The nature of bigotry

February 14th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

I have to say I’ve been appalled by the fact that more than a trivial number of people (including commenters here – but also on media sites) have actually defended or agreed with what Richard Prosser said regarding banning anyone who is or looks like a Muslim from flying.

To be blunt, they are bigots. You can not defend what he said and not be a bigot. It really is as simple as that.

There is nothing bigoted about having a negative view of the Islamic religion – or in fact any religion. I have negatives views about several religions. But it is when you treat someone as a sub-human purely because they are a member of a religion – or worse “look like” someone who is a member of a religion.

Take the Mormon religion. I think it is a wacky religion, and Joseph Smith was an obvious con artist. However one of my friends is Mormon, and in fact was the local Bishop for a while. A lovely guy, and I would never treat him differently based on the fact he is Mormon. That is just a part of who he is. You treat people as individuals, not just as a member of a race, a religion, a gender, a sexual orientation etc.

The same goes from Scientology. I think it is a crackpot money making scheme. But do I think scientologists should be discriminated against? No.

Now when it comes to Islam, I am someone who has written at length about the flaws in this religion. It has a high proportion of extremists compared to other religions. It has no ability to modernise, and no central authority (the two are linked). There are huge problems in Europe with the lack of integration of some Muslim immigrants and many (not most) Islamic religious leaders do not denounce terrorism or even support it. These are all valid views to have and hold on the religion.

But when you get into bigotry is when you declare that because someone is a member of that religion, that have less rights than someone else and that being a member of that religion is more important than any other characteristics that they have.

This is the sort of views that led to the Jewish Holocaust. Because some Jews were unpopular for various reasons, it was decided all Jews were bad and must be wiped out.

Just as we have differing levels of piety and commitment amongst (say) Catholics, it is the same of course amongst Muslims. Some Catholics are absolutely devout and go to church every week, and their religion is a major defining part of their lives. but also we all know many Catholics who only go to church for Easter and Christmas, and their religious commitment is almost as much cultural as anything.

Well that also applies to Muslims (God forbid that I even have to spell this out). While your religious beliefs are a choice, the reality is that if you grow up in a Muslim family or community, you’re probably going to be Muslim. It is not that big a part of your life – it is just who you are – just like the kids who grow up in Catholic families are Catholics – even if they miss weekly confession. And bigots are unable to differentiate between extreme Islamists and other Muslims.

Some bigots claim there is no such thing as a non-extreme Muslim. Bullshit. This is the sort of view such as there are no Maori who are not crooks or on the dole. I find inevitably it comes from those with very sheltered closeted lives and non-diverse friends.

I’m lucky. I have travelled the world. I’ve been involved in international meetings in the political and Internet spheres where you meet and work with people from around the world. This includes Iranian Internet engineers (who are of course Muslim), the Secretary-General of the Arab Youth League (a young Syrian who was a lot of fun), Internet policy people from Malaysia (who happen to be Muslim) and so on.  It is hard to be bigoted when you deal with real people, rather than stereotypes. I think of those people I know when I recall what Richard Prosser wrote, and how denigrating it is of them.

How would you feel to have someone (let alone an MP) declare you should not be allowed to fly, and all the implications that you are a sub-human who can’t be trusted. And then have others agreeing with him?

We can and should debate the excesses of Islam, terrorism, and the like. But you do it in a way that doesn’t treat individuals as shit.

And don’t even get me started about calling people wogs and saying that even anyone who looks Muslim should be banned from flying. That is not even subtle code for fuck off if you are not white like me.

One can debate issues such as the fact Maori crime rate is higher than non-Maori, without denigrating Maori. One can also debate issues such as rape, without denigrating all men as potential rapists.

At the end of the day we should treat people as individuals. Anyone who proposes any sort of oppressive policy or law based on a group characteristic is bigoted – consciously or unconsciously.  It was wrong for FDR to intern Japanese-Americans in the 1940s for example.

And finally have some common decency. If you have bigoted thoughts, keep them to yourselves. try and have at least a modicum of empathy and decency and think about the impact on others if you rush into print, or online, and say “Oh yeah I think Muslims should be banned from traveling”. Think about the awful impact such prejudice and hatred has on those whom would be impacted by your words.  Just think.

Rant over.

Tags:

204 Responses to “The nature of bigotry”

  1. Bob R (1,373 comments) says:

    ***Richard Prosser said regarding banning anyone who is or looks like a Muslim from flying.***

    Banning is ridiculous, but the issue of security profiling seems legitimate based on statistical likilihood of risk?

    Another example is men on Air NZ & some other airlines are moved if they are sitting next to an unnaccompanied minor. Of course no one thinks all men are child abusers but the risk is far higher so the policy applies to all men (happy to be corrected if this is no longer the case).

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/7454961/Airline-treating-men-like-predators

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. xy (187 comments) says:

    Nice post. I despair at kiwiblog comments sometimes.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 30 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. pq (728 comments) says:

    I think we realise the implications farrar, but it is political savage, Mainzeal anger, Mainzeal was China , get real

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. wreck1080 (3,911 comments) says:

    How about a similar discussion about Hone Harawira? Frankly, the tolerance of that guys comments makes me think you can pretty much say anything you like and still get voted into parliament.

    Since the standard for parliamentary entry is very very low, so why would you be surprised about the comments from normal people?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    One of the strengths of the tolerance and diversity of New Zealand is the often seamless integration in our society of people with different religious and non-religious beliefs, connections and views.

    In the main we can live our lives here with little religious prejudice.

    It’s a pity that those who do make a noise about religious differences are those who are the least tolerant of differences, while most people just quietly get on living together accepting diversity as normal.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Lance (2,655 comments) says:

    Just like some leftards that come on here and state that ALL Kiwiblog commentators are rabid white racists.

    Therefore those leftards are bigots.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    Best. Post. Ever.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 42 Thumb down 30 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. nasska (11,491 comments) says:

    DPF

    The bigotry expressed here & elsewhere is not totally petty…..rather it is a reaction by those who have good cause to fear death or injury at the hands of a religious group whose leaders frequently espouse violence & death to the infidel. Each instance of Islamic “martyrdom” cements the aversion to sitting alongside someone reading the Koran.

    What you interpret as “bigotry” in many cases is the simple gut reaction of everyday humans to a risk to their lives & limbs. If those of the Muslim faith were a little less ready to reach for the Semtex the hostility would vanish & quickly.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 72 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. sparky (235 comments) says:

    The nature of bigotry:

    Excellent post David.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    Well said David.

    I couldn’t bring myself to respond to some of the comments here yesterday.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. OctagonGrappler (84 comments) says:

    Yet it is ok to judge people based on income and status and occupation?? I know many liberals who would gasp at the idea of having a construction worker in the family.

    Every week misandry is written about women complaining that only low income losers are out their for relationships. That is bigoted is it not??

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    DPF – We hears you, brother!

    But the last time I looked, you were a political blogger.

    It should go without saying that many of your readers are angry curtain twitching nutters with great big chips on their shoulders. Is this really a surprise?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    DPF:
    This is the sort of views that led to the Jewish Holocaust. Because some Jews were unpopular for various reasons, it was decided all Jews were bad and must be wiped out.

    We will see this matter of Muslims in Europe come to a head within our lifetime. There will be some form of ethnic cleansing and maybe war in those countries.

    Alarmist I know, but when I look at how much mistrust there is on both sides it’s hard to see another way around it…

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    DPF – you are a little too easily upset – maybe you are getting the “I want to be insulted” syndrome.

    1. I am fully entitled to be a bigot if I want to. I dont like the muslim life style and they way they regard non muslims.
    I also dont like a lot of the maori culture – I think the Haka is the root of violence in their society. If that also comes under the bigot label then so be it.
    I think the haka should be banned and I think there is very good reason for profiling based on race and ethnicity when it comes to air transport safety. After all the only problems that air transport has had has (I think) exclusively come from the muslim side of life – going back to and incluing the ’72 olympic killings. (I think it was 1972)

    2. the Mormons and Scientoligosts (as wonky as they are) dont go around killing people simply because they arent mormons or scientologists. Mormon children are excellent to teach at school, they behave themselves and take their job of learning seriously.

    3. As Bob R points out – theres plenty of bigotry in day to day life.

    Bigotry is (I think) an IRRATIONAL belief. Theres nothing irrational about being wary of muslims on flights.

    The current state of affairs has arisen because the authorities decided that everyone should bear the penalties of a few – thus airport security and their x-ray machines etc.
    This is like the UK where EVERYONE is going to be sent a cervical smear test reminder – females AND MALES – all in the crazy belief that everyone has to be treated the same.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 67 Thumb down 40 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    nasska

    The bigotry expressed here & elsewhere is not totally petty…..rather it is a reaction by those who have good cause to fear death or injury at the hands of a religious group whose leaders frequently espouse violence & death to the infidel.

    Who in New Zealand has “good cause to fear death or injury at the hands of a religious group”?

    I fear far more what might happen of the intolerant bigots stir up enough hatred to incite some nutter or nutters into racial, cultural or religious targeted violence.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 33 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. lazza (381 comments) says:

    Not a rant at all David. Truly amazing heartfelt sensitive informed stuff. Good enough to “be bottled” … in fact, better still, publish it more widely please.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. James Butler (74 comments) says:

    What you interpret as “bigotry” in many cases is the simple gut reaction of everyday humans to a risk to their lives & limbs.

    Being a “gut reaction” doesn’t mean it’s not bigotry. A bigot is almost by definition someone whose gut reactions are bigoted, and who lets them go unexamined. The ability to recognise our gut reactions and think rationally about whether or not they are warranted and reasonable is one of the things that makes us human.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. xy (187 comments) says:

    It’s completely irrational to be scared of muslims on flights in NZ. You’re much more likely to die on the way home from a traffic accident.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. gracious (11 comments) says:

    Best post I have read on here! Next thing we know all people named “barry” will be banned from airlines, purely because they are named “barry”. I always think if you know you are being offensive and continue to be offensive, and you are in a public role, its time to step down. We may of course lose half our politicians….

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    It’s good to see people speaking up in support of DPF on this.

    It’s been pretty knarly and dispiriting on previous Prosser threads. From experience it’s very difficult if not impossible to get through to many of the bigots, they have narrow cemented views.

    But it’s necessary to stand up and speak up to confront them, otherwise they think they are the majority view and the only view that holds any weight. Some have said they think their views are shared by most. They’re not, and it’s important to make that clear to them. That needs multiple voices.

    I acknowledge concerns and fears as per nasska – we all have some. But they are not helped by stoking and snowballing the bigotry – that is more likely to end in grief.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Bob R (1,373 comments) says:

    Just further to the profiling issue, the Israel example is an interesting case study. This site summarises the arguments for & against, noting in terms of Israel’s approach:

    “The Israeli airline El Al has a policy of singling out young Arabs for extensive search procedures, but is quick to point out that, in spite of ongoing war in the Middle East, it has not had a hijacking in over thirty years.”

    http://securingliberty.idebate.org/arguments/profiling

    One obvious downside is that it leads to a degree of resentment amongst those profiled (eg. AIRPORT SCREENING, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND THE. WAR ON TERROR. LESSONS FROM ISRAEL, 1968-2008. http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/wccl/ponencias/6/106.pdf)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    DPF – I so disagree with you on so many levels. For a start Islam remains an existential threat to Western civilisation. Over in Europe in places like France there are no-go zones where the police will not go, because they are ruled by Moslems. In Britain there have been calls to recognise sharia law as part of the law of the land. The simple fact of the matter is that Moslems do not integrate into western countries. There is no separation between church and state in Islam. Given the high fertility and consequent population growth in the Moslem community and the incredibly low fertility amongst liberal western women it is only a matter of time if those population trends continue before Islam takes over. And they do want to take over. Islam divides the world into 2 houses – the house of Islam and the house of war.
    So many of us see Islam as an enemy. It cannot be appeased or compromised with, it can only be resisted.

    Now with regard to our treatment of individual Moslems, sure, we want to be treating them with dignity and respect, the same as anybody else. However with regard to public policy there is ample evidence for concerns about Moslems flying in airliners. Mr Prosser is surely only reflecting that view. What annoys many of us is that airport security treats everybody the same. So there is an invasive search of Betty Smith, a 75-year-old Episcopalian from Idaho. That’s just nuts! I remember seeing a video last year where they even patted down a little 4-year-old girl.

    On the other hand if somebody is from Yemen called Mohammed Muhamed, then I think they should be expecting a a lot more airport security their way. That’s not bigotry, that just makes sense.

    I appreciate that what Mr Prosser said was probably over the top. He should refrain from being a columnist while being an MP. However many of us can understand where his frustration comes from. We bend over backwards to appease Moslems. In my view many liberals like yourself have a rose tinted view of human nature that does not correspond with reality.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 98 Thumb down 33 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    Banning is ridiculous, but the issue of security profiling seems legitimate based on statistical likilihood of risk?

    As I’ve said more than once, if you want to crunch the numbers on terrorist fatalities in London, Heathrow security should be profiling male citizens of the Republic of Ireland and other “Catholic nations”. After all, the IRA was perpetrating terrorist outrages on British soil when Bin Laden was still in nappies, and somehow over a billion Catholics (including five million law-abiding British citizens) aren’t expected to share collective no-fly listed blood guilt for that fuckery.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. lyndon (325 comments) says:

    I am fully entitled to be a bigot if I want to.

    Well yes, barry, I suppose you are. You’re also entitled to be an arsehole, or a petty tyrant or any or the other everyday ways to make the lives of people around you miserable.

    It just means you do a lot of really awful things.

    Of course, if you do it knowingly and deliberately it makes you kind of evil.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    “The Mormons and Scientoligosts (as wonky as they are) dont go around killing people simply because they arent mormons or scientologists.”

    Maybe not but the Scientologists will attempt to smear, bankrupt and harass those who disagree or speak out. There have also been a number of deaths associated with Scientology.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. chrisw76 (85 comments) says:

    @ David – completely agree with this post!

    Cheers, Chris W.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    The “nature of bigotry” is primarily established by liberals, using the term as a weapon designed to shut down debate.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 58 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. BeaB (2,123 comments) says:

    Yeah yeah.
    But why do we have to give “Muslims particularly” more equality, freedoms etc than anyone else?
    Because that’s what they voted unanimously for in Parliament yesterday. Sends a shiver along my female spine.

    And, as a modern woman and former teacher, I may be bigoted in your terms but I cannot find any justification at all for genital mutilation of children (girls and boys), shrouding women in black bags with slits for eyeholes, chopping off hands, stoning, declaring fatwahs and jihads, banning girls from activities like swimming – the list goes on and they are all aspects of Islam. I don’t like a lot about other religions too but again, as a woman, I have a legitimate fear that, one day, we might be subjected to some of this. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury championed Sharia law for gods sake.

    We in the West have much to fear from radical Islam. It will dominate world politics for decades to come. I really look forward to hearing, loud and clear, the voice of liberal, modern Islam and perhaps Prosser may have helped to encourage them to speak up.

    He’s a knob but no fool and look at the publicity, day after day, for NZ First and Winnie.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 65 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Bob R (1,373 comments) says:

    ***We will see this matter of Muslims in Europe come to a head within our lifetime. There will be some form of ethnic cleansing and maybe war in those countries.***

    @ RRM,

    Maybe. There are certainly examples to suggest that old conflicts from the Middle East are fueling a rise in anti-semitic violence.

    “But as in many other cities across Europe, a rapidly growing Muslim population living in segregated conditions that seem to breed alienation has mixed toxically with the anger directed at Israeli policies and actions by those Muslims — and by many non-Muslims — to all but transform the lives of local Jews. Like many of their counterparts in other European cities, the Jews of Malmo report being subjected increasingly to threats, intimidation and actual violence as stand-ins for Israel.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jews-reluctantly-abandon-swedish-city-amid-growing-anti-semitism-1.301276

    http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=198382

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    @RRM

    We will see this matter of Muslims in Europe come to a head within our lifetime. There will be some form of ethnic cleansing and maybe war in those countries.

    Alarmist I know, but when I look at how much mistrust there is on both sides it’s hard to see another way around it…

    That’s quite likely. More so because of there are people on all sides fomenting paranoia, fear and mistrust. That could easily escalate into major conflict.

    Who would win from that? Almost certainly not anything related to god.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    To be blunt, they are bigots. You can not defend what he said and not be a bigot.

    Well said David Farrar.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    David … no rant, excellent post. nuff said.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. mikemikemikemike (325 comments) says:

    Where was a similar rant at Melissa Lee’s stance about Sth Akl’ders in Mt Albert or John Bank’s during his campaign for mayor. I reiterate – this oozes self-interest. You were much kinder then and all this ranting is just politically biased bullshit.

    – Rant over :)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. James Stephenson (2,177 comments) says:

    As I’ve said more than once, if you want to crunch the numbers on terrorist fatalities in London, Heathrow security should be profiling male citizens of the Republic of Ireland and other “Catholic nations”.

    Yes, but crunch those same numbers on terrorist fatalities caused by people happy to blow themselves to bits at the same time, you come out with an answer of 100% Islamic. Add to that the very very low level of integration of Muslims in the UK and you’ve got a perfect recipe for hightened animosity towards the religion of “peace”.

    I thought we’d done quite well initially with the response to Prosser’s column, but then the professionally offended on behalf of others got their momentum going and that, naturally, swung a heap of support in behind him. Just point, laugh and ridicule the like of Prosser and they’ll go away much quicker.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    Good post, but…

    It’s naive of us to be so perfect. This is simply because our standards are not met by the standards of the other side. Muslims do not look back at us in the same way that you demand that all of us look at them. Same with Maori. Same with certain Baptists. Same with the gay population. Same even with modern youth attitudes to the elderly. You could even apply it to the New Zealand socio-economic strata.

    Sometimes it’s just a little hard to tell myself that I have to love someone who is part of a set of people who despise my being a moderately successful WASP.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    David are you saying it is okay to criticize people who support profiling potential terrorists to protect airline passengers or has serious concerns about Western countries allowing the percentage of those of Islam religion to continue to increase and call them bigots as liberals do call people who disagree with them?

    [DPF: Did you not read a single word I said? This is not about profiling. This is about blanket bans based on a group characteristic]

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    @BeaB

    But why do we have to give “Muslims particularly” more equality, freedoms etc than anyone else?
    Because that’s what they voted unanimously for in Parliament yesterday.

    I didn’t see a vote anything like that in parliament. There was a unanimous vote, but quite different to what you describe:

    Green co-leader Russel Norman moved a motion without debate noting that Parliament affirm that all New Zealanders regardless of race or religion should be treated the same before the law and in society. It was passed unanimously.

    http://parliamenttoday.co.nz/2013/02/microphones-and-prosser/

    If you are referring to that you have misunderstood it or are grossly misreprenting it.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    I’d rather sit next to a Muslim on an aircraft, than the creche end of the cabin with screaming children for 12 hrs.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Great post, David. And I concur with a lot that you say.

    However this par I disagree with.

    And finally have some common decency. If you have bigoted thoughts, keep them to yourselves. try and have at least a modicum of empathy and decency and think about the impact on others if you rush into print, or online, and say “Oh yeah I think Muslims should be banned from traveling”. Think about the awful impact such prejudice and hatred has on those whom would be impacted by your words. Just think.

    No matter how idiotic, they should be allowed to speak their minds.
    Only when out in the open can such stupidity be confronted with reason and more aptly with ridicule.

    It’s far more dangerous to be allowed to fester behind closed doors and in dark corners. As you always say, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. James Stephenson (2,177 comments) says:

    Green co-leader Russel Norman moved a motion without debate noting that Parliament affirm that all New Zealanders regardless of race or religion should be treated the same before the law and in society. It was passed unanimously.

    Did anyone tell the constitutional advisory panel?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. howdarethey (32 comments) says:

    Barry

    Bigotry is not necessarily irrational. During WW2, members of Germany’s Nazi Party were targeted for at least imprisonment, possibly death, by the Allies. We now know that some Nazi Party members were in some way coerced to join the party, even though this coercion might have simply been the result of socially-exerted pressure to join from family and friends.

    Whatever the reason, the Nazi Party was such a clear threat to the Allied Nations that membership of it would result in sanctions, ie imprisonment or death. To have done anything less would not have been in our interests. During times of war, harsh sanctions to a class of people (here, Nazies) are to be admired, since evil is apparent.

    I defend your right to be a bigot, but you display many disturbing character traits in your blog. I think you need to investigate whether your character embraces higher than normal degrees of narcissism and lack of empathy for others. Your comments on the haka are particularly interesting in this regard.

    It might be your opinions reflect some sort of fear of others. If so, you might want to work on this, nobody should go through life without regarding the ways of others as a source of fascination.

    Incidentally, the 1972 Munich incident presumably did lead to increases in security of the airlines, but its biggest longterm effect seems to have been to galvanise the Israeli leadership to escalate its war against the PLO. This included a decision by the Israeli leadership to accept collateral damage in any attacks, ie the death of innocents in the pursuit of criminals.

    Nobody wins out of your kind of thinking.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    “Where was a similar rant at Melissa Lee’s stance about Sth Akl’ders in Mt Albert or John Bank’s”

    Where was the rant from the liberal left with the Labour Muslim MP who did not have a problem with homosexuals being executed in the Middle East?

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. moaningmoa (68 comments) says:

    Bravo DPF, bravo…

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    I’d rather sit next to a Muslim on an aircraft, than the creche end of the cabin with screaming children for 12 hrs.

    I’m more concerned with who’s flying the damned thing. There are quite a few airlines based in predominantly muslim countries that are happy for their pilots to fast during ramadan. And that’s a tricky business, given the fast is from the sunrise to sundown. I know for a fact that Emirates do not allow their pilots to fast.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    DPF, I agree with much of your post, but …

    Oh, Lord it’s hard to be humble,
    When you’re perfect in every way …

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    I’ve been looking at a potential Labour-Greens-NZ First-Mana coalition. The Greens don’t like Chinese people. NZ First don’t like any Asians, and any Muslims. Hone doesn’t like Pakeha. Hone’s offsider Minto doesn’t like Jews. And at least one Labour MP thinks gay people should be stoned to death.

    So who wouldn’t suffer bigotry if there is a left wing coalition in 2014? I think we’re limited to straight Maori and Pacific Islanders, straight non-Muslim dark-skinned Africans, straight native-Americans, straight non-Muslim dark-skinned Americans and Europeans provided they’re not immigrants from Asia, and I think that’s about it. It’ll be a coalition of intolerance.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. AJChesswas (2 comments) says:

    Great article David

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. unpcnzcougar (52 comments) says:

    What Prosser said is so wrong on so many levels and an embarrassment to us internationally. I don’t like organised religion on any level but I respect people’s rights to follow certain religions. When I have been in the Middle East or Europe I obey cultural/religious etiquette by covering my shoulders etc.

    The extremists are normally anti U.S. The U.S. does profile and have strict customs requirements. And they should. We however in my opinion are never going to be targets by any fundamentalist group, as quite simply the collateral damage wouldn’t register. You are perfectly safe flying Air NZ. While it may sound neurotic when we need to travel other airlines we choose an airline from a country that are Muslims. I know chances are I am more likely to die in another way but I personally feel that U.S. and some European carriers are going to be more likely targets for terrorists.

    What frustrates the hell out of me is why we tolerate Hone’s outbursts. He too is an embarrassment to us nationally and internationally.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. radvad (765 comments) says:

    There are two aspects of this controversy that have not been raised.

    First, anyone else noticed the difference in the amount of foot stamping aimed at Prosser compared to when that Muslim MP said that gays should be stoned? Given the choice between being banned from flying and stoning, I think I would go with the former, yet Choudrary’s bigotry almost passed unnoticed. Sadly it isnot hard to work out why that is.

    Second, why is anyone surprised about Prosser’s bigotry. I read an Investigate mag years ago and he was saying the same things then. NZ First must have known this when they put together their list and maybe that was even why he was ranked as high as he was. I am sure there is a motherlode of controversial material there if anyone wants to do some basic research.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Stuart (41 comments) says:

    I disagree with Prosser’s method, banning those who look the part is wrong (although I have no problem with profiling and more targeted airport security etc). But I understand his sentiment.

    Most Muslims are nice people, but far too many tolerate the hard-liners. They may speak out sometimes against terrorist attacks, but I never hear of them speaking out against the oppression of women and the general problems with Islam.

    I don’t think anyone can disagree that there is a piece of Islam that is pure evil (sharia law, genital mutilation, jihad etc), and most Muslims do not agree with those parts, but they do not fight it, not enough. That is why I am happy to oppose all of Islam, because Muslims are not willing to oppose the core, because Muslims tolerate the core, we must fight it.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. emmess (1,428 comments) says:

    Another definition of a bigot is the one that Alison Mau has:
    Someone who is not gay
    And yes she actually said that

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Craig (21 comments) says:

    It’s not just Mormon & Scientology that is whacky, all religion is made up.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. GraemeB (10 comments) says:

    I think that Richard Prosser was deliberate and calculating in his comments about Muslims to garner support for the New Zealand First party. He knew it would bring attention in the same way Winston’s anti Asian campaign worked to help boost his minority party. Sadly it seems to be working. It will be interesting to see the next polls.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Regarding BeaB’s comment that we are giving Muslims more equality, freedoms etc than anyone else.

    The pedant in me says it’s a bit difficult to give one person “more equality” than someone else. :)

    But more freedoms. Hmm. One case I remember was the court case in 2004 where the defence objected to two Muslim women wearing the burqa whilst giving evidence as Crown witnesses. The judge called for submissions on the matter and ultimately decided to allow screens to be used to ensure that only the judge, counsel and female court staff were able to observe the witness’ face. I wonder if anybody else would get away with that?

    Is that “religious tolerance and understanding”, or is it altering New Zealand’s court systems to accommodate immigrants?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    In response to Stuart:

    I don’t think anyone can disagree that there is a piece of Christianity that is pure evil (there’s plenty in the Old Testament etc), and most Christians do not agree with those parts, but they do not fight it, not enough. That is why I am happy to oppose all of Christianity, because Christians are not willing to oppose the core, because Christians tolerate the core, we must fight it.

