What does Paul Henry need to do to get sacked from TVNZ?
Henry suspension 'token' punishment
The Fijian-Indian community says TNVZ's suspension of Breakfast host Paul Henry is a "token" punishment. Henry's ethnic slur against Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand will cost him at least $8000 after he was suspended without pay for two weeks. President of the Fijian-Indian Association in Wellington, Vinod Kumar, told Radio New Zealand that Henry was a repeat offender and the community was worried about what offence he would cause next. Mr Kumar wanted Henry to undergo counselling, or be put on notice by TVNZ to avoid further incidents.
What does Paul Henry need to do to get sacked from TVNZ? Burn the flag? Strangle a native wood pigeon live on TV, or spit on Neil Finn?
It's not just that Paul Henry is a closet racist, or that this is the first time he has managed to debase and offend the weakest members of society on the public broadcaster that should demand he gets the sack, but it is also the pathetic apology he gave where he says he won't apologise for 'causing outrage' - his own statement shows that he just doesn't get it.
And as for his latest abuse at reporters...
Angry Henry delivers tirade after suspension
Approached yesterday for comment at his North Shore home, Henry at first declined to comment.
Minutes later, he drove his car to Herald reporters - who had left his property and were on a shared road - and made his verbal assault.
"Get off my f*****g land," he shouted. "Have you got your pictures now? Have you taken photos of my property or any of my neighbours' properties? If any photos are published I'll sue the f*****g paper."
When he was not given a response, he yelled: "Can you not speak, you there in the car? I will f*****g sue your paper."
But the really annoying this is the manner in which TVNZ initially defended Paul, by claiming he says what we are all quietly thinking, TVNZ simply claimed we were all racists and we condone Paul Henry's ignorant comments. How on earth could TVNZ defend themselves in this manner? It's as bad as their claim that they didn't need to be balanced outside of the 6 week election process.
It seems the publicity department at TVNZ doesn't understand the role of a public broadcaster in a democracy and their crass desire to treat their viewers as consumers rather than citizens leads to a total intellectual blind-spot when they attempt to defend themselves.
How come TVNZ first defended Paul, and then do a complete 180 degrees and come out and say that he had crossed the line? TVNZ is about as dysfunctional as a family of meth addicts.
As for blaming Key...
Key's handling of remarks 'gutless'
Prime Minister John Key and his Government's handling of Paul Henry's racially charged comments about Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand has been "gutless" right from the beginning, says the Opposition.
Hmmmm, I've watched the clip several times and to be honest Key seemed as shocked as the viewers were when Paul Henry decided to share his race views to the world, certainly Helen Clark would have shot Paul down, but Key was more taken aback than accommodating. Let's bag Key for things he does and not his association with odious little Paul Henry.
However - Audrey Young is very righteous in her condemnation of the amount of time it took Key to say anything...
But he had a full eight hours between then and his post-Cabinet press conference on Monday afternoon, where he resolutely refused to pass judgment when pressed, and pressed and pressed.
He has not been short of a word against Andy Haden or Hone Harawira, but there was not a mutter nor a murmur of criticism for Henry.
To be ungenerous to the PM's staff, it looked as though they hadn't monitored the issue properly and hadn't briefed him on the impact it was having.
To be ungenerous to the PM, it looked as though he didn't think the comments were offensive enough to respond to on Monday.
By yesterday it looked as though he had kept his fingers in the air for a little longer, or his instincts had caught up with him from holiday.
posted by Bomber @ 9:49 am
20 comments
20 Comments:
Why is John Minto allowed in a classroom when he is one of the countries biggest racists?
TVNZ will sack Henry when Breakfast's ratings fall. Plain and simple.
If you want dull boring inoffensive early morning television, watch Sunrise ... wait sorry.
Anyways if you don't like him, change the channel, or talk to you family or flatmates! It's pretty easy. Fuck this is such a storm in a teacup.
Sack him...people need a reminder about what they voted out last time.
A victory for the so called "PC Gone Maaaaad" Brigade will be just the tonic. We need a good ol "straight talking keewee male" to get hard done by the eyes of some swing voters.
Henry Out!!!!!
Its really Rick Ellis who should be sacked - not Paul Henry - you can put boundaries around Henry - but Breakfast producers and Rick Ellis have failed to do that. Why are there no Maori or other ethnic faces or voices on Breakfast other than Tamati locked into the news. You would think all NZers were while and blond by the workers on Breakfast.
