Is anyone permitted to comment on Whittaker's Creamy Milk block with a te reo label, or only those who express support? Photo / Supplied
OPINION
It appears the chips are down for a manager at Bluebird Foods, who was recently called out for a social media post, apparently sent in personal time, which said in robust terms that te reo is overused in official communications. Predictably various sources declaimed long and loud that the sentiment was offensive and Bluebird showed the person the door.
The story raises two very troubling issues: first the modern assumption that there are certain topics that can’t be openly debated with different points of view and secondly, that employers can police it, even when their employees are off duty.
Undoubtedly te reo figures much more prominently in national life than it used to, even just a few years ago. This may well be a good thing. Many see widespread te reo as empowering Māori and a cultural treasure unique to our country. It is our Bayeux tapestry, our Elgin marbles.
Others feel that undue emphasis limits communication, as most of us do not speak it. In a country where English is the most effective way of communicating with most people, it is legitimate to ask whether the current trend of substituting English with te reo rightly balances interests.
Many will see both perspectives as reasonably arguable and that a polite and mutually respectful exchange is the only way to deal with them. This is as it should be. We all have to rub along with each other and deal with radically different views on the way the world should be run. Successful societies allow different voices to be heard. No one has a monopoly on the truth and the only way forward is to draw from different perspectives. Not only does this work better for the common good than censorship, it respects the right citizens have to express themselves, for their personal worth and dignity, even when they do not wind up convincing the majority.
The manager’s post also said that Māori was a minority language. This has what lawyers call the justification of truth – since it is uncontentious that a minority of the population speak te reo.
An employment lawyer has been quoted as saying that employers could investigate contentious social media posts. That – in a free-speech-valuing democracy - is deeply concerning. If there is one thing employers should emphatically keep their noses out of, it is personal opinions. It is one thing to express a controversial opinion when carrying out employment duties. Employers can reasonably say they do not want to be associated with controversy when their mission is to sell potato chips. It is quite another to bind employees to politically proscribed correctness when they are off duty. No employer owns the private thoughts of the people they employ, or their right to take part in forums where opinions are debated.
The story is a good example of the modern and insidious penchant for shrill and aggressive voices to jump on any opinion that does not accord with their personal perspective. Expressing a view on how far official sources should embrace te reo, even a blunt one, is legitimate in an open society and the only remedy required is equal access for those with different perspectives.
In many circles, abusive terms like “racist” are automatically applied to any opinion that differs from establishment-left sensibilities. Try opining (as many credible experts do) that the Treaty created something different from a partnership, that colonisation brought benefits as well as costs, or that the health system is not responsible for ethnic differences in health outcomes. These are all eminently reasonable opinions with evidence behind them, as are the alternatives, but they are now unsayable in many environments, where intellectual rigour and diverse opinions are not encouraged. Like Twitter, for instance. Or a university.
It is bad enough that this practice stigmatises reasonable perspectives. Worse, it undermines the philosophy it purports to espouse. Real racism is vile abuse or lesser treatment because of a racial difference. Victims can be deeply affected. But few such victims would be uplifted to have their experience compared to the faux offence taken by the “twitterati”.
Using the term “racist” intemperately debases the currency and misstates the truth, yet the tactic is widely used. Call something “racist”, “sexist”, “transphobic” or bad for the environment, and your opponent is automatically at a disadvantage. There is no need to trouble the exchange with evidence or logic. For doctrinaire left-wing audiences, it is a king hit.
The issue is why those who should be analytically competent fall for this so often. Using these terms is usually a signal that the person deploying them has lost the argument. They are a substitute for reason. We are overdue to start acknowledging that.
Roderick Mulgan is a criminal defence lawyer, medical doctor and author.