    You could also replace Christian with Catholic and make a case, especially if you don’t like the evil of child abuse.

    Now I don’t agree with the edited statement here, I have done it to make a point.

    It comes back to the same problem that started the Prosser issue – should all who belong to a religion be blamed and targeted due to the evil actions of some?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Bob R (1,373 comments) says:

    ***As I’ve said more than once, if you want to crunch the numbers on terrorist fatalities in London, Heathrow security should be profiling male citizens of the Republic of Ireland…***

    @ Craig Ranapia

    If that’s the case then that should be a factor in profiling. As economist Bryan Caplan notes, everyone uses statistical discrimination because it saves time and tends to work. Where the line is drawn is the tricky issue.

    “No matter what they say, everyone engages in statistical discrimination. (See also here). Judging everyone as an individual is expensive, and relying on statistical generalizations is a cheap and effective alternative. You don’t clutch your purse when you see a bunch of little old ladies approaching on a deserted street. You don’t offer a policeman a joint. You don’t hire a guy with a mohawk as a receptionist at a law firm – even if he promises to get a hair cut. Why not? Because on average, little old ladies don’t commit violent crimes, policemen arrest people for possession of marijuana, and guys with mohawks have trouble with authority.

    Of course, the inevitable existence of some statistical discrimination doesn’t make the practice immune to criticism. You can grant that it’s OK to some degree, but – even if the law is silent – still limited by ethics and/or etiquette. But precisely what limitations do you think are justified, and why?”

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/07/the_ethics_and.html

    Or as Ben O’Neill discusses:

    “One often hears of the great danger of irrational discrimination based on false ideas like racism. But there is also a serious danger in the refusal to acknowledge the inferential and moral legitimacy of instances of rational discrimination. If instances of rational discrimination are falsely understood to be manifestations of bigotry and hatred, then this can only create and sustain acrimony and hostility between groups of people, a trend which has manifested itself in a repressive system of coercive planning known as antidiscrimination law.”

    http://mises.org/daily/3545

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    You can see the political correctness and the cowardice in DPF’s language right there:

    Mormonism is “whacky”
    Scientology is “crackpot”
    But Islam just “has some flaws”

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 63 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Viking2 (11,470 comments) says:

    I didn’t see a vote anything like that in parliament. There was a unanimous vote, but quite different to what you describe:

    Green co-leader Russel Norman moved a motion without debate noting that Parliament affirm that all New Zealanders regardless of race or religion should be treated the same before the law and in society. It was passed unanimously.

    http://parliamenttoday.co.nz/2013/02/microphones-and-prosser/

    If you are referring to that you have misunderstood it or are grossly misreprenting it.
    ——————–
    Trouble is that motion affirms something which doesn’t exist in NZ presently.

    So are we about to see all our laws changed to reflect this position i.e. that everyone is equal and should be treated so. Because if they are then that will be the greatest change ever. The TOW will be dead and so will so many other issues. Thankful for that.

    It also has been ACT policy for years and years.
    Can’t see the Nats. doing this then.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Kea (12,824 comments) says:

    And finally have some common decency. If you have bigoted thoughts, keep them to yourselves. try and have at least a modicum of empathy and decency and think about the impact on others if you rush into print, or online, and say “Oh yeah I think Muslims should be banned from traveling”. Think about the awful impact such prejudice and hatred has on those whom would be impacted by your words. Just think.

    I agree with the general thrust of David’s article, but I disagree with that conclusion.

    People should express whatever they think. Shutting down freedom of expression will not change the thinking behind it. In order to make real changes (to thinking), views need to be presented openly and engaged.

    It has to be said that Muslims can hardly take the moral high-ground on this, given the many well publicised intemperate comments made by followers of that faith. I am well aware that most Muslims do not share such radical views, but it can also be said that most non-Muslims do not share Prosser’s views.

    Muslims are not a protected species and nor should they be. In my book no one is above receiving such ill considered comment. Freedom of expression should be preserved and encouraged. We can as individuals decide how we view those comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Green co-leader Russel Norman moved a motion without debate noting that Parliament affirm that all New Zealanders regardless of race or religion should be treated the same before the law and in society. It was passed unanimously.

    Excellent. Good-bye Maori seats, endless treaty claims, constitutional reviews stacked with racists, 1000’s of pieces of law that have differing provisions based on ethnicity.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Kea (12,824 comments) says:

    Green co-leader Russel Norman moved a motion without debate noting that Parliament affirm that all New Zealanders regardless of race or religion should be treated the same before the law and in society. It was passed unanimously.

    I am not surprised the motion was moved without debate.

    It has been the law for a considerable time. It is nothing new and he is just grandstanding. I wonder why he chose this time to raise his not-so-novel idea? I would have thought, (given our tiny Muslim population) that a better time would have been when Maori academics suggested banning Europeans from immigrating to NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Kea at 12:40.

    Muslims are protected in New Zealand, at least in one regard. See my comment at 12:34. A judge allowed screens to be used in court to ensure that only the judge, counsel and female court staff were able to observe a Muslim witness’ face, when they objected to removing their burqa. I imagine that is now a legal precedent.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Kea at 12.40 pm – fair comment, but I take a slightly different view on that.

    Bigots (or anyone) shouldn’t feel they should keep their thoughts to themselves.

    But when we do choose to speak we all should consider whether our words could have an awful impact. And we could also consider how our words may impact on ourselves – a lesson Prosser may have just learnt.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Paulus (2,627 comments) says:

    Regarding the comments re Mormons and Scientologists – they do not go round trying to kill anybody, including themselves, as some Moslems do regularly.
    These Moslems do not care who gets killed or hurt.
    To be a Moslem is a way of life, not a religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    The ‘Like’ count on Scott’s comment at 11.44 am looks way out of synch with the rest of the karma here. It’s possible he may have had a big bunch of like minded people agreeing with him quickly but it seems to be way out of step with the rest of the like/unlike karma patterns.

    God works in mysterious ways.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    Bigotry is not necessarily irrational.

    It may be instinctive but it’s not rational. If a tiny proportion of a certain group of beings behaves in a way that is different from the rest of the group, then it is irrational to expect the majority of the group to behave in the same way.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Much depends on the extent to which Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, nontheists or any other religious or secular ethical alternative philosophy intend to respect the ground rules of liberal democratic conduct. There are indeed many liberal Muslims who make a distinction between their religious observance and moral value framework and what pertains within the secular/non-Muslim world, just as there are many liberal Christians who do as well. The problem is fundamentalists, of all shapes, sizes, ethnicities and frameworks, who want to compell others to follow their sectarian or partisan dogmas instead of respecting values like tolerance, diversity, free speech, religious freedom and freedom from religious compulsion, faith/state seperation etc. Not doing so results in pathologies like Stalinism or Putinism, Milosevic’s Serbia, Ahmadinejad’s Iran, al Qaeda, Iraq’s Mahdi Army and right-wing Hindu militia in India, as well as the western Christian Right.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. mikemikemikemike (325 comments) says:

    @Chuck – so you agree then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Kea (12,824 comments) says:

    But when we do choose to speak we all should consider whether our words could have an awful impact. And we could also consider how our words may impact on ourselves – a lesson Prosser may have just learnt.

    Pete George, Posser has probably learnt a lesson, but a lesson he may have not learnt had he kept his remarks to himself.

    That is my point.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    The ‘Like’ count on Scott’s comment at 11.44 am looks way out of synch with the rest of the karma here.

    Can’t trust buggers named Scott….

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Kea – yes, a good point.

    But I’m far more skeptical of anyone on Kiwiblog having learned any lessons – same old same old :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    howdarethey at 12:09 pm

    Oh -Im not the only one who thinks the Haka is the root of maori violence. Its been recently banned at youth rugby matches due to its encouragement of violence …”Under-13 boys playing in the Roller Mills rugby tournament in Cambridge next month have been barred from performing pre-match haka because of fears they lead to violence and intimidation”….

    and a rotorua woman has been pushing within maori to have the practice stopped because her research shows that the haka is a cause of violence in maopridom (and If i could remember her name Id post it because she deserves a medal)

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    It comes back to the same problem that started the Prosser issue – should all who belong to a religion be blamed and targeted due to the evil actions of some?

    No.

    But every time I see someone quicker to talk about “islamophobia” rather than the only too real problem of islamic violence, I see someone who is on the attack against external criticism when he should be distancing himself from the evil actions of others within his religion.

    Contrast this with the christian response when an abortionist is killed. While many may refuse to grieve the abortionist, the condemnation of the murder and their extremeist group is overwhemling.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Stuart (41 comments) says:

    Re: Pete

    You are right in some ways but I would argue that the difference is in numbers. Christianity teaches some horrible things if taken literally, Catholics have done bombings and Christians have murdered abortion doctors, but so few members of those religions commit those crimes that it doesn’t warrant as extensive opposition as Islam does.

    On the other hand, the point about child abuse is very good. There is no where near enough opposition to child abuse from within the church, and it is so widespread that more really should be done. But that then comes back to my original argument, if the church is not doing enough to stop child abuse and bring the paedophiles to justice, then society as a whole must fight it and oppose it, just as we are.

    Most priests would have never dreamed of harming the children under their care, however it seems acceptable for the media and public to bash the catholic church as a whole for this, primarily as they have not done enough to oppose it, they have ignored it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. kowtow (8,464 comments) says:

    You cannot ban people from flying because they “look Muslim”.

    That is stupid.

    There are hundreds of thousands of Christian Arabs that this would effect and perhaps 10 million Egyptian Copts. Arabs were Christian before they were Muslim.

    Strange how there are so few Christians left in their traditional homelands,oh yes that’s because the Muslims are the real bigots who have cleared the Middle East of so many ethnic and religious minorities that it amounts to a genocide.

    Is it bigotry to oppose genocide and the destruction of one’s own culture,race or religion.

    No it’s not and people on the front line,like in Nigeria or Serbia well know this.

    History has shown us how tolerant the Muslim is. Look at what was Asia Minor (Turkey) where have all the indigenous gone? And now our all knowing elites want to welcome 70 million Turks into the EU! Madness.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Auckland Muslim Jason Kennedy penned this open letter to New Zealand First MP Richard Prosser (NZ Herald):

    Dear Mr Prosser,

    Unbeknown to myself, I am your enemy.

    I consider this strange as I have never met you and harbour no ill will toward you. I am certain that if I walked past you on the street your suspicions would not be raised. If you were a customer in my shop I am certain you would not suspect that I pose your family any risk.

    For you see, I am Muslim, I am 30, and I am also white.

    Throw in the fact that I am an American expatriate – accent and all – and I possess quite the subterfuge. After all, I could sit next to you on a flight, our arms negotiating the armrest for space, and you would think nothing of it. And yet if between us the subject of religion arose, my reply would disable you with fear.

    Or so your column would lead me to believe.

    I am writing an open letter to you out of sympathy, respect, and the desire for understanding. I do not write this so publicly in order to give your opinions greater status than they deserve.

    Instead, I hope to circumvent your vitriol from tainting the views of other people who, through lack of personal experience with the Muslim community, may be susceptible to your very limited and ignorant view of our religion and families.

    I will start by, ironically, providing you with some defence. It is absolutely your right to speak your mind freely with whatever opinions you so wish. That is one of the great liberties of this nation.

    But let me be clear: speaking your mind is your right as a private citizen. As a Member of Parliament, you are a public servant, and your public opinions need to be more carefully delivered. You must be aware that the words of MPs are granted greater political legitimacy than those of private citizens.

    It is frightening when someone with so much power to sway the opinions of others is so cavalier in his delivery. We entrust MPs to make defensible, rational, and sympathetic judgments in pursuit of the common good. Counter to this, your words seek to generate divisiveness by fostering an indefensible ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality.

    Do you actually believe Muslims are so different to you that we should be trusted less than any other human being? Wherefore this presumption that those who commit terrible crimes in the name of Islam are actually considered heroes or true Muslims by the rest of us? Are we really so homologous to you? Woe to the Sikh or Hindu who you might accidentally not recognise for a Muslim in your eagerness to incite fear, all the while I, the unrecognisable white Muslim, sits next to you.

    For you see, if the subject of religion is never broached between us, you will feel safer the entire trip knowing you sit next to a safe and reliable Pakeha. Let me assure you, I want that plane to land safely just as much as you do. I have family and friends who I want to be around for a good long time, and so do they.

    The only reason I can think that you would harbour such ill-sentiment is that you have very little first-hand experience with Muslims. I can relate. I was not born into a Muslim family. However, with age I came to recognise my beliefs were congruent with Islam. That seemed a bit of a scary prospect, as I am sure you can appreciate that there is a great deal of Islamophobia in the United States, as well.

    Once I actually met some Kiwi Muslims, I quickly realised my presumptions were entirely inaccurate. Muslim culture is not some monolithic fiction. Muslims are just like the majority of Kiwis: we love our summer barbecues, we avidly follow the All Blacks’ domination of rugby, we wear jandals, we buy fush n’ chups down the road. You see, Muslims come from all different backgrounds. I was born in the US and descend from Irish stock. My wife was born in Fiji, and her Indian ancestors were relocated during the British slave trade. Many Kiwi Muslims are from India, the Middle East, east Africa, Indonesia, and Malaysia. We have all come here to share in what it means to be Kiwi. Between us we have a similar pathway to God, but we also respect that every non-Muslim is on their own pathway to God.

    Your family and my family, we are each equally Kiwi, despite the fact that we may worship differently. We are equal to you in many other ways: my wife and I both happily pay the highest tax rate, our business creates revenue and employment for many New Zealanders, and our education benefits the New Zealand economy. We are even socially and politically active (gasp!).

    If you think supporting terror is somehow intrinsic to Islam, or is somehow an inevitability of our religion, ask anyone in the Muslim community here: no one supports any act of violence or terror against any other living being, human or animal. That is what we call haram in Islam, which means “forbidden by God”. We have no support for terrorists who do such horrible things, and we cannot understand how they can call themselves Muslims. Their actions are entirely incompatible with Islam.

    In order to establish better communication on this issue, my wife and I would like to invite you to dinner at our place the next time you are in Auckland. We would like to hear your story, and we would like to share ours. I believe that if you would grant us the pleasure of your company, it will give you a much more enlightened perspective on Muslims and Islam in general. I will leave my contact details with the editor if you wish to make good on our offer.

    Two enemies who wish
    to be your friends,
    Jason (Naveed) Kennedy and
    Khayreyah Wahaab

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10865255

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Apart from simply wrong, this blog is rather stupid.

    Webster – bigotry: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

    Nothing there about a distinction between your view of, say, a religion and how you treat members of it. No distinction between whether the views are justified or not – intolerance and hatred of any group is sufficient to qualify.

    On that basis and definition Prosser was not bigoted since he did not indicate hatred of all Muslims, merely intolerance of them for the security costs a minority of them have imposed on the whole world.

    “You can not defend what he said and not be a bigot. It really is as simple as that.”

    Stupid tosh. You can defend him without being in the least bigoted from misinterpretation and from those deliberately ignoring the underlying issues he was really raising though in a provocative manner. I thought DPF had more brains than that sort of nonsense illustrates.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. lastmanstanding (1,296 comments) says:

    I disagree 100% with Prosser wanting to ban young Muslim males from flights however I agree with and support those who have already raised the issue of common sense profiling rather than the one size fits all approach we have now.

    Both in NZ and internationally I have been subject to OTT security As a WASP I find that offence and totally unnecessary giving my profile does not and has never been that of a modern day terrorist.

    I also find it offensive seeing elderly white men and women subject to offensive and OTT security for no good reason other than the politically correct and culturally stupid idea that EVERYONE IS A POTENTIAL BOMBER SO WE HAVE TO TREAT THEM AS SUCH

    This is bullshit and the pollies and the civil servants and the air port and airline authorities all know this but they are bigoted in not facing up to the facts and the truth and saying the blinding obvious that

    80 plus white men and women are an almost zero terrorist risk and should be treated as such.

    These are the bigots who blindly and willfully treat all the same because they lask the guts to tell it like it is

    I repeat Prosser was wrong wrong wrong in his calling for a ban but there is bigotry on the part of those in authority that needs to be exposed and dealt to.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    It may have been a bigoted rant, and I may not agree with it, but I’m glad Prosser had the freedom of speech to make it and we all have the freedom of speech to debate it.

    If Australia passes it’s new laws people could be jailed for such expression. Under Islam they could be beheaded.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. TJM (3 comments) says:

    Hear hear DPF. Am not a commenter, but couldn’t help myself this time. Best post of yours I’ve read – couldn’t agree more.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Paul G. Buchanan (293 comments) says:

    Good post David. Some of the adverse comments notwithstanding, your point on countenancing bigotry is well put.

    I should note that Prosser’s bigotry is not only a remarkable display of stupidity, but also very ill-timed. Had he voiced these opinions a decade ago the the public and political response would have been in the main far less hostile: http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2013/02/with-stereotypes-timing-is-everything/

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Now when it comes to Islam, I am someone who has written at length about the flaws in this religion. It has a high proportion of extremists compared to other religions. It has no ability to modernise, and no central authority (the two are linked).

    One might have said the same about the religion of the Franks in the 8th and 9th century, given that they were a bunch of violent, misogynistic, unhygienic, and largely illiterate barbarians. Some of their neighbours in Muslim Al Andalus no doubt had such an opinion of them, and it would have been false. For a long time it was the Christian world that was barbaric and backward, and Islamic civilization which was the glory of the world. Next time you drink alcohol, ponder algebra or an algorithm, think about that. There’s a reason that our scientific words come from Greek, Latin and Arabic.

