WHY THE DISTINCTION ?
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TRESS Sir, —A feature made popular by politicians of this country is as follows: —“The equality privileges of the Maori.” It is therefore all the more regrettable that the sincere attempt by our leaders to fulfil that British boast of “equality to all under its protection,” is not adopted by the press. I refer to the evident line of demarcation drawn by the press in reporting cases where the principal is of Maori lineage. As a member of the Maori race X consider the publicity accorded such reports to be irrelevant and unfair. Not content with the name only as in most cases, the unfortunate native is given pride of position with glaring headlines of Maori charged, sentenced, or acquitted. Seldom, if ever, the publication ot one’s nationality is manifest when Irish, Scottish, or alien races are similarly embarrassed. I now ask, why the distinction of fish for one and fowl for the other? It is to the democratic principle and the universal reputation for fair-play of the press of New Zealand that I submit this protest, and appeal that a cessation will be applied to future repetitions of the offence. —Yours, etc., A. MANAWATU. March 11, 1939.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19390314.2.32.8
Bibliographic details
Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22659, 14 March 1939, Page 7
Word Count
206WHY THE DISTINCTION ? Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22659, 14 March 1939, Page 7
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.
Log in