I don't think you can bag Key - most people try and be polite and respectful and smooth things over when something offensive is said--and he was a little taken aback -but what would one expect him to do?
He only had a few seconds to react - and you would not expect him to spit the dummy on TV.
What classrooms does he go to?
And how is he the biggest racist?
Maybe if he called the GG a 'black muthafucker' then this would suffice?
But then again we'd still have to look at the colour Henry's skin to deem the remark racist or not
However - Audrey Young is very righteous in her condemnation of the amount of time it took Key to say anything...
Ah, yes... must be easy being righteous working in a building where "give Tapu Misa a column" is what passes for workplace diversity.
Was at a crowded Auckland beach one summer and saw a group of indians get into a verbal altercation with some chinese with the latter calling the former 'fucking overstayers' and vice versa.
That certainly opened up my mind to 'anti asian' racism.
Clowns like 5:36 see only white racism as a problem but really its only a target because Paul Henry is easy to hate. Go try asking Gujurati parents if they want their daughter to marry a muslim and you'll see true hatred there.
"Go try asking Gujurati parents if they want their daughter to marry a muslim and you'll see true hatred there."
Hatred maybe, but it's not really racism is it? What 10% of Gujarati are Muslim? Not to mention the distinction between faith and ethnicity.
You make a point with the bigger picture bomber.
I felt ok being a bit cross with PH. That is expected, the man is a bigot. But once letters were written and comments were made I was genuinely upset by the number of people I know and love, that defended him.
The ignorance and the phrases they used, like "he's a nice guy though, and he's funny" scare the hell out of me.
Paul Henry facebook group has gone from +/- 30,000 to 53,000 in about three days...
Go on TVNZ, finish the job and sack him..we need to stir the pot a bit before election time.
"It actually is because the people who cry mostly about intolerance of 'white racist' are very very racist themselves."
Bullshit. Because white racism is the racism in NZ with major consequences - in terms of employment opportunities, imprisonment rates, and yes, even representation on TV and in the media.
Furthermore whites are the only group who are not stigmatised everytime one of their runs amuck. How many times does the media mention 'Asian man' when an Asian man is involved in a crime - even in circumstances where the adjective 'asian' is not required to facilitate identification and apprehension?
Of course in NZ white racism is the main problem. Just as in Hong Kong where I worked, Chinese racism is the problem (not against whites mind you, who are put up on a pedestal by brainwashed running dog Chinese, but against Philipinos and other SE Asians). And in Japan the problem is Japanese racism and prejudice - again, not against whites - but against Chinese and SE Asians and South Asians.
But of all the varieties of racial prejudice can express themselves - white racism is the most virulent, and has historically had the most horrendous consequences. That stuff Hitler had planned for Eastern Europe had its direct antecedents in European colonial behaviour in Asia, the Americas, Australasia, and especially Africa.
That is another reason for singling out white racism.
In fact Henry's comments were the worst when it comes to racism.
Worse than prejudice against Muslims, or laughing at Asian drivers or laughing at peoples accents - which is not really racism.
In fact much much worse. Because the above are not really racist in the purest definition of the term - even though unacceptable. Recognising and joking over cultural differences is one thing.
But cultural prejudice is nowhere near as bad as pure racism - where a person is victimised only on the basis of his skin colour, hair texture, or facial features.
That is the worst. The victim of cultural prejudice wrong though it is, does have some chance of assimilating and becoming accepted - by changing beliefs or behaviour.
This of course is the problem with Henry's comments. The GG is as NZ as it is possible to be in terms of culture. But because of his skin colour, something tnat of course is absolutely immutable, Henry implies he is unfit to be GG.
That is racism at its worst. And it has only really been practised historically in Nazi Germany, South Africa, and the Southern states of the US (where they had these ridiculous one-drop rules etc).
"One only has to look at the degree of intermarriage between Maori and European to see how mostly we've come terms with race in NZ despite Bomber's fixation on claiming most of us are closet racist and the rates of intermarriage between Asian and the above which is pretty low to be non-existent. Such ghettorisation of race leads to perpetuation of bigotries and hatred that immmigrants bring from their home countries as they wish to keep their bloodlines pure."
Bloodlines pure?...jeeze, that's a pretty strong accusation.
Mind if I question your logic that a person would leave their own country and move to a completely different culture, only to attempt to keep their "bloodlines pure".
