Once again Paul Holmes has provided an article of pure unimaginative bullshit that deserves all the contempt people can muster. I presume he wrote the piece of trash while in an alcoholic infused stupor, thus breaking the first rule of journalism... don't write when your wasted.But there's really no excuse for such shoddy reporting. Obviously Paul Holmes' vitriolic diatribe of unadulterated drivel should never have got past the NZ Herald editor, who I presume shares many of the senile old fools bigotries.
Although there's probably little point in complaining, being that the Human Rights Commission is toothless and the Press Council have chosen to ignore my last two complaints about the NBR's biased reporting and NZ Herald inaccuracies... here goes anyway:
By email: tim.murphy@nzherald.co.nz
Re: Formal complaint - Paul Holmes
Dear Tim Murphy,
I write to lay a formal complaint concerning an article written by Paul Holmes entitled 'Waitangi Day a complete waste' that appeared on the NZ Herald website 11 Feburary 2012.
1. Paul Holmes makes gross generalisations about the protesters on Waitangi Day saying they are “hateful, hate-fuelled weirdos who seem to exist in a perfect world of benefit provision”. This is an affront to the many people who were protesting about deep sea oil drilling and other matters and who are in full time employment. The statement is discriminatory and inaccurate.
2. Paul Holmes states that the people protesting “believe that New Zealand is the centre of the world, no one has to have a job and the Treaty is all that matters”. However this is clearly not the reality of the situation as many of the protesters have jobs. Such a gross generalisation to try and besmirch their characters is unjustified and unfair.
3. Paul Holmes states that he woke up on Waitangi Day knowing the news would show “irrational Maori ghastliness with spitting, smugness, self-righteousness and the usual neurotic Maori politics, in which some bizarre new wrong we've never thought about will be lying on the table”. The people were not protesting about things that were previously unknown. They were protesting about things that have been well documented in the news already. Paul Holmes' ignorant semantics are clearly designed to create a falsehood in the mind of the reader.
4. Paul Holmes states; “it's a bullshit day, Waitangi. It's a day of lies. It is loony Maori fringe self-denial day. It's a day when everything is addressed, except the real stuff”. This is clearly an opinion and holds no relevance to what many people feel Waitangi Day stands for. The article in question is undoubtedly in breach of principle 4 of New Zealand’s ethical journalism standards because it is not clearly labelled as an opinion piece. Paul Holmes states that only loony Maori support Waitangi Day. He is therefore unfairly disregarding the many thousands of people who are not of Maori lineage who support a day in history when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. Paul Holmes is also discriminating against Maori that do support Waitangi Day by insulting their mental health.
5. Paul Holmes states; “Never mind the child stats, never mind the national truancy stats, never mind the hopeless failure of Maori to educate their children and stop them bashing their babies. No, it's all the Pakeha's fault. It's all about hating whitey. Believe me, that's what it looked like the other day”. There was no anti white sentiment shown by the protesters. Therefore Paul Holmes is being misleading in his gross generalisation that once again is designed to besmirch the character of Maori. Paul Holmes is unfairly trying to stigmatize a race of people because of the actions of a few. It is unlawful to discriminate against a group of people on account of their race.
6. Paul Holmes states that he would not “take my Uncle Ken who died in a Wellington bomber, then try and tell him Waitangi Day was anything but filth”. Again this is an opinion with added emotional context to try and besmirch not only the belief many hold in Waitangi Day, but the day itself. This is not only divisive in a wider context; it damages the good name of the many Maori who fought bravely to defend New Zealand’s liberty. It is also damaging to New Zealand’s credibility on an international scale. Waitangi Day is not filth just because a group of people chose to voice their concerns about governmental decisions in the form of protest, which they are legally entitled to do.
7. Paul Holmes states; “No, if Maori want Waitangi Day for themselves, let them have it”. There has been no argument by Maori that they want Waitangi Day for themselves. Paul Holmes is misleading the reader with his inaccuracies.
8. Paul Holmes states; “Let them go and raid a bit more kai moana than they need for the big, and feed themselves silly.” Again Paul Holmes is generalizing that all Maori are taking more than they require and this is making (them all) big. Not only does this statement discriminate against those Maori who do have weight control issues, in that he is implying they are breaching quota restrictions on kai moana, Paul Holmes is trying to besmirch the character of all Maori. His statement is both bigoted against people with weight control issues and racist against Maori in general.
9. Paul Holmes states; “speak of the injustices heaped upon them by the greedy Pakeha and work out new ways of bamboozling the Pakeha to come up with a few more millions”. Clearly Paul Holmes is showing his ignorance of the treaty claims process. He has used his ignorance to again try and besmirch the character of Maori people. Paul Holmes is being unfair and inaccurate.
10. Paul Holmes sates; “The second looniest are the anti-fluoride crowd. But leave them aside for today”. People who believe in Maori sovereignty and that fluoride could be bad for people’s health are not loony. This is once again a gross generalization by Paul Holmes based on his ignorance. By allowing such divisive ignorance to be published, you have breached a number of human rights and ethical journalistic principles.
11. Paul Holmes states; “The looniest crowd in this country, the most irrational and bullying are La Leche, the breast feeding fascists who've become involved in the most bizarre controversy I can remember. Breast feeding is all they think about.” People who believe breast-feeding their babies is better than bottle-feeding are not fascists. Paul Holmes' grossly generalized statement discriminates against people who prefer breast-feeding. Obviously breast feeding is not all that people involved in La Leche think about. Paul holmes' statement is inaccurate and discriminates on account of peoples belief.
12. Paul Holmes states; “So now Syria will grind on in broken, abject misery for the rest of the year until they shoot the despot”. This is an opinion making the article incorrectly titled. Paul Holmes is also promoting murder as a way to resolve the crisis. Such a statement is currently illegal under New Zealand and international law.
The article in question is inaccurate, unfair, unbalanced and discriminates on the basis of race and peoples beliefs. The article is in breech of Sections 61 (Racial Disharmony) and section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) of the Human Rights Act 1993. Please remove or amend the article so that it adheres to New Zealand's laws and good journalistic practice without delay.