    It’s pointless to talk about the flaws in a religion. Every religion needs to be interpreted, and the interpretation reflects the interpreter. Islam as practiced by a western educated Malaysian businessman is quite different from Islam as practiced by some tribal Afghan boy buggerer. Similarly, Christianity tends to reflect the tendencies, backgrounds and preoccupations of its various practitioners.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Bob R (1,373 comments) says:

    ***It may be instinctive but it’s not rational. If a tiny proportion of a certain group of beings behaves in a way that is different from the rest of the group, then it is irrational to expect the majority of the group to behave in the same way.***

    @ Scott Chris,

    Depends if you mean expecting all of group A to behave in a certain manner or applying statistical discrimination based on greater likelihood (eg. young men paying higher car insurance premiums, airlines preventing males from sitting next to unaccompanied children etc).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. lastmanstanding (1,296 comments) says:

    To put it simply I expect my employees Pollies and civil servant to enact common sense laws and regulations as regards airport and airline security NOT have a one size fits all and deal with the issues in the open rather than hiding behind their bigoted rules and regulations.
    Profiling is a standard and recognised policing method. It has been around for the past several decades and used to effect around the policing world.

    I expect profiling to be used at airports. It isnt and it never has been.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Dirty Rat (383 comments) says:

    Nice post….

    Prosser’s mad ranting is just the tip of the iceberg compared to what John Banks spent years doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. rangitoto (247 comments) says:

    “Green co-leader Russel Norman moved a motion without debate noting that Parliament affirm that all New Zealanders regardless of race or religion should be treated the same before the law and in society. It was passed unanimously.”

    Interesting that the Greens, Labour and Mana now agree with Don Brash.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    DPF #

    “……Anyone who proposes any sort of oppressive policy or law based on a group characteristic is bigoted – consciously or unconsciously……”

    All I ever did was list – WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE MUSLIM % OF A GENERAL POPULATION -ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD- EXCEEDS 2%.

    IT’s all RECORDED in the Metropolitan Police Head Quarters in Scotland Yard, NSW Police HQ in Parramatta Sydney, The Gendarmes Head Quarters in Paris, The Polize in Germany etc etc etc.

    And as we all know about Policing -they MANAGE risk!

    Now tell me DPF why Police around the world should refrain from their biggoted practice of setting up ‘lock down areas’ -A LAW IN MOST COUNTRIES- when only SOME Muslims[your group charachteristic] ‘get out of hand’ in any given area?

    Don’t bother………it’s called……PUBLIC SAFETY!

    As I said to Pete George yesterday “Why deny what is happening in Europe Pete………only you would wait to see evidence of militant Islam happening in NZ before you done anything about it.”

    As Mark Steyn said “Through ignorance & political correctness, the veil is decending over all of us!”

    BTW. I don’t take offence to demerit points……….nor do they terrorise me. just sayin. :cool:

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Yes, but crunch those same numbers on terrorist fatalities caused by people happy to blow themselves to bits at the same time, you come out with an answer of 100% Islamic.

    The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam would not doubt be surprised to find themselves labelled as Muslims. For a long time they were by far the leading group for incidents of suicide terrorism, and in many respects pioneered the technique.

    You really are a moron. Don’t you even think before you post?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. BeaB (2,123 comments) says:

    Pete George
    I listened to parliament and those words were defiinitely part of Norman’s motion – ‘particularly Muslims’. I heard them. Of course someone may have thought better of them and they were removed from Hansard as sometimes happens but the fact remains, everyone voted for the motion as he put it.
    I nearly fell off my chair and expected someone to amend it but they were all too busy showing off how righteous they are, just like you. What a shame freedom of speech is no longer a right for all NZers in your book.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    So when is Te Papa going to display Mohammed in a CONDOM? – They’ve done it with The Madonna!

    Why can’t government departments -like Te Papa- treat Muslims like they’ve treated Christians, and more to the point -Catholics- in NZ?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. BeaB (2,123 comments) says:

    The actual words were ‘ in particular of Muslims’. Even the Herald can get it right!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Paul G. Buchanan (293 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson:

    Very good point. If you have not already, I urge you to take a look at Amanda Lennon’s BA Honours thesis from the University of Auckland (in Political Studies, circa 2004-05). It should be available on-line. She examines six groups that use female suicide bombers, divided into combat/non-combat use and secular (marxist) nationalist and religious motivation (the Tamils are one of her case studies). Her results demonstrate that religion, much less personal grievance or revenge (as has been alleged with regard to female Palestinian suicide bombers) is far less a determinant than nationalism or secular ideologies when it comes to the use of this tactic.

    More broadly, Robert Pape’s work on suicide bombers is worth reading as well, although his angle on the issue is different and he does not have the scope and depth that the Lennon thesis exhibits.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    Nasska# 11:18am

    An absolute truth! Well done! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Barnsley Bill (983 comments) says:

    Bigotry and racism is endemic in all cultures and races It is a peculiarity of “our” culture that those publishing extreme thoughts about other cultures are flogged in the media for it.. A point well made David all the same.
    I hope this does not mean that we will no longer be able to discuss the very real evil that is Gingas.
    Or have you stopped that since your domestic arrangements changed?

    [DPF: the shame - I am now living with a ginga. And the hellish offspawn]

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    BeaB at 2:01 pm: Got a link to the Herald story?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    It is a peculiarity of “our” culture that those publishing extreme thoughts about other cultures are flogged in the media for it.

    Yes, and that’s one of the reasons our culture is the best one (IMHO.)

    I think it was Bigglesworth who once said something along the lines of “Corporal, are you saying we should decide how to treat a prisoner based on what a Nazi would do?” :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    BeaB – here is Hansard on it:

    Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thanks to the House. I move, That this House affirm that all New Zealanders regardless of their religious faith or ethnicity should be treated equally before the law, and that the rights and dignity of all people—in particular, of Muslims—should be upheld, and that the House acknowledge the responsibility of all New Zealanders to care for one another, to honour the sanctity of each and every one of us, and to act with justice, equity, and respect in all that we say and we do.

    Motion agreed to.

    That emphasises that Muslims were included, presumably Parliament’s way of making a statement that Prosser’s comments were not in any way representative of Parliament.

    And wasn’t Prosser in Parliament yesterday? If he was he must have also voted for the motion.

    But it doesn’t try to treat Muslims more equally than anyone else. Are you offended because they were specifically mentioned?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    Depends if you mean expecting all of group A to behave in a certain manner or applying statistical discrimination based on greater likelihood

    Yes, in the sense that in walking down the road, you might see a guy who looks like a Muslim and you think to yourself, “Yes, there’s a 0.000001% chance that he wants to blow up my plane.”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Harriet:

    So when is Te Papa going to display Mohammed in a CONDOM?

    I guess the first step would be for someone to create a work of art like that. Then submitting it to Te Papa to see if they would consider it suitable for exhibition, I presume they don’t show everything anyone puts forward.

    Are you going to try? I’d suggest something more original though, more likely to be considered.

    You could try the billboard approach – for example, try one outside your church that says something like “Our lot rules, Muslims suck”. You might have to see if your vicar/priest/minister/pastor is as bigoted as you and approves first though.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    The “nature of bigotry” is primarily established by liberals, using the term as a weapon designed to shut down debate.

    No, not Liberal. Rightnow at 1.30pm answers this misapprehension:

    It may have been a bigoted rant, and I may not agree with it, but I’m glad Prosser had the freedom of speech to make it and we all have the freedom of speech to debate it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. RRM (9,919 comments) says:

    Ah yes, that hoary old chestnut, the virgin in a condom!

    I think we need to revisit The Most Offensive Song Ever By Kenny & Mr Hankey:

    Howdy Ho.
    Virgin Mary was sleepin’
    When Angel Gabriel appeared
    He said, “You are to be the virgin mother.”
    But Mary thought that was weird.
    Mary said, “I’m not a virgin.
    I blew a guy last year.”
    But then Gabriel said to Mary,
    “My child, have no fear.”

    Oh, you can suck all the dick you want
    And still be a virgin, Mary.
    You can suck all the dick you want
    And still not be considered flawed.
    Although you went to town
    and sucked some semen down,
    You’re still a virgin in the eyes of God.

    There was no room at the inn
    When Mary and Joseph did arrive.
    But they were so very tired, you see,
    And Mary had to offer a bribe.
    Since she had no money,
    How would she pay for a place to sleep?
    Gabriel appeared to Mary
    And told her not to weep.

    ‘Cause you can suck all the dick you want
    And still be a virgin, Mary.
    You can suck all the dick you want
    And still be the mother of Christ.
    If there’s no room at the inn, then
    it’s not considered a sin
    To suck some dick to get a room for the night!

