Unconscious Bias, the New Zealand Police and Bullshit

This blog deals with two recent issues that arose in relation to the New Zealand Police (NZ Police): the first issue to be discussed is the  recent 'confession' of the Police Commissioner that some members of the NZ Police suffered from 'unconscious bias', and the second is the decision by officials at NZ Police National Headquarters to designate researcher and criminologist Jarrod Gilbert as 'unsuitable' for carrying out research because of his gang associations. 

The NZ Police, Bias, Racism and Bullshit

     Humbug: deceptive misrepresentation, short of lying, especially by pretentious word  or        deed, of somebody's own thoughts, feelings, or attitudes. 
                                                                                                                                Max Black

According to the American philosopher Harry Frankfurt "[o]ne of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this.  Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted". I agree entirely with Professor Frankfurt's summation of just how much bullshit is spread around, except to add the caveat that some of us contribute a whole lot more bullshit to the pile that invariable washes over the social context.

This brings me to the NZ Police Commissioner Mike Bush's recent admission that some members of the NZ Police are racist.  Well, actually not that long ago he claimed there was no racism in the NZ Police. What he is saying now is that some police might treat people differently because individuals officers possess 'unconscious bias'. Now, like me, you are probably wondering what this thing called 'unconscious bias' is. So far, the Commissioner has failed to adequately define or explain what is it. Listening to him talk on the TV show The Nation in November, 2015, I got the impression he was implying that everyone who enters the police has 'unconscious bias' against certain individuals, communities and so forth, and that their bias 'unconsciously' manifests itself in say a tendency to profile certain individuals/groups/communities during the course of police work. This in turn results in over-policing of said people/communities, thus leading to higher arrest rates, which then helps to explain disparities in the application of police discretionary powers.

I believe it is that last point that has led to the Commissioner's recent comments on unconscious bias,  Recent police-led research has identified discrepancies in the application of said powers by police.  In particular, Maori are less likely to receive the largess of police discretion to warn, not arrest, and so forth. This information helped answer the first question that popped into my head when I read the Commissioner's comments, 'what is his motivation for saying this'. It appears that the Commissioner and his advisers believe that employing the term 'unconscious bias' is useful for moving our focus away from the fact that their own research shows that racism exists in the NZ Police, and that racism in the 'force' results in unprofessional and biased conduct against Maori, and probably against Pacifica Peoples as well. 

So, now we know - there is no racism in the NZ Police, just a little bit of unconscious bias - attitudes long held that unknowingly seep into individual police officers' interactions with members of the public.

I'm calling bullshit.

First off all, the Commissioner is conveniently ignoring three pieces of relevant research on police attitudes to Maori, the MRL attitudinal surveys of the mid-1990s, and Dr Mike Roguski and Pania Te Whaiti's Maori Attitudes Towards Police research published by Te Puni Kokiri in early 2000, and Victoria University's criminology research units Police Attitudes Towards Maori project. What this research demonstrates is that many police officers hold negative, and in some cases racist, attitudes toward Maori. And the most salient point in relation to the Commissioners' claims was that they were very much aware of their bias and racism, evidenced by the number of officers who sought to justify their conduct with the usual excuses, such as while acknowledging their bias, they only arrested those who deserved it.  

Secondly, the Commissioner and his advisers appear to be ignoring the large number of Maori and Pacifica complaints to the so-called Independent Police Complaints Authority and its predecessor. Many of the complaints made by Maori and Pacifica Peoples relate to the biased conduct of police. And then like many Maori I have my own experiences of police racism. Fortunately, unlike many Maori, my experiences of police racism and bias is not personal, as in it is not directed at me.  Usually it comes in the form of comments made to me about Maori by police officers at social events, or during the numerous discussions I had with them while working in the policy sector.  More often than not they are of the 'yeah, but Maori are shit parents', or 'Maori seem to have an inherent tendency to commit crime' type of rubbish. The individuals involved are not only conscious of their bias and racism, but had no qualms about expressing it; more often than not because they were surrounded by like minded colleagues when they expressed it. 

Confronted by all the above, how can we take the Commissioner's comments seriously? How is it possible for him or anyone at NZ Police National Headquarters to excuse an officer who yells at a Maori youth 'you think you're fucken smart don't ya you little nigger'! as one did right in front of me in Courtney Place on a Friday evening in 2008, as simply suffering from unconscious bias? If you try to excuse this type of conduct, which happen on a regular basis in New Zealand, as 'unconscious', as though the officers' involved are unaware of their bias and racism, then you are guilty of three things; first of taking the piss out of the New Zealand public. I don't believe for one moment that those working on NZ Police National Headquarters in Wellington actually believe this 'theory'. Secondly, you are guilty of contributing to all the bullshit that Professor Franklin states is spread throughout society. Furthermore, in my view you are guilty in this instance of providing a significant contribution to the total amount spread across New Zealand. 

And thirdly, you are guilty of treating the public with disrespect because it is obvious that the term 'unconscious bias' is being used as a cynical ploy to move discussion away from the fact that racism exists within the NZ Police, and that you are not serious about dealing with the issue. It is my contention that you won't be able to do anything concrete about the kinds of attitudes that led, for example, to the appalling conduct of police during the so-called terrorism raids on the Tuhoe Nation in 2007, until you admit you have a problem, and refer to it by its correct term... racism, which in turn manifests itself in bias conduct.    

Jarrod Gilbert, Academic Freedom and Yet More Police Bullshit
And now sadly on to yet more bullshit from the NZ Police. 

Just before the NZ Police Commissioner's confession of 'unconscious bias' towards Maori, we witnessed an example of solid, conscious bias on the part of some members of the NZ Police towards a member of the academy. This came about after Dr Jarrod Gilbert, criminologist and researcher, revealed that officials at NZ Police Head Quarters in Wellington, had designated him unsafe to do research on policing matters because of his 'association with gangs'. 

In order to provide some context: Dr Gilbert successfully completed a PhD on gangs in New Zealand, during which he hung out with gang members and interviewed some in order to gather data to inform his thesis. His PhD material formed the basis of a a book published in 2013 Patched: The History of Gangs in New Zealand. So, Dr Gilbert's research involvement with gangs is well known, and it would be especially well known to the NZ Police. So, why just recently was he designated as unsuitable to do research? Going on information provided publically by Dr Gilbert to date it appears that he and five colleagues were carrying out a research project on alcohol-related harms, and only required "basic crime data". This is hardly research one would expect NZ Police to be concerned about. In fact, given their stated aim of reducing crime, one would think they would welcome research that might enhance policy making:

Fat chance if they are not actually in control of research.

There is so much that is wrong with the conduct of NZ Police in relation to this matter that is difficult to know which issue to focus on.  So instead I thought I'd finish this section by posing a few questions for the NZ Police to consider:

• I've read a lot of the 'research' that comes out of Police National Headquarters; given the dubious quality of the work, the almost entirely untheoretical, descriptive, biased (towards police, obviously) nature of it,what makes you believe you are in any position to decide on the suitability/unsuitability of independent researchers?

• where do you get off deciding who can/cannot have access to data that is in fact 'public property'? The data you collect is paid for out of the public purse, and your agency must adhere to the Official Information Act. It is true that government agency's have a responsibility to protect the privacy of individuals for whom it gathers and holds data, but in the case of Dr Gilbert and his colleagues research the data required had no significant privacy issues attached - although in my experience this does not stop government agencies from using this as a 'catch all' reason to block research they don't like, or can't control. And

• has the person(s) who wrote the NZ Police research contract designed to make researchers hand over drafts and provide NZ Police the right to alter findings its members believe are negative, unacceptable etc, been fired?  Even more importantly, has the senior manager who signed off on the design and implementation of the research contract been fired? Because any idiot with half a brain would have anticipated that the first time it was used to block a prominent academic from carrying out research, one not afraid to expose it, would result in NZ Police looking like a bunch of bullying control freaks. And since the said author/manager clearly didn't know this, they should be fired so they no longer drain the public purse with their stupidity.

In the end it all appears to have worked out well: NZ Police withdrew their designation of Dr Gilbert as an unfit researcher, and they actually apologised to him. It also appears that the draconian research contract they expected all researchers to sign, one that gave them veto rights over content and release of research, is 'being reviewed'. This is a good result all round. At a personal level I was especially happy with how things panned out as Maori criminologist Rob Webb and I are planning a major research project into policing of Maori to start in late 2017. Depending on the methodology, which we have yet to develop, we may or may not require access to police-held crime data. I have had in the past a lot of engagement with gangs through my work as a policy adviser at Te Puni Kokiri, and my boss for some of that time was Harry Tam, a life-time patched member of the Mongrel Mob. At present I have cousins in the Mob and some who were past members of the Black Power, all of whom I have associated with at family functions. I've done research with inmates, ex-inmates, and I have family members who have long criminal histories, and with whom I regularly 'associate'. In other words under the research regime used to block Dr Gilbert, NZ Police would have had a long list of 'associations' that could have been used block my accessing data to carry out research. By standing up to the NZ Police and his right to do research, Dr Gilbert has done people like myself a huge service; I owe him a beer. 

The Bullshit Artist of the Year Award 2015

The conduct of the NZ Police Commissioner for claiming that unconscious bias explains bias in policing, and his senior officials responsible for the indefensible decision to blacklist Jarrod Gilbert, is so indescribably unethical and/or dumb that I am forced to resurrect my bullshit artist of the year award after a three year hiatus. But who to award it to? Unfortunately I am not (yet) in possession of the names of the officials responsible for the manipulative NZ Police research strategy, so I've decided to give the award to to everyone who works there: the official winners of the Indigenous Criminologist Bullshit Artist of the Year award for 2015 - New Zealand Police National Headquarters, for outstanding contributions to the development and dissemination of bullshit.

And finally...
In response to the senior criminologist who recently claimed that post-colonial and counter-colonial criminologists and their research "romanticises the Other" (meaning that it represents Indigenous/African American 'culture' in purely romantic, idealised ways): it could be argued that some of the material published by Indigenous scholars and activists during the first throes of cultural renaissance and the era of Indigenous political radicalisation (1970-1990) did at times focus on the positives of Indigenous culture at the expense of thorough analysis of some of the more troubling practices and beliefs (the gender bias in speaking rights within Maoridom being one). Anyone well versed in the literature on the radicalisation of Indigenous politics will know that this strategy was deployed purposefully, as a counter to decades we had to put up with white privileged assholes denigrating Indigenous culture. In response, Indigenous activists and intellectuals developed comparative frameworks of Indigenous/White-western culture that purposefully emphasised the positive elements of our culture, while highlighting the negative beliefs and practices of the so-called master race.  

However, as someone who has worked in this area for over 20 years, I found the description of the work we do today as 'romanticising the other', puzzling. While this kind of comment might have had some validity up till the early 1990s, it certainly does not apply to the majority of the work done over the past 20 years. 

While I cannot claim to have read ALL the material published by Indigenous criminologists, counter-colonial and post-colonial theorists, I've certainly read a lot of it. Therefore, with some confidence I can state that you will find very little that has been published recently that can be described as 'romanticising the other'. Certainly you won't find it in the work of Biko Agozino, Tamari Kitossa, Tracey McIntosh, Rob Webb or indeed my own work. What you will find is a lot of sophisticated, theoretically informed discussions of the crime and justice issues facing Indigenous and African-American communities. Some of our work deploys complex intersectional analysis of critical issues such as the high levels of domestic violence in our communities. However, unlike so much of 'western' criminology, we also include critical analysis of the impact of colonialism and racism within the government policy process.  

It seems to me that the representation of the Post/Indigenous/Counter-Colonial criminologies as 'romanticising the other' does not reflect the work that we as a scholarly community are carrying out. Instead, I believe it is more accurate to use this statement to describe a lot of the work of mainstream criminology in Australasia. It is especially apt for describing the attitudes and work of numerous Australasian criminologists who believe they can actually understand a community (such as Indigenous peoples) from the comfort of their office, and make claims about Indigenous scholarship without engaged with it thoroughly.  

The Social Services to Prison Pipeline

By Dr Antje Deckert

Over the last five years, US criminologists have popularised the catch-phrase ‘the school to prison pipeline’ arguing that the US public school system tends to neglect and expel students who are in need of extra educational and social support. Since miseducation is linked to increased chances of incarceration, systemic neglect creates a vicious cycle or a pipeline effect. In the US, the pipeline disproportionately affects children of African American and Hispanic descent. It is argued that, in New Zealand, we are witnessing ‘the school to prison pipeline’ and ‘the social services to prison pipeline’; both of which disproportionately affect Māori children.

In New Zealand’s child abuse statistics, Māori make up 49% of physically and 38% of sexually abused children, while Pakeha make up 29% of physically and 50% of sexually abused children. Compared to Pakeha kids, Child Youth and Families (CYF) considered twice as many Māori children to have been neglected or emotionally abused, which leads to a total abuse statistics of 49% for Māori children, compared to 29% for Pakeha children.

In 2013, CYF placed 3,844 children in out-of-home care, of these 2,113 were Māori children and 1,324 Pakeha kids. It is reasonable to assume that most of these children must have suffered some form of violent abuse in order to justify a separation from their families. Considering the total numbers of sexually and physically abused children, Māori represent 42% and Pakeha 33% of violent abuse victims. However, of all children placed into CYF out-of-home care, 55% were Māori and 35% were Pakeha, which means that CYF places Māori children excessively in out-of-home care. In fact, there is an 11 percent point difference between Pakeha and Māori kids. It is estimated that of the total 3,844 children, around 200 Pakeha and 600 Māori children were placed into out-of-home care to protect them from non-violent parental abuse.

That means that Māori children make up roughly 70% of all children who are placed into out-of-home care because of neglect or emotional abuse. These figures indicate that racial bias influences CYF decisions about placing children into out-of-home care, at least in cases of non-violent abuse. That racial bias affects New Zealand media reporting on child abuse cases has been confirmed by research undertaken at Massey University in 2010. The study found that, compared to actual statistics, New Zealand mainstream newspapers tend to over-report the abuse of Māori children. Moreover, ethnicity is not mentioned in newspaper articles when the abused child is not of Māori or Pacific Island descent.

The future of children who are placed in CYF care, looks generally bleak. It is a future that entails a high risk of further abuse while in CYF care (see blog entry from 20^th October 2015), educational underachievement, depression, and drug and alcohol abuse. Children in CYF care are also more likely to offend and be incarcerated. The Children’s Commissioner explains in his 2015 report:

In 2014, 328 young people aged 14-16 [and in CYF care] committed an offence resulting in a court-directed family group conference. This accounts for about 13 percent of all court-directed referrals to youth justice during this period. This means about 30 percent of children in care between the ages of 14 and 16 are being charged with offences, compared to about 1 percent of children this age cohort in the general population.

Evidently, CYF produces consistently poor social and educational outcomes for children who are in its care. CYF’s racially biased placement practices guarantee that it is predominantly Māori children who are being fed through ‘the social services to prison pipeline’.

And as if the situation wasn’t disturbing enough, neo-liberal forces may make matters worse in the near future. In 2015, the Modernising CYF Expert Panel was tasked to provide authoritative advice on CYF’s future operating model. In its interim report from 31^st July, the panel recommends that “we will need to engage with the non-government and private sectors in creative and non-traditional ways. Legislation may be required to realise some of these potential opportunities.” A month later, Prime Minister John Key confirmed that at least some CYF services may be privatised.

In September, SERCO case managers were found visiting several CYF facilities in Auckland. SERCO is the international corporation that currently runs two private prisons in the Auckland area; the remand prison Mt Eden and the Wiri men’s prison. On 24^th September 2015, Social Development Minister Anne Tolley claimed that these site visits were unrelated to any CYF privatisation plans but rather revolved around the transition of young people from CYF care into SERCO ‘care’:

There are occasionally young people on indictable charges, and it’s obvious they will be transferred from youth justice to the prison system. There needs to be a well-managed transition.

When 30% of children in CYF care are being prosecuted compared to 1% of children in the general population, saying “OCCASSIONALLY young people will be transferred” is not just a wrong choice of words. It is, in fact, a conscious and deliberate distortion of reality.

If CYF services were to be (partly) privatised, SERCO’s profit interest would have to determine how it delivers its support services to young people and their families. Since CYF has established a tradition of providing prisons with a steady stream of inmates, SERCO’s profit interest would be best served by continuing this legacy. It would be even more profitable for SERCO to increase the number of children who are fed through ‘the social services to prison pipeline’. However, it wouldn’t even matter if SERCO or another private business takes over CYF services because the pipeline serves profit interests at both ends. In either case, CYF privatisation would offer SERCO an opportunity to control (or at least stimulate) the influx of CYF ‘clients’ and thus increase its profit margin in the prison system; because what would constitute a ‘kickback’ in governmental operation of CYF, would merely be considered profit-sharing between two private businesses. Since CYF has already established a tradition of placing Māori children excessively into out-of-home care, there is no doubt that after CYF service privatisation most children in CYF care (and later inmates) would be of Māori descent as well. It demonstrates once again that colonisation isn’t just a historic event of the past. Colonisation continues its repressive operations in social, political, economic and cultural processes.

References

Brook, K. (2015). Restorative justice practices needed in classrooms. Available from http://www.comsdev.canterbury.ac.nz/rss/news/?articleId=1601

Children’s Commissioner. (2015). State of Care: What we learnt from monitoring Child Youth and Family. Retrieved from http://www.occ.org.nz/assets/Publications/OCC-State-of-Care-2015.pdf

Cunneen, C. and Rowe, S. (2014). Changing narratives: Colonised peoples, criminology, and social work. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 3, 49-67.

Kim, C., Losen, D., and  Hewitt, D. (2010). The School-to-Prison Pipeline: Structuring Legal Reform. New York: NYU Press.

Merchant, R. (2010). Who are abusing our children? An exploratory study on reflections on child abuse by media comments [MA thesis]. Massey University: New Zealand. Available from http://mro.massey.ac.nz

Ministry of Social Development (2015). Modernising Child Youth and Family: Expert panel interim report. Retrieved from https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/work-programmes/cyf-modernisation/interim-report-expert-panel.pdf

Radio New Zealand (August, 31, 2015) Key: More CYF private sector involvement possible. Available from http://www.radionz.co.nz

Statistics New Zealand (2013). Quick Stats on Māori. Available from www.stats.govt.nz

Three News (September 24, 2015). CYF sites visited by Serco - Tolley. Available from http://www.3news.co.nz

Wynd, D. (2013). Child abuse: An analysis of Child Youth and Family data. Auckland: Child Poverty Action Group.

I Hope Australia Wins the Rugby World Cup - There, I Said It!

Lately I've been starting to think that Australia doesn't like us Kiwi's very much; yes the whole country, or at least it's starting to look that way, especially as we get closer to the rugby world cup final and Australian sports fans contemplate the joys of playing the All Blacks. Not being a fan of rugby I generally don't care about the outcome of test matches, except games between these two teams because regardless of the outcome I know I am going to get crap from some of my Aussie mates: if we lose it's a week of pathetic sheep shagger comments, of Kiwi sportspeople being chokers, etc, etc.  And it's no better if we win, because the comments swap to us Kiwi's being arrogant, poor winners if by chance even the slightest hint of a smile should cross my lips anytime over the next few days. I have a good Aussie friend who told me earlier this year that he didn't go to the pub to watch the games anymore because he was "sick of all the arrogant Kiwi's carrying on if the AB's win". I've tried to be sympathetic, but I simply can't be because it is obvious to me that he is mistaking joy and humble pride with arrogance because let's face it, as an Aussie rugby fan he hasn't enjoyed either of those feelings too often over the past 8 years or so of regular hidings from the men in black.

Although I am not a fan I will still be rooting for the All Black's to win, but a small part of me, deep in my gut, would be happy for an Aussie win, just so I can avoid the whining and crying of my sports obsessed Aussie mates, all of whom seem to possess a gene from birth that makes them believe that their country should dominate New Zealand in all sports. For my Aussie male friends, it seems to be an affront to their fragile masculinity anytime we beat them in either of the main rugby codes.  And so it has been a particularly painful time for them since 2008, and for me who has to listen to hours of excuses about the grass being too long, of Ritchie McCaw being offside, etc, etc.

But one particular reason why I wouldn't be upset if the Aussies won is because now my friends have a new jibe to throw into the mix of insults and moans they can deploy against my fragile psych, namely the fact that we Kiwi's are a bunch of violent, criminal thugs who should, and are being deported at an increasing rate back to New Zealand. I am referring to the fact that recent changes to legislation in Australia make it easier for officials to deport New Zealander's with criminal histories back to the homeland.

In summary, the facts are these (for more detailed information on this issue and related to the permanent residency and visa issues for New Zealander's I recommend you access the following Facebook page of Vicky Rose, manager of the Nerang Neighbourhood Centre,https://www.facebook.com/votevicky/): 

• recent changes to legislation means that New Zealander's either on a visa (no, you do not automatically become a permanent resident upon arrival), or indeed who is a permanent  resident can have their visa/status revoked due to criminal offending;
• your visa can be revoked and you can be deported back to New Zealand if you commit an offence that results in a prison sentence of 1 year or more;
• your visa can be revoked if you fail what is called the 'bad character test', meaning that you can be deported if you have served prison sentences that accumulate to 1 year or more timed serviced (for example, 2 sentences of six months, or 3 sentences of say 3-4 months each); and
• you can also be deported if you are a permanent resident; if you have been one for less than ten years then once again, your status can be revoked if you are sentenced to a term in prison of 1 year or more.

The numbers of New Zealander's currently being held under these powers varies, but it appears that as of late October 2015 there are up to 200 New Zealander's being held in detention centres both around Australia, and, of particular concern to some, in this country's offshore detention centres, such as Christmas Island.  This fact is of concern to some because it is in these institutions that the Australian government detains refugee's, or as government officials prefer to call them, 'illegal economic migrants'; people fleeing countries experiencing civil war, or war perpetrated against them by Australia and its 'coalition of who gives a sh&t about international law'.

The rhetoric offered by government officials and member of Cabinet, including Prime Minister Turnbull when commenting on this issue to the media, usually consists of one or all of the following justifications:

1. the people being detained and deported are serious offenders who pose a risk to the community;
2. their deportation is important for 'keeping Australia safe'; and
3. there is a process in place for review of the deportation process, which is open to all those detained.

However, the reality of who is being detained, their offending histories, and the process itself, exposes the self-serving nature of these justifications.

For a start, not all of the people detained and awaiting deportation are serious offenders, unless of course you consider people with low-level property offending, fraud, dishonesty-type offences as being a 'serious risk to the community'.  A nuisance yes, a serious threat? Probably not. And the reality is that many of those already deported and awaiting deportation fall into this category. Remember, you don't have to have committed a serious offence, such as one of the raft of violence related, or drug related offences; you can in fact be deported for a series of non-violent, and therefore in my opinion, non-serious offences which accumulate to 1 year or more time served in prison, to have your visa revoked under the character test. But this little inconvenient truth is often neatly passed over by officials and Cabinet Minister's, many of whom appear to be happy to erroneously portray the New Zealander's affected by the process as a bunch of violent, dangerous thugs.  Yes, some of them are, but many others are not.

Second, given some of the cases reported in New Zealand media of late, one has to question the veracity, indeed the ethics of the review process.  Take for example the recent case reported in the New Zealand Herald of a 56 year-old quadriplegic man deported with nothing but $200 and an accommodation voucher, but with no friends or family to take care of him when  he arrived.  This man had lived in Australia for 36 years before having his visa withdrawn.  His 'serious crime(s)' that demonstrated he was a danger to the Australian community?  Self-medicating drugs, painkillers for which he served 2 sentences totalling 13 months of prison time. Surely an ethical, just review process, as opposed to one that exists for appearances only, took into account the fact that a) his offending did not victimise others, b) his obvious health issues, and c) the social circumstances he faced if deported?  Sadly, or perhaps predictably, it did not.

Or what about Angela Russell, a 40 year-old who had lived in Australia for 37 years after moving from New Zealand as a child?  Her children, a boy aged 4 and a girl aged 17, are both Australian citizens. But 2 weeks before her release date from a short stint of imprisonment, she received a letter from the Australian government informing her she was to be deported because she had failed a 'character test'.

Ms Russell's is not the only incident where New Zealander's who have been, or are about to be deported, who are what some criminologists refer to as life-course persistent offenders.  They also have something else in common, the fact that they came to Australia at a very young age, and face deportation 15, 20 or even 30 years later. And it is this practice that reveals to me both the condescension and contradictions behind the Australian government's rationale for the process, and its ethical flaws.  In deporting such people, the Australian government is not exporting back to New Zealand  a crime, community safety and risk problem created by, or in New Zealand: in actuality the Australian government is exporting their crime problem to New Zealand. The condescension behind the Australian government's attempts to justify the process is evident in the fact that officials, and no doubt some Minister's of the Crown, are fully aware that they are exporting to New Zealand a problem created by the social, cultural and political environment of their country. They are cynically using their recently reconstituted 'white Australia' immigration and visa policies to export undesirable members of the Australian community to country's, such as New Zealand, that had little or no part to play in the deportee's becoming a 'risk' to society.  

As I write this blog, and if you believe the hype, both countries are gearing up for the rugby world cup final. A lot of the overblown bullsh&t and commentary in the formal and social media has included references to the fierce, yet generally respectful nature of the rivalry, often followed by a reference to this being forged on the battlefield of Gallipoli, as a contemporary manifestation of the ANZAC spirit, and so on. The same cannot be said for the way in which successive Australian governments have shafted New Zealander's in relation to social security, visa and now crime control policies. In stripping us of the rights that their own citizens enjoy when residing in my country, and because they are more than happy to pocket the millions in taxes we pay into the coffers each year while purposely exporting a crime control problem forged in their own backyard, Australian politicians and policy makers are demonstrating that at least on their side of the Tasman, the ANZAC spirit exists in rhetoric only.  

Eugenics as Crime Prevention

The following blog is the first in a series of guest commentaries by scholars working on issues of interest and importance to Indigenous communities. The author of this commentary is 

Dr Antje Deckert

who writes about the resurrection of eugenics as a policy (and practical) process for 'controlling' Māori.

The Commentary

In August 2015, the New Zealand Children’s Commissioner reported that Child Youth & Families (CYF) recorded around 16,000 substantiated cases of child abuse in parental care, and 117 cases while children are in CYF care.[i] Most abuse cases in CYF care were of violent nature (physical or sexual abuse), while statistics on abuse in parental care also include neglect and emotional abuse.

Abuse statistics demonstrate that Māori children make up 42% of violent abuse victims (49% of physically and 38% of sexually abused children), while Pakeha children make up 33% of violent abuse victims (29% of physically and 50% of sexually abused children). Compared to Pakeha children, CYF considered twice as many Māori children to have been neglected or emotionally abused, which leads to total abuse statistics of 49% for Māori children, compared to 29% for Pakeha children. Therefore, any claim about the gross overrepresentation of Māori in child abuse statistics depends significantly on which forms of abuse are included in the analysis, and, arguably, which cultural paradigm defines neglect and emotional abuse.

Over 16,000 abuse cases in a total population of 1,161,387 children, means that 1.46% of Kiwi children suffer abuse while in parental care, compared to 3.04% of children who are in CYF care. However, this comparison neglects that most child abuse cases while in CYF care were reportedly of a violent nature. When discounting cases of emotional abuse and neglect in parental care, 0.29% of Kiwi children suffer violent abuse while in parental care, compared to 3.04% of children in CYF care. Arguably, this contradicts CYF’s mission statement that:

“A fundamental expectation we have is that children who come into contact with CYF should be better off as a result. […] CYF’s practice framework talks about keeping children safe from abuse and neglect, providing them with secure care.”

Institutional abuse disproportionately affects Māori children since they constitute around 55% of all children in CYF care. However, reporting on abuse cases in CYF care lacks a breakdown by ethnicity and indigeneity. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether some children may actually face a lower risk of abuse in parental care than in CYF’s care.

Despite, or maybe because CYF fails to keep Kiwi children safe, the government is now contemplating another avenue in order to shed its responsibility for the prevention of child abuse – eugenics.

On 27^th September 2015 NZ’s Minister for Social Development, Anne Tolley, was interviewed on national radio. The conversation revolved around the preliminary review, and recommended overhaul of CYF. The review was triggered by the 2014 Glenn Inquiry which had identified major shortcomings in CYF’s service delivery. Tolley was questioned about early intervention strategies, and specifically whether CYF considers stopping certain people from having (more) children. The Minister responded:

“That’s very difficult for the State to do. I certainly think we should be providing more family planning, more contraceptive advice to some of the families that we know […]. I mean I know of cases that CYF have taken a sixth and seventh baby from. […] That’s a big step when the State starts telling people [if they] can have another child […]. That’s a huge step for the State to take. […] I’ll wait and see what the panel reports. I expect that they will be saying that we should get much faster contraceptive advice in. We should be offering […] tubal ligations, all sorts of things.”

Since the Glenn Inquiry has revealed that CYF staff are “bullies” who interact with clients in a judgmental, punitive and disrespectful manner; one can only imagine how such contraceptive “advice” is going to be packaged. Tolley’s suggestion inspired at least one Kiwi blogger to consider possible delivery formats of such contraceptive advice, including “positive incentives (pay them not to have more kids or get sterilised) [and] negatives incentives (no further welfare if they have further children).” Since Māori dominate the statistics of households with four or more children, this eugenic crime prevention strategy would disproportionately be directed at women of Māori descent.

However, this is not the first time that a Minister of Social Development has considered eugenics as a form of crime prevention. Paula Bennett, then in office, suggested as recently as in 2012 that any children born to potentially abusive mothers could be forcibly removed, and that the Family Court could have the power to prevent abusive women from having any more children.

Throughout New Zealand history, eugenics have provided middle-class Pakeha women with a discourse of social reform that neatly tied into the ideals of colonialism and therefore enabled these self-proclaimed ‘feminists’ to participate in the national debate about ‘racial health’. They portrayed themselves as the ‘mothers of the race’ while prescribing eugenic solutions for ‘deviant women’. Without hesitation, Tolley is stepping into the footsteps of her ancestors.

Considering that around 3% of Kiwi children in CYF care suffer violent abuse compared to 0.3% of children in parental care, the first Family Court order for tubal ligation should be addressed to the State. Especially because the State is unable to act as a role model in keeping children safe from abuse, the government should scrutinise both its ethical stance , and historical practices of abuse before directing eugenic solutions disguised as ‘early intervention strategies’ at its citizens, and disproportionately so at Indigenous women.

References

Children’s Commissioner (2015). State of Care: What we learnt from monitoring Child Youth and Family. Retrieved from http://www.occ.org.nz/assets/Publications/OCC-State-of-Care-2015.pdf

Farrar, D. (2015, September 28). How to encourage bad parents to stop having kids. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz

George, P. (2015, September 28). Why did Tolley talk about contraception? [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://yournz.org

Merchant, R. S. (2010). Who are abusing our children? An exploratory study on reflections on child abuse by media comments [MA thesis]. Massey University: New Zealand. Retrieved from http://mro.massey.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10179/1612/02_whole.pdf?sequence=2

Ministry of Social Development (2015). Modernising Child Youth and Family: Expert panel interim report. Retrieved from https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/work-programmes/cyf-modernisation/interim-report-expert-panel.pdf

Raumati, G. H. (2009). “Warrior genes” and the disease of being Māori. MAI Review, 2, 1-11.

Statistics New Zealand (2013). Quick Stats on Māori. Available from www.stats.govt.nz

Wanhalla, A. (2007). To ‘better the breed of men’: Women and eugenics in New Zealand, 1900-1935. Women’s History Review, 16, 163-182.

Wynd, D. (2013). Child abuse: An analysis of Child Youth and Family data. Auckland: Child Poverty Action Group.

