Editorial: Best sanction for racist cop is public censure

Opinion

Court correct to discharge but she must face bosses

The case of Jeanette McNee, the Queenstown policewoman found guilty of offensive language against a taxi driver but discharged without conviction, should not be taken to excuse "hate speech".

McNee swore and used racial slurs against Ganesh Paramanathan after a dispute over a cab fare. She grabbed his wrist as he pointed his finger at her in response. She was a bully and a disgrace to her job but none of this took her, or the country, into the realm of hate speech as defined internationally.

As bad as it was, her drunken ranting did not incite violence or hatred against the driver or his ethnic group, did not provoke a risk of violent backlash, did not publicly meet the serious thresholds debated internationally that take abuse to the most dangerous level.

She was prosecuted for offensive language, a charge carrying a maximum $1000 fine. In many circumstances even deciding to charge her would have been a line call for the police. This kind of thing, unfortunately, is not uncommon. Abusive words and the profanities of the drunk and drugged, as she admitted to being, are a downside of a free society.

Mr Paramanathan felt personally violated and rightly complained to the police at his treatment, especially given his passenger's occupation. The police probably made the right decision to put the matter before the courts as the intensity of abuse, targeting the driver's ethnic origins and laced with foul language, needed exposure through a public forum. And in the end, the court was correct in finding her guilty of offensive language and discharging her without conviction.

Judge Tony Couch concluded the shame and public judgment endured by McNee had been sufficient sanction and the effect of a conviction on her future would be out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. He said the low maximum fine reflected the seriousness Parliament had put on such an offence.

Important issues arose in the case. For the police, evidence one of their number could say -- and probably believe -- the things McNee said of Mr Paramanathan is intolerable. Police officers must be seen to treat all members of the public, all groups, without fear or favour. For McNee to have told the driver to "f*** off to India" and accuse him of taking a Kiwi's job exposed an ugly personal bias that no policewoman or man should hold.

She has been on leave without pay and is now facing an employment process in which the police will need to discipline her, in a way the court likely anticipated. Even without the finding of guilt by the court, it was incumbent on the police to pursue Mr Paramanathan's complaint vigorously. It is untenable for her to remain in the force, even with the benefit of a belated apology to the driver after the court case. Off-duty police officers need to be above reproach. If she indeed told him "I am the police" when he said he would call for help, then her fate is sealed.

The case also highlighted the perils of one-on-one racist comments and casual profanity on a night out gone wrong. Many following the details of McNee's dispute and loss of control would recognise the risks and consequences. The best sanction for her kind of behaviour is society's clear disapproval. Isolating those who would denigrate others by their race or gender, sexuality or age will ultimately drive changes in their behaviour.

People serving the public need to be protected from sustained personal attacks like this. The McNee case showed the law can be invoked as a lesson and as a sanction. Public judgment on the perpetrators is stronger still and will always be more effective.