A good move, maybe
December 27th, 2006 at 1:10 am by David FarrarThe NZ Herald reports that Helen Clark has “ordered greater Government activity on religious and cultural diversity issues to avoid New Zealand developing the sort of extremism seen in immigrant communities in Britain.”
This is a vitally important issue. Extremism, and let’s be blunt we are talking Islamic extremism, amongst some immigrants is the biggest issue in Europe at the moment, and will be for decades to come.
However I have concerns that this review of religious and cultural diversity by the Ministry of Social Development will at best lead to platitudes and at worse be an attack on free speech.
“And once here, we want people to be able to settle in a way that is respectful of them and their beliefs and to have a reasonable belief that they will be accepted and included,”
Three things about this quote from the PM ring small alarm bells. The first is that it only talks about New Zealanders being respectful of the beliefs of those who move here, and absolutely nothing at all about the need for those moving here to also be respectful of the beliefs and rights of those already here. Country after country in Europe is making clear there are obligations both ways. We need to do the same.
The second is there is a difference between respecting the choice someone makes with their beliefs and respecting their beliefs. I don’t respect the beliefs of Scientology but if a friend of mine was a scientologist I’d respect his or her right to believe in it, and wouldn’t hassle them over it so long as they respected my rights to watch Southpark!
The third is does respecting beliefs mean banning criticism of a religion through hate speech type laws? The PM has already shown with the Danish cartoons that her regard for freedom of speech is low. Ironically the person who has most demonised a religious minority in recent times has been Helen with the Exclusive Brethren!
In summary it is good the Government is recognising that there have been significant problems overseas, and it would be undesirable to have the same problems here. However their solutions could make things worse, not better.
The really good thing though is that New Zealand is perhaps the only Western country which doesn’t have a significant extremist faction in its local Islamic community. The leadership of the NZ Islamic community have time and time again shown wisdom and responsibility in their reactions to events like the Danish cartoons. Not that I agree with them, just that they expressed their opposition responsibly.
No tag for this post.
December 27th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Our PM is also the person who held a dinner in honour of the head of the Church of England (aka Queen Elizabeth II) and didn’t allow grace. I’m sure if she was eating with a top Iman he would be allowed to say a blessing.
Vote:December 27th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
She of all people to say this when she practices hate politics against her political opponents and stirs up class envy against the rich and she shows a marked intolerence to christianity espesically the Head of Anglican Church when she came to NZ. Helen Clark knows nothing at all about “tolerance”.
Vote:December 27th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Social liberals like Helen Clark are deeply intolerant of anybody who doesn’t share their world view. They love to fight phantom enemies, usually involving heterosexual white men in suits.
Vote:December 27th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
The only true religion Dear Leader follows is the religion of self preservation. This woman is quite happy to sell a life in New Zealand to anyone willing to vote Liarbour. It comes as no suprise that the vast majority of new voters now come from countrys that are not noted for high educational standards, a high per person income or a history of free speach. Easier to convince those that do not have the ablity to see what the Liarbour party really stands for- total state control.
Vote:December 27th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
And what are the new rules about charities and free speech — or at least the degree to which you can criticise the government’s policies?
Vote:December 27th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Expect to see a new influx of Moslem cultural liason officers throughout all levels of the Public Service together with their own prayer rooms and halal food in the canteens…There is one easy way to ensure we don’t have the problem and the cost is minimal.
Vote:December 27th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Yes that is right David, the same sort of tolerance ”Dear Leader” showed to the exclusive brethren!
Also I agree that this is a stalking horse for ”hate speech” laws.
Vote:December 27th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
There is an excellent editorial on this subject in todays HB Today. Someone with the `know how’ may care to link it – sorry I have no idea how to.
Vote:December 27th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
“However I have concerns that this review of religious and cultural diversity by the Ministry of Social Development will at best lead to platitudes and at worse be an attack on free speech.”
What has not been made clear in the NZ Herald article is that the Race Relations Commissioner around 24th Oct. 2006 invited public feedback on a Draft Statement on Religious Diversity in New Zealand.
It seems incongruous that the Race Relations Commissioner is inviting public feedback on a Draft Statement on Religious Diversity in New Zealand when the question of religion is detached from the question of race. The Draft document has stated, together with other ideals, that the purpose is to “promote religious tolerance” and that after the document is finalised it will continue to be a reference point for discussions on religious diversity by central and local government and communities.
While there is no indication within the draft document on how these ideals are to be practically implemented, other than to just state these ideals and expect the populace at large to voluntarily adopt them, there is a concern that this document can be used as a basis to resurrect a previous attempt to introduce a law against incitement to religious hatred which in effect shuts down democratic debate and stifles freedom of speech. Statements in the draft document such as “debate and disagreement about religious beliefs within faith communities and beyond is inevitable, but shall be exercised within the rule of law and without resort to violence” might very well give the impetus to introduce this new law.
Because we have no control over which race we are born into we rightly limit freedom of speech where it is abused to incite racial hatred or violence. Attacking people on account of their race is to attack what they are and is uncivilized. Criminalising hatred of religion though is quite another matter since we do have a choice into which faith, or not, we can take up and criticizing people on account of their religion is to criticize what they think and is an integral part of civilized and liberal discourse. Religion arouses strong passions, which routinely include dislike of other faiths, which might be quite understandable, if such faiths threaten others. In Australia where a similar law was introduced, it put people in the dock for expressing entirely legitimate views about religion and has greatly exacerbate religious and cultural divisions. It is a thoroughly bad, dangerous proposal and should have no place in a liberal society.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Liarbour are very clever at releasing policy intention during the distraction of a holiday period when they know the lacklustre fatcat MPs in the National Party will be resting on the likes of possibly Bondi beach awaiting the anticipated visit of Paris…I mean where does John Key stand. We can take it for granted that Winston endorses the policy.
Vote:December 28th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
NZ slow learners…
If you want to avoid the British disaster….and note there is no going back…you cease importing the potential problem.
But Hulun would rather the disaster than deny socialist immigration dogma.
Vote: