The reaction to the cartoons from Al Nisbet (shown on this blog), about the government's newly-announced policy to provide children with breakfast at lower decile schools, is more interesting than the cartoons themselves. The cartoons have really brought the political correctness brigade out of the woodwork including that old Marxist, John Minto, who laid a complaint with the Race Relations Conciliator, Susan Devoy.
The cartoonist is not saying much more than I said myself in a comment on Not PC's blog. I pointed out that the policy would give parents the moral mandate not to feed their children breakfast (in fact, Al Nisbet's words in his cartoon were so similar to mine I wondered whether he had read mine). I didn't identify the issue as being specific to Maori or Pacific Island families and, actually, neither explicitly did Al Nisbet. Some of the characters in his cartoons have Polynesian features and that was enough for the professional offence takers to do what they always do - that is, take offence irrespective of whether offence was intended.
Green Party leader Metiria Turei asks about the cartoons, "Does our country really hate us?" My response to that, on another blog, is when you treat the rest of us like slaves who exist merely to serve you, are you really surprised? The productive minority in this country, who pay all the taxes (17% of New Zealand households pay 97% of income taxes), are getting tired of being the milch cows for those who are not prepared to take responsibility for providing for the children that they bring into the world. We have a right to be resentful and Al Nisbet was insightful and absolutely correct to express that sentiment.
The reaction to the cartoons, just like the satirical Danish Islamic cartoons, is indicative of how their author found his mark. As Shakespeare's Queen Gertrude said, the likes of Minto and Turei "doth protest too much". They are shouting that tired cliche "racist!" because they would rather not address the sharp truth in Al Nisbet's satire. The real question, as I said on Not PC's blog, is how can anyone justify paying these parents welfare benefits (including
supplements targeted at the care of the child) while at the same time
relieving them of the responsibility of feeding their children?