I read a column a while ago that offence is never given, it is only taken, and Andy Haden's recent claim that the Canterbury Crusaders have a policy of selecting only a limited number of Pacific Island players has reinforced this view. His exact words (referring, he clarified later, to Pacific Islanders only and not to Maoris) was "Once they've recruited three, that's it. That's their ceiling. Three darkies, no more".
Normally I wouldn't comment on an issue like this. I know very little about Super 14 rugby, let alone the Crusaders, and try to write about more important stuff anyway. But the reaction has been such that it has been dragged into the public consciousness.
Talkback radio, and newspapers who know a beatup when they see one, have been quick to condemn the comments. But nobody quite seems sure why they're doing it.
Some seem to object to the fact that he's accusing others of racism, as if the accusation is worse than racism itself would be, or as if only those being victimised have a right to complain. The Canterbury rugby authorities are obviously foremost amongst these views, but others who object seem to be making little more than a kneejerk reaction.
Other people are concerned about the word darkies, and I normally would be too, except that in this case it's so clearly ironic that any semi-sapient adult should be able to understand it. There is no better way – amongst thinking people, anyway – of belittling another's point of view than to put stupid comments in their mouths, and accusing the Canterbury union of saying 'we won't select them, they're darkies' would be pretty savage commentary; if the accusations are correct, then darkies is a word that the authorities may feel appropriate.
The lack of appreciation of irony is a worry in itself. But the amount of commentary that has passed is extraordinary.
Even John Key has felt the urge to wade into the argument. He has learnt a valuable lesson, after making a flip remark during a dinner with Ngati Porou representatives that he shouldn't have dinner with Tuhoe, as he may be the main course. This followed some failed negotiations, the result of which was that Tuhoe was distinctly unimpressed with the Government, and Key in particular. Every thinking person in the country realises that all he meant by his comment was that Tuhoe is not impressed with his recent actions.
However, as always, some people were quick to take offence, and assumed that he was referring to cannibalism. Even if this were his intention, it wouldn't have been so bad – if Tuhoe has never resorted to cannibalism then it's just silly; otherwise, it's an historical fact, and while any such acts would have occurred a long time ago you can't hide from your past, and nor can your ancestors. (While there are documented examples of cannibalism by Maoris, I haven't been able to establish whether Tuhoe has been responsible for any of them). Nor does anybody complain when somebody mentions any of the bad things that NZ Europeans have done. So all in all, while the comment was ill-advised from a public relations viewpoint and certainly sounds bad, when I think about it further I'm struggling to find anything that should be causing complaints. However, it's not in the nature of journalists to think things through this thoroughly, and it is the nature of people to get offended, so Key was hauled over the coals.
However, the Prime Minister learnt from this. When Andy Haden made the comments, John Key proclaimed that he was outraged. As with the rest of New Zealand, it might have been because claims of racism need to come only from the affected group, or because the Crusaders (or possibly rugby teams in general) are sacrosanct, or maybe he just heard the word 'darkie' and assumed the worst.
Or maybe the New Zealand Prime Minister was taking a cue from his former Australian counterpart. Kevin Rudd was very quick to jump on the Jessica Watson bandwagon and appear at Sydney wharf to welcome her in. Her arrival was better for him than any manna from heaven – it was guaranteed to be good publicity, the first he'd had for several weeks, and someone else did seven months' hard work for him to get it.
New South Wales Premier Kristina Keneally misjudged a similar situation recently. When state Transport Minister David Campbell, ostensibly a happily married family man, was photographed leaving a gay sex club and the pictures were made public, Ms Keneally said that she was angry – but whether it was because he was gay, or because he was closeted, or because he was cheating on his wife, or because he had failed to live up to the image that he projected of being a loving family man, wasn't made clear. The public outrage about the media coverage was, for once, eclipsed by the public outrage about the media's place in reporting such things. Once the debate started (some said that he had been treated much worse than if it had been a heterosexual relationship, others said more leniently; some said that he should go, others that he had done wrong but not enough to disqualify him as a minister). She retracted her initial comments – which, I suppose, just goes to show that offence can be given back, as well.