    Then, three wise men did appear
    Bearing gifts of myrrh and such
    They said that they had followed a star
    And missed a woman’s touch
    Mary thought she might pleasure them
    But could not take them to bed.
    But again, Gabriel appeared to her
    And this is what he said:

    “You can suck all the dick you want
    And still be a virgin, Mary.
    You can suck all the dick you want
    Every one that hangs in the nation.
    Fellatio ain’t no sin. Go on and
    blow those Three Wise Men
    And you’ll still be a virgin ’cause
    there was no penetration!

    So, you can suck all the dick you want
    And still be a virgin, Mary.
    The donkey and the ox and the lambs
    And even the little drummer boy
    People will remember your name
    quick. They’ll say “Damn, that
    bitch could suck a good dick!”
    ‘Cause sucking dick brings peace on Earth and joy.

    ‘Cause sucking dick brings
    peace on Earth and – joy!
    Mary, Mary, suck that dick.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    Pete George#

    Harriet – [So when is Te Papa going to display Mohammed in a CONDOM?]

    PG reply -…….I guess the first step Harriet would be for someone to create a work of art like that. Then submitting it to Te Papa to see if they would consider it suitable for exhibition, I presume they don’t show everything anyone puts forward……….Are you going to try Harriet? I’d suggest something more original though, more likely to be considered…..”

    As I said to Pete George yesterday-

    “Why deny what is happening in Europe Pete………only you would wait to see evidence of militant Islam happening in NZ before you done anything about it.”

    I’m going to submit a statue of you Pete…with your head in the sand…..living life on your knees under Muslim Rule! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    So when is Te Papa going to display Mohammed in a CONDOM?

    It wouldn’t be relevant to Mohammed and therefore could only be construed as deliberately and gratuitously insulting. Art is often concerned with a reinterpretation of symbology and in the case of the Virgin in the Condom it appeared to symbolise protection, taboo and conservatism as far as I could tell. Visually it appeared to be shrouding Mary in a shaft of light. Not to mention the irony of the piece.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Lucia Maria (2,428 comments) says:

    One might have said the same about the religion of the Franks in the 8th and 9th century, given that they were a bunch of violent, misogynistic, unhygienic, and largely illiterate barbarians. Some of their neighbours in Muslim Al Andalus no doubt had such an opinion of them, and it would have been false. For a long time it was the Christian world that was barbaric and backward, and Islamic civilization which was the glory of the world. Next time you drink alcohol, ponder algebra or an algorithm, think about that. There’s a reason that our scientific words come from Greek, Latin and Arabic.

    That’s because Muslim hordes invaded a large part of the very civilised East Roman Empire. There were very few Muslims governing a very large Christian population. Over time and through harsh anti-Christian taxation, that Christian population reduced in numbers to a small fragment, and now that part of the world is what we see today.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. howdarethey (32 comments) says:

    I am of two minds about the level of debate engendered by the words of tosser Prosser.

    Pleased because we are in NZ, and can freely espouse our views. Surprised because I would hope an intelligent group of people such as us Kiwis would have less ambivalence towards Prosser’s stupid notions.

    The Guinness Book of Records records the world’s shortest-ever theater review. The play appearing in London was called A Good Time. The review was ‘No’.

    Some ideas are so stupid as to be dismissed out of hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    Winston Peters: Mr 2%!

    Restricting the Muslim population to less than 2% is a matter of public safety!

    Winston will get 20% of the vote with that policy. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Pete George:

    I don’t think you CAN treat anybody “more equally” than someone else – can you? If someone is “more equal”, then it isn’t equality.

    From Hansard, Russel Norman wants us uphold the rights and dignity of all people. In particular, he wishes us to uphold the rights of Muslims.

    I don’t know about BeaB, but I’m not offended by this, personally. However, it raises the question – what specific rights do Muslims have that need to be upheld and enshrined by Parliament, over and above the rights of any other New Zealander?

    The way Russel Norman has phrased this, he IS asking for more rights – freedoms, if you wish – to be upheld for Muslims. I’d like to know, what are these particular rights for Muslims? Do the rest of New Zealanders have those rights also? If my wife goes to court, for example, can she ask to have a screen placed in front of her so that only the judge, counsel and female court staff are able to see her face?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    I’m going to submit a statue of you Pete…with your head in the sand…..living life on your knees under Muslim Rule!

    The trend is for less people in New Zealand to identify with a religion, not more. The number of ‘no religion’ voters is increasing much faster than the number of Muslim voters.

    I’m pretty confident that all of my ashes will be in the sand before there’s anywhere near enough Muslim voters in New Zealand to get as many MPs as NZ First have. And as Winston knows that’s still nowhere near ruling.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. sbk (312 comments) says:

    “I guess the first step would be for someone to create a work of art ..””….a cartoon or two perhaps…oh wait..its been done.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    If one happens to turn on the news and there’s a report on a one of the many trouble spots around the world, it’s pretty easy to make a premeditated “guess” as to who one of the protagonists are likely to be:

    Muslims vs Jews in “Palestine”
    Muslims vs Hindus in Kashmir
    Muslims vs Christians in Africa
    Muslims vs Coptics in Egypt
    Muslims vs Buddhists in Thailand
    Muslims vs Russians in the Caucasus
    Muslims vs Catholics in the Philippines
    Muslims vs secular Europeans in the UK, Spain.

    I wouldn’t allow any immigrants into NZ from countries where Wahhabi Islam is routinely practiced. Period. They can keep their Taqiyah and Burqa over there.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. howdarethey (32 comments) says:

    Graham you write

    I’d like to know, what are these particular rights for Muslims? Do the rest of New Zealanders have those rights also? If my wife goes to court, for example, can she ask to have a screen placed in front of her so that only the judge, counsel and female court staff are able to see her face?

    The last couple of decades has seen NZs culture become far more embracing of Maori rights and customs. This has extended for example towards an embrace of the attendance of whanau at meetings and events. It seems to me that simultaneously, the opportunity to have whanau in attendance for support was extended to non-Maori; I suggest that in NZ businesses and govt departments, it is common practice to at least make the option of whanau attendance available to all participants.

    Cultures adapt to embrace others, or they don’t. That’s what we call discrimination.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    Pete George#

    “……I’m pretty confident that all of my ashes will be in the sand before there’s anywhere near enough Muslim voters in New Zealand to get as many MPs as NZ First have. And as Winston knows that’s still nowhere near ruling….”

    Still got your head in the sand I see Pete….Muslims rule by stealth….by being appeased by people like you!

    Winston Peters fully understands that warning from NZ Health about –

    Uncovered Meat!

    Kiwi, Asian, Maori, Pasifika girls and their fathers do too! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    urban red neck @ 250
    I wish you’d been piping up want ing to keep keep people out when there were lots of.irish catholics and protestants coming out. if you wanted to see irrational hate you should see those micks go at it

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    That’s because Muslim hordes invaded a large part of the very civilised East Roman Empire. There were very few Muslims governing a very large Christian population. Over time and through harsh anti-Christian taxation, that Christian population reduced in numbers to a small fragment, and now that part of the world is what we see today.

    Al Andalus is what’s now Spain… The Jews who lived there begged the Muslims of North Africa to invade because of Christian anti semitism. The resulting convivencia was the primary cause of the Golden Age of Sephardic Jewish culture. The wonderfully tolerant Christians later did their bit by expelling the Jews from Spain, ending centuries of relious toleration and coexistence.

    You obviously know nothing and should just shut up before you embarrass yourself further.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    howdarethey:

    Is it not discrimination if certain rights are available to one sector of the society, but not others?

    We also need to be clear on where “tolerance” ends, and “being a doormat” begins.

    (Edit: I would suggest there is a world of difference between NZ embracing Maori rights, and NZ embracing Muslim rights).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    tom jackson lucia tends never to.let the facts get in the way of a storey

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. howdarethey (32 comments) says:

    Graham

    You wife is free to become a person of Muslim faith at any time. If she did, you could expect your wife to have the same rights as those attained by the woman in the court case you mentioned. If she wished for those rights to be accorded to her, and she didn’t receive them from the judge, and the judge’s actions were justified on any of the grounds contained in human rights legislation, by my understanding this would be discrimination.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Bob R (1,373 comments) says:

    ***Yes, in the sense that in walking down the road, you might see a guy who looks like a Muslim and you think to yourself, “Yes, there’s a 0.000001% chance that he wants to blow up my plane.”***

    @ Scott Chris,

    What’s your point? You could say the same about seeing a man and thinking there’s a 0.00001% chance he’s a child abuser. Nonetheless, airlines prevent males from sitting next to unaccompanied children on flights. It doesn’t mean the airline thinks every man is an abuser, but the policy acknowledges that statistically if abuse is going to occur the perpetrator will most likely be male. So it’s more efficent to simply discriminate against male passengers.

