Talking about race, gender and sexuality should be a precarious topic for anyone in government, because whatever your own situation is (whether you’re a man, woman, gay, white, Maori, trans, etc.), you represent all the people. This means that ministers have a duty of care and representation to all people, no matter what. Even if the criminals. Everyone.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t talk about sensitive topics. It also doesn’t mean that you can’t say negative things about any of the demographics that you represent. It does mean that you have to be very careful what you say and why you say it, and of course careful of any policy that you might make that targets any groups of individuals.
Why do you have to be careful? Because the words and choices of people in power have an effect. Also, it shows insight into how you approach such sensitive/complicated issues and your inclination towards careful consideration of targeted policy. While words can hurt people and thoughtless policy can be detrimental, the worst outcome of such a lack of care is that a politician can create intentionally harmful policy towards a group. We’ve seen this countless times throughout history and I don’t think I need to give any examples; suffice to say that no group is historically free of guilt.
Given that preface, I will draw your attention towards the Minister (for the Prevention of Family Violence and Sexual Violence of New Zealand) and Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson who has made headlines for a comment she made at a recent rally: “I am a violence prevention minister and I know who causes violence in the world, it is white, cis men.”1
As a white, cis male, this was frustrating and offensive to hear, but after calming down I thought to myself, I’m having an emotional reaction to something without thinking about it properly.
It’s perfectly valid and good that ministers should be targeting problem groups in order to fix societal problems. After all, without knowing where a problem is, how can you fix it? It may also be appropriate for a minister to publicly call out groups for political reasons when necessary. For example, if the world was in denial about white, cis men causing violence, then it might be necessary to persuade the public in order to get policies passed that can address white, cis men directly.
Of course, if the statement was made in malice, falsehood or without reason, that would be a very disturbing thing indeed. Especially given that white people represent about 70%2 of people in NZ and approximately half of which are men (35% of NZ).
So there are 2 things that we need to determine, firstly is it true and secondly, why did she say that?
Is It True And Why Did She Say That?
Stuff have a great article which accesses a lot of research on the subject that this time-constrained author is too lazy to verify. I’ll paraphrase the article’s evidence-based conclusions:
Men are more violent than women
White men represent the majority of male criminals because they make up the majority of males in NZ
More Māori than white people were convicted of family violence offences in 2022, but as a fraction of reported offences end in a conviction (is this because of the severity of the violence, validity of claims, racism in the judicial system or something else?), more data is needed to draw any conclusions on this.
(Stuff’s article didn’t go as far as to talk about per capita crime rates based on race, which I think is more responsible than Marama Davidson’s approach)
However, there’s a major aspect of Marama Davidson’s statement that Stuff seemed to turn a blind eye to in their conclusion, which is that she said that white, cis men cause violence in the world.
The problem I’ve got with the sentence is that implies that without white, cis men there would be no violence in the world. I’d accept that some white, cis men have and do cause violence in the world, but looking at all the violence that is currently, and has gone on in the world (think Africa, the Middle East, Asia and our home in the Pacific), it’s definitely not a problem that’s specific to any race or sexuality. More specifically, the problem I’ve got with it is that it’s a lie that seems to be biased by race and sexuality. Given that it was at a rally, it also seems inciteful of hate, rather than addressing any solution… But perhaps I’m jumping the gun. Let’s look at her defence that might give clues about why she said that.
Marama Davidson’s Justification
This was Marama Davidson’s justification for publicly decrying white, cis men as the cause of violence in the world:
“I should have made clear in my comments that violence happens in every community. My intention was to affirm that trans people are deserving of support and to keep the focus on the fact that men are the main perpetrators of violence.”3
To break down her justification, she starts by acknowledging that white people aren’t the only source of violence, which makes me think that the exacerbation of her rally speech was not said out of careful thought. Notably she made no comment on her view of people’s cis sexuality affecting their propensity to violence.
She then goes on to say that the aim of saying that white, cis men are the cause of violence in the world was because men are the main perpetrators of violence. I feel like there’s a logic flaw here, because men are not all white, cis men. We can’t say that men cause violence, therefore the cause of violence is white, cis men. Given that white men don’t even represent a significant majority of men in the world, it seems less accurate again.
Given that what she said was false and inciteful with no apparent goal, her statement fits exactly my original concern of the worst sort of people in power who speak on sensitive subjects with malice, falsehood or without reason. This is another example of this government’s attempt to turn people against each other.
I firmly believe that Marama Davidson is not fit to be in any position of power and in fact it’s dangerous to have such a person remain in power after this event.