Kerry Butler
No Minister
In my previous article about biased (one-eyed) editors, I focused on how a letter discussing things regarding Māori that might in any way be considered even slightly ‘controversial’ will likely be rejected.
As a follow-up to that, I will now discuss the matter of how, if a letter to an editor refers to unfavourable facts regarding non-Māori, that’s generally somehow deemed acceptable.
But firstly, I must point out that what I hadn’t mentioned about letters regarding Māori issues being declined, is that this is invariably due to the possibility of a back-lash, with the inevitable cry of ‘racism’ which is now so often used as a ‘control’ mechanism.
Meaning, by utilising the tactical threat of accusing someone of being ‘racist’ as a weapon to prevent the truth from being revealed, is what really is racist.
Because, if preventing non-Māori from speaking up for themselves, due to being restricted by the media’s fear of the accusation of racism, that is a racist tactic which only Māori are allowed to get away with.
So it’s a one-way street, because, as I say, if a letter to an editor (whether written by Māori or liberal Māori sympathisers) that is of a reverse scenario, i.e., relates to matters showing non-Māori in a bad light, that letter will likely be acceptable.
Whereas, any letter discussing Māori issues will only ever be considered for publication if the matter has already been openly aired as a news item.
Otherwise, it is strictly taboo.
In one case, a well known and respected political commentator sent a letter to the editor of a regional newspaper, raising concerns about the frequent label of ‘racism’ being applied to people like him who were calling for equality of citizenship. The editor replied promptly that he would publish it. But a day later he phoned to say that the letter would not be published, as he had been instructed to refer any such material (on race issues) higher up the organisation’s chain of control for vetting.
This establishes a censorship system that removes the choice from an editor to the upper hierarchy and/or owners of the media group, thus destroying any semblance of editorial independence and freedom of the press.
So, it would seem that this dictatorial ‘control’ (censorship) is enforced simply because things involving Māori are sacrosanct, especially facts that happen to be at all unfavourable regarding them, which absolutely must be suppressed.
Even despite outrageous statements such as Rawiri Waititi’s claim, quote: “When we say Māori are genetically superior that is acceptable, because after years of colonial violence on our people, why can’t we be proud of our genetics.”
If a non-Māori, for any reason, claimed genetic superiority of any sort, then all hell would break loose.
Then there was the Māori woman who, when being interviewed on National Radio, was asked whether she would be happy for her children to marry Pākehā. This self-opinionated woman replied, quote: “It would certainly not be acceptable, because Māori bloodlines must be kept pure.”
So, people such as her have free reign to say such disgraceful things.
Although, it must be a struggle for these bigots having to despise themselves for the fact that the majority of their genetic makeup is non-Māori.
An example of racial xenophobia was seen in 1993, when Ranginui Walker denounced immigration as, quote, “An Asian invasion that would increase crime.”
And in 2017, Hone Harawira called for the death penalty to be reinstated for “Chinese drug dealers”. (I wonder if he sees an irony in that solution being aimed at only one lot of drug dealers.)
Then in 2023, Marama Davidson said, quote: “It is white cis men who cause violence”.
Aside from the irony involved, that is a racist statement.
And yet, if non-Māori wish to object to what they consider racism directed at them, by enacting their right of free speech via a letter to the editor, it is automatically rejected.
Whilst media outlets do have that right, it could nevertheless be described as ‘selective social monitoring’ by them, because by being discriminatory there is a glaringly obvious tendency to encourage favouritism towards one race (Māori), to the disadvantage of all others.
Such hypocrites need to have a good think about their selective prejudice, because they leave themselves open to being judged as racist by default.
This article was originally published by No Minister.
