More on Henry Isaac's Editorial

Re Rob Rabel's letter Salient 14/6/76.

Mr Rabel in his last letter seemed to think I have no regard for freedom of speech but I'm afraid he hastily reached this conclusion without taking sufficient note of the tone of my letter (Salient 31/5/76).

My objection to Mr Isaac's articulation of N.Z. ills was not in his legal right of expression but in his moral right as a guest in this country. It is only common courtesy not to condemn his hosts with such sweeping statments. His next point that I resorted to "argumentum ad hominem" is probably justified but I regarded Mr Isaac's editorial as a personal attack on my countrymen, as if he had said "You New Zealanders are all racists". I sought to defend my country from an unjustified attack. The editorial itself did not deserve a comprehensive rebuttal since it advanced no facts to refute.

Mr Rabel finds it difficult to "reconcile arrogance with being oppressed". I am not so shortsighted. There are many groups and individuals who deserve the description of the "arrogant oppressed" (e.g. Black Power, Militant Unionists etc). II Mr Rabel thinks all oppressed people are meek and humble he does them an injustice. The deep rooted prejudice at which Rob writes is evidenced in "talk hack shows, letters to the editor, public bar conversations and even graffitti." But is this real racism? If so, it is only generalised racism and not specific. The average Kiwi may complain about Polynesian violence or Pommy Trade Unionists, but does he refuse to talk or drink with a person not of his race. I have seldom seen it. Being of Irish origin I could strongly object to being called a Mick or suffering the many Irish jokes that are told. I don't. The people who call this type of thing racism are oversensitive racial hypocondriacs who are looking for some bandwagon to jump on. We have to recognise our differences and when these are emphasised the trendies should not jump up and down screaming racism.

Mr Rabel did not identify the M.P. that advocated a system of apartheid for New Zealand. Does "trumpeted the virtues of racial separatism" answer my question? I think not. My final suggestion that Mr Isaac's should leave if he was not satisfied is quite reasonable, He is not a Citizen and can return to his own country. His continued stay indicates that NZ may not be one of the most racist countries in the world as he so forthrightly suggests. My main point was that this was an unfair description of NZ and Mr Rabel has failed to answer this. I stand by my objection to Mr Isaac's editorial and pray that Mr Rabel notes its unfairness.

Chris O'Connor