The media is much too quick to allege racism

Derek Burrows

TO PARAPHRASE Arkwright from Open All Hours, it was a funny old week last week.

First we had Prince Harry slagged off in the world's press for calling one of his army buddies "our little Paki friend" albeit more than two years ago. Then some tabloid dragged up the fact that Prince Charles's nickname for one of his polo buddies is Sooty.

Finally there was a furore in Invercargill because a Turkish-born cafe owner refused to serve two Israeli sisters as a gesture of solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza. All three incidents drew cries of racism.

Much as it goes against my natural inclinations, I have to say I feel that only the latter falls into that category.

I am by no means a monarchist, and some of the antics of the Royal Family in recent years have made me cringe, but I feel it's way over the top to accuse Harry and Charles of racism.

According to my dictionary, racism is: 1) the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others; 2) abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such belief.

Frankly, I feel the royal duo's remarks fall well short of either criterion.

It's all a matter of context. In both instances the remarks were obviously made in jocular fashion to someone with whom they were friends and had no fear of offence being taken.

We have a Pakistani friend living in England and his reaction to the controversy was that the media must have been bored and hard-pressed for real news.

He said context was the vital issue. To call someone "our little Paki friend" in light-hearted barrack room banter was light years away from calling someone a "f---ing Paki".

Paki, after all, is only a contraction of Pakistani and is it any worse than calling a Scot Jock, a Welshman Taffy or, indeed, an English person a Pom?

I'd certainly take context into account if someone referred to me as a Pom.

I dont mind being called "A soccer-loving Pom" but would take exception to being told "Go home, Pom". Context as a determining factor is everything.

Likewise, it's difficult to see the racism in Charles's nickname for a polo club colleague.

Apparently Punjabi-born Kolin Dhillon has been called Sooty by his friend for years and doesn't take the slightest offence. He goes further and says he actually enjoys the nickname as he feels it's a term of affection, which it clearly is.

Given the upper class penchant for silly nicknames, Mr Dhillon is probably relieved to have been given the moniker Sooty. It's much easier to bear than Dhillers or Kollers.

And so to the case of cafe owner Mustafa Tekinkaya, who refused to serve two Israeli sisters after he heard them speaking Hebrew.

I've a great deal of sympathy for Mr Tekinkaya. As a Muslim he's obviously been very distressed at the slaughter going on in Gaza in recent weeks and wanted to show some solidarity with the Palestinians.

Like many Muslims, he's probably extremely frustrated at the Israeli government's intransigence in the Middle East; its refusal to withdraw from the occupied territories; and the building of illegal settlements and the horrific wall that divides communities.

However, he was wrong to target two Israeli women, one of whom is now living in Invercargill with her family.

They are not responsible for the actions of Israel's government, any more than I was responsible for Tony Blair's decision to invade Iraq.

Protest is quite legitimate but to target two innocent women in this way was a mistake.

However, I think it was action borne out of frustration because the New Zealand government has refused to condemn the butchering in Gaza.

And on the topic of racism, you have to go no further than radio talkback and blogs to sample some of the bile spouted on this incident, confirming that bigotry is indeed alive and well in New Zealand.

- © Fairfax NZ News