Editorial: Dr Mapp's exercise in sentiment

Opinion

Political correctness, says Wayne Mapp, runs counter to the basic freedoms of society. If so, who could argue with National appointing him to eradicate this plague from the face of the Earth. Regrettably, however, the party is guilty of exactly the sort of zealotry that has given political correctness a bad name. Its over-reaction to an overreaction is one that smacks of farce and fogeyism in equal measure.

Dr Mapp defines political correctness as a set of attitudes and beliefs that are divorced from mainstream values. Yet there has long been broad agreement over the subjects usually at the centre of claims of a PC culture - race, gender and sexual orientation. Whatever our occasional individual exasperation, we accept that discrimination on these grounds is wrong, and that vulnerable minority groups may warrant special protection. That is mainstream thinking.

Where the advocates of political correctness have erred is in their earnestness. They frown on the foibles of human nature, and are loath to accept any breach of propriety or manners. Any slippage is pounced on out of an irrational fear that it could lead to a return to the bad old days. In sum, they have cultivated an atmosphere bordering on oppressive. One that does not encourage questioning.

The reaction was once encapsulated by the laddish humour of the Tui billboards. Now it has ballooned to Dr Mapp's appointment. This could be dismissed as inconsequential were it not for some of his pronouncements. Worryingly, his prescription for allowing people to speak their minds on issues of race, gender and homosexuality seems, in an ironic twist, to involve curbing the voice of those best placed to advocate respect for, and protection of, minorities.

Dr Mapp is particularly agitated by that role being performed by the likes of the Human Rights Commission, the Waitangi Tribunal and the Privacy Commissioner. They are, he says, symptomatic of a PC culture that has ceased "to represent the interests of the majority and become focused on the cares and concerns of minority sector groups". This rather overlooks the fact that those bodies were established precisely because mainstream thinking identified minority groups requiring added protection.

Dr Mapp does not want such agencies to be able to advocate policy. Yet if such were the case, it would stifle debate by denying the input of people with considerable expertise in their respective fields. It would be rather like telling the Securities Commission, for example, that, despite its work investigating insider trading, it should not be advising governments on solutions to the problem.

A leavening of excessive political correctness is, in fact, already taking place. As much was demonstrated when a parliamentary select committee this year bailed out of an investigation into a law against hate speech. Whatever the logic behind such legislation, the tenor of submissions convinced the committee this would be a bridge too far. Similarly, it has been left to the Greens to grasp the nettle of anti-smacking legislation.

National, however, has been thinking on a far vaguer plane. Dr Mapp has already made that obvious. When questioned on specifics, he has tripped up. With good reason. Railing against political correctness is an exercise in sentiment, not fact. It is all about gaining a measure of levity, not rejecting the tenets of modern society.

Securing that bit of slack will be Dr Mapp's lot. He should forget about changing the role of the Human Rights Commission. To him falls the job of pointing out the more absurd consequences of political correctness. And the responsibility for saving us from the worst excesses of the style, if not the substance, of its message.