28 LISTENER FEBRUARY 29 2020
has an 18-year-old son whom she has
co-parented with the boy’s father. At dif-
ferent times, both Jones and Maihi were
moved to tears as they gave evidence.
And in the end, five days into a case that
had been set down for two weeks, both
agreed to the matter being called off.
The abrupt ending removed the court’s
responsibility to rule on the defamation
charge, but also its opportunity to pro-
vide guidance on what, in 2020, counts
as racism.
HUMORIST, SATIRIST, COMIC WRITER
Opening the trial before Justice Susan
Thomas, Jones’ counsel, Fletcher
Pilditch, said Jones felt he had been
defamed by Maihi calling him a racist,
and by her saying that he was the author
of hate speech and unfit to hold the
rank of Knight Bachelor. Jones was a noted
humorist, satirist or comic writer, Pilditch
said. His published works spanned more
than 50 years.
“He is also a libertarian. He believes in
freedom of choice and responsibility for
those choices. His beliefs can perhaps be
best described by the principle of live and let
live. These themes run consistently through
his published work.”
A key issue at trial would be whether the
natural and ordinary meanings of the words
used by the defendant “are that the plaintiff
is a racist, or that the plaintiff’s article con-
tains racist comments”.
Pilditch said the plain and ordinary read-
ing of the words “Strip racist ‘Sir’ Bob Jones
of his Knighthood” were a clear and unam-
biguous personal attack. “That is further
borne out by the purpose of the petition, to
strip the plaintiff of a knighthood bestowed
on him more than 30 years ago.”
Pilditch said hate speech was topical
but hate-speech laws were not intended to
protect people from offence, or to suppress
ideas. “The aim was to punish the incite-
ment of hate in other individuals. The bar
for classifying hate speech, both nationally
and internationally, is very high, as is the
bar for identifying someone as a racist. It is
much higher than simply commenting on
historical or current cultural issues.”
In court, Jones had no compunction in
outlining how irate and upset he was by
what he frequently called “a campaign” that
Maihi had run against him after his column
appeared in NBR. He was not a racist, he
said. “I’ve put an enormous amount of effort
into trying to help Māoridom and that’s
why I’m very incensed to be sitting here
now, over this,” he told Maihi’s counsel,
Davey Salmon.
At the time of the trial, the petition was
still on change.org, although it had been
twice rejected by Parliament. It was removed
from the site as part of the agreement on the
fifth day of the trial to end the proceedings.
By then, four witnesses, Victoria Universityof Wellington emeritus professor of poli-
tics Dame Margaret Clark, gym owner and
Jones’ regular tennis partner Ryan Wall,
author Alan Duff and New Zealand First
leader Winston Peters’ chief of staff, Jon
Johansson, had given character evidence
on Jones’ behalf. All said he was not a racist.
For her part, Maihi described how upset
she was by Jones’ column. She recognised
racism when she saw it, she told the court.
She had grown up with it. Her mother’s
Pākehā partner had created an abusive
home life; she had been racially taunted
at the local swimming pool in Auckland’s
Manurewa as a child; her son had been the
victim of racism and she saw her petition “aspart of a mother’s duty of protection”.
Racism was a dangerous and potentially
damaging mindset. “To my mind, hate
speech and racist speech are one and
the same.”JONES ON THE STAND
Because the trial ended before Maihi was
cross-examined, or had called witnesses
in her defence, it was dominated by the
case for Jones. At one point, he started
to break down when describing his first
visit to a women’s refuge. He had been
taken to one, before there was a national
refuge movement, by a woman who had
hoped he might financially support the
refuge that she had helped establish in
Wellington’s Hutt Valley. Most of the
women at the house were Māori. A
small boy, aged about three, had dived
under a table on seeing Jones visit. The boy,
it seemed, was terrified of men. “It was so
upsetting,” Jones said, his voice breaking. He
became a committed supporter of the refuge
movement, donating to it, fundraising for
it and serving on its boards for many years.
Jones was also at times an irascible wit-
ness, sparring constantly with Salmon in
lengthy exchanges and unwavering in his
assertions that colonialism and, in particu-
lar, breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, were
not a cause of socio-economic disadvantage
among contemporary Māori. It was more
likely welfarism was to blame, and charac-
teristics particular to disadvantaged Māori.
Everyone had choices about how they lived
their lives, he said. It was a fact that there
were no full-blooded Māori left.
He was asked about suggesting in his NBR
column that he didn’t want his children,
“wasting their education on a dying lan-
guage now confined to hobbyists”.
“Are you aware of any extent to which a
number of Māori might find that a hurtful
or offensive comment?” Salmon said.
“Oh, God. I walk down the street – some
people find it offensive,” Jones responded.
“That’s an absurd proposition to put to me.
Taking offence at everything is a modern-
day phenomena.”
Jones insisted te reo Māori was dying. “It’s
not a [disputed] matter of fact. The Gov-
ernment made an announcement last week
that they’re making no progress. I’m pleased
to hear it.”
Salmon said a number of Māori did not
consider the language to be dying, nor that
it should be allowed to die. “You’d agree
with that?”JONES v MAIHI
At different times, both
Jones and Maihi weremoved to tears as they
gave evidence. And in
the end, five days into acase that had been set
down for two weeks,both agreed to the
matter being called off.