Monday, 23 May 2016
#WhitePrivilege
The hashtag #whiteprivilege is currently trending on Facebook in NZ. This is in regards to the comparison made between two cases of theft. In one, four white boys stole $80,000 worth of property, and in the other, a Maori man stole trout from a spawning stream. The boys have been sentenced to community service and home detention, whereas the Maori man has been sentenced to a 3 month long jail term.
The sentencing of the four boys has caused outrage, especially in the Maori community. Facebook posts, news articles and interviews with figures such as the Former Maori Affairs Minister Dover Samuels have publicly questioned the sentencing of the boys, with the public arguing they were let off because they are white. Does this comparison prove white privilege is prevalent in the legal institutions of New Zealand? Or are people comparing two unrelated incidents with a lack of proper analysis?
Many have questioned the similarities between the cases. In the case of David Pake Leef, who did not initially appear for his court date and who was then accompanied by a disruptive companion, his crime is certainly smaller in monetary terms. However, Leef, whatever his motivations, avoided his court sentencing, which resulted in an extra month added to his sentence. In comparison, the four boys attended their court dates and apologised immediately, which although does not relieve them of their wrongdoings, it certainly makes them appear more apologetic and respectful of the court.
The comparison may be between Leef's case and the four boy's case, but commentators seem to then question the legal system in regards to what would happen if four Maori boys committed the same crime, and how they would have been sentenced differently. The cases' may both be about burglary, but the similarities stop there. The laws which applied to the cases may be the place where the blame lies, the judge's decision is not.
The four boy's were defended by lawyers, which some commentators have argued is the reason for their 'inadequate' punishment. In that case, it is money, not race nor the colour of their skin which has resulted in their sentencing. The boy's have committed their first offence, whereas Leef has been arrested on more than one occasion, a factor which is significant in the length of sentencing and the degree.
It begs the question as to whether the trending of this hashtag and the cases used to argue its existence is a serious issue which needs to be addressed, or if the use of social media has wrongly promoted an issue which hasn't been properly sourced, analysed or argued. The majority of commentators on Facebook have argued points which have then be rebutted by evidence which was ignored, or perhaps just unknown to the commentators. Either way, the hype which has built up over this issue and these cases is significant and certainly needs to be explored, and so does the issue of white privilege, however, the cases used and the arguments given in relation to the cases are irrelevant for a number of reasons.
Article on the First case- http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11639591
Article on theSecond case- http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11641836
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
These sorts of issues are certainly very interesting. It is also very common for social media sites to spread something like this to the point where barely anyone actually has any idea what the original story or point really was.
ReplyDeleteThe fact the boys are still teenagers and the man is a full grown adult will also have some baring on their respective sentences, but I feel like there is a general agreement that if these four boys, regardless of age or criminal history, had been of maori decent their sentencing would have been more severe. Also these boys, more likely their parents, could afford a good lawyer, or at least probably a better one than the David Pake Leef.
In this particular case this issue may not be as relevant as social media appears to want it to be but it certainly is something that has been brought up in relevant cases. The fact that New Zealand has a prison population with a high percentage of Maori defiantly warrants questioning, and related issues in the USA also bring up similar statistics and issues.
White privilege is still a relevant issue in most countries around the world and although this specific case may not be the best example of it in the criminal courts, the fact that it is so easy to find these distinctions shows it is very much a social issue and on the collective social mind. Which I think is defiantly a good thing.
I have heard about these two cases and I find it extremely ridiculous. There is really no definition to these kinds of situations. Stories like this goes to show how white privilege is real and still exists in society. We can't determine what our skin colour will be - it is something that is natural and cannot be altered. Therefore it is unfair that something such as the colour of your skin allows you to be more important than some others. 3 months in jail for taking a fish is unbelievable. It is almost funny due to how silly it is. Just because the man was Maori/brown, a harsh consequence was put forward - Since being brown associates you with stereotypical criminal activities, and you must be punished more severely because you're brown.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is true that being white automatically subscribes you to a life long supply of advantages. The world glorifies white people... it is just a stone cold truth. In the 21st century we live in today, it is horrendous to think about the fact that we still have not yet overcome that poor ideology of whites being superior.