Maori & Pakeha have had 150+ years to mingle, most Asian immigrants are fairly new so intermarriage will be less. When Maori and Pakeha marry, the Pakeha culture becomes the dominant one...look at the structure of society, so the fact that they marry does not mean racism has been overcome, it actually proves it hasn't. Its marital pepper-potting...breed them out, whether its intentional or not, its racism.
Asians have also failed to intermarry because many of them come over here already married during the late 1990s at the earliest, try waiting another generation when there kids are old enough to get married. Single Asians that do come over are mostly men, not women....how many Pakeha women do you know that have even dated an Asian? I know lots of men who have Asian girlfriends, but only 1 women that's had an Asian boyfriend....this is racism. Wayne puts it at 50% vs 30% in western countries...I'd be surprised if 30% of Asian men find a Pakeha wife in this racist country. Do I need to spell out the racist stereotypes believed by people that cause this? Its a common theme amongst Kiwi women in regards to Asians...as for men, not so much.
Your post proves racism, rather than disproves it.
Given the drinking habits and physical size of pakeha women it's probably not racism that drives asian men to seek asian partners.
At the same time given the lack of these features in Asian women then their attractiveness to pakeha men can be ascertained.
The only asian men who feel the need for pakeha female partners are those who are 3th + generation and have lost contact with their cultural roots and who are not really asian anyway.
"It is neither better nor worse and this is the fallacy of your argument."
Neither is good - obviously. And both have led to tremendous acts of violence and suffering. But labelling a group of people as inherently deficient or evil is taking things a step further, and that much more unforgiving - and the consequences have been horrendous ala European genocide of native Americans and Africans and Australians and Hitler's Holocaust and plans for Eastern Europe.
"Adolf Hitler's final solution was inspired by the Turkey's extermination of the Armenians. Non-whites exterminating europeans as I recall."
Both groups are Caucasoid - Armenians are white I suppose only insofar as they are Christian, and Turks non-white because they are Muslim. In any case Armenians are certainly not considered white by white Russians and they are the victims of numerous incidents of racist violence in Moscow and St Petersburg.
Hitler apparently made a single throwaway comment about the Armenians "Who remembers the Armenians?".
But his anti-semitism and racism owed a lot to the English anti-semite and racialist Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Chamberlain's theories were not unusual in the West at the time, with 'scientific' racism widely accepted by many scholars - and the public. In the US Madison Grant's book "Passing of the Great Race" was influential in immigration restrictions being placed on everyone but North Western Europeans, and was highly praised by Hitler. It even popped up in the Great Gatsby when Tom Buchanan says "Everybody ought to read it... if we don't look out the white race will be utterly submerged. It's all scientific stuff; it's been proved."
The likely progenitor of the Holocaust is the genocide of the Namibian Hereros by colonial German troops in the early 20th Century. This type of atrocity was not unique to the Germans of course (about 10 to 15 million Congolese were slaughtered by the Belgians). For Hitler an unabashed admirer of the British empire - Russia was going to be Germany's India.
The Turks had little contribution to Hitler’s ideology and racial views – actually probably about zero contribution.
"It is neither better nor worse and this is the fallacy of your argument."
Neither is good - obviously. And both have led to tremendous acts of violence and suffering. But labelling a group of people as inherently deficient or evil is taking things a step further, and that much more unforgiving - and the consequences have been horrendous ala European genocide of native Americans and Africans and Australians and Hitler's Holocaust and plans for Eastern Europe.
Anonymous 7/10/10 4:03 PM said:
"But since it's not a 'race' issue then its less evil than unemployed skinheads yelling abuse at you? Yep that logic works."
You seem to lack the capacity for logical thought. Why not just then compare the Malaysian situation with the Holocaust? Because that of course would prove my point.
Your logic is as ridiculous as saying National Socialism is not an odiouis ideology - because you know a Nazi who has never committed a crime, but at the same time there are many non-fascists in prison for whatever serious crimes---ergo being a Nazi is better than being a non-fascist.
We are comparing different ideologies and their potential effects - not randomly selecting and juxtaposing actions carried out by people professing these beliefs - which obviously range from the non-criminal to the genocidal.
Asians will marry white kiwis but only if they are university educated high status people. I know many asian kiwi women who think all non university educated men are not worthy of marriage yet stand against ignorance and intolerance. I would love to date an asian girl but dont have enough status damm any ideas guys. Classim and social snobery will divide us in 30 years I think racism will die out soon but with so many low income men suffering depression its hard to be accepted so spare a thought for us in the inclusive society. For the record I think you rock bomber.
Post a Comment
<< Home