so i've filled out my census forms dutifully, and very happy that i was able to do them online. makes life that much easier. i didn't have any problems with any of the questions personally, in terms of my own ability to answer nor objections to answering them, though i know that they haven't been designed so well for other people who don't fit into categories so easily.
i'm thinking that maybe the census people should have some kind of online discussion forum on their website, say 18 months before the census, where people can write in about their issues with particular questions, the general designs of the forms or any other issues around the census. then other people can have a discussion about that and the census people can have a think about the wording/design of the form based on the feedback they get.
i know that online discussion forums privilege a certain type of person: ie those who are literate in the english language, have access to a computer & internet connection, and the time to write out the things that bother them. but still, some kind of public feedback mechanism is better than absolutely no feedback mechanism and no place to have these discussions where the people with decision-making power will actually be paying attention.
how glad am i that we didn't have to have the whole "why-do-i-have-to-put-my-race" and it's first cousin the "why-can't-we-all-just-be-new-zealanders" discussions this census. possibly because mr brownlee and mr quax were otherwise occupied this year & no-one else could be bothered to lead the charge? or because people are beginning to accept that there is such a thing as discrimination/disadvantage that is a result of being the "wrong" skin colour? and one way to collect this information is by accurately answering the ethnicity question (or as accurately as possible given that many people have more than 1 ethnicity).
i don't care what the reason is, i'm just glad that it's no longer a major issue. there was a discussion around the religion question over at the standard. to which i had this response, which i'll leave you to read in context over there. also, if you don't have time to go through all the comments, i'd recommend this one.
another issue though: i had a call from someone at the local mosque, and it turned out there were a whole bunch of people there tonight for evening prayers who hadn't received a form and/or didn't know anything about the census. which leads me to wonder about the process to deal with particular communities who might not watch much television, don't listen to the radio or buy local newspapers. many of them might have english as a second language, but it's clear that they didn't know what the census was about or why it was important.
it makes me wonder about budget cuts to the dept of statistics - could it be that some of the "backroom bureaucrats" who might usually have carried out this function weren't hired this year? or is it that the DoS just didn't think to do community outreach to people who haven't grown up here or who don't interact with the media? or that the community outreach they have done just isn't successful?
i know that our muslim association president made many announcements at the mosque about the census, but somehow the message didn't get through. maybe because we're dealing with some people who don't understand what "census" means, because they've never had to do one in their country of origin or in the refugee camps where they may have spent well over a decade. and it's not a word that would come up in the conversations they normally have.
again, i'm not sure about the source of the problem, but it's certainly one that needs to be looked at & attended to. i rang the 0800 number and got some good advice on how to deal with the issue, but just find myself annoyed that this happened and am wondering about other communities that don't have regular communal gatherings like ours. how many of their people will miss out?
Tuesday, 5 March 2013
Thursday, 14 February 2013
race relations commissioner
so we're coming up to the end of an era: race relations commissioner jorid de bres is to retire on 1 march, after spending 10.5 years in the role. the diversity action programme newsletter provides details of some of his achievements.
i hadn't met any race relations commissioners (or conciliators) before mr de bres stepped into the role. i'm not sure if that's because he has had a much higher level of community engagement or because i didn't get out much in the years before 2003. probably a combination of both!
the diversity action programme and the annual human rights diversity forums have, i think, had a significant impact in bringing community activists, NGO's, academics and central and local government institutions together. great for networking, for sharing ideas and learning about projects, for informing others about issues faced by various groups in the community.
but more than that, the race relations commissioner & his staff has played a huge role in managing issues of racial conflict and tension, and in advocating at government levels for changes in policy and practice. i have to say that i have, on the whole, been heartened by the response in nz to the comments by mr prosser. that people have been so willing to lambast his comments on a wide range of media & social media must, i think, reflect some of the work that has been happening in communities throughout nz.
it is therefore a matter of some concern that the amendment to the human rights act that is currently going through the processes of parliament proposes to disestablish the position:
the Act will no longer name the Race Relations Commissioner and Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. Instead, they will be appointed as Human Rights Commissioners to reflect that Commissioners are first and foremost members of the Commission and operate at all times on behalf of the Commission. To ensure the formalised leadership roles are retained in the areas of race relations and equal employment opportunities and an additional role is created in the area of disability rights, the Act will provide that there must be a Commissioner (other than the Chief Commissioner) appointed to lead the work in each of these priority areas.
it's all very well to say that, under the proposed new structure, the commissioners will undertake the same duties without the specific designation. if that's the case then i don't understand the need to remove the designations, and thereby the visibility of the work they do. what purpose does it serve? it's not like we've solved all problems of discrimination by race, it's not like there are no longer disparities in income, in life expectancy, in access to employment and housing, in just being able to go about our daily business.
i can't make any definite statements in relation to crime against people of colour, because while police record the ethnicity of convicted criminals and we regularly get to hear all about the percentages, they refuse to record the ethnicity of victims of crime. and so we don't have data about race-based hate crime, we don't know if it's increasing or decreasing, we don't know what areas are most dangerous. when you refuse to record a thing, then you can easily pretend it's not a problem.
there is still plenty of work that needs to be done by the human rights commission. to take away the name and the current structure is to take away the importance of that work and the importance of these issues in our society. but more than that, this move may be a way to cut funding and cut the work of the commission in this area without it being so visible.
it's an unnecessary move, but it's likely to happen within the next few months. hence the delay in appointing a replacement for the current commissioner, and why he has been continuing in his role after his term ended in september. i don't know what can be done to stop the bill from passing in it's current form, but in the meantime i want to wish mr de bres well for the future and give my heartfelt thanks for the work that he has done to make our lives better.
i hadn't met any race relations commissioners (or conciliators) before mr de bres stepped into the role. i'm not sure if that's because he has had a much higher level of community engagement or because i didn't get out much in the years before 2003. probably a combination of both!
the diversity action programme and the annual human rights diversity forums have, i think, had a significant impact in bringing community activists, NGO's, academics and central and local government institutions together. great for networking, for sharing ideas and learning about projects, for informing others about issues faced by various groups in the community.
