics − including ones to do with race.

The Race Relations Commissioner, Dame Susan Devoy, responded, saying: “The cartoons further stigmatise New Zealand children living in poverty and the use of negative stereotypes is insulting and derogatory in the extreme.” 

The debate over the cartoons emphasised the difficulties faced when balancing the right to freedom of expression with the prohibition in the Human Rights Act aimed at stopping the incitement of racial disharmony. Although freedom of expression is not absolute, a very high threshold is necessary before the prohibition in the Human Rights Act can be said to have been breached. Some critics have argued that the threshold should be lower, while others have said that maintaining a high threshold means that all New Zealanders can be free to share their views even when those views may be offensive to others.

Speaking out about the important role of cartoonists, Al Nisbet said “Cartooning should be like playing practical jokes and annoying people, having a crack at all sides. You’ve got to push the envelope otherwise you have namby pamby, PC cartoons.”⁴²

Cartoonist Tom Scott argued in response that cartoons are there to “puncture the pride, the power and self-image of the wealthy and powerful”.

Backlash follows “Wogistan” remarks

NZ First List MP Richard Prosser was condemned for racist remarks including comments calling for young Muslim men from "Wogistan" to be banned from flying and describing Islam as "a Stone Age religion". The MP later said that he regretted his comments which were reported in many countries.

Featured in an article in Investigate magazine, his remarks sparked discussion on the way Muslim issues are portrayed in the media. Some people said Mr Prosser’s comments were an example of politicians making political capital at the expense of Muslims. Others said that it was a telling example of how Muslim issues are reported in the media, often in a sensationalist way.

In her Stargazer blog, Anjum Rahman described how media reporting of Muslim issues often focused on stupid comments, such as Mr Prosser’s, instead of identifying interesting and reasoned pro-Muslim stories. Rather than ignoring irresponsible and silly comments, a big deal was made of them garnering even more attention. Most damaging, however, was the often vitriolic comments toward Muslims appearing on social media whenever these sorts of issues become headline stories.

Mr Prosser’s comments received much attention online, highlighting the rise of social media as a major source of and venue for society’s discourse. This brings new challenges and responsibilities. Racial harassment and hate speech is more difficult to monitor in social media, and it is often left up to individuals and communities to take action. Greater attention needs to be given to combating racially offensive content online, this includes news media taking greater responsibility for bullying or hateful comments posted on their news sites.

Mr Prosser apologised for his comments and was graciously invited to the home of a Muslim family who informed him about their religion and culture.

Hindu community condemns Kali caricature

A caricature of the Hindu goddess Kali published in a New Zealand Herald column was inappropriate and offensive to many in the Indian community. The illustration accompanied an article about dairy owners, showing Goddess Kali holding amongst other things a packet of cigarettes. Members of the Hindu community contacted the Race Relations Commissioner, Dame Susan Devoy, and the New Zealand Press Council saying that trivialisation of the Hindu goddess was disrespectful and insensitive.

Responding to the incident, Dame Susan Devoy said that mainstream media needed to demonstrate greater awareness around the sensitivities of what is sacred to people of different religions and cultures and that editors needed to make a real effort to represent all communities respectfully.

Following community feedback, the illustration was pulled from the newspaper’s website. The newspaper also accepted an invitation for the writer of the article to participate in a panel discussion on media and religion at the New Zealand Diversity Forum.