The Maori king has "respectfully requested that Pakehas mind their own business", and, pertinent to that plea, condemned "the ugliness of blogs". He's dead right on the latter point and correct in principle on the first, with one qualification.
A few months back I lashed out at him in this column with heavy-handed ridicule. I mocked his monarchy, considering as I do that all royalty is absurdly anachronistic, his no more or less than any other. But my libertarian view is if some people like it, then that's their business and only becomes mine if it affects me. The British monarchy, for example, I consider an enormous joke, meaningful to many women and "wets". That's enough reason for it if lots of people find pleasure in its existence. It has absolutely no power, other than nominally, albeit with the anomalous convention that it never actually exercises that authority. Thus the uproar, a source of great anger in Australia to this day, when their Governor General grossly abused that convention and sacked the Whitlam Government nearly four decades ago. That improper action spawned the now powerful Australian republican movement.
Returning to the Maori king, again I don't care if a Waikato tribe call him their king. To the contrary in fact as it provides an excellent source of mirth which is the best medicine for our wellbeing. Nevertheless, that's their business and certainly no-one else's, as he has correctly said. But the King made it everyone's affair when he organised a hui of 100-plus shysters to attempt to manipulate the legal system and pull off a grand larceny against the public. My response was no-holds barred, and to mix my metaphors, going from wrestling to boxing, I had no qualms about banging in some below-the-belt jibes. Despite that the King's condemnation of some blogs for their "twisting and misrepresentation of my words, their use of false names and anonymous websites to hurl abuse" should have everyone's sympathy. It's now a major issue worldwide, only last week tackled at a United Nations-organised conference in Dubai, attended by 150 governments, including New Zealand, to discuss the future governance of the internet.
The unregulated internet makes a mockery of libel laws, of copyright and many other worthwhile aspects of our established legal system. The Assange and Dotcom sagas are copyright examples while courts worldwide are struggling with libel liability issues for outrageous website comments.
This column attracts dozens of anonymous website responses, some which astonish me, to cite the Maori king, with their "twisting and misrepresenting of my words". Until a few decades back newspapers published letters from "concerned mother" and such-like before changing the rules and demanding correspondents supply names and addresses. This led to a higher standard of letters although they can still unwittingly demonstrate the writer's ignorance, stupidity and prejudices.