but more than that, the race relations commissioner & his staff has played a huge role in managing issues of racial conflict and tension, and in advocating at government levels for changes in policy and practice. i have to say that i have, on the whole, been heartened by the response in nz to the comments by mr prosser. that people have been so willing to lambast his comments on a wide range of media & social media must, i think, reflect some of the work that has been happening in communities throughout nz.
it is therefore a matter of some concern that the amendment to the human rights act that is currently going through the processes of parliament proposes to disestablish the position:
the Act will no longer name the Race Relations Commissioner and Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. Instead, they will be appointed as Human Rights Commissioners to reflect that Commissioners are first and foremost members of the Commission and operate at all times on behalf of the Commission. To ensure the formalised leadership roles are retained in the areas of race relations and equal employment opportunities and an additional role is created in the area of disability rights, the Act will provide that there must be a Commissioner (other than the Chief Commissioner) appointed to lead the work in each of these priority areas.
it's all very well to say that, under the proposed new structure, the commissioners will undertake the same duties without the specific designation. if that's the case then i don't understand the need to remove the designations, and thereby the visibility of the work they do. what purpose does it serve? it's not like we've solved all problems of discrimination by race, it's not like there are no longer disparities in income, in life expectancy, in access to employment and housing, in just being able to go about our daily business.
i can't make any definite statements in relation to crime against people of colour, because while police record the ethnicity of convicted criminals and we regularly get to hear all about the percentages, they refuse to record the ethnicity of victims of crime. and so we don't have data about race-based hate crime, we don't know if it's increasing or decreasing, we don't know what areas are most dangerous. when you refuse to record a thing, then you can easily pretend it's not a problem.
there is still plenty of work that needs to be done by the human rights commission. to take away the name and the current structure is to take away the importance of that work and the importance of these issues in our society. but more than that, this move may be a way to cut funding and cut the work of the commission in this area without it being so visible.
it's an unnecessary move, but it's likely to happen within the next few months. hence the delay in appointing a replacement for the current commissioner, and why he has been continuing in his role after his term ended in september. i don't know what can be done to stop the bill from passing in it's current form, but in the meantime i want to wish mr de bres well for the future and give my heartfelt thanks for the work that he has done to make our lives better.
Tuesday, 12 February 2013
here we go again
somebody says something stupid about muslims. then it has to be picked up by every media organisation who rush around for comments. of course they'll find some muslims who will be angry and upset, given the serious stupidity of the comments. then the media report how OUTRAGED those muslims are, as well as interviewing the original culprit to give more air to his views.
today they couldn't get the original culprit so they went for people with similar views, who then get a chance to put out more stupidity, while the interviewers put on the appropriate expression of incredulity at such ridiculouness, and continue to ask more questions designed to increase the level of such.
then you have the flow-on effect - talk-back, twitter, facebook. and that's where the damage gets really done, and we go to have another go of the merry-go-round. freedom of speech. but what he's saying is true. look at all these awful things muslims have done.
we go through this once every 6 months or so. if it's not women wearing burqa's banned from buses, it's cartoons, it's various politicians or authors. some little spark and "we" get to have "the debate" all over again as to whether muslims are good or bad, happy or sad. leaders of political parties get to have their faces in the news and posture about inclusiveness and to express OUTRAGE at such terrible remarks. let's see how many political points we can score on the back of this current incident.
frankly, i'm sick of these conversations and i'm sick being used as a political tool. and that is exactly what happened in this case. the whole story started with david farrar, who wrote an oh-so-supportive post expressing his OUTRAGE, knowing very well what will happen in the comments section, and very much expecting that it will be picked up by other media. his objective? to drive a wedge between nz first and parties of the left, to make a coalition of the left unpalatable to the left-voting public and thus for right-wingers to be able to push the line that a vote for the left is a vote for nz first in government.
it worked swimmingly in 2008, and it will no doubt work again. and there's the added bonus of being able to bag the MMP voting system, as if no fools ever get elected through electorate seats. bob clarkson, anyone? and the reason this tactic works so well is because voters who vote for parties on the left tend to be less tolerant of discrimination than parties on the right. and parties on the right are not going to lose their voters by coming out and condemning this kind of thing, because those voters are never going to vote for lefties.
this was a very calculated move by mr farrar, and i certainly don't feel the need to give him cookies for writing a post supportive of the muslim community. because i actually don't think that's what it was. it was rather a post against a political opponent, a strategy. and once again, we have to sit and watch people use the muslim community for their own political gain, while they have very little care about the wider impact on our lives.
but this strategy only works when the media decide that it's a story. when they choose not to ignore the rantings of an outlier, but instead make a big issue out of it. and yes, i know the argument about shining a light on this stuff so that it can shown up and countered. and yes, twitter was pretty good in terms of speaking out against these particular comments. but on the other hand, the comments on the seven sharp facebook page were not so nice. and comments in other places, and on talkback? still pretty awful. still influencing people - the sort of people who will make decisions about who will get a job or who will get a rental house; people that will be teaching our children or providing us health services. there isn't enough light to counter the darkness caused by this stuff.
i'd much rather the media didn't play along. but i guess it tends to be a ratings winner, it certainly gets people talking and engaged.
so what's the answer? how do we stop political types taking advantage of our community for their own political goals? well i don't think there's a country in the world which has solved that problem. but at very least, we can be honest about what's happening here, and call it out for what it is.
Monday, 11 February 2013
7#
well, i've had a nice break from blogging. as summer rolled in, the words emptied out of my mind, and while there were a lot of things that were going on, i just didn't feel the need to say anything about them. i managed to write a serious post last week at the hand mirror, about waitangi day.
not feeling so serious today, so i thought i'd write about the replacement current affairs show on tv1, 7#. clearly not a serious news show, but then, from what i heard, it wasn't meant to be. i watched the first episode last week with low expectations, and wasn't overly impressed. i managed to catch the one on the kawhia food festival, which is reasonably close to home for me, especially since i have totally fallen in love with ocean beach this summer:
i enjoyed hearing from temuera morrison as well, and am totally looking forward to watching mt zion soon.
i thought tonight's episode wasn't bad actually. which is good, because i do actually want to give this programme a go. i do want it to succeed. probably because i like the presenters, and because i really never was a fan of close-up. i think the latter was infotainment pretending to be news, and at least this is honest and up-front about being infotainment. there is no duplicity here. and because i never looked to close-up for my news, i don't miss it at all.
i have been watching a lot more of campbell live over the last year, especially because they have been doing a lot of serious news - on kim dotcom, on novapay & the closure of christchurch schools and on poverty. if i'm planning on watching news, then yes, campbell live are doing the job reasonably well. and if i want infotainment, then 7# aren't doing it very well, but i think they're improving. and i think there's potential.
today's story about sexting was quite a sad one, particularly in terms of the pressure young women were feeling to send images, and the rather callous views of the young men who didn't seem to care at all about these women as people. the thought that one of them thought it was ok to have these images in case the young woman "turned mean"? ugh. there is plenty they need to learn about basic humanity and the real question is who is going to teach them.
they're clearly not getting it from their parents, and the internet doesn't seem to be of any use at all. so how exactly do we teach young men that women aren't a thing to be used and manipulated, and humiliated just because they can. 7# never gave any answers, but it did ask the questions. it's a start.
oh, and if you're ever planning to visit ocean beach, be warned there is a huge sand hill to climb before you get to the beach. and wear solid closed shoes until you get near the water, because black sand. but once you get there... enjoy.
not feeling so serious today, so i thought i'd write about the replacement current affairs show on tv1, 7#. clearly not a serious news show, but then, from what i heard, it wasn't meant to be. i watched the first episode last week with low expectations, and wasn't overly impressed. i managed to catch the one on the kawhia food festival, which is reasonably close to home for me, especially since i have totally fallen in love with ocean beach this summer:
i enjoyed hearing from temuera morrison as well, and am totally looking forward to watching mt zion soon.
i thought tonight's episode wasn't bad actually. which is good, because i do actually want to give this programme a go. i do want it to succeed. probably because i like the presenters, and because i really never was a fan of close-up. i think the latter was infotainment pretending to be news, and at least this is honest and up-front about being infotainment. there is no duplicity here. and because i never looked to close-up for my news, i don't miss it at all.
i have been watching a lot more of campbell live over the last year, especially because they have been doing a lot of serious news - on kim dotcom, on novapay & the closure of christchurch schools and on poverty. if i'm planning on watching news, then yes, campbell live are doing the job reasonably well. and if i want infotainment, then 7# aren't doing it very well, but i think they're improving. and i think there's potential.
today's story about sexting was quite a sad one, particularly in terms of the pressure young women were feeling to send images, and the rather callous views of the young men who didn't seem to care at all about these women as people. the thought that one of them thought it was ok to have these images in case the young woman "turned mean"? ugh. there is plenty they need to learn about basic humanity and the real question is who is going to teach them.
they're clearly not getting it from their parents, and the internet doesn't seem to be of any use at all. so how exactly do we teach young men that women aren't a thing to be used and manipulated, and humiliated just because they can. 7# never gave any answers, but it did ask the questions. it's a start.
oh, and if you're ever planning to visit ocean beach, be warned there is a huge sand hill to climb before you get to the beach. and wear solid closed shoes until you get near the water, because black sand. but once you get there... enjoy.
Thursday, 13 December 2012
the loss of an artist
sad news that ravi shankar has passed away. not that i have ever actually listened to his music, but even so, i'm able to recognise his incredible talent. i have been to a few live sitar performances, and it's a pretty amazing instrument to listen to when it's played well.
but one thing that has been annoying me about the coverage of his death in western media are the western markers. he brought indian music to the attention of the beatles, and therefore to the attention of the west. that is the first thing that is said about him in almost all the news reports i've seen - as if a western audience couldn't appreciate his greatness without reference to a well-known western band or what he means to the west.
i can think of many ways to start a report on his death and the importance of his achievements. you could centre it on the country of his birth, then focus on his mastery of the craft of playing an incredibly difficult instrument. you could then talk about the impact he had around the world, and if you really needed to put in a passing reference to the beatles, you might put something at the end.
the man passing isn't worth noting because he influenced the west. it's worth noting because of what he produced in terms of his own music and because he influenced people all around the world. the fact that he was revered in his own country and continent is surely as important as the fact that he was known in the west?
the coverage just reeks of the notion that the death of a brown person who was important to brown people and achieved in a country of brown people - that just isn't important enough to cover. we aren't supposed to identify with such a person until they have direct relevance to us, and hence the markers that identify his impact on the west before they even consider talking about his impact on the east (if they even talk about the latter at all).
it's an insidious form of racism because it ties into the greater narrative that people in the east and their concerns aren't as important. we've seen it most recently with the level of coverage over the effects of hurricane sandy in new york as opposed to the level of coverage over the effects of typhoon bopha in the philippines.
one can argue that it's much easier to have media access to new york than it is to get that same level of coverage in the philippines, but i think that's an excuse. there were plenty of asian media outlets that were covering the stories, which could have been played here (the coverage of hurricane sandy was bought from american media outlets after all). but now, with social media & youtube, the material to build stories is at the fingertips of media outlets here had they chosen to cover it.
and thus we are socialised into thinking that some are more important than others, some matter less because they aren't like us, and that we can only begin to care for them when there is some kind of markers that are defined on our terms.
so here is a short clip of mr shankar, which really doesn't do his music or the sitar the justice it deserves (it's the kind of instrument you need to listen to for at least half an hour to get any kind of real appreciation).
rest in peace.
but one thing that has been annoying me about the coverage of his death in western media are the western markers. he brought indian music to the attention of the beatles, and therefore to the attention of the west. that is the first thing that is said about him in almost all the news reports i've seen - as if a western audience couldn't appreciate his greatness without reference to a well-known western band or what he means to the west.
i can think of many ways to start a report on his death and the importance of his achievements. you could centre it on the country of his birth, then focus on his mastery of the craft of playing an incredibly difficult instrument. you could then talk about the impact he had around the world, and if you really needed to put in a passing reference to the beatles, you might put something at the end.
the man passing isn't worth noting because he influenced the west. it's worth noting because of what he produced in terms of his own music and because he influenced people all around the world. the fact that he was revered in his own country and continent is surely as important as the fact that he was known in the west?
the coverage just reeks of the notion that the death of a brown person who was important to brown people and achieved in a country of brown people - that just isn't important enough to cover. we aren't supposed to identify with such a person until they have direct relevance to us, and hence the markers that identify his impact on the west before they even consider talking about his impact on the east (if they even talk about the latter at all).
it's an insidious form of racism because it ties into the greater narrative that people in the east and their concerns aren't as important. we've seen it most recently with the level of coverage over the effects of hurricane sandy in new york as opposed to the level of coverage over the effects of typhoon bopha in the philippines.
one can argue that it's much easier to have media access to new york than it is to get that same level of coverage in the philippines, but i think that's an excuse. there were plenty of asian media outlets that were covering the stories, which could have been played here (the coverage of hurricane sandy was bought from american media outlets after all). but now, with social media & youtube, the material to build stories is at the fingertips of media outlets here had they chosen to cover it.
and thus we are socialised into thinking that some are more important than others, some matter less because they aren't like us, and that we can only begin to care for them when there is some kind of markers that are defined on our terms.
so here is a short clip of mr shankar, which really doesn't do his music or the sitar the justice it deserves (it's the kind of instrument you need to listen to for at least half an hour to get any kind of real appreciation).
rest in peace.
Friday, 30 November 2012
recognition for palestine
i'm feeling pretty happy today, particularly with the UN vote to recognise palestine by granting it non-member observer status. ok, it's not a huge step, and it doesn't mean that peace is going to break out any time soon. having just witnessed another round of devastation visited on gaza, it's sad that this is the reality.
even knowing this, the vote is still hugely important. not just because it was a resounding victory - 138 for, 41 abstentions & only 9 against - but because it does have some tangible benefits:
The Palestinians can now take part in UN debates and potentially join bodies like the International Criminal Court....
"This is a whole new ball-game now. Israel will be dealing with a member of the international community, a state called Palestine with rights," senior PLO official Hanan Ashrawi told the BBC.
"We will have access to international organisations and agencies and we will take it from there."
i'm so glad that nz was part of the 138, and that the government for once has taken an ethical international stance. what is sad is that australia merely abstaining is considered a major shift, and canada voting against was pretty awful. i guess the latter is the result of a right-wing government, but i'm glad that the same basic ideology didn't hamper our government.
and then there's america with a left-wing president, doing their level best to prevent the vote, and then having the secretary of state condemn the result. my happiness at mr obama's win pretty much dissipated in the first couple of days after the latest assault on gaza, and it's totally gone now. whatever he manages to achieve within america, it's pretty clear that we aren't going to see any substantial shift in foreign policy. but then that was pretty predictable when the candidates debate on foreign policy ended up being more about local issues than about foreign ones.
still, despite their best efforts, they could only convince 9 countries to vote against this measure. that fact alone is cause for hope. perhaps international pressure will continue to build, which is the only way that a peaceful solution can be forced.
and if that didn't cheer you up, how about this, which i totally love:
it reminds me of this post i wrote last year, and i love the humour they've put into making the same basic point.
even knowing this, the vote is still hugely important. not just because it was a resounding victory - 138 for, 41 abstentions & only 9 against - but because it does have some tangible benefits:
The Palestinians can now take part in UN debates and potentially join bodies like the International Criminal Court....
"This is a whole new ball-game now. Israel will be dealing with a member of the international community, a state called Palestine with rights," senior PLO official Hanan Ashrawi told the BBC.
"We will have access to international organisations and agencies and we will take it from there."
i'm so glad that nz was part of the 138, and that the government for once has taken an ethical international stance. what is sad is that australia merely abstaining is considered a major shift, and canada voting against was pretty awful. i guess the latter is the result of a right-wing government, but i'm glad that the same basic ideology didn't hamper our government.
and then there's america with a left-wing president, doing their level best to prevent the vote, and then having the secretary of state condemn the result. my happiness at mr obama's win pretty much dissipated in the first couple of days after the latest assault on gaza, and it's totally gone now. whatever he manages to achieve within america, it's pretty clear that we aren't going to see any substantial shift in foreign policy. but then that was pretty predictable when the candidates debate on foreign policy ended up being more about local issues than about foreign ones.
still, despite their best efforts, they could only convince 9 countries to vote against this measure. that fact alone is cause for hope. perhaps international pressure will continue to build, which is the only way that a peaceful solution can be forced.
and if that didn't cheer you up, how about this, which i totally love:
it reminds me of this post i wrote last year, and i love the humour they've put into making the same basic point.
Tuesday, 27 November 2012
well, i didn't see that coming...
an update on the on-going saga of myself, mr cox & the waikato times: mr cox has apologised in a piece published in today's paper. this is quite unexpected, given that he usually has his column published in saturday's paper, and given that i have never asked for an apology in my formal complaint or in my subsequent dealings with the editor.
it may be that others who lodged a complaint did ask for an apology. but i'd like to think that this was an uncoerced apology, genuinely given, and that mr cox has gained something from this whole experience. and until i see any evidence to the contrary, that is what i'm going to believe.
there has, in the past week, been the expected backlash in the letters to the editors section of the paper in response to my piece. four letters in all, 2 in last saturday's paper, and all of them really quite nasty. i'd thought about replying, but decided i wouldn't bother. i have sent off a letter to the editor today though, thanking mr cox for his apology & writing about some of the experiences i've had of late, through my involvement with the waikato interfaith council (wifco).
i've been meaning to write about some of these, but things have been pretty hectic over the last few weeks. i'll share a couple though.
on saturday, i was invited to an ordination at st peter's cathedral, on top of the hill at the north end of victoria st in hamilton. it's the first time i've been to an ordination, and i'd actually been looking forward to it for a while. partly because of my fond affection for the person becoming a priest, but also just to have the experience of being present at such an event.
it was quite lovely. i enjoyed watching it all, though i didn't feel part of it as such. i got up and sat down again at the appropriate times, but i didn't sing and i didn't give any of the responses, nor take part in the wafer & wine thing (obviously!). and i thought it was quite ironic in a funny kind of way that i was sitting next to a committed atheist for the whole thing. it just seemed to add another dimension of diversity to the whole experience.
there were 9 people going through the process on the day, 5 to become deacons & 4 were becoming priests. of the priests, there was a nice gender balance of 2 men & 2 women; with the deacons there were 3 women & 2 men. i found this interesting in light of the whole controversy going on in the anglican church at the moment in regards to women being allowed to become bishops. it just seems that the vote went so much against what is actually happening on the ground, but given the requirement of a 2/3 majority at 3 levels, i guess it's not an easy hurdle for them to pass.
so now i have that to add to my list of life experiences. another experience that is precious to me is the invitation the wifco received from tainui, to take part in a blessing of wairere drive. this is a new section of road that has recently opened in hamilton. the official opening was on a saturday, but we were invited on friday evening, around 6pm, to take part in the tainui blessing and to say a prayer of our own. i recited the prayer for travelling, as the muslim offering, then put the paper i'd written it out on into a kete that was buried next to the road the following morning. there were other contributions from the baha'i, the quakers, anglicans, catholic and jews. we had a little bit of sprinkling of holy water even.
i loved that there was recognition by wifco members of the loss of land and devastation caused by colonisation. i loved the welcoming we received from tainui, and the explanation that was given for the naming of the road as "wairere". it was a very special experience, a moment of real bonding between a diverse group of people, and we all went home feeling incredibly uplifted.
the reason i mentioned these events in my letter and now here on the blog is because it is exactly this kind of thing that builds communities and strong societies. it's so very hard to hate people belonging to a particular group when you've shared experiences like this together. it's such a powerful way to humanise the "other", and makes it so much harder to hold a whole group of people in contempt.
if only some of those angry letter writers had been able to have some of these experiences, had been able to enter a world outside of their own, perhaps the words would not have flowed so easily when they wrote into the paper. but i suspect that they would resist any such experience, and feel completely threatened in an environment where their own supremacy was not sacrosanct.
well, we can only try. this week in hamilton will hold the indigo festival. as part of that will be the indigo interfaith seminars, on friday & saturday from 12 to 1pm at the hamilton library. the festival as a whole is an attempt to celebrate diversity in the city, and i hope, if you're a hamiltonian, that you'll try to get to at least some of the events.
it may be that others who lodged a complaint did ask for an apology. but i'd like to think that this was an uncoerced apology, genuinely given, and that mr cox has gained something from this whole experience. and until i see any evidence to the contrary, that is what i'm going to believe.
there has, in the past week, been the expected backlash in the letters to the editors section of the paper in response to my piece. four letters in all, 2 in last saturday's paper, and all of them really quite nasty. i'd thought about replying, but decided i wouldn't bother. i have sent off a letter to the editor today though, thanking mr cox for his apology & writing about some of the experiences i've had of late, through my involvement with the waikato interfaith council (wifco).
i've been meaning to write about some of these, but things have been pretty hectic over the last few weeks. i'll share a couple though.
on saturday, i was invited to an ordination at st peter's cathedral, on top of the hill at the north end of victoria st in hamilton. it's the first time i've been to an ordination, and i'd actually been looking forward to it for a while. partly because of my fond affection for the person becoming a priest, but also just to have the experience of being present at such an event.
it was quite lovely. i enjoyed watching it all, though i didn't feel part of it as such. i got up and sat down again at the appropriate times, but i didn't sing and i didn't give any of the responses, nor take part in the wafer & wine thing (obviously!). and i thought it was quite ironic in a funny kind of way that i was sitting next to a committed atheist for the whole thing. it just seemed to add another dimension of diversity to the whole experience.
there were 9 people going through the process on the day, 5 to become deacons & 4 were becoming priests. of the priests, there was a nice gender balance of 2 men & 2 women; with the deacons there were 3 women & 2 men. i found this interesting in light of the whole controversy going on in the anglican church at the moment in regards to women being allowed to become bishops. it just seems that the vote went so much against what is actually happening on the ground, but given the requirement of a 2/3 majority at 3 levels, i guess it's not an easy hurdle for them to pass.
so now i have that to add to my list of life experiences. another experience that is precious to me is the invitation the wifco received from tainui, to take part in a blessing of wairere drive. this is a new section of road that has recently opened in hamilton. the official opening was on a saturday, but we were invited on friday evening, around 6pm, to take part in the tainui blessing and to say a prayer of our own. i recited the prayer for travelling, as the muslim offering, then put the paper i'd written it out on into a kete that was buried next to the road the following morning. there were other contributions from the baha'i, the quakers, anglicans, catholic and jews. we had a little bit of sprinkling of holy water even.
i loved that there was recognition by wifco members of the loss of land and devastation caused by colonisation. i loved the welcoming we received from tainui, and the explanation that was given for the naming of the road as "wairere". it was a very special experience, a moment of real bonding between a diverse group of people, and we all went home feeling incredibly uplifted.
the reason i mentioned these events in my letter and now here on the blog is because it is exactly this kind of thing that builds communities and strong societies. it's so very hard to hate people belonging to a particular group when you've shared experiences like this together. it's such a powerful way to humanise the "other", and makes it so much harder to hold a whole group of people in contempt.
if only some of those angry letter writers had been able to have some of these experiences, had been able to enter a world outside of their own, perhaps the words would not have flowed so easily when they wrote into the paper. but i suspect that they would resist any such experience, and feel completely threatened in an environment where their own supremacy was not sacrosanct.
well, we can only try. this week in hamilton will hold the indigo festival. as part of that will be the indigo interfaith seminars, on friday & saturday from 12 to 1pm at the hamilton library. the festival as a whole is an attempt to celebrate diversity in the city, and i hope, if you're a hamiltonian, that you'll try to get to at least some of the events.
Saturday, 17 November 2012
at labour party conference
so here is my piece that was published in today's waikato times. i see that it already has 37 "likes" on facebook, a whole lot more than other recent op-eds at the times. i'm really touched that people are liking & sharing the piece - i have to say that i've been a little nervous about how it might be received ever since i sent it off.
i haven't managed to put the link up earlier because i've been in auckland all day, at the labour party conference. it was a great day, and great to see the membership making some good decisions. i'm particularly heartened by the constitutional changes to leadership votes, but even more than that, the changes strengthening women's representation across the party.
i know the party will be better for these changes. what was even more heartening was the process and the open debate. a successful political party needs to have room for disagreement and for robust debate. it was great to see the number of people speaking for both sides of the issue on the main leadership remit on the trigger for a leadership vote. there was passion, engagement and very good articulation of the issues. it's a sign of a healthy party in action.
the highlight for me was CTU president helen kelly's speech. she really is one of nz's most valuable treasures, and her speech today was courageous, humane, and right on target. if this woman was prime minister of nz, this country would be a much better place. she has a strong grasp on a wide variety of issues, but brings with that a huge level of empathy and understanding of the struggles faced by so many people in this country.
i can't find a copy of the speech online, no doubt it will go up in a couple of days. but i'll type in some bits of it. when it goes up online, i'd strongly recommend reading the whole thing.
The Pike explosion and what happened to Charanpreet is all part of a culture that fails to acknowledge the important and significant role of work in our society. Work is conceptualised as an input required to build successful businesses, and business is seen as something the market creates. If markets fail to create successful business then work is the victim, if business models create low value or dangerous jobs, then this is acceptable in this context. In this model, regulation is reduced to a "business knows best" light touch. We know that this is unsustainable and that the market in New Zealand is calibrated to create low value, dangerous jobs. There was no benefit to Fulton Hogan of directly offering Charanpreet well-paid, decent work that night - just as there was no benefit in the minds of the Board of Pike River in investing in safety. The risk turned out to be badly judged but the settings that may have shifted them to understand this don't exist.
[...]
It is up to Labour to change this story - never more have we needed new solutions - strong, resolute determination to work in the interests of the whole country based on a renewed understanding of egalitarianism. We must reclaim this word - make it ours again and develop policies that make it a reality. Reinforcing the Egalitarian doctrine that all humans are equal in fundamental worth and social status and have the same political, economic, social and civil rights must be our goal.
[...]
How did we get to the point where the entire codgeratti of NZ politics, media and business are shocked at the privacy leaks of the Port but not its plans to sack everyone and replace them, and will no doubt support their new plans?
[...]
If you don't support the Wharfies' claim for a fair deal - then you are in the wrong party. If you think contracting in the form of employment which killed Charanpreet is something more than a ruse to avoid the reciprocity of an employment relationship and to drive the price of labour down - then you have the wrong analysis. And if you think anything more than a radical reform of all elements of social and economic policy towards a policy of egalitarianism will resolve these matters then in my humble view, you are not brave enough for what is needed now by the people of this country.
i haven't managed to put the link up earlier because i've been in auckland all day, at the labour party conference. it was a great day, and great to see the membership making some good decisions. i'm particularly heartened by the constitutional changes to leadership votes, but even more than that, the changes strengthening women's representation across the party.
i know the party will be better for these changes. what was even more heartening was the process and the open debate. a successful political party needs to have room for disagreement and for robust debate. it was great to see the number of people speaking for both sides of the issue on the main leadership remit on the trigger for a leadership vote. there was passion, engagement and very good articulation of the issues. it's a sign of a healthy party in action.
the highlight for me was CTU president helen kelly's speech. she really is one of nz's most valuable treasures, and her speech today was courageous, humane, and right on target. if this woman was prime minister of nz, this country would be a much better place. she has a strong grasp on a wide variety of issues, but brings with that a huge level of empathy and understanding of the struggles faced by so many people in this country.
i can't find a copy of the speech online, no doubt it will go up in a couple of days. but i'll type in some bits of it. when it goes up online, i'd strongly recommend reading the whole thing.
The Pike explosion and what happened to Charanpreet is all part of a culture that fails to acknowledge the important and significant role of work in our society. Work is conceptualised as an input required to build successful businesses, and business is seen as something the market creates. If markets fail to create successful business then work is the victim, if business models create low value or dangerous jobs, then this is acceptable in this context. In this model, regulation is reduced to a "business knows best" light touch. We know that this is unsustainable and that the market in New Zealand is calibrated to create low value, dangerous jobs. There was no benefit to Fulton Hogan of directly offering Charanpreet well-paid, decent work that night - just as there was no benefit in the minds of the Board of Pike River in investing in safety. The risk turned out to be badly judged but the settings that may have shifted them to understand this don't exist.
[...]
It is up to Labour to change this story - never more have we needed new solutions - strong, resolute determination to work in the interests of the whole country based on a renewed understanding of egalitarianism. We must reclaim this word - make it ours again and develop policies that make it a reality. Reinforcing the Egalitarian doctrine that all humans are equal in fundamental worth and social status and have the same political, economic, social and civil rights must be our goal.
[...]
How did we get to the point where the entire codgeratti of NZ politics, media and business are shocked at the privacy leaks of the Port but not its plans to sack everyone and replace them, and will no doubt support their new plans?
[...]
If you don't support the Wharfies' claim for a fair deal - then you are in the wrong party. If you think contracting in the form of employment which killed Charanpreet is something more than a ruse to avoid the reciprocity of an employment relationship and to drive the price of labour down - then you have the wrong analysis. And if you think anything more than a radical reform of all elements of social and economic policy towards a policy of egalitarianism will resolve these matters then in my humble view, you are not brave enough for what is needed now by the people of this country.
