Editorial: Show nation leadership, not prejudice

Hone Harawira. Photo / Mark Mitchell

How accepting people of different ethnicities are of each other is an acid test of race relations.

Those Pakeha with a healthy outlook have no qualms about being treated by a doctor of Sri Lankan origin or having their children taught by a Pacific Islander. Intermarriage is viewed in a similarly tolerant light.

Maori with the same outlook tread the same path. And therein lies the concern over Hone Harawira's latest outburst.

Asked how he would feel if one of his seven children came home with a Pakeha, the Maori Party MP replied: "I wouldn't feel comfortable. Like all Pakehas would be happy with their daughter coming home with a Maori boy - and the answer is they wouldn't."

Mr Harawira went on to say he had no issue with his family dating Pacific Islanders, conceded this difference of attitude probably indicated prejudice, and then asked how many people did not have prejudices.

He might have half a point there. Many parents would still do a double take if their child appeared with a date of different ethnicity.

But Mr Harawira is hardly in a position to know that all Pakeha think the same way as he does. Most, and in increasing numbers, do not. Rather, they tend to believe, like the Prime Minister, that the happiness of their children comes first.

Mr Harawira was equally off the mark when he wondered why people complained to the Race Relations Commissioner about his derogatory remarks about Pakeha late last year "but say nothing about Andy Haden".

In fact, the former All Black's claim that the Crusaders rugby franchise had race-based selection policies, which restricted recruiting to only three "darkies", drew a storm of protest.

Mr Haden just held on to his role as a Rugby World Cup ambassador. Subsequent inappropriate comments about rape left him little option but to resign.

In a similar vein, Mr Harawira must surely remember the furore and complaints to the commissioner that followed broadcaster Paul Holmes describing the then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan as a "cheeky darkie".

If anything gives a smidgen of credence to Mr Harawira's view of the "reality of the world we live in", it is the argument mounted by many who complain about him the loudest. They like to point out that a Pakeha politician who spoke the same way about a minority race would not be granted so much leeway.

But a majority race is never threatened by statements of racial degradation in the same manner as a minority. The words do not carry the same menace. Trying to argue that racism should carry the same force both ways ignores the realities of society and suggests an unhealthy attitude.

The emphasis placed on a statement should always reflect the importance of its author. Respect for Mr Harawira dwindled last year with the disclosure of his obscene email to former Waitangi Tribunal director Buddy Mikaere.

In the wake of that, he said that he wanted to begin bridge-building. In no way, however, could his latest contemptuous comments be considered helpful to race relations.

As much as he may be well respected in his Te Tai Tokerau electorate, there will be a further erosion of his national standing. That cannot be helpful in garnering support for the likes of his campaign against smoking.

A letter-writer to the Herald this week observed that the late Sir Keith Sinclair, when head of the University of Auckland's history department, reckoned the test for racism was whether an individual or society accepted intermarriage between races. That seems a reasonable yardstick.

Since the early days of European settlement, Maori and Pakeha have passed the test. Mr Harawira might recognise as much, and that MPs have a responsibility to provide leadership, not prejudice.