Cartoons ‘insulting’ says judge

Controversial cartoons featuring negative stereotypes of Ma¯ ori and Pasifika were ‘‘insulting,’’ a High Court judge has said.

But whether they incited ‘‘public hostility’’ against these ethnic groups and breached the Human Rights Act was the point up for debate at Auckland’s High Court yesterday.

Labour MP Louisa Wall is appealing a decision by the Human Rights Review Tribunal, which rejected Wall’s complaint that the cartoons were ‘‘insulting and ignorant put-downs of Ma¯ ori and Pacific people’’.

In the High Court in Auckland, Justice Matthew Muir said the aim of the hearing was to ‘‘look afresh’’ at whether there was a breach of the Human Rights Act.

‘‘No-one is contending that the cartoons were not insulting, we certainly all regard them as insulting.

‘‘It is a grossly inappropriate generalisation of Ma¯ ori parents. What is insulting about the cartoon is to suggest that this is the exclusive preserve of Ma¯ ori and Pasifika parents.

‘‘This is about how we apply the balance of the test of Section 61.’’

Section 61 of the Human Rights Act states the cartoons must be ‘‘threatening, abusive, or insulting’’ and ‘‘likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons’’ on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins.

In her opening remarks for

"How does this not bring Ma¯ ori and Pasifika into contempt?"

Lawyer Prue Kapua

Wall, human rights lawyer Prue Kapua said the cartoons did bring Ma¯ ori and Pasifika into contempt.

‘‘How does this not bring Ma¯ ori and Pasifika into contempt, if they are defined as welfare bludgers and negligent parents and consumed with smoking, drinking and alcohol?’’

Justice Muir agreed, but was not convinced most people would take the cartoons at face value.

‘‘The tribunal took the view that in the context of a ‘free market of ideas’ in an essentially socially liberal country, the reasonable person would concede that, albeit incredibly tasteless, the cartoons were not likely to incite hostility or bring people into contempt.’’

Most people would say the cartoons were simply cartoonist Al Nisbet’s ‘‘warped view of the world,’’ he said.

Kapua said there had to be some limits to freedom of expression where it was discriminatory and prompted ‘‘negative and unhelpful’’ conversations.

‘‘All this did was encourage people to express their views about Ma¯ ori and Pasifika families.

‘‘There is an expectation that cartoons do exaggerate a matter to highlight it, but the way Maori and Pasifika were portrayed here is not about highlighting an issue, but is done as a criticism, a stereotype, a cheap shot.’’

Justice Muir said freedom of speech was a ‘‘foundational cornerstone’’ of democracy, and any attempts to curtail it needed to be considered in this light.

Wall and South Auckland youth group Warriors of Change took Fairfax Media and The Press and Marlborough Express newspapers to the tribunal over two drawings by cartoonist Al Nisbet about the Government’s breakfast in schools programme in 2013.

Fairfax Media, which publishes the newspapers, also owns Stuff.

One cartoon depicted a group of adults, dressed as children, eating breakfast at school and saying ‘‘Psst ... If we can get away with this, the more cash left for booze, smokes and pokies’’.

The other showed a family sitting around a table littered with Lotto tickets, alcohol and cigarettes and saying ‘‘Free school food is great! Eases our poverty and puts something in you kids’ bellies’’.

The tribunal ruled in May while the cartoons may have ‘‘offended, insulted or even angered’’, they were ‘‘not likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of their colour, race, or ethnic or national origins’’.

It said for that reason their publication was not unlawful.

Wall appealed to the High Court.