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
report back
so, it's been a long day & i'm feeling pretty exhausted right now. but also a little more at peace. my meeting at the paper went well, on the whole, but as it wasn't a public meeting i don't feel comfortable sharing too much here. i had aliya danzeisen with me, a real champion who makes a huge difference to the lives of so many people in our community.
what i can say is that we were given a fair hearing, and treated with respect. i can say there was some difference of views and i think we came to some common understandings. i can say that i now have to write a 700 word piece to go into saturday's paper, and that's going to take some thinking through. i don't intend to reference mr cox's piece because i don't believe he or his views deserve further publicity. somehow i have to tread between that line of advocating for my community and for muslim women, without being preachy about my faith. i'll leave thinking about it until tomorrow.
because of all the support i've received, i felt that i went into the meeting from a position of strength - more of an internal feeling than anything else. it brings home to me again the importance of community, and how much more a group of people can achieve than an individual working alone. and my main objective was to bring the people i was talking to into that community, make them feel part of us and identify with us, because in the end we all belong in this place together.
i hope we managed that. my own impression is that we succeeded in that, but i can't be sure of how they felt. time will tell. and now to quote forrest gump: that's all i have to say about that.
what i can say is that we were given a fair hearing, and treated with respect. i can say there was some difference of views and i think we came to some common understandings. i can say that i now have to write a 700 word piece to go into saturday's paper, and that's going to take some thinking through. i don't intend to reference mr cox's piece because i don't believe he or his views deserve further publicity. somehow i have to tread between that line of advocating for my community and for muslim women, without being preachy about my faith. i'll leave thinking about it until tomorrow.
because of all the support i've received, i felt that i went into the meeting from a position of strength - more of an internal feeling than anything else. it brings home to me again the importance of community, and how much more a group of people can achieve than an individual working alone. and my main objective was to bring the people i was talking to into that community, make them feel part of us and identify with us, because in the end we all belong in this place together.
i hope we managed that. my own impression is that we succeeded in that, but i can't be sure of how they felt. time will tell. and now to quote forrest gump: that's all i have to say about that.
Monday, 12 November 2012
thank you
so it's been a couple of days since i wrote my complaint, and i've sent it on to some of my networks. while i was personally convinced about how awful mr cox's piece was, i wasn't as certain that everyone else would see it that way.
i have to say though, that i have been humbled by the support i've received on this. so many people have contacted me to let me know that they are completely appalled by the piece and by the decision to publish it. i've been copied into various responses to the paper, and yes, i have to say that i had tears in my eyes as i've read some of the emails.
it's hard to describe how it feels to be the target of an attack like mr cox's, which on the surface appears to be supporting muslim women, but in substance lumps them in with the violence perpetrated against them. how to describe how awful it feels to be the subject of another's contempt, and such public contempt in a medium that reaches far and wide into the community of people with whom i must interact on a daily basis. how can i explain the powerlessness to know that mr cox has the freedom to regularly express himself in my local paper with little apparent restraint, while i will have to go to the editor and plead for that same privilege, and hope i am able to get it for just one week. how can i put across the rage and frustration, the turmoil inside me, when i read a perspective about me that is so patently untrue and falsely argued?
for me this stuff is triggering. not so much of violence against me but of the emotional devastation that i & my contemporaries lived through in the aftermath of 9/11, the bali bombings and the attacks in london. while feeling outrage and incredible sadness at the loss of innocent life and the destruction of property, i felt a real and present danger to my physical safety. there were days when i felt afraid to go outside of my own house, and only the fact that i needed to turn up to work in order to earn my pay forced me to crawl out from under the blankets. i felt ashamed to face the people i would come across that day, thinking that they would link me and my beliefs to these awful events overseas, because that was the primary narrative coming across various media outlets across the country.
i think the years between 2002 & 2004 were the worst, the most emotionally draining, the most terrifying. i was fortified at that time by a group of people who were determined to take action and work on changing the media narrative. i don't know that we were successful, but we tried in various ways: by making complaints (the most successful i remember were against radio nz for linda clark's series of interviews with jim vietch), by visiting media leaders and trying to explain the effect this kind of coverage was having on our community, by seeking spaces in the media to have our voices heard.
and to their credit, people in the media did respond. opinion pieces began to be published in major newspapers like the herald, the christchurch press, the sunday star times. we began to see the leadership of the muslim community being asked to comment on issues that related to the muslim community. there was more balance and less hate, more attempts at accuracy and less crass generalisation. not all the time, for sure. there was still a lot of crap. but certainly in the last few years, i have personally felt a little less like i belong to a community under siege.
it couldn't have happened without the support of some key people in the media. i'd like to name some of them now. simon collins of the herald has always been excellent and very supportive. ali ikram, formerly of tvnz but now with tv3, again opened doors for us and is always willing to engage. bryce johns, previously editor of the waikato times and now the editor of the herald on sunday, has never once turned me down when i've asked for an opinion piece to be published and was incredibly positive last year in covering the activities of young musim women in the waikato. the team at afternoons at radio nz were receptive when i contacted them many years ago, highlighting the lack of diversity on "the panel", and they allowed me to appear on that show. the team at pacific crews, who chose me to be the first person to appear on their "my God" series, and who have been incredibly supportive ever since. to willie jackson and the eye-to-eye team who gave me the chance to explain the effects of hate speech on one of their shows, and who were always so encouraging and supportive.
and russell brown, who was responsible for my first ever media appearance. i'd been following his blog regularly, and wrote to him with a link that i thought he might put up in one of his pieces. and for some unknown reason, i told this total stranger about my experiences of being part of the march up queen st by the muslim community, protesting against the danish cartoons. he ignored the link (probably a good idea in hindsight!), but put up my description of the march & the reasons why i joined it. which then lead to a call from tvnz and a request to appear on close up (to be interviewed by paul henry of all people). since then, russell has been supportive in various ways, including putting up guests posts from me, and today he has written in support of my complaint.
i've also had support from other organisations that has been incredibly important and dear to me. the people on the waikato interfaith council, every one of them with a heart of gold and actions to match. mervyn singham and the office of ethnic affairs, not just for the work they do in the community, but the active support they provided by organising media training and contact with key media people. the race relations commissioner, joris de bres, and a whole heap of amazing staff at the commission (and of course i have to especially mention you, rohan), who have always stepped in and helped us find solutions. the decisive actions taken by mr de bres after the publishing of the danish cartoons, in organising a mediation meeting with the editor of the dom post, is only one of a number of crucial acts that have helped eased the burden on myself and my community. today i have felt incredibly supported by mr de bres, and again that support brought tears to my eyes. ruth desouza, who set up the aotearoa ethnic network to provide connections and an ability for people in ethnic communities to share their concerns. and who works tirelessly through social media and her own professional career to fight discrimination in all its forms.
