FEBRUARY 29 2020 LISTENER 31
excuses.
DS: I’m just asking whether you know
enough of New Zealand, of the Gov-
ernment’s public policies, and of recent
jurisprudence to know that your position
there is a controversial one?
RJ: No, it’s not a controversial one. I knowpoliticians better than you and I know what
motivates them when it comes to this sort
of thing – the critical Māori seats, which are
the things that have been actively fought
over once Labour lost them for the first time.
DS: All right. And where you’ve said that
rather than make kids learn the language
- to those Māori still alive, some of them
here, who were strapped for speaking Māori
at school, do you think that that would be
a controversial thing to say? That there’s
nothing in learning to speak Māori, because
it’s dying?
RJ: You’re talking about the past – the
strapping in schools. We’re talking about
now.
DS: But now we have people with that
living memory. As to why Māori is spoken –
RJ: I got strapped every day at school. Lit-
erally. I don’t carry it with me for the rest of
my life. You get on with life.
DS: I’m not suggesting anything about
that. I’m saying, do you regard the fact that
children were prevented, for example, from
speaking te reo at school ...
RJ: I accept it’s true, but to say that gen-
erations later they’re still reeling from the
impact and therefore going out committing
crimes, etc ...
DS: I’m not saying that, Sir Robert ...
RJ: Well, I’m sorry, that is what you’resaying.
ST
UF
FDS: Then you’re not listening to my
questions.
Justice Thomas: No, that’s not what Mr
Salmon said.
DS: I’m putting to you that those are
examples of the types of people who would
find what you say contentious, and possibly
hurtful. Do you accept that, or not?
RJ: I don’t believe that. I’d be happy to
argue with any intelligent Māori on the
Treaty of Waitangi being redundant.FREE TO CALL OUT RACISM
Opening the case for the defence, Salmon
said that although the case concerned a
private law claim in defamation, “it raises
issues of significant public importance about
freedom of speech and in particular the free-
dom of Māori and other racialised groups
to name and respond to racism, prejudice,
discrimination and antagonism, as those
terms are properly understood today”.
There was no question, Salmon argued,
that Jones was free to express his views about
Māori in the NBR column. However, Jones’
argument was that Maihi was not free torespond to his views, and to express her opin-
ion that those views were racist and a type of
hate speech. Such an outcome, Salmon said,
would not just deny the defendant’s freedom
of expression, “it would also risk dangerously
curtailing the ability of racialised groups, and
the community as a whole, to discuss and
address racism.
“The plaintiff and Pākehā would be
free to attack Māori and other racialised
groups, or use pejorative or discriminatory
language about them, but those racialised
groups would be hamstrung in their ability
to respond.”
Salmon said Maihi did not accept that she
had damaged Jones’ reputation, “because
his reputation was generally bad in the
aspect to which the proceedings relate, on
account of his publicly expressed views on
Māori and other ethnic groups”.
She relied on four affirmative defences to
defamation: honest opinion, truth, respon-
sible communication on a matter of public
interest and qualified privilege.
Salmon said Maihi would call witnesses
including Treaty lawyer Moana Jackson,
psychologist Raymond Nairn, interna-
tional human-rights expert Kris Gledhill,
and media-studies expert Nicholas Holm.A “SENSIBLE” END TO PROCEEDINGS
Before she had a chance to do that, Jones
discontinued the proceedings.
“I filed these proceedings because I was
deeply offended by Ms Maihi’s allegations,”
Jones said in a statement issued after the case
was abandoned.
“I am not a racist. I now accept, however,
Ms Maihi’s offence taking was a sincerely
held opinion. The parties may never align
on what is acceptable humour, however,
no malice was intended by either, thus it
is sensible to put an end to proceedings.”
Maihi welcomed Jones’ move.
“This has always been about highlighting
the harm and impact that racist language
has, both now and historically,” she said
in a statement. “It is important for us all
to remember that language and articles of
this nature, whether intentional or not, can
and do cause hurt. It is important, too, that
those on the receiving end of racism have an
opportunity to express their feelings.
“While I and many others disagree
strongly with the language Sir Robert has
used about Māori, we can disagree with him
without being rude about him as a person. I
ask people to keep this in mind when post-
ing on social media.” l“I am not a racist. I
now accept, however,Ms Maihi’s offence taking
was a sincerely heldopinion. The parties
may never align on what
is acceptable humour,however, no malice was
intended by either.”