Writers’ views not endorsed

In the opinion piece Racists don’t care about new definitions of hate (Feb 25), Fred Albert and Marilyn Garson described themselves as ‘‘members and service leaders’’ at Wellington’s Progressive Synagogue, without offering any further disclaimer. In doing so their views have in effect been construed to be those of the Wellington Progressive Jewish Congregation (Temple Sinai) and its members.

As board chair of the Wellington Progressive Jewish Congregation, I want to dissociate the organisation from the views expressed by the authors. They are not representative of the Wellington Progressive Jewish Congregation, which is neither anti- nor non-Zionist.

We have seen first hand in New Zealand the destructive and tragic consequences of racial discrimination, bigotry and hate. Closer to home, our own synagogue has been a recent target of hateful Nazi graffiti.

Experience has shown that blatant racism and hate typically starts small in subtler forms, like the casual racism and anti-Semitism that we are all too familiar with, to the point of it becoming normalised.

The Wellington Progressive Jewish Congregation Board recognises the value of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition as a tool for education on antiSemitism, its intended purpose.

Similarly, it welcomes other working definitions of racism, such as Islamophobia, that can offer value as educational tools.

We value free speech and a diversity of views within and outside of our synagogue and will continue to approach the question of anti-Semitism and racism using education.

Matthew Smith, Wellington Progressive Jewish Congregation (Temple Sinai)

A loaded definition

Wellington City Council has shelved its plan to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antiSemitism but Mayor Andy Foster says it will be reconsidered ‘‘in due course’’ as people are reading into it things that ‘‘were never remotely intended’’.

As an Israeli-born Kiwi, I believe the latter statement shows a scarcely believable degree of naivety. Any Google search of IHRA shows the worldwide controversy stirred by that definition,

Email: letters@dompost.co.nz

No attachments. Write: Letters to the Editor, PO Box 1297, Wellington, 6040. Letters must include the writer’s full name, home address and daytime phone number. Letters should not exceed 200 words and must be exclusive. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.

The Dominion Post is subject to the NZ Media Council. Complaints must be directed to editor@dompost.co. nz. If the complainant is unsatisfied with the response, the complaint may be referred to the Media Council, PO Box 10-879, Wellington, 6143 or info@mediacouncil.org.nz. Further details at presscouncil.org.nz

that automatically equates criticism of the state of Israel with anti-Semitism.

Israel has used this to stymie criticism of its oppression of Palestinians and 52-year occupation of the West Bank.

My mother and her family had to flee Berlin when the Nazis arrested family members. They became penniless refugees as millions of Palestinians and Syrians are today. But the Holocaust doesn’t give Israel any right to oppress Palestinians or behave with cruelty as the Nazis did.

Like almost half of Israelis, I abhor recent governments of Israel that eschew Jewish values of tolerance, non-violence, and caring for strangers. And like many progressive fellow-Kiwi Jews, I reject attempts to suppress legitimate criticism of Israel.

I applaud efforts to oppose racism, but adopting the IHRA definition would potentially label valid criticism of my former homeland as anti-Semitic.

Tamar Louisson, Seatoun

Exam-itis

So there is controversy over the proposed changes to NCEA Level 1 (Changes to

NCEA cop backlash, Feb 27).

The astounding thing is that we still persist in NCEA Level 1 exams and assessments. Why bother?

Schools can decide what subjects to offer and teach in year 11 without having to be restricted by the straitjacket of NZQA.

New Zealand has always been obsessed with examinations and national qualifications, but mainly as a ‘‘gatekeeping’’ device. You needed school certificate to get a job or proceed to the next educational level. Then you needed university entrance (UE) in order to get a job in a government department or go to university.

Once the qualification no longer served as a gatekeeper, because most students passed, it was dropped.

Insofar as the professed aim is to have a 100 per cent pass rate for NCEA Level 1, what use does it serve? Apart from tying up teachers in continual and continuous assessment.

But unfortunately, any school brave and confident enough to develop their own curriculum and assessment criteria at year 11, and refuse to be hobbled by the demands of NZQA, would be pilloried by the community.

We are a country with the highest number of state-monitored examinations in the secondary sector in the world. Why?

Rob Julian, Johnsonville

Public service reforms

Both the present Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt and his predecessor Rosslyn Noonan, now an international consultant, have been determined that all public policy and the business of the state be consistently designed and evaluated through a human rights lens.

If nothing else, the matters before the

Royal Commission on the Abuse of Children in Care reinforce the importance of this approach.

Now Mr Hunt has severely challenged the Public Service Legislation Bill for its neglect of this dimension. It is debatable that this is actually a cynical double standard or some form of deliberate hypocrisy.

More likely, it is simply an example of intellectual flaccidity, limited vision, and enthusiastic preference for new fads like ‘‘functional chief executives’’ and ‘‘interdepartmental executive boards’’.

Either way, the main issue that bedevils this bill is this: what is the problem it is intended to solve?

Judith Aitken, Paeka¯ ka¯ riki

Wrong target

In Law change ‘hard on gangs with guns’ (Feb 20), the police minister says ‘‘he cannot understand why the National Party would not support going after gangs and tougher penalties for gun crime’’.

National, ACT and all law-abiding firearms owners object to the fact that the bill is far harder on those of us who own and use firearms legally than on criminals. Adding in a few sentences about gang membership is just putting lipstick on a pig.

Experience in many other countries proves registration to be a costly bureaucratic nightmare with no effect on criminal misuse of firearms and it will be no different here.

There is no magic formula to make a bad idea work. This bill will make running a shooting club so complicated that most volunteer committees will be overwhelmed and give up.

Loss of a safe, regulated place to shoot benefits nobody; and certainly will have no effect on criminals.

This law will not accomplish what the Labour Government says it will. What it will do is ruin shooting sports in New Zealand.

D O Buck, Maoribank

Police don’t need this

Once again, during a huge national television campaign for safety on the roads, our over-busy police have been thrown a curve ball by idiotic case law and a judge, who had the opportunity to make a difference.

Kingston Webb’s case is appalling. At 18, studying law, having been driving for one year, he was clocked on a Friday night in Napier at 7.40pm in suboptimal vision doing 148kmh, almost double the road speed.

I can’t imagine there was no-one else around, in fact he was caught when he reached a bunch of cars going his way.

Dare I say this reeks of cronyism somewhere down the line? Let’s hope police don’t have to scrape him up one day.

Linda Klein-Nixon, Waiwhetu