Dear New Zealand,

We need to talk about racism. Because if the term continues to be misused, it will cease to have any proper meaning.
 
A couple of weeks ago, ACT party leader Jamie Whyte presented a speech entitled ‘Race has no place in the law’, where he argued the importance of equality before the law, regardless of race. Essentially, the law should be colour-blind.
 
The speech was immediately condemned by the media, academics, and politicians across the spectrum who accused Whyte of resorting to dog-whistle politics, playing the “race card’ because it resounds with a faction of red-neck New Zealanders.
 
But let’s be clear about what racism is. Racism is the belief that members of a race possess certain characteristics, abilities or qualities that distinguish that race as superior or inferior.
 
Whyte’s speech did not attack the characteristics of the Maori race, but questioned institutions that promote racial discrimination; keeping in mind that discrimination can be positive or negative.

Sure, there will be some who argue the speech was historically ignorant, hyperbolic, or a poorly timed desperate attempt at relevance. That doesn’t make it racist.

Perplexingly, the Race Relations Commissioner slammed Whyte’s speech, urging politicians to "do the right thing and stick to those major issues that will help make New Zealand a better place for all our children to grow up in".

It would seem the Commissioner believes racial equality is not a major issue, nor will any discussion of our current differential racial treatment make New Zealand a better place.

Perhaps there is a fear that any such discussion would only stir extremism and social turmoil. However, this is a conversation that is not neatly divided along the lines of red-neck New Zealand versus everyone else.

There should be nothing insidious about questioning our institutions, they are after all, an extension of the past and our legacy for the future. If our institutions are truly robust, they would stand up to scrutiny.

And there are important questions to consider: Is there any place for collectivist mentality in modern legislation? Is the purpose of legal privileges to recognise historical agreements, or compensate for material disadvantage? To what extent does historical injustice explain the socioeconomic disparities we see today?

Most importantly: what forms of racial discrimination, either positive or negative, are we as a society willing to tolerate?

It says a lot about the lack of diversity in public discourse, that some of the key features of our political and legal system are not up for civilised and intellectual debate. But perhaps that is too much to expect of a society so enthralled by the “real” issues: like the appropriate use of the term “sugar daddy”.