Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club

June 16th, 2010 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Scrubone blogs:

I’m stunned at the ’s vote to ban all head coverings.

Before now, the policy could have been put down to a historical quirk, where all gentelmen were expected to doff their bowler hats at the door. Having it pointed out that this quirk discriminated against members of the Sikh religion, one expected to see it removed.

But the club has endorsed it. Having done so, they deliberately done something that will discriminate against a certain group of people. This effectively has moved the rule from the status of a quirk, to being full-on, all-out racism.

I agree. I would be ashamed to be a member of such a club. Of course they have the right to discriminate, but people have the right to criticise their discrimination.

What really surprises me is that this is a club in Manurewa – which has a significant Indian and hence Sikh population.What a great way to offend a significant proportion of your community.

Tags: ,

246 Responses to “Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club”

  1. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Having done so, they deliberately done something that will discriminate against a certain group of people.”

    What kind of logic is that? The Sikhs are demanding special treatment, and the PRIVATE club has refused them that special treatment, as they are morally and legally entitled to do. One rule for all is not “discrimination”. Not in the mind of any rational person that is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Graeme Edgeler (3,277 comments) says:

    Of course they have the right to discriminate, but people have the right to criticise their discrimination.

    Actually, they don’t. You might think they should, but that’s different. It’s quite clear that people don’t have that right in New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    The club have every reason to discriminate against westernized oriental gentlemen (WOG).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Murray (8,842 comments) says:

    Bullshit Red, Sikhs are not asking for sepecial treatment. Shit the British army manmaged to work abound it so who the fuck are these tossers in Manurewa to decide that they don’t need to exercise a little bit of common sense and flexibility?

    Looks very much to me like they don’t want any Sikhs in their club. Sure they’re entitled to do that, and by the same token i’m entitled to say they’re fucking arsholes for doing it.

    Waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might jsut be a frikken duck.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    Being a private club they have the right to decide what ever they like, however, I hope the bastards go out of business very soon.

    I would love to have been at the meeting, the racist wankers would have been bending over backwards to find a reason, any reason that would enable them to keep the nasty, evil ‘darkies’ out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    It is not offensive. I’m not saying I would enact the same rule, but it is a common western cultural tradition to remove hats inside.

    The club is perfectly within its right imo to maintain these traditions, it is no more discriminatory than banks asking customers to remove capped hats and helmets. So long as the same people are allowed in without their turbans.

    If people prefer to mix in clubs where people are allowed to wear turbans then this place will go out of business, and the other clubs will prosper.

    Anybody else could claim that their cap has special significance to them or that their shoes have cultural significance and they should be able to wear them in a Marae.

    Is the western tradition of not wearing hats inside less important than the sikh tradition of wearing turbans?

    (I personally like sikhs and their turbans, they kill muslims)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,833 comments) says:

    How ironic.

    cosmopolitan /%kQzm@”pQlIt(@)n/
    · adj.
    1 familiar with or representative of many different countries and cultures. Ø having an exciting and glamorous character associated with travel and a mixture of cultures.

    I expect the hat wearing curry munchers will join together and establish a new club.

    If they are really smart they will negotiate with the owners of the Cozzie club to buy the property and throw out the current tenant.

    ‘twould serve the silly buggers right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Slightly OT.. but something I learned from working in SE Asia: Only the brave and already liver-damaged go out drinking with Sikhs :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. trout (921 comments) says:

    What is so precious about a turban. Sikhs are quite happy to doff their turban to play their beloved cricket. This is just another desperate attemp by a minority group to advertise their dogma. And the media loves it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    As a member of the club I ask these questions

    Is the carrying/wearing of the kirpan knife (one of the Sikh males five articles of faith that absolutely must be done) common practise in New Zealand?

    http://www.sikhcoalition.org/SikhismArticles.asp

    If so how do they get fly on commercial aircraft if carrying the weapon?

    If not why is the one article of faith greater (turban) than another (kirpan)?

    Does Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi carry a kirpan in parliament?

    Random impertinent question

    Is it OK to carry a concealed weapon for “religious” purposes?

    Are religious reasons different than cultural ones?

    If so,

    Can a believer in the Samurai culture carry a katana in public?

    Can a scotsman carry a biodag in public for cultural reasons?

    Can a Maori carry a mere in public?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. RRM (9,663 comments) says:

    Manurewa: stamping the “Cosmopolitan” out of “Cosmopolitan Club”.

    What a bunch of cocks.

    And LOL at the bit in the article where they can’t/won’t differentiate between a Sikh’s turban and a scrote’s hoodie or my old woolly hat. They’re a worldly lot down the cossie club.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Leonidas (1,389 comments) says:

    Last time I looked, this was New Zealand, and in New Zealand, it was always considered to be uncouth to wear head coverings indoors. Quite why we have to rescind our culture before foreign custom is beyond me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. transmogrifier (522 comments) says:

    I see nothing wrong with it. It’s a private club with a particular dress code. It happens to disallow the dress habits of a particular religion. Big deal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Graeme Edgeler (3,277 comments) says:

    Being a private club they have the right to decide what ever they like, however, I hope the bastards go out of business very soon.

    Being a private club, they have the right to discriminate in respect of “access to membership of a club or to the provision of services or facilities to members of a club”, but if they open their clubroom to the public for hire (as appears to be the case here), they don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “I would love to have been at the meeting, the racist wankers would have been bending over backwards to find a reason, any reason that would enable them to keep the nasty, evil ‘darkies’ out.”

    Sikhs are not a race you kool ade drinking progressive jerkoff. They’re Indians of the Sikh religion. Try entering one of their temples with your shoes on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    As a club we dont ask people what their racial or religious affiliations they have so there is no proportional breakdown of of various racial groups.

    I must say though that the racial mix is pretty cosmopolitan. Every racial group who wants to be there is represented.

    And Manurewas large Indian, Pacific Islander, Maori, Middle Eastern population they are all represented in our very cosmopolitan club.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. lyndon (330 comments) says:

    Anybody else could claim that their cap has special significance to them or that their shoes have cultural significance and they should be able to wear them in a Marae.

    Well, people could claim that, but nobody would believe them because they would know of no such culture.

    Is the western tradition of not wearing hats inside less important than the sikh tradition of wearing turbans?

    If by ‘less important’ you mean ‘is a matter of social embarassment rather than religious necessity’, then yes.

    It’s a matter of how you word things, isn’t it? ‘You can’t come in here with headgear’ = ‘one rule for everyone’. ‘You can’t come here without deep personal humiliation’, not so much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. mattyroo (1,006 comments) says:

    Exactly Leonidas!!

    Our culture in New Zealand is that we DO NOT wear headpieces indoors, or sit at a table and eat with a headpiece on.

    I completely agree with the cossie club banning them from wearing headpieces. This is not about racism, turbans or whatever you may want to call it. It is about believing in our time-honoured traditions of good manners.

    If they want to carry on with their foreign customs, they can do so in their temples in Manurewa.

    And don’t give me that lefty liberal bullshit that we are all more enlightened now – I’m well enlightened enough to the ways of many foreign cultures.

    Hopefully next, this lily-livered country will take a stand against all the fanatical muslims wearing (being forced to I might add) their veils in public.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Bob R (1,357 comments) says:

    ***This effectively has moved the rule from the status of a quirk, to being full-on, all-out r@cism.***

    Not true. It’s targetting clothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Same old same old. All the dumbfuck totally brainwashed Europeans lining up to make a doormat of their own culture. Take a trip to the Kashmir valley and disrespect Sikh culture and see how you get on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    Quite why we have to rescind our culture before foreign custom is beyond me.

    Its called moving with the times.. and being in tune with your commuity.

    you might not like it… but those that don’t get left behind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. MarkMcLT (85 comments) says:

    Your comment that they have a right to discriminate is reminiscent of controversial comments in the US in recent weeks by Rand Paul (Republican and small-l libertarian Senate candidate for Kentucky). He has suggested that racial discrimination by private businesses (e.g. excluding blacks from restaurants) should not be outlawed by the government since it reflects an infringement of their right to free speech. This view is at odds with the US Civil Rights Act. I realize the case you cite is not about race per se, but the issue is essentially the same – how do you balance freedom of expression with a reasonable desire to give minorities equal access to commercial services.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Leonidas (1,389 comments) says:

    No, its called being fucked in the arse.
    bohica RKBee, bohica buddy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    Comrade Redbaiter

    How long will you keep making excuses for these knuckle dragging fools?

    Sure, like these racist wankers at the MCC you can hide behind the argument that Sikhs are not a race, however you know full well that that is an argument of convenience, this is all about keeping them ‘darkies’ out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “how do you balance freedom of expression with a reasonable desire to give minorities equal access to commercial services.”

    WTF?? Is that really what you think the issue is?? The issue is how do you force people to comply with intrusive legislation without impeding on property rights and personal freedoms. You can’t, so you don’t legislate.

    “Commercial services” are there for anyone of any race or colour to make use of or set up if they so desire, and run as they so desire. You don’t like what they’re doing, you go somewhere else or you buy them out. Nothing stopping the Sikhs starting their own club.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    “Take a trip to the Kashmir valley and disrespect Sikh culture and see how you get on.”

    It might have escaped you Comrade Knuckle Dragger but we do not live in the Kashmir valley, we live in NZ and people are welcome to come here as long as they contribute to our society and economy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. mattyroo (1,006 comments) says:

    Redbaiter Said:

    Same old same old. All the dumbfuck totally brainwashed Europeans lining up to make a doormat of their own culture. Take a trip to the Kashmir valley and disrespect Sikh culture and see how you get on.

    Exactly Red. Hence my statement about being well aware of the ways of foreign cultures. Having worked and lived in many of the most fundamentally religous places all around the world, I know, that as someone integrating with another culture, you first and foremost must respect the values and traditions of the the culture whom you are trying to assimilate with.

    By not doing this all hell is lost. One only has to look at Australia and see the total contempt the Australians have for the Lebanese, simply because the Lebanese have zero respect for the traditions and values of Australia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Sure, like these racist wankers at the MCC you can hide behind the argument that Sikhs are not a race, however you know full well that that is an argument of convenience, this is all about keeping them ‘darkies’ out.”

    So what if it is you lamer. Nobody is forcing you to attend the club, or own it or have anything to do with it. Its only weak as piss liberal conditioning that’s making you squeal. As usual. A buffoon who has no respect for or understanding of property rights yet describes himself as a “right winger”. Pfft.. posturing blustering wanker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. scrubone (3,082 comments) says:

    “…common western cultural tradition to remove hats inside”

    Manurewa being a bastion of western cultural tradition?

    Then there’s the fact these things are *not* hats to the Sikh culture. There’s no reason why the rule couldn’t have been more accommodating, and every reason for it being so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. scrubone (3,082 comments) says:

    Scruneone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. lyndon (330 comments) says:

    “Sorry, your holiness, it’ll have to come off.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Bruv, just so you know, most Sikhs I know, and I have lived with and worked with many of them, are damn fine people, and I’d rather their company than the company of a whining hypocritical liberal like you any day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    I wonder if BB has ever been to the Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club.

    If he had he would know that the membership is in many multiple shades of brown.

    It is not a racist stand the club is taking.

    Wonder if Big Bruv is happy that the Sikh men all carry that other most important article of faith, the kirpan.

    If so can I carry my seax? Being off viking origin and belief.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    They do not have the right to discriminate:

    section 44, Human Rights Act 1993, – note subsections (3) and (4):

    44 Provision of goods and services
    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person who supplies goods, facilities, or services to the public or to any section of the public—
    (a) To refuse or fail on demand to provide any other person with those goods, facilities, or services; or
    (b) To treat any other person less favourably in connection with the provision of those goods, facilities, or services than would otherwise be the case,—
    by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.
    (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, but without limiting the meaning of the terms goods, facilities, and services in that subsection, the term facilities includes facilities by way of banking or insurance or for grants, loans, credit, or finance.
    (3) Where any club, or any branch or affiliate of any club, that grants privileges to members of any other club, branch, or affiliate refuses or fails on demand to provide those privileges to any of those members, or treats any of those members less favourably in connection with the provision of those privileges than would otherwise be the case, by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination, that club, branch, or affiliate shall be deemed to have committed a breach of this section.
    (4) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, nothing in this section shall apply to access to membership of a club or to the provision of services or facilities to members of a club.

    Mr Singh is a member of the Pukekohe CC. The Manurewa CC excluding him because he refuses for religious reasons to remove his turban is clearly religious discrimination in breach of sub-section 44(3), and therefore unlawful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    This post is another example of the belief that religious/cultural beliefs should be privileged and given a special place above other beliefs. In a secular society, they should not. In the short-run, giving such beliefs a privileged place above other beliefs may minimise conflict, yes, but the long-run ramifications of such concessions are unpleasant because where does it stop? The right to face one’s accuser in court versus their religious belief that wearing a burkha is paramount? Drugs being illegal versus religion/culture requiring certain drug use? Ban on animal cruelty versus the ritual sacrifice of animals in a cruel manner? Ban of passengers carrying sharp implements/weapons on international flights versus the religious belief that carrying sharp implements/weapons at all times is necessary? The law should not make exceptions based on religious beliefs regardless of how deeply held and people in society shouldn’t have to make exceptions and privelege religious beliefs if they don’t want to.

    Some may say, “Well, we’d draw the line at the cruel sacrifice of animals”, while others would draw it at the drug use, but explain to me how it is a consistent line of reasoning that it is okay to violate some religious beliefs but not others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    No Toad, its not discrimination, and if you wanted to apply that test, try as I have already suggested, walking into a Sikh temple wearing your shoes. You communists are so sick, and so is the anti-human legislation you promote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Hagues (711 comments) says:

    Shit I wouldn’t dare go to someone else’s house and then proceed to tell them what rules they could or couldn’t have!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    One only has to look at Australia and see the total contempt the Australians have for the Lebanese, simply because the Lebanese have zero respect for the traditions and values of Australia.

    NZ has zero respect for the traditions and values of Australia. (Ozy rules for a start).

    Manurewa being a bastion of western cultural tradition?
    What the **** next you will be saying our culture is english.

    You need to get out more… try Manurewa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. RRM (9,663 comments) says:

    JiveKitty – it’s pretty easy to plot a sensible course through that.

    Honour killings, drug trafficking etc that break actual NZ laws = clearly wrong and liable to prosecution.
    Traditional head dress that does no actual harm to anybody whatsoever = clearly ok, stop being a bigot and STFU.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    Comrade Knuckle dragger

    “Bruv, just so you know, most Sikhs I know..”

    Fucking brilliant!…that is right up there with “some of my best friend are Maori/Sikhs/Pakis”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. RRM (9,663 comments) says:

    Redbaiter @ 12:59: so you are suggesting New Zealand should model our own behaviour based on the customs of groups / societies we think we are better than?

    And adopt the very faults of theirs that supposedly make our country better by comparison?

    Just want to make sure I understand your logic on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    Toad,

    Sikhs not wearing turbans are allowed in the club, therefore it is not discriminatory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    Sonny

    Would you ask a Catholic to remove a cross hanging around his or her neck?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    Winton Peters has just found himself a new electoral office and starting point for next years election.

    The Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Fucking brilliant!…that is right up there with “some of my best friend are Maori/Sikhs/Pakis”

    No it isn’t Bruv. In your desperation to justify your pathetic cultural cringing you are only seeking to make it so.

    “Redbaiter @ 12:59: so you are suggesting New Zealand should model our own behaviour based on the customs of groups / societies we think we are better than? ”

    They’re coming here is an acknowledgement that our society is better than theirs, and it is better because WE RESPECT PRIVATE PROPERTY AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS.

    And we understand why that is important in a free and democratic society. (Or at least we did until ignorant of history half educated commies like you and Big Bruv became politically and socially ascendant.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    @RRM: Why premise religious beliefs where we would not premise others? It is discriminatory against those who don’t have those beliefs, yet may, for example, believe that they should be able to go into that club wearing a headgarment. Some may even believe very strongly in their right to wear a headgarment wherever they please. They may even believe it is paramount to do so, yet we would not premise their beliefs despite it doing no harm to others. We don’t get upset at the discrimination against them. Why is that?

    See my point now? I don’t give a shit which religion you’re from. If you’re say Christian, for example, and the school bans wearing necklaces, I don’t think there should be an exception so you can wear your cross. If you’re a Muslim woman and you want to get a driver’s license while wearing a burkha, I don’t think that’s an acceptable reason to allow it. It’s not bigotry, mate. It’s anger at the special place people seem to feel religious beliefs should hold. They should not be given special treatment because they have such beliefs as to do so effectively says that these beliefs because they’re religious are more valid than other beliefs which are not, and that’s bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Redbaiter 12:32 pm,

    Same old same old. All the dumbfuck totally brainwashed Europeans lining up to make a doormat of their own culture. Take a trip to the Kashmir valley and disrespect Sikh culture and see how you get on.

    Indeed, Red.
    There seems to be the general feeling (by some at least) that European culture MUST embrace and absorb all other cultural and religious practices/observances imported via relatively recent immigration trends, but must NOT expect immigrants to respect and embrace European cultural and religious practices and observances.

    If people immigrate to our country then it is them that need to do the adjusting, not the other way round. One only needs to look at the mess in Europe and the UK to see the results of embracing the so called ‘progressive’ concept of multiculturalism.

    If you really want a definition of ‘multiculturalism’ then I believe it could best be summed up as; “The death of Western culture, and the denial of its historical foundation”.

    We’ve already had Muslims demanding the right for their women to wear burkas in court; as well as Muslim MP Ashraf Choudhary demanding the removal of crosses atop clocktowers, and the ongoing demand by Maori for the rest of us to respect Maori culture when often Maori do not respect European culture and practices, and no doubt there are other examples.

    I’m sorry, but when in Rome you do as the Romans.
    And many European descent New Zealanders need to get over their post colonial guilt complex – be proud of your heritage!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    We do during a rugby or netball game BB

    If a sikh is really attached to their cultural norms they are perfectly welcome to stay in India.

    It is the same as my love of western culture is why I choose to stay in NZ and if I was to emigrate it would most likely be to a western democracy with similar customs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    Statistically, monoculturalism, results in a lower crime rate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Perhaps they should rename the place “Fucking Bigoted Wankers Club”. From reading the posts, it seems pretty clear they would have a lot of new members lining up.

    Twisted and worthless deliberate distortion of ‘apparent’ logic to try and prove an argument. For instance, the “one rule for everyone” test above is misdirected. It is not, can everyone wear a hat, but more to the point, if you went to a Sikh-based or Sikkh-dominant club would they allow you to attend without a hat? If the answer is yes, then that is a better example of the fairness principle of one rule for everyone.

    Western democracy is strong because it is based on tolerance and acceptance of others, not the reverse.

    The bigoted rantings about how this decision represents soem sort of moral stand for poort downtrodden caucasian majority just goes to show the dangers of intolerance – it promotes divisive and aggressive reaction.

    Anyway flame away all you like you worthless bastards. You sick fucks make me ashamed to be all of a white, NZ, right-wing, hetero, male

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    The person who would be most offended by this would be the local guy who has to take his tupac bandanna or his hurricanes cap off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. davidp (3,557 comments) says:

    In New Zealand culture, tolerance towards other people’s religion is generally a sign of good manners. This has been the case since before I was born. If these club members want to behave with un-Kiwi-like rudeness then they have the right to do so. But they shouldn’t pretend that people who still subscribe to New Zealand values will let them off the hook by ignoring their rudeness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    bhudson,

    You are a bigot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    Comrade Knuckle Dragger

    Fuck you make me laugh, you are the great defender of our society and rules when it bloody well suits your argument yet you are the first to scream “PINKO” when we decide that two blokes living together is not a criminal offence.

    In many ways you are more like a Green, you have no trouble at all being hypocritical when it suits you and you would have no problem at all using the law of the land to ban free speech.

    No wonder you are such a fan of Palin and the tea party idiots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    JiveKitty 1:19 pm,

    I don’t give a shit which religion you’re from. If you’re say Christian, for example, and the school bans wearing necklaces, I don’t think there should be an exception so you can wear your cross. If you’re a Muslim woman and you want to get a driver’s license while wearing a burkha, I don’t think that’s an acceptable reason to allow it. It’s not bigotry, mate. It’s anger at the special place people seem to feel religious beliefs should hold. They should not be given special treatment because they have such beliefs.

    Exactly right, Jive.
    When I was at college we had that exact rule – “No jewellery was allowed; only the wearing of a watch was permitted”.
    And there were NO exceptions. For example, Christians were not permitted to wear a cross around their neck – I remember this particularly as I became a Christian while at college. It was a college rule, and if you didn’t like it you could find another college – simple as that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. curia pigeon (204 comments) says:

    red baiter – or should that be “black hater”. I find it humorous that club which calls itself “cosmipolitan” can be so obviously bigoted. Do you not? sikh religion has it’s own age-old traditions and beleifs, and they deserve to be respected as much as christians, so long as they cause other people no harm.

    This is a secular club which has no reason for this rule, other than to keep the “darkies” out. Defending them has outed you as a bigot. How do you feel about that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “How do you feel about that?”

    Only more convinced that you’re a retard so conditioned by liberal propaganda and so fucking black hole dense, you’d never get the real issue here. Now fuck off and consider yourself lucky I responded to your immature brainless shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    How come a sikh is not allowed to run his car dealership on christmas day in new zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “How come a sikh is not allowed to run his car dealership on christmas day in new zealand.”

    Careful, you’ll make Bruv’s head explode.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    I agree with Scrubone.

    The club is basically banning Sikhs from their club.

    I heard one comment from a Sikh gentleman who was shocked at the total lack of respect for religion. Which is really a NZ thing, to be disrespectful of religion, to be unable to discern the difference between a turban and a hoodie (Apparently they are worried that if the turban gets it, then it’s no holds barred on what is next).

    So they ban hats in the club. A turban is not really a hat. The club members are morons.

    Kris K

    There seems to be the general feeling (by some at least) that European culture MUST embrace and absorb all other cultural and religious practices/observances imported via relatively recent immigration trends, but must NOT expect immigrants to respect and embrace European cultural and religious practices and observances.

    Yeah, it’s called freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience. Something the West is renowned for. Not really common anywhere else. Now if we weren’t so weak in the practice of our own religion, then we wouldn’t be so threatened by the religion of immigrants. Voids need to be filled.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    So, Big Bruv, as you and I are both oldboys of the same college, do you think the school rule of “no jewellery” was too exclusive? (I’m assuming the rule was still in force when you were there)
    Should this have been compromised to suit the religious practices of certain immigrant groups, or was the school correct in its having a blanket rule in this regard – ie no exceptions whatsoever?

    And is the MCC any different in its enforcing of New Zeland cultural custom regarding “no headwear” indoors?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Robert Mapplethorpe (125 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria (131) Says:

    June 16th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
    I agree with Scrubone.

    The club is basically banning Sikhs from their club.

    I heard one comment from a Sikh gentleman who was shocked at the total lack of respect for religion.

