Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jun 2, 2019 7:43:56 GMT 12
Gisborne Herald 1/6/19
CONSULTATION AND EMPATHY SADLY LACKING
Attacking the messenger is an age-old response to a message one does not want to hear or understand.
I stand by everything I have said about the waste of money on the Cook Sestercentennial; the exclusion of the wider public, and the division it is causing.
But it is evident some writers to the paper do not bother to properly read what others say — they would rather spit out personal attacks.
For the record, I have always supported telling the history of the local tangata whenua.
The full facts of the Endeavour’s arrival here should and must be told. There should be no glossing or glorifying, but recognition — and acceptance that the events of the past cannot be judged by today’s standards.
It would seem some people want to hold bitterness and grudge to their heart, 250 years after the landing, in similar vein to longstanding vendettas such as the Montagues and Capulets in Romeo and Juliet, or the Hatfields and McCoys of America.
Tribalism, religious or racist separatism, or supremacism, has no place in the modern world.
I have as much right as anyone to be aggrieved at history — my forebears lost land and position to the Normans. In modern times dozens — yes, dozens — of Handfords died fighting in world wars . . . fighting for the freedoms of speech, thought and belief, freedom from racism and supremacism. I was the last of my line.
In New Zealand I have been attacked because of being white, even though I am not personally responsible for the wrongs of the past.
I repeat — I fully support Maori in their efforts to have their story told and have their rightful place in New Zealand.
But it can be achieved without denigrating others and without trampling on other people’s history, culture or goodwill.
Downright lies and inflammatory remarks about our shared history do not help.
Since the decision to build new council offices, the placement of the pou in Kelvin Park and so on, full public consultation and participation, along with a deeper empathy, have been sadly lacking.
The projects of the sestercentennial continue this grossly undemocratic behaviour.
ROGER HANDFORD
Gisborne Herald 29/5/19
BOUNDARIES OF HATE SPEECH
For some, there is a huge difference between the public statements made by Israel Folau and Tina Ngata — especially when judgements are being made on whether they push the boundaries of hate speech or not.
It obviously depends a lot on an individual’s political leanings and religious beliefs, because it is a revelation watching the hysterical left being very selective in the adjectives they use to describe the respective utterances.
On the one hand we have Ms Ngata knowingly telling lies about the historical James Cook’s tragic first encounter with the tangata whenua of this land. As a consequence, she must have gone well beyond what normal people are prepared to accept as a person’s right to free speech.
Yet it would appear that while her comments do border on incitement to violence, the left-wing media of this country have not lifted a finger to point this out. And Ms Ngata knows that as long as they continue to adopt a blind eye to her outrageous garbage, she can virtually say what she likes.
Unfortunately, not so Mr Folau whose crime was to say what he firmly believes to be true based on his religious convictions. Yet the media regard his testimony as having the potential to cause damage in the lives of those who are struggling with their own sexual identity.
For his trouble, Mr Folau has been cast as a character of criminal proportions, insensitive to the faiths of others which actually advocate punishments worse than death for misdemeanours less offensive than those on his list.
But that’s OK because his religion happens to be Christianity, which has long been the public whipping boy for the media — unlike others who we feel an obligation to defend, even in the knowledge that the teachings we are condoning are far more barbaric than those Mr Folau adheres to.
There is a rotten stench of hypocrisy when this topic is being discussed, which is made worse by the fact there appears to be no mood for change — at least not amongst those who administer the law governing these aspects of social conformity.
CLIVE BIBBY
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers
CONSULTATION AND EMPATHY SADLY LACKING
Attacking the messenger is an age-old response to a message one does not want to hear or understand.
I stand by everything I have said about the waste of money on the Cook Sestercentennial; the exclusion of the wider public, and the division it is causing.
But it is evident some writers to the paper do not bother to properly read what others say — they would rather spit out personal attacks.
For the record, I have always supported telling the history of the local tangata whenua.
The full facts of the Endeavour’s arrival here should and must be told. There should be no glossing or glorifying, but recognition — and acceptance that the events of the past cannot be judged by today’s standards.
It would seem some people want to hold bitterness and grudge to their heart, 250 years after the landing, in similar vein to longstanding vendettas such as the Montagues and Capulets in Romeo and Juliet, or the Hatfields and McCoys of America.
Tribalism, religious or racist separatism, or supremacism, has no place in the modern world.
I have as much right as anyone to be aggrieved at history — my forebears lost land and position to the Normans. In modern times dozens — yes, dozens — of Handfords died fighting in world wars . . . fighting for the freedoms of speech, thought and belief, freedom from racism and supremacism. I was the last of my line.
In New Zealand I have been attacked because of being white, even though I am not personally responsible for the wrongs of the past.
I repeat — I fully support Maori in their efforts to have their story told and have their rightful place in New Zealand.
But it can be achieved without denigrating others and without trampling on other people’s history, culture or goodwill.
Downright lies and inflammatory remarks about our shared history do not help.
Since the decision to build new council offices, the placement of the pou in Kelvin Park and so on, full public consultation and participation, along with a deeper empathy, have been sadly lacking.
The projects of the sestercentennial continue this grossly undemocratic behaviour.
ROGER HANDFORD
Gisborne Herald 29/5/19
BOUNDARIES OF HATE SPEECH
For some, there is a huge difference between the public statements made by Israel Folau and Tina Ngata — especially when judgements are being made on whether they push the boundaries of hate speech or not.
It obviously depends a lot on an individual’s political leanings and religious beliefs, because it is a revelation watching the hysterical left being very selective in the adjectives they use to describe the respective utterances.
On the one hand we have Ms Ngata knowingly telling lies about the historical James Cook’s tragic first encounter with the tangata whenua of this land. As a consequence, she must have gone well beyond what normal people are prepared to accept as a person’s right to free speech.
Yet it would appear that while her comments do border on incitement to violence, the left-wing media of this country have not lifted a finger to point this out. And Ms Ngata knows that as long as they continue to adopt a blind eye to her outrageous garbage, she can virtually say what she likes.
Unfortunately, not so Mr Folau whose crime was to say what he firmly believes to be true based on his religious convictions. Yet the media regard his testimony as having the potential to cause damage in the lives of those who are struggling with their own sexual identity.
For his trouble, Mr Folau has been cast as a character of criminal proportions, insensitive to the faiths of others which actually advocate punishments worse than death for misdemeanours less offensive than those on his list.
But that’s OK because his religion happens to be Christianity, which has long been the public whipping boy for the media — unlike others who we feel an obligation to defend, even in the knowledge that the teachings we are condoning are far more barbaric than those Mr Folau adheres to.
There is a rotten stench of hypocrisy when this topic is being discussed, which is made worse by the fact there appears to be no mood for change — at least not amongst those who administer the law governing these aspects of social conformity.
CLIVE BIBBY
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers