Entry 2330, on 2024-03-06 at 19:27:45 (Rating 3, News)
A current controversy here in New Zealand started when the Wellington women's rugby team performed a haka (traditional Maori war dance) before a game which included the line (translated from Maori): "puppets of this redneck government".
I haven't seen a full translation, so I'm not sure who these "puppets" were supposed to be, but the claim that the government is "redneck" is problematic in itself.
Of course, I am a proponent for free speech, so I should support the team's right to make a point like this, right? Well, yes and no, because it really isn't quite that simple. It would be simple if the following was true: these were individual opinions, not presented as if from a whole team; the opinion was presented in a private space rather than a public event; and opinions against the left of politics were given equal freedom. But none of these are true.
A comparison has been made with the opinions of Australian rugby league player, Israel Folau, who was cancelled by the game's authorities there for what they claimed were anti LGBT opinions of his. He presented those opinions in his own time, they were clearly just his, yet because they were against a group the woke lefties defend, he was cancelled.
I defended Folau's right to make his opinions known, even though I completely disagree with his reasoning based on his fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs. He shouldn't have been cancelled, but was. Would I say the opposite for the women's rugby team? Should they have been cancelled because of the far worse way they presented their views?
Well, no. Free speech is free speech. There is one thing I would say here though, and that is, is this team accepting money from the "redneck" government? If they are (and some people have stated this is the case, but although I haven't seen absolute evidence it is, I will proceed on that assumption) then surely they should say "no, we don't want money from you". If they do accept the funding do they still have the right to criticise? Probably yes, but it does seem to be very hypocritical.
But that's no surprise, because many of the people who protest against modern institutions actually benefit quite substantially from them. The club probably wouldn't survive without those payments, and the team has a lot of Maori women in it. If the government was so redneck, would it be funding a team like that?
There are also several other issues related to this. First, is it appropriate for women to be performing a haka? There seem to be several opinions on this, but traditionally I think the answer is no. Second, are we getting a bit sick of hakas being performed in so many different situations now? I'm not a huge sports fan, but I would prefer for them to stop. Third, given that more Maori voted for the biggest party in the government than voted for the Maori Party, did some of those people performing the haka not really believe in what they were saying? Was it a bit like the other sports people who were forced to "take a knee" during the BLM protests?
Some people say politics should keep out of sport, but I think that is unrealistic, because politics is everywhere, especially at this time on our history.
But if people are going to do political protests I would suggest the following provisos: Do it as a private person rather than as part of a public group or team. If you insist on doing it as a group make sure people can opt out with no penalties. Try to do it in your own time, rather than when being paid to do a job. Try to avoid insulting instituions which generously fund you. And make sure that political views from all sides of the spectrum get a chance to protest, not just those which are politically correct.
While I strongly support free speech, I think the chances of these guidelines being followed are just about zero, so maybe we should make these one of those times when free speech is curtailed and political protests just aren't allowed at public functions.
Actually no, free speech is too important for that. Let's allow it here too, but if we are going to allow it, make sure it is available for "unpopular" opinions too, like supporting Israel in its war against Hamas, or preventing biological men competing in women's sport, or disagreeing with special privileges being given to minority racial groups.
Let's see how long those sort of protests would last. About 5 minutes before the cancellations started, I suspect!
Comment 1 (7597) by Anonymous on 2024-03-07 at 14:09:29:
Yeah, hard to defend this action while simultaneously knocking Folau.
Comment 2 (7598) by OJB on 2024-03-07 at 17:16:54:
Exactly my point. I think we should have as much free speech as possible, but if we are going to have restrictions, at least apply them evenly. Note that I think Folau is a religious nutter, so I'm not defending him because he's "on my side". I genuinely think we should hear and accept a true diversity of opinions.
Comment 3 (7605) by EK on 2024-03-12 at 16:41:42:
Freedom of speech means (to me anyway) free no ifs no buts – unless it is a direct murder threat (which is covered by existing hate speech legislation). More than an issue of the various reactions about how free speech should be, this particular controversy (to me) points yet again to one underlying truth: the irrational besottedness with sport in this country. In a sane country this silly haka would stay on the sports field and no one would give it a second thought.
Comment 4 (7606) by OJB on 2024-03-13 at 09:04:33:
Yes, I think I agree with you regarding free speech. There are some limits, but there should be as few as possible. The only reason I would say there might be a case for limiting it here is that it is generally agreed that people who are acting as employees for a company or organisation can have their free speech limited when representing that organisation. So presenting a political view as an individual might be acceptable but doing the same thing in a work context might not.
I also agree it is a lot of fuss about nothing. Maybe it is the media stirring up trouble again by assigning too much meaning to anti-government actions?
Comment 5 (7607) by Anonymous on 2024-03-13 at 11:48:32:
Yeah, the issue here is the perceived spokesperson role for the club/organisation. They are free to wear their street cloths and haka in Courteney place to their hearts content.
Comment 6 (7608) by EK on 2024-03-13 at 12:08:06:
My argument about NZ ‘s sports madness stands. In this hypothetical sane country the particular sports administration would issue a short disclaimer to the effect the haka does not reflect the club’s views. (This would be similar to journals’ disclaimer that individual authors’ contributions do not necessarily reflect the journal’s views.) Haka RIP and on to more important issues.
Comment 7 (7609) by OJB on 2024-03-13 at 18:35:09:
Anon. Yes, that's what I'm thinking. If a person have an opinion, present it that way. By making a political comment as part of a team (not just the players, either) it sort of speaks for them all. I'm sure not all agree with them. They should go and do their silly haka in their own time.
Comment 8 (7610) by OJB on 2024-03-13 at 18:40:01:
It's hard to judge if NZ is any more "sports mad" than, say Australia or the US, but it probably is worse than some other countries, although football has a lot of fans in Europe, doesn't it?
But you are right. As I said above, the media have made a bit fuss because they see it as a way to indirectly criticise the government. If the media had just ignored it, which is what it deserved, we wouldn't even be discussing it here.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE
