Chief Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt (Photo: Supplied)
Chief Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt (Photo: Supplied)

SocietyMay 21, 2019

The dangers of ‘one of us’: The Chief Human Rights Commissioner on othering

Chief Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt (Photo: Supplied)
Chief Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt (Photo: Supplied)

A recent Dominion Post column attacked British-born Chief Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt as not ‘one of us’. It’s a phrase we should all feel uncomfortable with, writes Hunt, wherever we come from.

Not long after I took up office as Chief Human Rights Commissioner, a newspaper columnist complained that I am not “one of us”.

This charge raises important questions.

In super-diverse Aotearoa New Zealand with its more than 200 ethnicities and 160 spoken languages, who is “us”?

And who defines “us”?

However defined, it is dangerous to view society as some people who are ‘us’ and, by implication, ‘others’ who are separate and alien.

This vision of society is inconsistent with equality, non-discrimination, respect for diversity and a multiculturalism which is grounded in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It undermines inclusion and promotes exclusion.

‘Others’ tend to include new immigrants, residents and citizens. They are often ethnic and religious minorities. They may also include tangata whenua and Pacific peoples. There are exceptions, but these ‘others’ consistently fall behind in a range of socio-economic outcomes. Some of them are regularly subjected to discrimination and abuse. Among them, there are additional layers of disadvantage for women, disabled people and sexual minorities. The two most common areas of complaint received by the Human Rights Commission are race-related and disability discrimination. Many discriminatory incidents are unreported.

The Dominion Post/Stuff.co.nz, May 2

‘Othering’ me – that is, complaining that I am not “one of us” – is of no consequence because I enjoy numerous advantages, such as ethnicity and gender. But ‘othering’ disadvantaged individuals and communities is dangerous because it reinforces their vulnerability, makes them feel unsafe, and exposes them to more abuse.

Moreover, ‘othering’ can lead to demonising.

And demonising can lead to the mass murder of peaceful people at prayer.

For the record, I married a New Zealander over 30 years ago. We settled in Hamilton in 1992. Our son was born in Hamilton. I completed a degree at Waikato University and lectured at the university for eight years. Our children were schooled in Hamilton. I have been a New Zealand citizen for decades.

In 2000, the government commissioned me and three colleagues to undertake a review of New Zealand’s human rights institutions. In 1998, the National-led government nominated me to an independent UN human rights position. In 2002, the Labour-led government supported my candidacy for a similar position. Both posts were voluntary.

Lured back to Europe by an employment opportunity in 2000, I have visited New Zealand every year, for weeks or months, to write, give talks and spend time with whanau. Last year, my wife and I relocated back to New Zealand.

Does all this make me “one of us”? It should not be necessary to ask.

But if someone declares I am not “one of us” it means that, in their worldview, many thousands of New Zealand immigrants, residents and citizens are also not “one of us”.

‘Othering’ on that scale diminishes and threatens our multiculturalism.

As someone who is new to the Chief Commissioner role, I have taken as many opportunities as possible to listen. I’ve heard that poverty is a recurrent concern; it’s also a crucial human rights issue.

I want to hear from those with lived experience of poverty and widening social and economic inequalities. So, colleagues and I visited the Corstorphine Community Hub in Dunedin, Tuwharetoa Health, Education & Social Services in Kawerau, and Habitat for Humanity in Rotorua.

During the Rotorua visit, we met a widow whose children suffered from serious health issues made worse by their damp cold home. (She now owns a new home thanks to Habitat for Humanity and her own toil and investment.) In Kawerau, we met a reformed dad who is not allowed to see his children and is made to feel like a criminal when he deals with the authorities. We also learnt about a flax-roots initiative which has dramatically reduced the suicide rate in the community.

The overall impression was of proud individuals and communities, precarious and raw, living on the edge.

Our ‘listening visits’, as well as other consultations, will enrich the planning process for the Human Rights Commission’s future work. In this process, we are asking difficult questions like: how can we convey that human rights are based on shared values like fairness, decency, dignity and equality?

How can we make human rights relevant to the practical realities of everyday lives throughout New Zealand?

How do we convey to national and local officials that human rights can make a practical contribution towards the effective delivery of policies which aim to enhance wellbeing?

Consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the commission will not only focus on vital civil and political rights such as freedom of expression, but also on important social rights, such as the rights to a decent home and accessible education. The commission has tried this before and we need to build on those foundations. Should we also work on the right to a healthy environment?

Our overarching question is this: how do we refresh human rights for modern times?

No ‘othering’, no barriers

Across all my human rights work, I have always sought to be non-party political and non-sectarian. This might be the influence of Quakerism and its call for dialogue and peaceful reconciliation. In the 1980s, I worked for Quaker Peace and Service on its Israel/Palestine programme, and Quakerism continues to inform my thinking.

Later I worked for a London-based civil liberties organisation which had an all-party parliamentary group encompassing libertarians and social democrats.

In Belfast, long before the Good Friday Agreement, I would discuss prisoners’ rights with unionist organisations in the morning, then walk across the city, and discuss prisoners’ rights with nationalist organisations in the afternoon, to the bemusement of my Irish friends.

Perhaps this explains why I am alert to ‘othering’.

Talking about some people as being “one of us”, and implying that ‘others’ are alien, places a barrier between communities.

What is needed is support, dialogue, friendship, respect, acceptance of diversity and recognition of human rights for everyone.

The ‘other’ road is fraught with danger.

Keep going!
Photo: ARTUR WIDAK/AFP/Getty Images
Photo: ARTUR WIDAK/AFP/Getty Images

SocietyMay 21, 2019

Women don’t have to convince you they ‘deserve’ an abortion

Photo: ARTUR WIDAK/AFP/Getty Images
Photo: ARTUR WIDAK/AFP/Getty Images

Asking if a women needs an abortion is the wrong question. The right one is whether you think women should have rights to their own bodies without interference from the state, writes Sophie Bateman for Newshub

Abortion is never not a hot-button topic, but it’s certainly having a moment right now.

Harsh new restrictions in the US have reignited the eternal debate over how much control governments should have over the bodies of their citizens.

Alabama, Georgia and Missouri have all effectively banned abortion in the last week, with the Republican Party making it clear their end goal is to overturn Roe v. Wade and re-criminalise the procedure across all 50 states.

Kiwis might shake our heads in dismay, but our own laws are also restrictive and punishing. Abortion remains in the Crimes Act in New Zealand, and women who need one are forced to get two different certificates from two different doctors who agree that continuing the pregnancy would endanger their mental or physical health. The law doesn’t treat the simple desire not to have a child as a valid reason to terminate.

Over the weekend National MP Alfred Ngaro – who’s flirting with the idea of starting a new Christian conservative party – shared a Facebook post for a “pro-life” rally which called abortion an “unholy holocaust”. The language is extreme, but it captures the knee-jerk revulsion many people, not just the deeply religious, feel when confronted with the concept of terminating a pregnancy.

Because most people don’t like the idea of abortion, they need some convincing that women who seek the procedure truly need or deserve it. The internet has been deluged in the last few days with women sharing why they’ve had abortions: they couldn’t afford a child, their contraception failed, their lives were at risk, they’d been raped. It was brave for these women to share their own trauma to try to protect the rights of others, but they shouldn’t have to bargain for their humanity by listing their “good reasons” for having an abortion.

Many people who say they’re morally opposed to abortion will make an exception for cases of rape or incest, as famed feminist ally Donald Trump clarified last week.

This position is based on the premise that if a woman has suffered, and didn’t get pregnant as a result of consensual sex she enjoyed, then she deserves to end said pregnancy if she wants. But if you’re a person who believes life begins at conception, and that a foetus has the same right to life as any human, then that “baby” has still been killed – you just feel slightly better about it because at least the woman wasn’t being an irresponsible slut.

We in the West like to think of ourselves as sexually liberated and open-minded, but when it comes to abortion suddenly we’re all God-fearing Puritans who believe pleasure is a sin. A sin for which women bear all responsibility.

Prayer not protest, say the people holding a vigil outside the Auckland Medical Aid Centre on Dominion Rd. Photo Alex Braae.

The idea that humans only have sex for procreative purposes is not, and never has been true. As long as humans have existed we’ve found creative ways to avoid pregnancy, from lemon rind diaphragms to lamb intestine condoms. We like sex, and we don’t always want to conceive a child from said sex. If every orgasm resulted in a baby the world would collapse from overpopulation. The solution is either for humans to only have sex in order to procreate (which has never worked) or for there to be accessible and socially acceptable ways to both prevent and terminate pregnancy.

There are many popular thought experiments women use to try to convince men they deserve bodily autonomy, and if you’ve ever been online while #abortion is trending you’ll have seen them.

There’s the burning hospital dilemma: you can either save a five-year-old child or a room full of embryos, and if you choose the child you’re admitting fully born humans have more of a right to life than a clump of cells.

There’s the organ donation parable: if no one can force you to donate a kidney to save someone else’s life, they can’t force you to stay pregnant to save the “life” of a foetus.

There’s the ‘what if men could get pregnant?’ argument: if men were the sex saddled with the burden of childbearing, every street corner would have a free abortion clinic.

These aren’t bad ways to frame what many see as a complex issue further complicated by religious beliefs and entrenched misogyny. But they’re missing the point.

When it comes to taking a stance on abortion, the only question you have to ask yourself is this: should the state have the power to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term? If your answer is no, congratulations! You’re pro-choice.

It doesn’t matter if you’re squeamish about the idea or if you think you “wouldn’t be able to do it”. If you believe the government shouldn’t have the ability to force women to stay pregnant against their will, you believe in the right to abortion. And if you believe in the right to abortion, you must also believe abortions should be free and easily accessible to anyone who wants one.

Not “needs” one – wants one. The desire to not be pregnant is as valid a reason to discontinue being pregnant as any. Women don’t have to suffer, to apologise, to explain themselves, to bare their souls in order to be worthy of deciding what happens in their own bodies. Their decision doesn’t have to be palatable to you for it to have been the right one for them.