Comments

James McKinnon April 23rd, 2016

On 22 April, the jury was back to a full complement of 12: 5 angry men, 6 women, and a small bear. Witnesses for the defense included a political scientist who challenged the credibility of Kiwimeter as "research," and the defendant himself, whose name is under suppression. The evidence presented by the witnesses supported the defense's argument that the allegedly defamatory statements at the center of the case represent an honest opinion, and are based on verifiable facts. 

This evidence also damaged the plaintiff's case by casting doubt on the legitimacy of Kiwimeter as "research." The classification of respondents into 6 pre-determined categories designated by connotatively loaded titles ("Patriot," e.g.) is a key issue, as is the use of what the defendant called "dog whistle" terms such as "special treatment," which, in the context of public discourse on right wing media outlets in NZ, is a euphemistic term carrying the connotation of "unfair privileges." The argument strongly implied by the defence is that among a certain constituent of New Zealanders, the dog whistle term transforms the ostensibly neutral Kiwimeter question "Do you think Maori should get special treatment" into something more like, "Maori want more than they deserve, don't they?" It was also pointed out that the term "Kiwimeter" could itself be taken as an indication that the survey was unreliable. Although the survey was allegedly designed to develop a picture of the range of "national identity," of New Zealanders, the term "Kiwimeter" suggests that New Zealanders might somehow be considered less than "100% Pure NZ" (so to speak) depending on how they answered the questions. In other words, the survey might serve to make respondents feel marginalized from their own nation if it told them that their views made them less than "100% Kiwi." (And the term "Kiwi" may itself be more strongly associated with and self-identified by pakeha New Zealanders than others.) 

John Smythe April 21st, 2016

A Trail – the civil suit TVNZ is bringing against a Defendant whose name remains suppressed – continued under the Dome at BATS Theatre last night. This time Justice Ranzerson was indulged in her wish to enter through a cloud of smoke although it is not yet the big puff that heralds the magical appearance of a pantomime genie.

While Court Taker Courtenay T Taker had acceded to the Judge request the put her ponytail into a bun, Defence Counsel Miss Rizmackon had put her hair up in the offending format. This discombobulated the Judge who let her off with a warning rather than charging her with contempt. As it turned out a tendency to nod off as the trial proceeded precluded the distraction issues the Judge had feared in the presence of a ponytail.

The case revolves around the assertion that the 60-question Kiwimeter Survey was racist because it asked respondents to agree or disagree, on a sliding scale, with the statement, “Māori should not receive any special treatment.” (This was followed by, “Māori culture is something that all New Zealanders can take pride in, no matter their background” – but this has yet to be mentioned in evidence.)

I was wrong to suggest, yesterday, that both counsels would open their cases. It was Counsel for the aggrieved Plaintiff (TVNZ), Mr Backensdael, who led last night with his opening address and calling of two witnesses, who Miss Rizmackon, of course, was able to cross-examine.

Mr Backensdael asserted that researchers must be entitled to conduct their scientific surveys without being subject to “the tyranny of public opinion”; that the narrative of Kiwimeter has been “clouded by the ramblings of a self-appointed opinion maker” (the un-nameable blogger/Defendant). Despite these somewhat oxymoronic views, his description of the Defendant as a figure skater trying to dance with a walrus on thin ice in the warmest summer on record earned approval from the Judge, who is partial to a good metaphor.  

Courtenay T Taker proved ill-prepared for the first witness’s desire to take the oath in te reo, swearing on a Maori Bible. Politely accomodating, Ms Mia Symons, a Public Relations Adviser with TVNZ, explained the purpose and methodology of the Kiwimeter Survey, created by Canadian political scientists with input from colleagues at New Zealand universities. While the questions were designed to elicit a reaction, she pointed out that asking whether, for example, John should paint his house yellow, did not imply that he was painting his house yellow.  

Having assured the court she’d played no part in creating the survey, although it had been timed to coincide with the Flag Referendum, Ms Symons became very upset as she revealed the emotional toll the controversy had taken on her personally. Consoling herself with confectionary, she then offered the bag of sweets to an eager Jury – and astonishingly the Defence raised no objection to what could well be construed as a blatant attempt to win their sympathy.

I trust Justice Ranzerson will make it very clear, in her summing up on Saturday, that emotion and bribes are to play no part in their determination; the case must be decided on the facts alone.

The second witness was Mr David Farrar, a political polster who has owned a market research company for 20 years, blogs on Kiwiblog, is a member of the National Party and works for them. His desire to swear a religious oath on the Torah (being Jewish) was also frustrated by the Court Taker having no Torah to hand.

Mr Farrar was very clear that “even if a question is racist it is not necessarily a bad question to ask.” It is equally valid, and not sexist, he suggested, to ask Americans, “Do you think a woman should be President?”  Under cross examination, in response to the suggestion that the statement “Māori should not receive any special treatment” implies Māori are disadvantaged, he did suggest that approach would be more useful in developing public policy than in gauging levels of public prejudice.

The importance of releasing the full data upon which survey finding are bases was stressed as a matter of professional integrity. This would help to clarify the question that has arisen concerning clearly racist respondents being awarded the label ‘Patriot’ in the result the online survey generates for each participant.

Justice Ranzerson closed proceedings with her customary whimsical observations and promised a song to see us on our way. Sadly the clerk’s laptop emitted only a thin, reedy facsimile of JLo’s ‘Love Don’t Cost Anything’. Nevertheless some in the public gallery hummed along.

The case proceeds tonight through to Saturday and as I will not be attending, I hope others will update proceedings briefly or longly over the next three days.

See also: http://atrialshow.weebly.com/name-of-defendant-leaked-on-social-media.html