---

[i] For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that abuse statistics affect the age group of 0-19 year olds, since CYF does not provide demographic details.

Reclaiming What?

Recently, the word reclaim has become very popular in the country where I live, Australia. It has become synonymous with a particular group of supposedly 'ordinary' Australians, predominantly (although not entirely) white, working and/or middle class.

Many words and actions are becoming synonymous with the activities of this group, and serve to distinguish the politics and prejudice of many of its members. Take the word 'ordinary' for a start, particularly when it is followed by the word 'Australian'. The term is used to signify a number of things, firstly, that the people involved in the reclaim movement are the ordinary Joe and Jolene Blog's from down the road; you know the type - a classic Aussie caricature - hard working, love footie and lighting a barbie, drink XXXX or some other shite Aussie beer, march on ANZAC day, think the flag is sacred and transfers magical powers when wrapped around true believers, and above all believe in the Aussie creed of giving everyone a fair go... as long as you are white and born here.

The word ordinary implies that those not involved in the movement are not ordinary. Does this then mean that they are extraordinary? No. It means those excluded from the movement are different, and not in a good way.  They are what the Palestinian social theorist Said called 'the Other'. And who are the 'others'? Well, for a start anyone who doesn't agree with the Reclaimites and their beliefs (as they will be called from here on in, only because di*kheads might be a bit unfair for some of its members); Muslims, or to be more accurate if we are to believe the reclaimite rhetoric, adherents of radical Islam and sharia law; and finally, immigrants, at least those who try to enter illegally, despite the fact that those who arrive without documentation, or by boat, plane etc, who claim refugee status are expressly NOT acting illegally.. but lets not let legal status, international law and covenants get in the way of a good, old fashioned xenophobic beat-up. What's a little racism and prejudice between friends? And I say excluded, because although I am sure adherents would say that anyone can be part of their movement, and that membership will be dictated by ideology and actions. But have no doubt ease of entry will also be dictated by the colour of your skin.

Let us examine the rhetoric of this movement. Let us start with what it is they are seeking to reclaim, because this indicates that its members have lost something, or are in danger of losing 'it': According to Jill Ireland, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, they seek to "reclaim the country from child brides, sharia, halal food and the way we 'do Australian'". Anyone watching the marches the 'movement' recently held and noted that everywhere participants wrapped themselves in the Australian flag, might come to the conclusion that they are reclaiming that as well, although they should be aware that no one else is interested in 'owning it'; after all, there are about 4 others national flags (most notably New Zealand's) that look exactly the same... boring. So, what have they lost? Absolutely nothing. Are they in danger of losing 'it', whatever 'it' is? No. And neither can its members actually point to anything lost, but that doesn't stop them from making over-blown unevidenced claims that the immigrant, Muslim hordes are coming to take 'it' away.  I use the 'it' because I've had numerous discussions with Australian's who make these claims but have yet to find one that can tell me a) what 'it' actually is, and b) how exactly 'it' will be lost.The fact that Australia is an immigrant nation, and since the lifting of the White Australia policy has developed a cultural framework that has been positively transformed by this diversity, is lost on these idiots.... something for them to ponder when they sit down to enjoy their 1am kebab on the way home from the pub this Saturday morning.   

There is nothing new about the racism and xenophobia that defines the Reclaimites: Australian (and New Zealand) history is replete with similar events and movements focused on excluding those who are deemed to act, think and speak in ways they define as 'UnAustralian' (interestingly enough, we don't use the term 'UnNew Zealand' to describe people believed not to live up to the idealised New Zealander of the white power/privileged bullshit artists). If one bothers to read the histories of Australia that the likes of Christopher Pyne, Federal Minister of Education describe as 'black armband' depictions of history, the ones that stupidly include discussions of negative things like genocide and colonialism, you'll find episodes of similar outrage that exaggerate the dangers to the purity of Australian 'culture' from letting the coloured folk in, such as the Chinese menace and related moral panic of the late 19th century. All of which of course resulted in the introduction of the white Australia policy in the early 20th century, and which stayed in effect till the 1970's.  Good old Australia, the land of the 'fair go'... if you are white.     

There is no mass movement within the Muslim community to take over Australia. Of course there is a small number of wacko extremists in this community who make noises about this, but let's view them as the Muslim version of the white power extremists that populate and support the Reclaimite movement... fringe idiots at best - or at least I am hoping they are only a fringe element. As Jill Ireland states "...the vast, vast majority of Muslim Australians don't want to impose sharia on the country or breed terrorism and simply want to eat their halal pies in peace".  

And finally, on the topic of halal and halal certification. Lately a couple of Aussie mates attempted to persuade me to support the anti-halal certification movement; a rather silly idea because in trying to sway me to the stupid side they used the easily discredited arguments of this movement, for example, that the certification is a 'tax' (no, it is not), that monies go to terrorist organisations (not according to the Australian Crime Commission), that it raises the cost of food items (no it does not - see Chalmers (2014) via NewMatilda.com). Mates, one and all, if you are going to support bullsh*t, racist, Islamaphobic movements first check their claims and then check the facts, unless of course like many of those who support the anti-halal movement, and by extension Reclaim Australia, hate, intolerance and xenophobia trump facts, ethics and support for human dignity every time.  

A Commentary on the Stage Management of Policy Consultation and Policy Development

Background

Right now the Australian Federal Government is working towards a possible referendum on the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island peoples in the Australian constitution. As part of this process on Monday 6 July the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition and other government officials met with 40 Indigenous leaders in Sydney.  The purpose of the meeting, according to government officials, was to map the way forward for developing a referendum.

After the meeting, government spokespeople described it as a "great success', while Noel Pearson, a prominent Indigenous leader from North Queensland described it as "stage managed", with the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition having 'already decided on how the development of the referendum would proceed'.  The implication being, that the meeting was stage managed to give a predetermined process a cloak of respectability via the appearance, but not the substance, of meaningful Indigenous input.

Let me begin by saying that both 'sides' are right: the fact that 40 Indigenous leaders turned up and provided the Prime Minister plenty of photo ops, that the agenda was likely set by government officials, and that it afforded government the opportunity to ensure discussion was dominated by its preconceived process, ensured it was a "great success" from a governmental perspective. Given that stage managing consultation exercises is a key role for officials, means that Mr Pearson's description of the process is also accurate. 

Before I expand on the issue of stage management let me make one obvious point, which is that consultation exercises run on government officials are always stage managed, especially if the exercise involves senior government officials, such as the Chief Executive of an agency, a cabinet minister, or the Prime Minister. There is no way that officials in charge of organising an event such as the one that took place in Sydney would allow it to evolve so that Indigenous participants gained a significant measure of control over the agenda, dominated discussion, or to set the agenda for the process 'going forward'. The first principle that guides officials when organising such an event is to manage risk, in particular the risk that senior officials, Cabinet Ministers, and especially Prime Ministers will be embarrassed by dissension, or by exposing their prejudice and ignorance.  And you must at all costs manage the risk that the policies or processes preferred by the external participants wins out over the preconceived plans of government.

Case Study

I wasn't at the meeting held on 6 July, but I'm guessing that government officials put a lot of time and effort into managing the risk to government. However, I have been involved in a number of similar events through my ten years working in New Zealand's policy sector; events that can be offered as case studies in how officials go about stage managing such events. The event I've selected for this discussion was a consultation event organised by New Zealand's Ministry of Justice in 2009 to advance the development of the new Drivers of Crime work programme, an inter-agency policy project that took over from the defunct Effective Interventions programme..... the substantive difference between the two? None. Effective Interventions was driven by the former Labour-led government, while Drivers of Crime was essentially the then new National-led governments rebranding exercise.

So, on to the stage management of the exercise by policy officials:

The art of stage management of policy consultation exercises involves a number of key components, only a few of which I will discuss here.  One of the most important issues confronting officials tasked with organising such an event, is to control the list of invitees to ensure few, if any, critical commentators, or those considered by officials as 'risky', attend the event.  In this respect Ministry of Justice officials, and the then Minister of Justices' staff did their very best to meet this requirement.  In the weeks leading up to the event they repeatedly attempted to block a number of Maori activists, critical commentators and such like from participating; most of whom had been placed on the list of potential invitees by various Maori government ministers, and Te Puni Kokiri (Ministry of Maori Development).  I was one of those people the Ministry of Justice tried to block, as were current and former gang members, and in one case a man who, while not a gang member, had spent decades development and delivering social services (such as drug rehabilitation) to gang families. In this case the attempts by Ministry of Justice officials did not succeed because of the ethical position taken by Te Puni Kokiri officials, supported by the then Associate Minister of Maori Affairs Tariana Turia, and eventually the Minister of Maori Affairs office, to stand their ground and insist on a broad representation of Maori at the forum.  This they argued was essential given that the issue of Maori over-representation was one of the two broad issues up for consideration at the event.

Before I move on to other strategies of stage management, I want to say something about the attempts by officials to block current and former gang members from attending the event: In a previous blog I have exposed that an unwritten rule of government agencies in New Zealand is that they 'don't work with gangs', which also means that officials can not be seen to engage with gang members.  Of course this rule is unwritten, and its application is, as always, contingent upon specific events and the attitudes of individual government officials. For example, the late, former Prime Minister Robert Muldoon was well known for his willingness to engage with gang leaders, and indeed supported the development and implementation of labour schemes for gangs. Similarly, the ex-Minister of Maori Affairs, Pita Sharples was not shy about engaging with gangs, or attending community forums where it was known they would be attending. And of course Te Puni Kokiri, as the lead government adviser on Maori issues, would also seek to engage with gangs to inform the development of social policy; although I wonder how long this enlightened approach to policy development will last at the Ministry now that Harry Tam no longer works there... my guess is, not long.  During my time at the Ministry it became increasingly obvious that most of its tertiary educated, middle class Maori analysts had much more in common with their white counterparts at Treasury than they did with working class Maori, and were no more willing to, or better at, engaging with 'hard to reach' communities like gangs or youth offenders. And so, as a general rule Ministers of the Crown and government officials avoid engaging with gang members at all costs, even when, in the case of Ministry of Social Development officials, they are actually tasked with developing and implementing a 'gang strategy'!

So, back to strategies of stage management: having failed in their attempt to keep all the 'bad' Maori away, Ministry of Justice officials turned to two other well-worn strategies, i) setting the topics for discussion, and thereby limiting the potential for criticism of government policy and discussion of responses that do not fit with the prevailing policy position, and ii) dominating reporting of the results of discussion at the event. On both counts government officials were much more successful than they were in trying to block the involvement of certain Maori.  

The stage management of the event was evident from the beginning.  For example, the keynote speaker was an expert in child/youth development, someone well known in the justice system for advocating for an individual, psycho-therapeutic approach for dealing with child behavioural and youth justice issues.  His presentation pretty much focused on his work and those who agree with him, while ignoring all other approaches, evidence, etc.  His conclusion for significantly reducing crime in New Zealand?  The application of risk assessment, starting at the prenatal level to identify 'problem families and children', followed by early and extensive intervention based on psycho-therapy.  Critical analysis and consideration of issues like structural bias, colonialism, decades of ineffective policy making by successive governments, and any engagement with critical literature and research was totally absent, which strangely enough was exactly the type of policy position taken by the Ministry of Justice, Corrections, Ministry of Social Development prior to and after the event. But worst of all was that the same speaker had also been asked by officials to give the presentation on Maori issues, which he began by stating that he 'knew little about this issue', which he preceded to prove by delivering probably the worst presentation on the issue I've ever experienced.  At no point did he deal with Maori scholarship on the issue.  But most embarrassing of all was the performance of Chief Executive of the Ministry of Justice who stated that his perspective on the issues and his solutions left no room for argument.

And so it proved a few weeks later when the Ministry released a document summarising the key issues arising from the event and the 'draft' policy framework to inform the strategy. The perspectives of the key criminal justice agencies and their hand picked keynote speaker dominated the entire document, while the critical, systemic issues raised by a number of Maori participants was missing. 

And the silencing of the critical Maori perspective started well before the event itself, with the decision to ask the keynote speaker to present on Maori issues.  After the event it became known that Te Puni Kokiri officials had requested that a Maori scholar/commentator give this presentation, namely Dr Robert Webb from AUT University.  This request was rejected by criminal justice officials, and instead we got a presentation that would have been embarrassing even for a 2nd year criminology student.

The silencing process was prevalent throughout the event, with a number of Maori participants informing me afterwards of their frustration at the tendency of the Ministry of Justice adjudicators for their discussion group either totally ignored key issues they raised (which were collated on paper and collected later for 'analysis'), or re-phrasing their concerns so that they lost critical meaning.  In my discussion group I and another Maori participant more than once had to direct the justice official to write the issues we raised as we had described them.

