Editorial: A point that de Bres ought to explain

Opinion

Hone Harawira now has bigger problems than the email that brought a record number of complaints to the Race Relations Commissioner this week. And the Maori Party obviously has many more reasons for taking steps to cast him out. But the complaints, 365 in five days, nearly as many as the commissioner received in all of last year, raise a wider issue.

Nothing fills the commissioner's mailbag quite as fast as a Maori's derogatory reference to the majority race in this country. Indignation fills the airwaves, not because callers say they have been personally hurt but because they know that if a white person spoke the same way about a minority race there would be trouble.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, they say, one law for all. Their complaint has a political purpose, not a protective one. Their well-being is not threatened in the same way that the well-being of a minority can be threatened by the language of racial antagonism. Mr Harawira's language was obscene and sounded hateful, though he says he does not hate. Any harm such comments can do depends on who makes them. Possibly some of those who have complained to the Race Relations Commissioner knew nothing of Te Tai Tokerau's MP and were genuinely surprised to hear filth from a member of Parliament.

But Mr Harawira's pedigree in protest is well known. If a respected Maori figure had spoken this way, there would be cause for concern. The real damage Mr Harawira has done is to his own people.

In response to his single careless message, the Maori Party has received hundreds of emails complaining about his comments. Co-leader Tariana Turia describes some of those as "equally racist and abusive". It was distressing, she said, "to find our relationships with the public are particularly fragile".

They are fragile in large part because the word racism is widely, and perhaps wilfully, misunderstood. To those of the politically dominant race, it simply means a racial slur. To those of a minority, it means that and much more. It covers the discrimination, exclusion and deprivations they can suffer unless the law takes care to protect them.

To social policymakers, racism is inseparable from political power. Racial discrimination does real harm when it is practised by members of a race with power, usually a democratic majority. When discrimination favours a minority, to preserve its identity perhaps, or boost its educational enrolments, it does no real harm and probably some good. It is time politicians explained this distinction, even if it will never be popular. Those of the majority race who claim to be injured by Mr Harawira's remarks can use the avenue of complaint to argue that racism operates both ways, perhaps to feel better about their own attitudes. Or perhaps to nullify the force of complaints from minorities. The latter would be definitively racist.

The commissioner, Joris de Bres, initially rebuffed demands that he investigate the Harawira email, saying the MP was exercising his freedom of opinion. It is true that he would not have said that about a Pakeha MP using abusive language about Maori. He ought to explain the difference. The pride and place of a minority in any society ultimately depend on the laws supported by a majority. Not so in reverse. Instead of prolonging the Harawira pantomime, the commissioner should tell complainants what racism really is, and save his time and our money.