    People are worthy of respect, or not, as the case may be, but not ideas, religions, political beliefs or economic theories.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Brian Harmer (686 comments) says:

    # Leonidas (179) Says:
    June 16th, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    Last time I looked, this was New Zealand, and in New Zealand, it was always considered to be uncouth to wear head coverings indoors. Quite why we have to rescind our culture before foreign custom is beyond me.

    Back in the 1950s when all the bits on the map that were coloured red were part of the “empah” and belonged to “us”, and people referred to England as “home” , I could imagine people believing that.

    Anyone who now claims to be able to define the elements of New Zealand’s culture has not walked down Dominion Rd, Queen St, Pakuranga Rd, East Tamaki Rd, or Riddiford St lately. And a very large number of those people wearing funny clothes, hoodies, yarmulke, hijabs or niqabs, are citizens of this fair land. Do they share your beliefs as to what constitutes “New Zealand” culture?

    I still wait the day when any one on this group can get buy in to any definition of what constitutes New Zealand culture.

    “Uncouth to wear head coverings indoors” is a residue of empire and a particular non-pacific culture. The key word in your sentence is “was”. The world has moved on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    Tolerance does not necessarily extend to respect or even making exceptions to rules. People are free to practice their religions, but by doing so they may self-select out of other activities. It’s their choice.

    I don’t know what this club is like or its true motivations so I’m not sure they’re making a principled stand or if they’re in fact bigoted. I accept they could be doing this because they know Sikhs will self-select and they just don’t want Sikhs there, but they might not be as well.

    As Robert said, “People are worthy of respect, or not, as the case may be, but not ideas, religions, political beliefs or economic theories.”

    @Sonny Blount: National holiday, celebrated by the majority, not necessarily for religious reasons. The date itself comes from Christianity, which, from memory, seemed to take it from the pagan solstice. Good enough time of year to have a holiday, methinks, given its proximity to New Years, being summer and the school holidays, which means it’s easier (fewer days off need to be taken because of the statutory days) and more attractive for families to spend some time together.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “The club members are morons.”

    They might be, but its their club. You want to change the rules then buy it. By attacking private properrty rights through misguided legislation you’re joining with those who work to destroy the foundation principles that made traditional Jeudo Christian society the most free of all societies.

    Don’t think these attacks on property rights are not part of the big totalitarian socialist plan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    Kris K

    I have no idea what years you were at that school, I was slightly before DPF although I think our time might have overlapped.

    While the discipline was indeed strict there were a few chaps who had religious dispensation to wear a cross or the like, in other words you are wrong to suggest there was a blanket ban.

    As for the MCC, well I take it you have not read my original comment, where I said they have the right to decide anything they like (Comrade Knuckle dragger also choose to over look this) my point is that these racist fuckwits have interpreted their rules in such a manner to keep out Sikhs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “The world has moved on.”

    Sure it has Brian.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286784/Muslim-protesters-brand-war-heroes-murderers-homecoming-parade-turns-violent.html

    Snap out of your sad liberal delusions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    “the foundation principles that made traditional Jeudo Christian society the most free of all societies. ”

    Ahh…there is it folks, Comrade Knuckle Dragger and his tireless drive to see us all live by the ‘good book’.

    This ‘free society’ is fine just as long as you are not homosexual, lesbian, an atheist, agnostic, or….Sikh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    Redbaiter,

    Well, I do stop short of demanding that they should be made to let the Sikhs in with their turbans.

    But really, in this case the Sikhs cannot be separated from their turban, so this is in effect a ban on a person of religion being part of a club. That more than anything, is worse than the dismantling of private property rights (which barely exist, as it is).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria 1:47 pm,

    I heard one comment from a Sikh gentleman who was shocked at the total lack of respect for religion.

    Perhaps there are also New Zealanders who are “shocked at the total lack of respect for” NZ cultural customs by some Sikhs?
    It cuts both ways, LM.

    And as someone mentioned earlier, where does it all stop? This is just the thin end of the wedge.
    We have every right to protect our culture and heritage against those who would dilute and ultimately destroy them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “That more than anything, is worse than the dismantling of private property rights”

    No it is not, and the left will keep winning until you understand this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club management should of just let be known to everyone that if you wear head gear in the club your breaking the club rules you either take it off or shout the bar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    @Sonny Blount: National holiday, celebrated by the majority, not necessarily for religious reasons. The date itself comes from Christianity, which, from memory, seemed to take it from the pagan solstice. Good enough time of year to have a holiday, methinks, given its proximity to New Years, being summer and the school holidays, which means it’s easier (fewer days off need to be taken because of the statutory days) and more attractive for families to spend some time together.

    In this situation you are happy for the norms of the majority to overide the rights of minorities?

    The percentage of NZers who practise gift giving to their family members should tell you whether or not its a religous holiday or a convenient day off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Brian Smaller (4,028 comments) says:

    I have worked with plenty of Sikhs over the years who didn’t wear turbans. They were secular people who were raised as Sikhs, and identify as Sikhs without practicing the religion.

    Personally, I was thinking of adopting the Sihk religion so I can get an exemption so I don’t have to wear a bike helmet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “This ‘free society’ is fine just as long as you are not homosexual, lesbian, an atheist, agnostic, or….Sikh.”

    Actually Bruv, I think we badly need a Ministry to pursue the rights of male lesbians and female homosexuals. Both groups are subject to gross discrimination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    But really, in this case the Sikhs cannot be separated from their turban, so this is in effect a ban on a person of religion being part of a club. That more than anything, is worse than the dismantling of private property rights (which barely exist, as it is).

    This is simply factually wrong. If a sikh feels they cannot be seperated from their turban there are many places they can go or reside that allow this, principally India.

    The game of rugby does not allow the wearing of turbans. Any problem there? No because the people who are that attached to their turban avoid rugby.

    The problem I would have with this, is telling the person wearing a cap that they cannot wear it whilst another can wear his turban. The cap wearer would then feel his cap is dirty and his culture is not respected in comparison to the turban wearer.

    It becomes quite difficult to decide who cares more sincerely about their clothing and culture than another.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    big bruv2:00 pm,

    Ahh…there is it folks, Comrade Knuckle Dragger and his tireless drive to see us all live by the ‘good book’.

    I think you’ll find, BB, that Red has on numerous occassions stated he is not religious.
    One doesn’t have to be a Christian to both embrace Judeo-Christian values, and acknowledge that it is indeed part of the foundation of Western culture and civilisation. And perhaps it is the reason WHY the West has always been associated with democracy and freedom, when the rest of the world generally has not.
    Food for thought, methinks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “I think you’ll find, BB, that Red has on numerous occassions stated he is not religious.”

    Senile old fool has CRAFT in a double dose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    Redbaiter,

    “That more than anything, is worse than the dismantling of private property rights”

    No it is not, and the left will keep winning until you understand this.</blockquote?

    A traditional Judeo Christian society is not the most free because of private property rights. It's the most free because an understanding of the inherent dignity of each person, regardless of their perceived worth. From that stems the concepts the concept of natural rights proper to each person, which includes the right to hold private property.

    Take away freedom of religion, and everything else disintegrates.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    Whoops, blockquote didn’t work due to question mark and stuffed up my comment. Here it is again.

    Redbaiter,

    “That more than anything, is worse than the dismantling of private property rights”

    No it is not, and the left will keep winning until you understand this.

    A traditional Judeo Christian society is not the most free because of private property rights. It’s the most free because an understanding of the inherent dignity of each person, regardless of their perceived worth. From that stems the concepts the concept of natural rights proper to each person, which includes the right to hold private property.

    Take away freedom of religion, and everything else disintegrates.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. MikeMan (171 comments) says:

    When in Rome is what covers this IMHO.

    When it first opened I decided to go to SkyCity in Auckland, now it was the middle of summer and I was dressed in formal shorts, collared shirt and new leather boat shoes. I was refused entry to the casino as the dress code specified long pants.

    Now there were people in ripped black jeans, tatty black jerseys and sports shoes that were getting in fine.

    Did I scream that I was being discriminated against?

    Nope I went home and changed clothes, this is what you do when there is a dress code that you do not meet and you want to enter the said place.

    Much as I would not enter a Sikh temple with shoes on or a Synagogue with a bare head.

    You dress appropriately to the venue you wish to enter.

    The Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club says that means no head coverings, end of story IMHO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Chuck Bird (4,772 comments) says:

    I have seen a few comments that Sikhs do not wear their turbans for sport. Is this definitely the case?

    I can see arguments both ways. If I was asked to vote about a club allowing Sikhs to wear their turban I would probably vote for them to be able to as I would for devout Jews to wear head wear. However, I would vote against women to were veils covering their faces.

    The reason being that i would feel very comfortable sharing a table with a Jew or Sikh wearing head wear. However, i would not feel at ease with someone who covers their face.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    “I think you’ll find, BB, that Red has on numerous occassions stated he is not religious.”

    Yet he quotes the bible and refers to “traditional Jeudo Christian society” over and over again.

    Comrade Knuckle dragger is also a fully fledged supporter of the loony tea party, as well all know, to be a member of the tea party you have to be a bible basher.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “From that stems the concepts the concept of natural rights proper to each person, which includes the right to hold private property.”

    No, the concept of property right stems from historical legal documents that paid scant regard to religion as a basis for the rights they endow. The Magna Carta and The American Constitution are two examples. (although they do both specify freedom of religion).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “to be a member of the tea party you have to be a bible basher.”

    Once again, the poor liberal Bruv demonstrates his paper thin mainstream media driven perceptions of reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Red, what is CRAFT – showing my ignorance here – I assume it’s an anacronym?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    Redbaiter,

    And what type of societies created documents such as the Magna Carta and the American Constitution? The ideas in those documents didn’t spring from nowhere, they came from people with a particular view … a Judeo Christian view.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    It seems I know more about the Tea party than you Comrade Knuckle dragger, to be a member of the tea party you have to be a believer in the three C’s.

    Christ.
    The Constitution.
    Conservative.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    CRAFT- Can’t Remember A Fucking Thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    @Sonny Blount: You misconstrue me. What I don’t have a problem with is public holidays being enforced as public holidays. I don’t know how the government statute refers to it, but I would see it as a problem in principle if it is referred to in religious terms. I don’t have a problem with how it is enforced and practiced though, as it is enforced as a public holiday and outside not operating or purchasing from non-essential businesses people can do what they wish with the day be it secular or non-secular celebration or no celebration at all. It does not discriminate.

    I think the Lemon test, which the US Supreme Court uses, is a somewhat useful barometer. It had three elements: ‘whether the statute has a secular purpose; whether the principle or primary effect of the statute advances or inhibits religion; and last, whether the statute fosters “an excessive government entanglement with religion.’

    Secular purpose = public holiday for all.
    primary effect = majority of people have a statutory day off.
    excessive government entanglement = depends how the statute reads.

    I can see the logic in having as a public holiday a day that the majority of people in NZ wish to take off, which I would assume was the case when the public holiday was instituted as the majority of the nation was Christian, but it should be referred to in non-religious terms in statute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “It seems I know more about the Tea party than you”

    Bruv, you’re a subterranean socialist lamer who wouldn’t know if someone was up you with a green pineapple unless it was read to you on the TV One news.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    “Take away freedom of religion, and everything else disintegrates.”

    Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. Try to understand that please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “The ideas in those documents didn’t spring from nowhere, they came from people with a particular view … a Judeo Christian view.”

    I’m happy to concede that point, although I may not agree with it 100%. It still does not change the fact that the basis of all freedom is legislation enforcing respect for the concept of private property. You cannot build a church without that in place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    The Burqua I can understand but all head coverings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    “Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. Try to understand that please.”

    Something that one just cannot get through to the likes of Redbaiter and Kris K

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria: Majority Christian society, yes; specifically Christian principles, not so much:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1afrag1_user.html#amdt1a_hd4)

    This amendment, known as the establishment clause, effectively voided the ability of Congress and, de facto, government institutions to establish a national religion or to give preference to one religion over another, thus showing secular intent and aspiration.

    The secular intent and aspiration was also affirmed by all of the surviving founders who were in the senate which unanimously agreed to the Treaty of Tripoli, of which Article 11 declared:

    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html)

    Also this: http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Redbaiter’s right. There’s nothing wrong with the club saying no hats, turbans etc. Nothing at all. It’s their club and they’re not denigning anyone anything. If you follow that flawed logic, it would be illegal for a cossy club to shut-down as that would deny someone the opportunity to join. Or for a pub to say no gang patches, or a sailing club to require people to be sailors, or for cubs to require kids to wear the funny tie and get the home-help badge.

    If the “No Hats” rule happens to exclude people who’ve made a hat into an integral part of their body/culture then so be it. That’s just a free society in action.

    But really, in this case the Sikhs cannot be separated from their turban, so this is in effect a ban on a person of religion being part of a club.

    Flawed logic, Lucia. You should have said “…the Sikhs cannot be separated from their turban, so *they* are in effect banning themselves from being part of such clubs.” And of course there’s nothing stopping a Sikh from uncurling his turban, cutting his 8 foot long hair and joining the local cossy club for a few beers and a game of pool. Unless he doesn’t want to, of course, which is his choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    ..denying..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Something that one just cannot get through to the likes of Redbaiter and Kris K”

    Only someone as brain dead and completely mentally fucked as you Bruv could say that to someone who is not religious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    Having been called a knuckle dragger, moron, dopey idiot, racist fuckwit, etc. my position as a voting member of the Manurewa Cosmopolitan club is now entrenched.

    I will not vote in favour of overturning the hat ban.

    It seems to me that we “have” to tolerate every whim and fancy of seperate religious and racist groups just to appear to be “tolerant”.

    Well the tolerance has to cut both ways and presently is does not seem much tolerance, for the democratic decision by the multi racial and very cosmopolitan membership of the Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club, on displayed by the Sikh community.

    Instead of making a representation to the club to point out their view point, they choose to go to the press and the commision.

    So bring on the commission. Lets get our rights into the open and see where it falls.

    Because tolerance is now no longer possible. Both sides are fully entrenched.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    Red

    Are you related to D4J at all?

    It seems that neither of you can make a comment without including abuse.

    It must really suck being you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Brian Harmer (686 comments) says:

    Kris K wrote:

    Perhaps there are also New Zealanders who are “shocked at the total lack of respect for” NZ cultural customs by some Sikhs?

    What are these NZ cultural customs? I think you will be shocked at how few values, beliefs, customs, etc you can obtain any unanimity for as being essential NZ customs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. curia pigeon (204 comments) says:

    So far no argument from the programme known only as “redbaiter”. When are those rightist comp technicians going to come up with a propagandising programme which involves more than standardised responses involving cliched rhetoric and childish insults? Perhaps “redbaiter” is merely a test programme? It sure has its share of kinks that need ironing out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Mike (3,234 comments) says:

    Surely the cosmo club has little old ladies with fur hats in winter?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    I don’t understand how this is discrimination if it applies to all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    I don’t think it is, Banana Llama. It’s self-selection not to be part of the club based on a choice made rather than any inherent attribute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. lastmanstanding (1,241 comments) says:

    One is minded of the ancient and true saying

    “When in Rome do as Rome does”

    Seems to be beyond the comprehension of many here

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. curia pigeon (204 comments) says:

    The redbaiter programme has the sophistication of repertoire in insults of the french soldier sketch in “Holy Grail” – albeit without the intended humour…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    I agree with the last comment.

    The club (or any organisation) for this matter is free to establish its own rules. If you do not adhere to them, do not get anywhere near the place. Plain and simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. James (1,338 comments) says:

    No, the concept of property right stems from historical legal documents that paid scant regard to religion as a basis for the rights they endow. The Magna Carta and The American Constitution are two examples. (although they do both specify freedom of religion).”

    ….and has been stated already…the more important freedom FROM religion.The drafters of the US constsitution were single mined in keeping the Christian God out of the establishment of the US for they at best were deists who paid lip service to a creator who got the ball rolling and buggered off to do something else somewhere else.

    They knew full well that if a State religion was established then tryanny was the unavoidable result.Religious strife was common betwwen various factions across the states in those times and so the bannishment of God from the Constitution was a masterstroke in keeping the peace.Its not Judeo-Christian values that underpin Western society…but thoses of the enlightenment and ancient Greece.It was against the J-C stagnant totalitarianism of the church that the West was formed inspite of.

    As for the MCC…..their property,their rules.Even if we may think they are acting in poor judgement they have the right to do so….inspite of what the law may say.Rights are above mans laws….indeed good law complements rights by protecting them.Bad law violates them….as the Human rights act and its associated bullshit does if it trys to prevent the MCC from exercising its right to discriminate as to who shall and who shan’t, for WHATEVER reason, come onto their property via its rights to property and liberty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “It must really suck being you.”

    I guess that lame allegation signals your surrender in the matter of logic. Not that I ever noticed in you any real ability or desire to try a course of rational argument. Its all just the same old feeling based crap as every other brain damaged wet liberal on here espouses. And whenever I throw you the lifebuoy of “abuse”, (a word totally perverted in meaning by commies like you) you always grasp at it so desperately and thankfully, I know you’ve got nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. lyndon (330 comments) says:

    Just want to point out this utterly respectful press release from the Sikh Association.
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1006/S00150.htm

    Forgive me an exended quote:

    At issue thus was the definition of the term “headwear”. The membership was requested that while considering this issue, following be taken into account:

    a) Venerable RSA clubs have the same headwear rule (as the Cosmopolitan Club, Manurewa) which they formulated to honour the servicemen who made the supreme sacrifice while defending our freedom. RSA does not bring the turban of a practicing Sikh under the purview of this rule for two reasons – one, turban cannot be taken off and put back on like a hat or a cap and is classed as part of attire of a practicing Sikh; and two, turbaned Sikh soldiers fought alongside the ANZACs in both the great wars and gave their lives in their thousands for the allies.
    b) All New Zealand courts of law have a strict “no headwear” policy. However, that policy excludes the Sikh turban from its purview because the courts accept that asking a Sikh to remove their turban is akin to asking someone to strip down. Courts also accept that turban is an extension of unshorn hair, which is an article of faith for the Sikhs. Hence a Sikh can enter a court of law without being asked to remove their turban.
    c) Aviation Security has strict guidelines around search of a turban – if they need to search a Sikh’s turban they must follow the same protocol as in case of a strip search. In addition, after the search of a turban, the person must be given a mirror, a well-lit room and allowed 10 to 15 minutes to re-tie the turban.

    It was further conveyed to the club that we “will be grateful if the club can bring its definition of ‘headwear’ in line with RSA, law courts of New Zealand and Aviation Security rules. This will not require any changes to the existing rules, while avoiding the recurrence of the incident that occurred on the evening of November 30, 2009.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Redbaiter 1:57 pm,

    “The world has moved on.”

    Sure it has Brian.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286784/Muslim-protesters-brand-war-heroes-murderers-homecoming-parade-turns-violent.html
    Snap out of your sad liberal delusions.

    Slightly off topic, but also relevant to this debate.

    Why is it that we hear little from the ‘moderates’, or, as in the case above, from secular Sikhs saying Sikh immigrants should respect the culture and custom of their host country?

    This is highlighted, in general terms, by one of the comments in the above article (read the article first in light of it being a possible future for New Zealand should we continue to allow uncontrolled immigration here).

    Comment:

    And before we get the so called moderate muslims chime in. If you’re moderate then “LETS HEAR YOUR VOICE”, stop sitting on the sidelines, get out and support the troops and show your condemnation of these extremists, of course we know you wont as you never do.

    - John Marchant, Swanland, 15/6/2010 16:33

    [Hope you see this Reid, Pete George, etc - as it highlights my view regarding the 'silent' moderate Muslim voice in light of the latest Islamist atrocity.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Leonidas (1,389 comments) says:

    What are these NZ cultural customs? I think you will be shocked at how few values, beliefs, customs, etc you can obtain any unanimity for as being essential NZ customs.

    That’s the fucking problem Brian, they’ve all been trampled, rolled over or pushed aside. being a Kiwi isn’t being a kiwi anymore….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    @Kris K: This view then: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Pete George (23,331 comments) says:

    Kris, did you read this far in the article:

    Barking and Dagenham Muslim councillor Manzour Hussain said: ‘MAC do not represent the vast majority of law-abiding, peaceful Muslim members of society who respect Britain’s Armed Forces and the work they do.’

    Lyndon, thanks, that’s a good quote.

    Perhaps one way of looking at it is a Sikh removing their turban could be likened to a woman being made to remove her top and bare her breasts.

    “NZ culture” is many different things, not “trampled, rolled over or pushed aside”, but rather further evolving and merging through immigration and external influence such as film, TV and music.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    Kris K

    While the utterly respectful press release makes a clear case for the “bending of the rules” by the club, it is totally disrespectful of the democratic rights belonging to the multiracial and cosmopolitan members of the Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club.

    So what should be more respected, Sikh religion and culture or the democratic membership of a private club?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    “Not that I ever noticed in you any real ability or desire to try a course of rational argument.”

    You’re joking right?

    I doubt I have ever seen you engage anybody in a debate on this site, your ‘contributions’ amount to a rant, then abuse toward those who have the temerity to disagree with you.

    It does not matter what side of the political divide they come from as anybody who does not share your fucked up and bible based view of the world is branded a ‘commie’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    JiveKitty 3:44 pm,

    @Kris K: This view then: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”?

    Indeed, Jive.
    The right of those that enter our country as immigrants to trump the rights of those who hail from this nation – especially those who embrace a Judeo-Christian and/or European values based culture – seems to be the REAL issue here when you boil it all down.

    And while allowing a Sikh to wear a turban may seem a small price to pay, as I said earlier, this is the thin edge of the wedge, and will open the door to more radical sections of the immigrant community in their push to obtain cultural/religious ‘rights’. I’m obviously thinking of hardline Muslims who aim to bring the West into submission to Islam and Sharia law.

    So taken to its logical conclusion this WILL become a battle between good and evil – and if good men do nothing, or remain silent, then our democratic freedoms will be gone, and evil will indeed triumph. This may sound melodramtic, but this is where I genuinely believe we are headed if we continue down this path.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Leonidas (1,389 comments) says:

    When you get to the point where you can say how few values, beliefs, customs, etc you can obtain any unanimity for as being essential NZ customs. & further evolving and merging through immigration and external influence whatever you had is gone, superseded, Hell we may as well rename the place and get a new flag because the ones we got don’t mean fuck all anymore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “You’re joking right?”

    No I’m not. I’ve tried hard to explain to you and other similar socialist cretins that this is a matter of property rights but you’re so fucking black hole dumb the argument goes right over your heads. You’re so mentally crippled by years of socialist conditioning you’ve got no idea what I’m talking about. I’m arguing rationally, but with you and other brain damaged commies indoctrinated with your dumbfuck liberal sensibilities, its just pearls before slavering squealing gimlet eyed narrow minded swine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Gerrit 3:56 pm,

    So what should be more respected, Sikh religion and culture or the democratic membership of a private club?

    Indeed – do we live in New Zealand or India?
    As I said before, “When in Rome … “

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. fatman43us (166 comments) says:

    Seems simple to me. The Club belongs to the members. They can invite guests. Part of being a guest is to abide by the hiouse rules of the hosts. The hosts don’t want hats worn inside. What part of “no” do you not understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. curia pigeon (204 comments) says:

    bruv – RB is not a person, but a piece of software. Get it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. lyndon (330 comments) says:

    Gerrit, if you look I think you’ll see they accept the club can make the rules from the outset. That doesn’t oblige them to think the club made a good decision here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. AlphaKiwi (687 comments) says:

    Women being forced to cover their breasts or people not being permitted to go naked in public stems from a religious basis. It seems a little hypocritical of us to say that we’re secular when in fact a lot of our vice laws are all based on religious principles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. ben (2,414 comments) says:

    I thought this was another one from the Dim Post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Pete George (23,331 comments) says:

    It’s not property rights, or the opening for a Muslim takeover of the world. It’s common bloody sense, as highlighted by Lyndon:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/06/manurewa_cosmopolitan_club.html#comment-706453

    Kris, did you read that piece?
    Do you eat pizza? Fried rice? Satay? Tandoori? KFC? Chardonnay? Pilsner? Can’t risk the Muslims taking a liking to any of them, eh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Pete George 3:52 pm,

    Kris, did you read this far in the article:

    Barking and Dagenham Muslim councillor Manzour Hussain said: ‘MAC do not represent the vast majority of law-abiding, peaceful Muslim members of society who respect Britain’s Armed Forces and the work they do.’

    Yes I did, Pete.
    And one (or a few) lone voice ‘claiming’ to represent the majority of Muslims doesn’y make it so.
    Where are the ‘moderate’ Muslims en masse protesting against the radical elements in their midst? – sorry, Pete, I’m not buying it. Moderate Mulsims are complicit by their silence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    Lyndon,

    So why the trip to the commission? Indicates that they are not respectful of the members decision.

    This is going down bad on both sides so hence the entrenched positions.

    The club has a fairly large Indian membership and I understand that the Hindu and Sikh religions dont see eye to eye as it were.

    Not having attended the meeting I cannot say for sure on the reasons given for continueing the hat ban but the vote was overwhelming.

    Being in neither the Indian or Sikh communities in Manurewa, I do notice the each stick pretty much to their own.

    Cast system operating at subliminal level perhaps?

    Notice the Sikhs are mainly in the proffessions while the Hindu more in the service industries. The Sikhs’ are certainly the richer of the two groups.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Pete George (23,331 comments) says:

    Where are the radical Kristians en masse protesting? A lone anonymous voice on a blog is less than adequate don’t you think? At least Manzour Hussain was prepared to speak under his own name.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Rex Widerstrom (5,330 comments) says:

    Having been there once, I wouldn’t have thought one needed a reason not to visit the Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Suddenly the issue of turbans being permitted in a private club moves to posting anonymously. What a fucking complete waste of time you are PG.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Pete George 4:25 pm,

    It’s not property rights, or the opening for a Muslim takeover of the world. It’s common bloody sense …

    Lucky for most of us we don’t share your version of “common sense”, Pete.
    Something you obviously have little of as exhibited by your total disregard for the stated aims of Islam – both by religious/state leaders, and as espoused in the Koran and Hadith.

    You need to extend your reading material, Pete.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Islam is not a religion of peace, but a barbaric set of beliefs. Many crimes have been committed in the name of religion and Islam is at the forefront.

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Pete George (23,331 comments) says:

    Ask your fundie mate Kris about that RB. Hiding behind a shroud of anonymity criticising others for not openly protesting.

    Kris, I think I have read wider than you ever will.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Firstly, why would anyone want to belong to anything in Manurewa, seriously FFS

    Secondly, I would love to see Red stand on Great South Road and espouse some of his racist claptrap – probably wouldn’t see too many posts for a few days.

    Manurewa is a hell hole – unfortunately alot of decent people are trapped there economically.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Secondly, I would love to see Red stand on Great South Road and espouse some of his racist claptrap”

    Reproduce any sentence I have written above that you claim is racist. (was it the one in the post at 12:50?) Go on do it you shit for brains knee jerk smearing coward.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Redbaiter 4:33 pm,

    Suddenly the issue of turbans being permitted in a private club moves to posting anonymously. What a fucking complete waste of time you are PG.

    … and let’s not forget that Mr George used to post here anonymously as ‘Cerium’ – some of us actually have a memory, Pete.

    If what I believe regarding Islam is true, Pete, then I don’t want to come home to find my house torched, or worse, for some ‘anti-Muslim’ comment I made here on Kiwiblog.

    If people choose to post anonymously, then, that is their prerogative, and no doubt they will have very valid reasons for doing so. Who are you to criticise, anyway, especially after posting here for most of your time under a pseudonym?!

    You’re a bloody hypocrite, Pete!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Pete George (23,331 comments) says:

    RB, what’s your problem? You make unfounded abusive gutless smears all the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Never unfounded where you’re concerned Pete. Anyway, glad we agree on the substance of that moron’s post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. AlphaKiwi (687 comments) says:

    On any political forum, anyone with a sense of discernment will post under a pseudonym.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Pete George 4:39 pm,

    Kris, I think I have read wider than you ever will.

    … quantity is no substitute for quality …

    Here’s a quote you may want to reflect upon, Pete:

    An open mind is all very well in its way, but it ought not to be so open that there is no keeping anything in or out of it. It should be capable of shutting its doors sometimes, or it may be found a little drafty.
    SAMUEL BUTLER (1835-1902)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    Kris K

    We have every right to protect our culture and heritage against those who would dilute and ultimately destroy them….

    Hat wearing is no longer the norm in NZ. It used to be that every man wore a hat, and as a sign of respect that hat was removed. Very few wear hats now, so the removal of headwear as a sign of respect is hardly so, as very few wear hats in the first place.

    Our culture and heritage was renowned for it’s tolerance of other religions. As the Christian faith declines, so does that tolerance. The surest way to destroy our culture and heritage is to introduce the idea that religious bigotry is the way to go. And then wait to see how long before your religion is targeted. Because it’s coming. The thin edge of the wedge will first be directed against the minority religions, and then turned on Christians.

    Don’t be so worried about destruction from the outside.

    Malcom

    But really, in this case the Sikhs cannot be separated from their turban, so this is in effect a ban on a person of religion being part of a club.

    Flawed logic, Lucia. You should have said “…the Sikhs cannot be separated from their turban, so *they* are in effect banning themselves from being part of such clubs.” And of course there’s nothing stopping a Sikh from uncurling his turban, cutting his 8 foot long hair and joining the local cossy club for a few beers and a game of pool. Unless he doesn’t want to, of course, which is his choice.

    Just like I could take off my crucifx, stomp on it and then go down to the pub, get blind drunk and sleep with as many men as possible. It’s my choice not to, because in doing so I would be betraying everything I believe in. It seems to me it’s the same with the Sikh, taking off his turban betrays what he believes in.

    But you’re ok with that. I can only imagine that is because you don’t believe in anything much.

    Redbaiter,

    “The ideas in those documents didn’t spring from nowhere, they came from people with a particular view … a Judeo Christian view.”

    I’m happy to concede that point, although I may not agree with it 100%. It still does not change the fact that the basis of all freedom is legislation enforcing respect for the concept of private property. You cannot build a church without that in place.

    Cool. I can see this could be one of those chicken and egg discussions, so I’m happy to leave it at that with you.

    See Big Bruv, Redbaiter doesn’t abuse everyone who disagrees with him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Pete George (23,331 comments) says:

    If what I believe regarding Islam is true, Pete, then I don’t want to come home to find my house torched, or worse, for some ‘anti-Muslim’ comment I made here on Kiwiblog.

    How do you think moderate Muslims feel about speaking out Kris? Especially those actually living in the vicinity of some of the radicals?

    Yes, it is your prerogative to post anonymously. But criticising others for not being open about their concerns does seem a tad hypocritical.

    I’m not sure how deciding early on here to be open about who I was is hypocritical. And making it obvious what I had posted under. Even you know about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    PauleastBay

    Firstly, why would anyone want to belong to anything in Manurewa, seriously FFS

    Well the Sikh community seems to want to!!!! Hence the arguments.

    If Manurewa is so bad why do the Sikh want access to the club? They have a perfectly good gold temple up the road.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. AlphaKiwi (687 comments) says:

    Which religious ornaments did Moses, Jesus and Mohammed wear? You may in fact find that these are the inventions of man and not of that dude in the sky.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Manolo 4:38 pm,

    Islam is not a religion of peace, but a barbaric set of beliefs. Many crimes have been committed in the name of religion and Islam is at the forefront.

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    Thanks for the link, Manolo – will add it to my arsenal.

    That comment beneath the lovely family photo at the top of the site is insightful:

    This family of immigrants to multicultural Canada was hailed as an example of Islamic compatibility with Western values – up until last Sunday, when the teen girl on the left was stabbed by her mother for shaming the family by staying out late.

    And Pete George frowns upon parents who may smack their children from time as one form of discipline …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    JiveKitty,

    Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.

    Well, only in so far as you are free to choose not to believe in anything. However if you impose that belief of nothing onto everyone around you, and expect to be protected from any expression of religion at all, you then become the oppressor.

    The club in a sense is doing the same thing, they are expecting not to be subjected to someone expressing their religious faith because that expression of faith intersects partially with one of their rules.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    “Just like I could take off my crucifx, stomp on it and then go down to the pub, get blind drunk and sleep with as many men as possible. It’s my choice not to, because in doing so I would be betraying everything I believe in. It seems to me it’s the same with the Sikh, taking off his turban betrays what he believes in.

    But you’re ok with that. I can only imagine that is because you don’t believe in anything much.”

    I think he’s okay with them choosing not to do that, but he realises that it is a choice freely made and that there shouldn’t be any complaining about discrimination because there is none going on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Chuck Bird (4,772 comments) says:

    Lucia, I agree regarding turbans and Jewish skullcaps. However, i think veils that cover the face are a step too far. I would not feel comfortable sharing a table with women wearing veils that cover their faces. What is you view on veils?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Red you and D4J must be the same person, vitrol from a sad life I say.

    I am still wondering why if you are such an enlightened individual why you don’t have a blog of your own where you can attract the two or three like minded thinkers and you can stroke yourselves all day long together – or are you just a sad sad man with this (someone elses blog) your only trip to the beach.

    Gerrit

    Obviously the Shikhs do don’t they, but you and your club wont let them and as you said you wont vote to over turn the decision.

    Its not just the NRL where racisim is rampant. Good old NZ is as racist as it comes, even if some of our “best freinds are Shiks, Maori’, Samoans, Catholic or perish the thought Jews.

    We are a insecure, insular society who havn’t grown up yet

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. RRM (9,663 comments) says:

    KrisK – so what? I could point to plenty of lovely New Zealand families/whanau that do far worse.

    Are they poster children for the inherent evil of christian-based NZ society?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Red you and D4J must be the same person, vitrol from a sad life I say.”

    So you couldn’t find a sentence? You just labelled me a racist because that is as far as your intellectually stunted dumbfuck ideas extend. And you’re too much of a coward to even apologise for your false allegations. Go away. You’re a narrow bigoted ignorant gutless stupid pseudo liberal, and you’ve got nothing to say on this issue worth more than a pinch of goat shit. (or any issue that I’ve noticed) Stop cluttering up the discussion with your off topic rambling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    “Well, only in so far as you are free to choose not to believe in anything. However if you impose that belief of nothing onto everyone around you, and expect to be protected from any expression of religion at all, you then become the oppressor.

    The club in a sense is doing the same thing, they are expecting not to be subjected to someone expressing their religious faith because that expression of faith intersects partially with one of their rules.”

    No, they are expecting that somebody’s personal application of a religious rule shouldn’t impact on the rules they have chosen to set for the club, because such application of religious faith is a choice and the club has the property rights in this case. This is fair. It is not a case where somebody is being barred from the club for a trait they can reasonably do little about. Furthermore, it is a fair decision in the sense that secular choice to wear a headgarment would not be given an exception regardless of the importance that the secular person attaches to their choice. The religious belief should not be given more weight than the secular belief. This would be unfair and discriminatory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. tvb (4,255 comments) says:

    This is disgusting. I hope the race relations conciliator looks into this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    Adherents of Sikhism don’t constitute a race.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    “South Auckland’s Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club voted overwhelmingly on Sunday to keep a ban that prevents Sikhs from entering its premises.
    The issue has been ongoing since last year when the club kept Karnail Singh out of a function held in his honour because he would not remove his Sikh turban.”
    – nzherald.co.nz 1:50 PM Tuesday Jun 15, 2010

    This just adds to the confusion – that the issue arises from a function to honour Karnail Singh who is a Sikh. Those honouring him would seem to have actually not known a great deal about him or considered the situation the event placed him in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    Hi Chuck,

    Veils that cover the face and “cannot” be removed, I find highly problematic.

    I used to think that “banning the burka” would be the solution. I don’t think so any more.

    My solution is now more radical – a re-Christianisation of society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay

    Obviously the Shikhs do don’t they, but you and your club wont let them and as you said you wont vote to over turn the decision.

    Wrong again. The club will let them in same as any other person. Neither race nor religion is a barrier.

    The club has many members from ALL sectors of the community, races and religions.

    The Sikh want access but do not want to conform to the rules set by the members. They want the rules bent.

    It is their choice not to enter, not the members banning them.

    Sure we could be tolerant and turn a blind eye like most clubs do, and the Sikh could be tolerant by not visiting the club.

    By going to the press and the commision, the Sikhs have painted both themselves and the club members into entrenched positions.

    You asked who would want to belong to anything in Manurewa. Well the Sikh’s obviously. Just answering your derogatory question.

    I question the motivation of the Sikh community to be so entrenched and demand visiting rights with headgear, when so many other clubs will accomodate their religious intolerance.

    Dont come if we offend, simple hey! Their gold temple 2k up the road not good enough? The Weymouth Cossy is just up the road, the RSA round the corner, Papakura not 10k away, etc. Why pick on Manurewa?

    Me thinks they should stop the legal pursuit with the commission and just leave us alone.

    Maybe there is more to the Hindu V Sikh anomosity then we realise?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..a re-Christianisation of society…”

    another round of inquisitions…?

    just to get the ball rolling…?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Lucia Maria (2,239 comments) says:

    LOL, Phil!

    No, a transformation .. person, by person. Because that is the way it’s done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Rex Widerstrom (5,330 comments) says:

    AlphaKiwi posits:

    On any political forum, anyone with a sense of discernment will post under a pseudonym.

    Take that back, you… you… you…

    Errr, I mean, I respectfully beg to differ. See, a lack of anonymity has its advantages too. Unless of course someone is so far gone they’re prepared to behave like an abusive semi-coherent asshat under their own name :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    RRM 5:21 pm,

    KrisK – so what? I could point to plenty of lovely New Zealand families/whanau that do far worse.

    Are they poster children for the inherent evil of christian-based NZ society?

    Sadly, RRM, as New Zealand has moved increasingly away from its Judeo-Christian foundation, and subsequently embraced ‘progressive’ theology, we have observed an increase in societal violence – not least of which is directed towards children (and some might include unborn children).

    NZ can no longer claim to be “christian-based” in any meaningful sense – but that doesn’t mean that those of us that hold to such standards should just roll over and give up. It’s important to continue to “fight the good fight”, so to speak.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. peterwn (3,214 comments) says:

    In the 1960′s someone discovered that the Papakura Workingmans Club (similar to a Cossy) had a rule that forbade Maoris to be members. At that time there tended to be significant racial discrimination against Maoris in South Auckland with the Pukekohe area being particularly bad. Even at that time most seemed to be ‘urban Maori’ with little Iwi influence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    Old Hindu video proverb show why man with turban should not be denied a cool drink in the Cossie club. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. AlphaKiwi (687 comments) says:

    @ Rex Widerstrom

    I know your real name is John Smith. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    @Manolo – I am surpised that you would be taken in by fundamentalist opposition groups. A few web sites does not define the religion they oppose. Have you bothered to check to see if perhaps any of those are funded, partially or totally, by fundamentalist Christian groups.

    To state that the religion of Islam is evil because of the acts of a few is no less obscene than what you accuse them of.

    To state that they want to convert the world to Islam may well be true. But it is no different than the aims of various Christian denominations.

    And when it comes to act of barbarism and evil against non-believers, the Christian religion is no less guilty than Islam.

    @Kris K – Clearly you hold Judeo/Christian-based views. If they colour your perception of other religions, such as Islam, man up and admit it.

    But to the nub of the problem…. It is a matter of tolerance – specifically the lack thereof – and belief systems.

    History shows us that when humans choose to belive something they have a tendency to attach strongly to that belief. The strength of that belilef has a habit of resulting in a lack of tolerance to opposing views. History shows us that that lack of toleance can all too often lead to conflict (the Crusades, persecutions of Jews, and even the wars between Christian denominations to name but a few.)

    Religion is a belief system that seems to evoke this lack of tolerance more than most, and with violent repercussions. However religion is not the only belief system which can result in intolerance. Capitalism and Communism are examples. Even Liberterianism is a belief system.

    That lack of tolerance to opposing views is what we all must guard against. Holding beliefs is not a bad thing at all. Allowing them to consume you to the extent of a lack of tolerance – or, worse, a hatred – towards opposing beliefs leads towards continued conflict

    The First Amendment is an incredibly powerful tool for democracy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    Well said bhudson.
    I have always believed that belief in anything tends to lead one to extremism hence I only believe in laughing at everything everybody else believes in.
    Unfortunately everybody that comments here seems to believe very strongly in something and I find myself continually bursting into fits of laughter when I read their comments.

    Should I put out my eyes or just cancel my broadband?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    Lucia

    “See Big Bruv, Redbaiter doesn’t abuse everyone who disagrees with him.”

    Might be because you are also a follower of the ‘good book’

    In his tiny little mind anybody who does not live by the ten commandments is a ‘commie’

    If Red is not related to D4J then he must be related to that other idiot Glen Beck.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    “Manolo – I am surpised (sic) that you would be taken in by fundamentalist opposition groups.”

    I’m not taken by anyone’s opinion: I do reject all religions equally, which does not mean I do not respect your right to have one, even the violent Islamic faith (for the record, I despise Christian – or any – fundamentalism, too).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Leonidas (1,389 comments) says:

    Hey Petey,

    when you said :but rather further evolving and merging through immigration and external influence such as film, TV and music., did you perchance mean the Sikh’s should give a little and come a bit closer to us, seeing as their rules date from around 1699, or is it only white Christians who need to bend over for everyone else?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    Enjoying the laughter would seem to be a better option.

    Laugh at them all (and not excepting mine if it brings a chuckle) I have to admit to doing a bit of the same.

    Putting out your eyes would seem to limit the enjoyment. I’m sure there are a few here who would offer to read you the(ir) posts. Of course some might also offer to do the job for you for your own contrarian posts

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    @Manolo – thanks for the correction – spellcheck wouldn’t work and I admit to being too lazy to manually edit

    Thanks mainly for the clarification. It’s what I expected and pretty much what that part of the post was meant to elicit.

    Perhaps the topic in general is something to be debated sometime at The Quiet Lady?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    “Perhaps the topic in general is something to be debated sometime at The Quiet Lady?”
    Excellent idea. I look forward to the opportunity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Pete George (23,331 comments) says:

    Hey “Lenny”

    “is it only white Christians who need to bend over for everyone else?”

    That’s a graphic way to put it, probably not what you meant. But no, it isn’t like that. As bhudson says, it comes down to tolerance of others and their beliefs, if they are reasonable unharming beliefs. I tolerate most Christian stuff, I don’t fear Christians generally, I don’t complain about them going about their lives in their own way or wearing symbols of torture around their necks. Neither do I fear Sikhs. If I was in a club (social, cricket or whatever) I’d have no problem with a Sikh wearing something on their head.

    I also don’t have a problem with Muslims who have not displayed any threatening behaviours. (I happened to sit next to a couple of them tonight when I picked up some tea on the way home, then they walked right past me, they ignored me and didn’t cut off my head)

    Would the MCC also exclude nuns wearing habits?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Johnboy 6:52 pm,

    Well said bhudson.
    I have always believed that belief in anything tends to lead one to extremism hence I only believe in laughing at everything everybody else believes in.

    As long as your “believ[ing] in laughing at everything everybody else believes in” isn’t an extreme system of belief, Johnboy.
    Actually that reminds me of that track on “Dark Side of the Moon” – you know, the one with the insane laughing going on in the background (… got to keep the loonies on the path … I’ve always been f***ing mad …) – he obviously had an extreme system of belief, though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Leonidas (1,389 comments) says:

    Pete.

    Was not the thrust of the quoted line: we gotta move with the times?

    I simply ask is it not time others did also?
    Had nothing to do with tolerance, and everything to do with give and take.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Leonidas (1,389 comments) says:

    Oh, and I absolutely meant white Christians getting fucked in the arse (figuratively, of course) when it comes to accommodating others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Pete George (23,331 comments) says:

    How much should we move with the times? And how much should we expect it of others?

    Should I expect all people with any sort of religious belief to move with the times and get real? No, there’s give and take. Visiting a number of churches in Italy lately we were happy to comply with the dress code and keep a respectful quiet, take sun hats off, and were mindful of when it might not be appropriate to take photos.

    I would have no problem with being in the same place as any sort of religious person choosing to wear head covering, scarf, hoody, or whatever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Leonidas (1,389 comments) says:

    So on the one hand, you’re happy to obey the rules of the house youvisit, but Sikhs don’t have to?
    Is that what you’re saying?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    I have to admit that in these days of Climate Change (not). Fiscal Deficits (maybe). Hospital Waiting Lists (or not). Jewish Terrorists (Makes a nice change from Arab terrorists). Polluted NZ Rivers (yeah). Rorting Lefties (Definitely). etc. etc.

    The biggest topic on Kiwiblog (fomenting awfully well) is a bloke with a turban trying to get a cheap beer at the local Cossie Club.

    Fuck, excuse me while I piss myself laughing, put out my eyes and cancel the broadband. :) :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Pete George (23,331 comments) says:

    No. If someone’s beliefs are strong enough to prefer/require me to abide by them then fine – my choice.
    If someone has strong enough beliefs to want to wear something on their head in my place then fine – I can live with that.

    If MCC have strong enough beliefs that they don’t want members or visitors wearing anything on their head it’s up to them, but seems a bit strange to me. As I said, I’d be interested in hearing if their ban would include nuns.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Comrade MOT (59 comments) says:

    Trout

    They do not take their turbans off to play cricket. The wear them in the field and presumably under their helmets when batting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    Most of the Nun’s I ever met don’t get on the piss very often, apart from the Sunday communal wine, so I suspect they wouldn’t push the membership boundaries at a drinking club Pete.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    “The biggest topic on Kiwiblog (fomenting awfully well) is a bloke with a turban trying to get a cheap beer at the local Cossie Club”
    Yes, Johnboy, 185 comments already

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    Comrade dickhead they don’t fit the turban under the bloody helmet, they would look like the coneheads if they did :

    This is what they do:

    http://www.google.co.nz/images?hl=en&q=Harbhajan+Singh&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=24cYTLKmCYbYNeSb7MIE&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=6&ved=0CEUQsAQwBQ

    Their religion requires them to cover their hair.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    Est chacun des 185 Yvette stupide ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Pete George (23,331 comments) says:

    Funny thing, the churches I visited didn’t allow headware, apart from their own funny hats and scarfs (you had to rank to qualify).

    Ok, John, what about a woman being treated for cancer wearing a scarf, do you think they would make an exception for that? If they had a country music night would they allow the band to wear hats?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Furthermore, not all Sikhs would be banned from the club - founding member of the Pukekohe Cosmopolitan Club Ganges Singh, who has been visiting the club since 1976, would still be allowed in with his turban.
    “That’s where the situation is so strange to us,” Verpal Singh said.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3820623/Turban-ban-illegal-says-civil-rights-expert.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Il est, johnboy, peut-être comme Albert Einstein a dit : “Nur zwei Sachen sind unbegrenzt, das Universum und die menschliche Dummheit, und ich bin nicht über das ehemalige sicher.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    ” If they had a country music night would they allow the band to wear hats?”

    They would have to these cold winter nights if it was Willie. :)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/27/willie-nelson-cuts-his-ha_n_591561.html

    “what about a woman being treated for cancer wearing a scarf”

    Chemo and cheap piss don’t go well together Pete.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    @Yvette: Now that is odd. If they make exceptions, it should be come one, come all for consistency’s sake – outside religious belief as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    Did he not also say ” Der Unterschied zwischen Genie und Dummheit ist, dass Genie hat seine Begrenzungen.“

    If not he should have Yvette. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. transmogrifier (522 comments) says:

    What a weird argument. People on one hand claiming the ban is taking away freedoms, and then trying to stop a private club from having a rule about HEADGEAR because it may dissuade (dissuade NOT ban!) some people who like to wear a particular type of headgear from entering, though if they did remove the headgear, they could enter anyway.

    Then, people saying that banning headgear is “essentially” banning Sikhs because turbans are not “really” hats, and the club is “probably” setting the rule to discriminate. All those assumptions, all full of crap.

    And, some people trying to claim it as a war between Western values and other values, when it is simply a PRIVATE CLUB making a decision about how members should dress. That’s it.

    And people claiming that those of us at ease with the club’s decision are racist, based on…..oh, yeah, that’s one thing I haven’t quite understood as yet.

    Someone asked whether we would ban a necklace with a cross on it. No, but I wouldn’t ban hats inside either. Thing is, I may not really give a shit about hats being worn inside, but I respect the decision of private citizens TO give a shit. I probably wouldn’t go to their club, cos they seem kind of stuffy and humourless, but there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with their decision. We can control what we wear. We cannot control the colour of our skin. Therefore hat ban = fine; racial ban = not fine.

    The fact that this is even controversial puzzles me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Je pense, Johnboy, il ai eu plusieurs versions des idées semblables.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    I am waiting for someone to complain about the French and German. Then we can say but this is a post about what is permitted in a Cosmopolitan Club, nes pas?
    QED?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    Ah die wij als één Yvette hebben gedacht

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    If anyone is upset Yvette I have set up a complaints department here:

    http://www.askflick.com/

    ps: Are you by any chance Yvette Carte-Blanche late of Nouvion?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    N’observez-vous pas FLASHFORWARD, Johnboy ? Il peut être un de la meilleure série depuis la LOI de LA, à moins qu’il se tourne vers la crème au dernier moment – voyez ? Je vous ai dit que j’étais plus âgé.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Yvette Carte-Blanche Maria Recamier? Non.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. AlphaKiwi (687 comments) says:

    Anyone one here want to set up the “Compulsory Headware, No Face Coverings Social Club?” :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Vous les gars avez besoin pour obtenir une chambre .. vite!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    Aucun céleri humide pour moi alors!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    Meanwhile, at the door of the Cosmopolitan Club….

    “Hello Mr Hitler, do come in. Good evening Mr Stalin, welcome. Mr Goebbels, Mr Himmler, lovely to see you……. Oi, Ghandi, Jesus, you can both fuck off, no sandals allowed!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    I would prefer the “Certifiable Headcase Off Your face Social Club”.

    God what am I saying? I’m already a member. Its here! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Fuck, excuse me while I piss myself laughing, put out my eyes and cancel the broadband.”

    If you don’t believe property rights are worth defending then you can’t complain about being under the leftist jackboot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Oh, Johnboy, vous êtes sale de nouveau.
    Oh là là ! ! La rupture commerciale est terminée.
    FLASHFORWARD.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    Hell Red its the rightist jackboot that I voted for that seems to be fucking me over:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10652194

    Maybe the boots on the other foot or something?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    That so many NZers truly think National is right wing is the best illustration you would ever want as to how hopelessly skewed the political spectrum is in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    So we are going to need experts to interprete what public domain means, along with ETS.
    Indeed we are all mushrooms, kept in the dark, waiting for the next load of horse-manure to arrive.
    Sorry – off post, or whatever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    Hence I just take the piss and laugh Red. What else can a simple man do other than keep his ammunition dry and in good amount?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Albert de nouveau : “Machen Sie alles so einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    Yvette. Êtes vous Mimi LaBonq?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    212 comments – but I guess people have gone now to watch the football?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Ha, une amorce de troupe de Résistance à Paris avant que je sois devenu une serveuse ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. jims_whare (399 comments) says:

    To me its about head coverings. Having a rule that says no head coverings in the club doesn’t breach the HRA.

    Doesn’t matter what their cultural or religious background no taka off no comea in. Simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    Yvette. Bonne nuit. Sommeil puits

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Merci – ‘night Johnboy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    Origin, myself.

    @jims_whare: Agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    Yvette,

    Nah just bored scrolling between postings in languages I dont understand and a reluctance of people to argue for the rights of the individual over a discriminating Sikh minority.

    When the Sikhs stop persecuting the Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club and its multiracial members, we will all be happy.

    This is now bigger then just head gear, it is about club members rights not to be persecuted for their beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    @Lucia

    Just like I could take off my crucifx, stomp on it and then go down to the pub, get blind drunk and sleep with as many men as possible. It’s my choice not to, because in doing so I would be betraying everything I believe in. It seems to me it’s the same with the Sikh, taking off his turban betrays what he believes in.

    My point exactly. We’re all free to choose what is important to us. If your choices cause a conflict for you (“I want to be Sikh, but I also want to visit a ‘no hats’ cossy club”, or “I want to be a good Catholic girl but I like the fun of a meet-and-shag”), then tough. That’s life in a free society. Choices and consequences (and yes, a Sikh chooses to be a Sikh and chooses to always wear his turban). There’s no discrimination here, except of course when you force the club to accept headdress, in which case you’re taking away the members’ right to create the club they want.

    By your flawed logic, pubs would be forced to welcome gang members in their moronic patches, so as not to discriminated against their deeply held beliefs. Don’t let religion cloud your thinking – this is really a very simple concept.

    But you’re ok with that. I can only imagine that is because you don’t believe in anything much.

    Well I believe in property rights and freedom of conscience, so I appear to be two up on you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    Totally agree Malcolm.

    The question is very simple and maybe DPF could answer this by publishing his answer in a posting we can discuss.

    Whose “rights” are more important.

    The Sikh community religious right to wear a turban and carry concealed weapons or the Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club members secular rights to set their clubs dress code???

    Because that is the real nub of the argument.

    Whose “rights” are more important and why should they over ride the “rights” of the other party.

    So go on DPF, this Manurewa Cosmopolitan Member challenges you to put up the argument in a posting and lets debate the nub of the argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Pete George (23,331 comments) says:

    Gerrit, I don’t really care what dress code rules the MCC want to try and enforce, but this does appear rather pedantic and unnecessary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    Yep, as pedantic as the Sikh community wanting access to a club with significant Hindu membership.

    One questions their motivation.

    So your answer to the the “rights” question is?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Pete George (23,331 comments) says:

    I don’t see it as “rights”, more what is reasonable and common sense. Bringing “rights” into it just seems to be trying to justify a position after it has been reached.

    It just seems like MCC and Sikhs have become entrenched and dug their toes for whatever reason, yes, both pedantic. Seems a bit pointless to me.

    I like the common sense approach of the RSA as linked here:
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/06/manurewa_cosmopolitan_club.html#comment-706453

    MCC could say that they have made their point but are now happy to adopt the RSA approach, but I suspect that will be too hard for some members to accept.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    Pete,

    I guess the Sikh will have to bring that approach to the table now that legal action has been instigated by them. The question of “rights” is vital in that legal action.

    Even in that statement you refer to there is no contrition from the Sikhs in regards to the Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club position. it is All about the Sikh woe is me position, nothing about the Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club position. No compromise or nothing. Our way or no way.

    Yes as I’ve said earlier, the position is entrenched so bring on the commission.

    It is interesting that so called “civil rights” lawyer (Barry whathisname) is saying that the club is acting illegally. So lets have a day in court as it were and see where the dominos fall.

    Are the Manurewa Cosmopolitan Clubs’ members “civil rights” at stake?

    I think so

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Pete George (23,331 comments) says:

    Gerrit, are you Hindu?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    Pete George,

    I guess the question has relevance but no I’m not. Most describe me as a redneck Tauiwi import.

    I guess your underlying question is about cultural, religious and racial tensiojn between Sikh, who see themselves as high cast, V what in their eyes is the low cast Hindu.

    I really dont know. However it is noted in Manurewa how little the Sikh community intergrates with the Maori, Pacific Islander, Indian, Asian, Middle Eastern or European communities.

    They do stick together and much like the Exclusive Bretheren this is not a problem.

    However their continuing attack on the Manurewa Cosmoplitan Club is strange as they general dont socialise at this type of venue. Hence my questioning their motives.

    It is interesting that Canada has a problem with radical fundamental Sikhs who are fighting the Indian government for self determination in their homeland of Khalistan.

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/10/aditya-jha-sikh-extremists-damage-canadas-interests/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Pete George (23,331 comments) says:

    Is it right that this spat originated when a Sikh man was barred from attending a function organised to honour his voluntary work?

    If so, is the current position of MCC basically trying to defend that action?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    Pete George,

    A private function held at the club by a club member, correct.

    I guess the defending is done in response to the Sikh community going directly to the press and the lawyers.

    No visit to the club to state their case.

    With ZB now reporting that legal action will be “problematic” I guess the issue will die away.

    They will leave us alone and we wont bother them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Chuck Bird (4,772 comments) says:

    “My solution is now more radical – a re-Christianisation of society.”

    Lucia, please elaborate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. grumpyoldhori (2,416 comments) says:

    Gerrit ah, you are a visitor to NZ no surprise in that.
    You are also full of shit in your comments about the Sikhs, it is pretty fucking obvious you have fuck all to do with any dusky types in NZ.
    There is a Sikh married to Maori lass in Auckland.
    Maybe it is time to check on the racial leanings of visitors to this country.
    Like that Brit prick who who lives in this country but believes visitors who were not born in a country should not stay.
    Time to send a couple of Cuzzies around to tell him to pack a bag and fuck off ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. grumpyoldhori (2,416 comments) says:

    Simple answer to the problem, park a trailer outside with a sign saying, darkies in turbans not wanted because they upset visitors from Britain.
    It would upset visitors from Britain, well, too fucking bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    Time to send a couple of Cuzzies around to tell him to pack a bag and fuck off ?

    Bring it on Hori,

    The are more then a few cuzzies here at the club waiting for your cuzzies to show up.

    But I think you are all hot air and bluster.

    And a grumpy sad old racist hori.

    Do you know where Manurewa is?

    Funny enough I dont think you have read any of the comment I made in the debate just jumping in at the end.

    Sad man, real sad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    Grumpy is an ignorant fuckwit really Gerrit. Most of the visitors from Britain these days would wear turbans. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    Johnboy

    Yea, a typical racist who only knows violence.

    Well bullyboys dont cut it in South Auckland. The seem to just slink away with the tails between their legs.

    One thing we do have in Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club is a multitude of members from different races. But grumpy old racist hori cant be bother reading the comments to find that out.

    I’m glad that the Maori members at the club have a better perspective on racial intergration than the old fellow with a colonial chip on his shoulder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    Maybe they have real lives and are not active recipients of the spoils of the grievance industry like so many Maoris seem to have as their only aspiration these days.

    I wonder what political doctrine created that particular industry?

    Twenty points for the first correct answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Vidya (3 comments) says:

    I am not surprised at some of the ignorant, light weight and red-neck comments posted above – a fair reflection of the state of this nation.

    A few comments. Firstly, some general comments on Sikhs (and Indians).

    Sikhs and Indians have been part of the British Empire for a few hundred years. They served with great distinction in both the great wars of the last century with equally large numbers sacrificing their lives for the cause.

    In fact, approximately 2.5 million Indians VOLUNTEERED to fight for the British in WWII (a large number of these Sikhs, turbans and all) – by far probably the largest volunteer army in that war.

    That Indians and Sikhs’ service is not widely acknowledged or known in the West is both a matter of convenience (after all we can’t have too much credit going to non-whites) and circumstances – the Indians served as part of the British Army (unlike Aussies, Kiwis and Canadians who all had their own national armies).

    In addition the British favoured Indians, especially the Sikhs as their choice of Constabulary especially in their Eastern colonies such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia etc.

    Against this background, I find the Manurewa Cosmopolitan issue disgraceful.

    Apart from this, I consider that Mr Singh may have good grounds to sue under the Human Rights Act. Note to all the ill-informed comments about Sikhs not being a race or ethic group – you are incorrect and misguided as under the law Sikhs are an ethic group.

    See the House of Lords decision in the Mandla case (www.hrcr.org/safrica/equality/Mandla_DowellLee.htm). Note the leading judgment relies on a NZ Court of Appeal decision to support its contentions (see King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531)

    Anyone interest in further sources, the relevant section of NZ Human Righsts Act maybe section 21 (www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304475.html).

    Now if you were really interested in Sikhs and the reason for their turban the following sources may be of interest (http://fateh.sikhnet.com/s/whyturbans; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastar; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31354737/ns/us_news-military)

    I also note that recently the US Army has allowed Sikhs to wear turbans whilst on active duty. They have joined a long list of countries in this regard (e.g. Canada, UK, Singapore, India etc) – note the police forces in these and other countries have long allowed Sikhs to serve with turbans.

    In light of all this, the Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club is, in my view, ignorant, belligerent and racist. Their position and justification for their racist position is untenable and unjustified.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Vidya (3 comments) says:

    I am not surprised at some of the ignorant, light weight and red-neck comments posted above – a fair reflection of the state of this nation.

    A few comments. Firstly, some general comments on Sikhs (and Indians).

    Sikhs and Indians have been part of the British Empire for a few hundred years. They served with great distinction in both the great wars of the last century with equally large numbers sacrificing their lives for the cause.

    In fact, approximately 2.5 million Indians VOLUNTEERED to fight for the British in WWII (a large number of these Sikhs, turbans and all) – by far probably the largest volunteer army in that war.

    That Indians and Sikhs’ service is not widely acknowledged or known in the West is both a matter of convenience (after all we can’t have too much credit going to non-whites) and circumstances – the Indians served as part of the British Army (unlike Aussies, Kiwis and Canadians who all had their own national armies).

    In addition the British favoured Indians, especially the Sikhs as their choice of Constabulary especially in their Eastern colonies such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia etc.

    Against this background, I find the Manurewa Cosmopolitan issue disgraceful.

    Apart from this, I consider that Mr Singh may have good grounds to sue under the Human Rights Act. Note to all the ill-informed comments about Sikhs not being a race or ethic group – you are incorrect and misguided as under the law Sikhs are an ethic group.

    See the House of Lords decision in the Mandla case (http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/equality/Mandla_DowellLee.htm). Note the leading judgment relies on a NZ Court of Appeal decision to support its contentions (see http:// King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531).

    Anyone interest in further sources, the relevant section of NZ Human Righsts Act maybe section 21 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304475.html).

    Now if you were really interested in Sikhs and the reason for their turban the following sources may be of interest (http://fateh.sikhnet.com/s/whyturbans; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastar; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31354737/ns/us_news-military)

    I also note that recently the US Army has allowed Sikhs to wear turbans whilst on active duty. They have joined a long list of countries in this regard (e.g. Canada, UK, Singapore, India etc) – note the police forces in these and other countries have long allowed Sikhs to serve with turbans.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    Grumpy Old Racist Hori,

    You still there?

    Notice that your cussies were busy again.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3825672/Mum-bashed-by-pregnant-women

    Yep, good role model you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    Vidya,

    The question is noty about how rightious the Sikh community is (it is not even questioned) nor how well other organisations accomadate the Sikh males headwear or their need to carry concealed weapons.

    While busy lampasting the Manureaw Cosmpolitan Club for being “ignorant, light weight and red-neck” you then want a no compromise solution to the problem.

    Well there is a compromise offered and that is simple for the Sikh community (who have access to many other recreational facility very near their community golden temple) to leave us alone. Just like we leave them alone.

    You have indignation at our stance but fail like every other commentor calling us names to answer the following question I possed earlier

    Whose “rights” are more important.

    The Sikh community religious right to wear a turban and carry concealed weapons or the Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club members secular rights to set their clubs dress code???

    Because that is the real nub of the argument.

    Whose “rights” are more important and why should they over ride the “rights” of the other party.

    Another question that remains unanswered is what the motivation of the Sikhs, going directly to the press and the law instead of approaching the club, was.

    Again deafly silence.

    Maybe we can be tolerant of your position if you could answer the pertunant questions instead of making condesending remarks that we must allow every religious right to override anothers secular right.

    Sikh community has made compromises in the past in regards the kirpan. At the last winter Olympics, the permitted size and adminastrative control (as in required reigistration of the weapon with security staff) of the kirpan met with no resistance from the Sikh community.

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2010/02/10/sikhs-reminded-of-olympic-security-for-kirpans.aspx

    Yet the hard line with the Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club continues. Why the motivation to take legal recource against a private club they are hardly likely to use?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Vidya (3 comments) says:

    Gerrit

    My response to your comments. I have set out your comments in square brackets:

    [The question is noty about how rightious the Sikh community is (it is not even questioned) nor how well other organisations accomadate the Sikh males headwear or their need to carry concealed weapons.]

    There is no issue on the righteous nous of Sikhs. Ceremonial (note the operative word) Kirpans are not weapons. I suggest you review the definition of weapons.

    In fact a lot of Kirpans these days are symbolic with non-metallic blades. You should take more care with your facts before ‘firing from the hips.’

    [While busy lampasting the Manureaw Cosmpolitan Club for being “ignorant, light weight and red-neck” you then want a no compromise solution to the problem.]

    The only compromise whether there is a breach of the law is that the offending party has to cease and desist with the activity and sanctions may apply in this regard. This will be occurring once the law runs its course.

    [Well there is a compromise offered and that is simple for the Sikh community (who have access to many other recreational facility very near their community golden temple) to leave us alone. Just like we leave them alone.]

    A very callow and puerile response – you true nature is bubbling to the surface.

    As an aside, I understand Mr Singh was invited to the Cosmopolitan club to attend a ceremony where he was to be given an award for his services to the Community. Now if the sticklers at the club had merely allowed him to come in, accept his prize and leave, that would have been a fantastic compromise!

    [You have indignation at our stance but fail like every other commentor calling us names to answer the following question I possed earlier]

    It appears the indignation is spewing from thy chalice.

    [Whose “rights” are more important.
    The Sikh community religious right to wear a turban and carry concealed weapons or the Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club members secular rights to set their clubs dress code???
    Because that is the real nub of the argument.
    Whose “rights” are more important and why should they over ride the “rights” of the other party.]

    You appear not to grasp the point that there are domestic laws (Bill of Rights and Human Rights) all NZers are subject to regardless of whether you run a private club or not.

    These laws (especially the Human Rights Act) are paramount unless some other law trumps it (none that I am aware of in this instance). This means that the Cosmopolitan club’s rights are subservient in this regard. Put another way, it means the Cosmopolitan club’s rights “are [not] more important” if they breach these laws.

    The Cosmopolitan club has rights, this is accepted. But their rights are not absolute and must be viewed against the laws I have referred to.

    Where the case goes to court, I strongly believe the Cosmopolitan club will be found to have breached the law and will be sanctioned accordingly.

    [Another question that remains unanswered is what the motivation of the Sikhs, going directly to the press and the law instead of approaching the club, was.]

    Is this factual or are your once again being a fact magician.

    [Again deafly silence. Maybe we can be tolerant of your position if you could answer the pertunant questions instead of making condesending remarks that we must allow every religious right to override anothers secular right.]

    Nonsense.
    Maybe it is because you don’t have a firm grasp of the law and how it relates in this instance. See my comments above in this regard.

    [Sikh community has made compromises in the past in regards the kirpan. At the last winter Olympics, the permitted size and adminastrative control (as in required reigistration of the weapon with security staff) of the kirpan met with no resistance from the Sikh community.
    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2010/02/10/sikhs-reminded-of-olympic-security-for-kirpans.aspx

    You selective knowledge is astounding. See my previous comments on the Kirpan. I suggest you do more research. Maybe a trip to the local Gurudwara (Sikh Temple) down the road – suffice to say they will welcome you with open arms and feed you as well as is the custom in relation to any visitor to the Gurudwara.

    [Yet the hard line with the Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club continues. Why the motivation to take legal recource against a private club they are hardly likely to use?]

    The wheels of justice turn very slowly but they will turn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Gerrit (105 comments) says:

    I guess we will see in court, will be interesting.

    One legal beaver has already said that taking the case to court will be “problematic”.

    Quote from the Human Rights Commission’s Race Relations Report, Race Relations in 2007,

    The exception in the Act that applies to clubs is problematic as clubs can lawfully discriminate in their membership. It is questionable however whether the legislation permits the exception being used to exclude people physically for racist reasons (such as not admitting a Sikh because he wears a turban).

    I appreciated your rebuttal of the points but name calling still does nothing to impress me with your wisdom.

    And yes it is factual that the Sikh being so offended went straight to the TV and the race relations without even approaching the club.

    As I said in another post. The proper path the reconciliation is for the Sikh Council inciting the legal action, to withdraw the treat,

    Apologise for not consulting with the club regarding an exception from the no head wear rule for Sikh visitors, and for the Sikh community to make a formal presentation to club members in regards their beliefs and to formally ask for an exception in regards the turban.

    But if the Sikh Council is keen to persue the complaint I guess we will see them in court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. dentonnotned (2 comments) says:

    Perhaps the Sikh gentleman might consider not becoming a member of any club that would accept him as a member. I shall never persue membership of the M C C even though they would unquestionably delight in accepting me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. dentonnotned (2 comments) says:

    What I’m saying is that I’m confused as to why this Sikh gentleman would wish to associate himself with a club (so called) whose majority membership is so bigoted.

    Perhpas I should also mention that I wear a wig. Does a wig count as headwear ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.