The Otago Daily Times has apologised "if some readers were offended" – which is exactly what you say when you're not sorry.
"The Otago Daily Times' Opinion pages are an independent forum for a wide variety of views," editor Barry Stewart said. "This newspaper often disagrees with the views expressed, sometimes vehemently. But we value freedom of speech and the strength of a society to debate these issues."
So, a classic non-apology which puts the whole sorry saga down to "freedom of speech". Too simple? I think it is.
Am I overstating it to call it hate speech? Hate speech is language that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. I think it fits the bill.
Surely there's got to be a limit to the principle of free speech when what's being expressed is harmful to certain groups. Or does the principle of free speech – hate-filled or not – trump all?
Well, as an opinion writer myself, I'm firmly of the view that free speech is a cornerstone of democracy. Absolutely. But I struggle with what basically amounts to gratuitous hate speech passed off as worthy discourse. It isn't.
It feels like a cheap shot at inviting social media outrage, which in turn means more clicks on the offending piece by people who are curious to see what's causing such wrath. The media knows this. Why change a good thing?
Maybe, if your media platform is consistently seen to be enabling hate speech, it's nothing short of complicity? Sure, the platform is not actually saying the offending words, but they're handing over the microphone, that they plugged in, to the very people who do say the words. Loudly.
It's the same defence Twitter and Facebook sometimes use to defend non-action on ridding Nazis, white supremacists, women haters and other vile members of the human race from their platforms. Plus, there's the First Amendment. Freedom of speech runs deep in the US psyche – particularly among media and journalists - as it should.
But so does the Second Amendment. Which is the go-to default for explaining away endless mass shootings carried out with automatic weapons. Anyone with a brain knows it's no longer fit for purpose in a modern world. It was written when they basically used muskets and flintlock pistols, for God's sake. It's become a sick joke.
Hate speech in New Zealand remains largely unenforced. It is prohibited under the Human Rights Act 1993, and Dame Susan Devoy this year called for politicians and others to address the problem, saying: "We need people at the very top to take some leadership on this."
And I agree. I also know it's fraught and complicated, and some academics at universities worry about robust debate being curtailed; believing freedom of expression to be sacrosanct.
But surely New Zealanders have the intellectual heft to solve it? Columns like Witherow's will continue to appear with monotonous regularity, and hurt whole sectors of society in the process. It is deeply divisive rhetoric, and the media knows it. But divisive sells.
And I'm not suggesting that Witherow (and his ilk) be locked up for his hate speech. But I am suggesting that – and maybe I'm being naive, given the financial constraints on journalism these days – any editor worth their ethical salt would have rejected it.
I'd like to think that part of an editor's job is to guide their contributors gently towards the light, not run full-tilt together holding hands, into the dark.