Lastly, when the overview document for the forum was released some weeks later, none of the critical issues raised by Maori, bar one related to funding of community groups, appeared in the document in any meaningful way: nothing about bias in the application of policing, bias in sentencing, structural racism within the key policy agencies; all issues raised by Maori participants across a number of the discussion groups.

As I was not at the consultation forum held by the Prime Minister of Australia and the leader of the opposition in Sydney on the 6 July 2015, I can't say for sure that similar strategies of stage management were used by government officials to ensure that the government perspective prevailed.  My guess is that at a minimum the participants would have been presented with pre-selected 'issues' to 'guide' discussion, followed by, surprise, surprise, a few 'suggestions' about the process 'going forward', or something similar; suggestions that no doubt will form the basis for any further work on the referendum on the recognition of Aboriginal peoples in Australia's constitution. I have no doubt that Noel Pearson's description of the event was right on the money.  

On Adam Goodes, Expressions of Aboriginality and Racism

I have a confession to make: since moving to Australia in early 2010 I have fallen in love... with Australian Rules (AFL).

Now, I am a New Zealander, a 'Kiwi', and the unwritten rules of masculinity in that country - actually, it probably is written somewhere, most likely in the fine print on our birth certificate, is that we a) must love rugby, b) to be a real man, must play rugby, c) if we are not good enough or able for some reason to play rugby, we must love it above all other things, and believe that All Black's are God's, and d) if you don't love rugby then at least you should support rugby league.  I use to play rugby at school, and league when I was older; neither of which I was any good at - my true loves were, and remain, athletics and football (the real football, with a round ball), and now AFL.

Anyway, to the point: I moved to Australia and saw this weird game in TV, Australian Rules, or aerial ping pong as its detractors sometimes refer to it, and I didn't understand it at all but grew to love the skill and athleticism of the players.  And, in a nod to my changing sensibilities about violence in sport, there was none of the 'bring back the biff' bullshit that periodically arises from the mouths of retired league and rugby players who lament their precious game going 'soft', of becoming 'feminised'.  

Another reason I now watch AFL, is because of all the fantastic Aboriginal players in the sport, and the way, at least outwardly, the 'game', the clubs and supporters appear to appreciate them, and make room for them to express themselves as Aboriginal men.  I say outwardly because of course, as with any issues relating to 'race' and ethnicity in Australia,the 'truth' is somewhat different.

Cue last weekend and what is called the 'Indigenous round' of the AFL; cue Adam Goodes, a fantastic Aboriginal player for the Sydney Swans (and in case anyone dismisses this blog because I am 'probably a Swans fan', I support Carlton, and yes, we are having a crap year), and the 2014 Australian of the Year, scoring a goal and doing what was variously described as an Aboriginal war dance, a challenge; what we'd call in New Zealand a haka.  Cue the usual dickheads, mainly white, middle class male media and sports commentators going nuts, accusing Goodes of behaving inappropriately, of goading opposition supporters (from my club, Carlton).  Cue the village idiot of Melbourne, Andrew Bolt crying about how he'd get in trouble for making such gestures: actually, his reenactment of Goodes' 'war dance' made it look like he was trying to have a crap rather than making threats; but I digress.  And cue the usual over-the-top sulking by many non-Indigenous Australian's whenever a 'person of colour' - they don't need to be Aboriginal - take it upon themselves to express their Indigeneity, their culture in a way they deem appropriate, and not at a time and in a way that non-Indigenous peoples consider 'appropriate'.

I've been thinking all week about writing this blog, on this topic, and thinking about how I would express my feelings about Goodes' action and responses to it.  Then I read the Sydney Morning Herald as I always do on Sunday morning (hint to anyone reading this; of all the mainstream papers here in Australia, the Herald is in my view the best in reporting Aboriginal issues, although it isn't hard to win that award here, given the white privileged rubbish that gets printed in most of the others), and got to Peter Fitzsimmons' column in which, rather than express his own views on the issue, ceded the ground to a higher authority, the political commentator Waleed Aly who in Peter's estimation said it "better and more eloquently than the rest of us could dream of...."; and since I agree I am going to follow Peter's path and give the floor at this point to Aly, who stated the following about the reaction to Goodes':

'The thing about it that has mystified me all week - people talking all week about , 'Why are people booing Adam Goodes?' as though there is some mystery about it - there is no mystery about this at all.  And it's not as simple as it being about race - it's about something else. It's about the fact that Australia is generally a very tolerant society until its minorities demonstrate that they don't know their place'.

'And at the moment, the minute someone in a minority position acts as if they're not a mere supplicant, then we lose our minds.  And we say, you gotta get back in your box here,  And that's why Adam Goodes ruffles feathers - its not because he's controversial, not because he's a provocateur, none of that.  It's because he actually says I'm going to say something and I'm going to express Aboriginality and I'm going to do it at a time and a place in which sort of the vanilla velour cover of Australian society doesn't cope well with it very well....'.

'We have seen this before.  What happens is that the minute an Indigenous man stands up, and is something other than compliant, the backlash is huge and it is them who are creating division, destroying our culture, and that is ultimately what we boo.  We boo our discomfort....'.

Beautifully said.

Cue the Australian/New Zealand criminology conference in Auckland in 2012 and an incident between myself and a professor from an Australian university I have written about in a previous blog who, when criticised by me in a forum where he made uninformed comments about the status of Maori in New Zealand, told me and others that I had played 'the race card'.  In doing so he was implying that I had used my Aboriginality to silence his views simply because he was white, when in actual fact I would have slapped him down regardless of his colour; when you start by saying 'I don't know a lot about Maori', and then proceed to talk crap, you deserve to be challenged.  In the previous blog I tried to explain this guys behaviour in terms of an attempt to force attention away from his stupid, uninformed comments and back on to me as the 'unreasonable' Maori critic.  

The Goodes incident, and in particular Waleed Aly's wonderful commentary, has made me think that perhaps there was more going on here than diverting attention: what our privileged professor was doing was railing against an Indigenous man ignoring the conventions of the profession, the discipline and the academy, that we defer to professors as though they are faultless and  all-knowing.  In other words, in speaking up in an open forum and challenging his perspective, I moved outside of that comfortable box so many white privileged academics in Australia like us to be in - as supplicants to their uninformed comments on the 'Aboriginal context', as names on their crap ARC grants, and so forth.  The individual concerned played the 'race card' because I had not played 'the race game'; I was an uppity Maori boy who acted above his station and needed to be slapped down.  This I can tell you will never happen, and long may Adam Goodes express himself as he sees fit, although I'd really like it if he could stop playing so well against my beloved Carlton.