i know there are plenty of other people who deserve a mention and who i haven't managed to personally thank. but i do thank you, every one of you for each word of support, each act of solidarity, each gesture of friendship. today i feel so much less alone when an attack like this happens. while the hurt, the frustration, the triggering are all still there, i also know that there are whole groups of people that have my back and will not let me stand alone. i wish that i could do even half as much for all of you as you do for me.
so tomorrow i go to meet the editor of the waikato times. i'm incredibly nervous about this, to the point of being afraid. because the power lies with him and not with me. in the end, he gets the final say and i can only ask for fair treatment. i'm afraid that i won't have the right words to persuade him. but i'm also hopeful, because of all the positive responses i've received. i'm hopeful that he might also be one of those people who is prepared to listen and to understand. i'm hopeful that he will want a positive resolution to this particular issue just as much as i do.
i have to say though, that i have been humbled by the support i've received on this. so many people have contacted me to let me know that they are completely appalled by the piece and by the decision to publish it. i've been copied into various responses to the paper, and yes, i have to say that i had tears in my eyes as i've read some of the emails.
it's hard to describe how it feels to be the target of an attack like mr cox's, which on the surface appears to be supporting muslim women, but in substance lumps them in with the violence perpetrated against them. how to describe how awful it feels to be the subject of another's contempt, and such public contempt in a medium that reaches far and wide into the community of people with whom i must interact on a daily basis. how can i explain the powerlessness to know that mr cox has the freedom to regularly express himself in my local paper with little apparent restraint, while i will have to go to the editor and plead for that same privilege, and hope i am able to get it for just one week. how can i put across the rage and frustration, the turmoil inside me, when i read a perspective about me that is so patently untrue and falsely argued?
for me this stuff is triggering. not so much of violence against me but of the emotional devastation that i & my contemporaries lived through in the aftermath of 9/11, the bali bombings and the attacks in london. while feeling outrage and incredible sadness at the loss of innocent life and the destruction of property, i felt a real and present danger to my physical safety. there were days when i felt afraid to go outside of my own house, and only the fact that i needed to turn up to work in order to earn my pay forced me to crawl out from under the blankets. i felt ashamed to face the people i would come across that day, thinking that they would link me and my beliefs to these awful events overseas, because that was the primary narrative coming across various media outlets across the country.
i think the years between 2002 & 2004 were the worst, the most emotionally draining, the most terrifying. i was fortified at that time by a group of people who were determined to take action and work on changing the media narrative. i don't know that we were successful, but we tried in various ways: by making complaints (the most successful i remember were against radio nz for linda clark's series of interviews with jim vietch), by visiting media leaders and trying to explain the effect this kind of coverage was having on our community, by seeking spaces in the media to have our voices heard.
and to their credit, people in the media did respond. opinion pieces began to be published in major newspapers like the herald, the christchurch press, the sunday star times. we began to see the leadership of the muslim community being asked to comment on issues that related to the muslim community. there was more balance and less hate, more attempts at accuracy and less crass generalisation. not all the time, for sure. there was still a lot of crap. but certainly in the last few years, i have personally felt a little less like i belong to a community under siege.
it couldn't have happened without the support of some key people in the media. i'd like to name some of them now. simon collins of the herald has always been excellent and very supportive. ali ikram, formerly of tvnz but now with tv3, again opened doors for us and is always willing to engage. bryce johns, previously editor of the waikato times and now the editor of the herald on sunday, has never once turned me down when i've asked for an opinion piece to be published and was incredibly positive last year in covering the activities of young musim women in the waikato. the team at afternoons at radio nz were receptive when i contacted them many years ago, highlighting the lack of diversity on "the panel", and they allowed me to appear on that show. the team at pacific crews, who chose me to be the first person to appear on their "my God" series, and who have been incredibly supportive ever since. to willie jackson and the eye-to-eye team who gave me the chance to explain the effects of hate speech on one of their shows, and who were always so encouraging and supportive.
and russell brown, who was responsible for my first ever media appearance. i'd been following his blog regularly, and wrote to him with a link that i thought he might put up in one of his pieces. and for some unknown reason, i told this total stranger about my experiences of being part of the march up queen st by the muslim community, protesting against the danish cartoons. he ignored the link (probably a good idea in hindsight!), but put up my description of the march & the reasons why i joined it. which then lead to a call from tvnz and a request to appear on close up (to be interviewed by paul henry of all people). since then, russell has been supportive in various ways, including putting up guests posts from me, and today he has written in support of my complaint.
i've also had support from other organisations that has been incredibly important and dear to me. the people on the waikato interfaith council, every one of them with a heart of gold and actions to match. mervyn singham and the office of ethnic affairs, not just for the work they do in the community, but the active support they provided by organising media training and contact with key media people. the race relations commissioner, joris de bres, and a whole heap of amazing staff at the commission (and of course i have to especially mention you, rohan), who have always stepped in and helped us find solutions. the decisive actions taken by mr de bres after the publishing of the danish cartoons, in organising a mediation meeting with the editor of the dom post, is only one of a number of crucial acts that have helped eased the burden on myself and my community. today i have felt incredibly supported by mr de bres, and again that support brought tears to my eyes. ruth desouza, who set up the aotearoa ethnic network to provide connections and an ability for people in ethnic communities to share their concerns. and who works tirelessly through social media and her own professional career to fight discrimination in all its forms.
i know there are plenty of other people who deserve a mention and who i haven't managed to personally thank. but i do thank you, every one of you for each word of support, each act of solidarity, each gesture of friendship. today i feel so much less alone when an attack like this happens. while the hurt, the frustration, the triggering are all still there, i also know that there are whole groups of people that have my back and will not let me stand alone. i wish that i could do even half as much for all of you as you do for me.
so tomorrow i go to meet the editor of the waikato times. i'm incredibly nervous about this, to the point of being afraid. because the power lies with him and not with me. in the end, he gets the final say and i can only ask for fair treatment. i'm afraid that i won't have the right words to persuade him. but i'm also hopeful, because of all the positive responses i've received. i'm hopeful that he might also be one of those people who is prepared to listen and to understand. i'm hopeful that he will want a positive resolution to this particular issue just as much as i do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)