    “Discrimination on the basis of predictive characteristics which are correlated with characteristic of direct interest is a form of rational discrimination. While it is often slandered as an injustice, rational discrimination is both rational and morally proper.”

    http://mises.org/daily/3545

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    Dime is basically a bigot when it comes to muslims.

    i think their religion is shit. i think most of them are scumbags. i dont care how “peaceful” we are told the majority of muslims are, ive just seen to much bad shit.

    it pisses me off how they get a pass from the left too. how many muslim countries are there? int hose countries, how many are gay friendly? how many muslim countries have equal rights for women?

    screw em.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    howdarethey: Wandering slightly from my original point, which was that Russel Norman apparently is asking New Zealand to uphold more rights for Muslims. The question is, what specific rights do Muslims have that need to be upheld and enshrined by Parliament, over and above the rights of any other New Zealander?

    If my wife has to become a Muslim to avail herself of these rights, as you seem to be suggesting, then that’s discrimination. If my wife has a passionate belief that she should maintain her modesty by wearing a scarf over the lower portion of her face – nothing to do with being a Muslim, just her own sense of what is proper – should she not be free to avail herself of the same rights that have apparently been accorded to Muslim women?

    Russel Norman appears to be saying that we as a country should be falling over ourselves to tug the forelock to Muslims over and above anybody else. Which is actually pretty much what BeaB said at 11:53.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. BeaB (2,123 comments) says:

    I am not offended as such. I just don’t know why Muslims are singled out. Why are their rights ‘in particular’?
    Very odd. And not the way to get a fair society. Or keep the excesses of Sharia out of NZ and away from our women.
    No offence – just worry that one day my grand-daughters will lose the freedom to dress and participate in society as they wish.

    I am all for tolerance but never of the ghastliness of radical Islam.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    graham – while Norman (and Parliament) gave Muslims a special mention I don’t see that motion giving them any special rights. I think the ourcome of the motion was noting apart from making a token statement.

    What sort of religious prayer do they open Parliament with? Is that a special right? I’ve always felt out of place when involved in occasions where there are group prayers.

    Would people be happy for a Catholic priest to be seated on a plane next to an unaccompanied child?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. BeaB (2,123 comments) says:

    BTW Here’s the Herald story

    Prosser vows to stay in Parliament
    By Adam Bennett

    5:30 AM Thursday Feb 14, 2013

    Email
    Print

    NZ First MP Richard Prosser claims his comments were the result of a “brain explosion”. Photo / Mark Mitchell

    New Zealand First’s Richard Prosser says he won’t resign from Parliament for his anti-Muslim “brain explosion” in spite of the growing consensus that he is not fit to be an MP.

    Mr Prosser yesterday apologised for comments made in a magazine column that young Muslim men from “Wogistan” should be banned from flying on Western airlines.

    With Mr Prosser’s comments being reported around the world, Parliament yesterday unanimously backed a Green Party call for religious and racial tolerance in a bid to limit damage to New Zealand’s reputation.

    Jason Kennedy’s open letter to Richard Prosser

    But Mr Prosser’s attempt to limit damage to his own political prospects failed to gain traction as he was blocked from apologising to Parliament for his remarks.

    Mr Prosser was back in Parliament yesterday for the first time since the controversy erupted and sought permission to make a personal statement. But Mana Party Leader Hone Harawira objected.

    Mr Harawira said he opposed Mr Prosser’s request because “if he has an apology to make for his offensive remarks to the Muslim community, then he can make his way to the nearest mosque and ask forgiveness there”.

    “I do not accept that he should be able to make such remarks and then simply wash away his venom via an unchallenged explanation in the House,” Mr Harawira said.

    Immediately afterwards the Green Party moved that Parliament affirm “that all New Zealanders, regardless of their religious faith or ethnicity, should be treated equally before the law and that the rights and dignity of all people, in particular of Muslims, should be upheld, and that the House acknowledge the responsibility of all New Zealanders to care for one another, to honour the sanctity of each and every one of us, and act with justice, equity and respect in all that we say and do”.

    Mr Prosser said he supported the Greens’ motion despite the fact he had called for different treatment under the law for Muslim men.

    “I had a brain explosion there, I called for a blanket ban and I shouldn’t have. I’m happy to fess up that that was the wrong thing to think, the wrong thing to say, the wrong thing to call for, and I apologise for that.”

    He said he would “probably” do as Mr Harawira suggested and contact Muslim leaders to discuss the matter.

    The Herald gave Mr Prosser the cellphone number of Anwar Ghani, president of the Federation of Islamic Associations and Mr Prosser said he would make contact that night. However, he said he would not resign.

    “I’ve issued the statement, I’ve made the apology and I think that’s probably where I’m going to let it lie. I’ve made some mistakes and for those I’ve apologised and moved on and I think that’s where I’m going to leave it.”

    But while some, including Dr Ghani, said they accepted the apology at face value, others, including Prime Minister John Key and Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres, were doubtful.

    “While Mr Prosser has sort of apologised … we’d suggest that there are still questions for journalist standards for Investigate magazine and political standards that New Zealand First should consider,” said Mr de Bres.

    He said the commission had received six complaints about the “ignorant, inaccurate and bigoted” comments Mr Prosser made.

    Mr Key said he assumed Mr Prosser believed in what he wrote when the column went to print, “so if he’s apologised he’s just doing that to move on”.

    Labour leader David Shearer said what New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters did with his MPs was up to him, “But I don’t think anyone who holds those sort of views should be an MP”.

    Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said Mr Prosser should leave Parliament. “This is hate speech, I’m concerned that NZ First continues to support him.”

    Act Party leader John Banks said while he’d probably made more mistakes than Mr Prosser, “he needs to fall on his sword”. United Future Leader Peter Dunne also said Mr Prosser’s comments marked him as unfit to serve in Parliament.
    By Adam Bennett

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Lucia Maria (2,428 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson,

    Al Andalus is what’s now Spain… The Jews who lived there begged the Muslims of North Africa to invade because of Christian anti semitism. The resulting convivencia was the primary cause of the Golden Age of Sephardic Jewish culture. The wonderfully tolerant Christians later did their bit by expelling the Jews from Spain, ending centuries of relious toleration and coexistence.

    You obviously know nothing and should just shut up before you embarrass yourself further.

    Look at every single map of the Roman Empire at it’s peak, and you’ll see Spain in there as a Roman province or two, Latin name “Hispania”, a part of the Empire for at least two centuries before Christ. A part of the Western Roman Empire, sure, but it still doesn’t refute my main point, which is that most of the Eastern Roman Empire was conquered by Islam. Go have a look at the maps of Islamic expansion during their first 4 centuries, if you don’t believe me and then compare them to the maps of the Roman Empire.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. howdarethey (32 comments) says:

    Graham

    My point was that healthy cultures adapt to the presence of others. We in NZ now have a significant number of Muslims. I do not see the issue of allowing women to wear clothing consistent to their religion as discrimination. If your wife were to wear the scarf as mentioned above and she were to argue her human rights has somehow suffered an affront because a judge had refused her right to do so, I suspect her arguments would be dismissed as spurious. This would be because I struggle to think of what human right might be breached.

    Of course, if your wife was a person suffering mental health issues, requiring her to be most comfortable wearing a scarf in the circumstances, then of course you would expect her rights to be respected. This is NZ, where we understand some people have good grounds for requesting particular treatment.

    I do know from personal knowledge that some Muslim women like wearing their garments – since they only have to worry about keeping their eyes and hands beautiful, they save a fortune on cosmetics! Other reasons too of course, but they really do save money. Apparently botox usage is consumed in high volumes in some Muslim nations, but not many other cosmetic operations are popular

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    I have no objection to muslims flying…..just leave the bomb belt at check-in first.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Pete, let’s go back a few comments. BeaB claimed:

    “But why do we have to give “Muslims particularly” more equality, freedoms etc than anyone else?
    Because that’s what they voted unanimously for in Parliament yesterday.”

    You said, essentially, that she was talking crap.

    The official record shows that Russel Norman said:

    I move, That this House affirm that all New Zealanders regardless of their religious faith or ethnicity should be treated equally before the law, and that the rights and dignity of all people—in particular, of Muslims—should be upheld …

    I agree, that motion in and of itself does not grant any special rights to Muslims. What it does, however, is affirm that when other people or organisations request special rights – for example, the case of the Muslim woman in court that I referred to earlier – then these rights “in particular” should be upheld.

    Looking at this statement in isolation from what is going on elsewhere in NZ, and concluding it is just a “token statement”, is a little naive. I’m not suggesting there is a vast conspiracy to convert all of NZ to Islam, but the fact is that over time isolated incidents and occurrences can have a cumulative effect. Whether or not is it intended at the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. howdarethey (32 comments) says:

    Graham

    I wonder of the insertion of the words ‘in particular, of Muslims’ in Norman’s motion was in response to the circumstances which prompted his call – in other words, the desire to reassure other nations/Kiwi public that the NZ Parliament acknowledges Prosser’s words are particularly insulting to Muslims

    I think you might be reading too much into it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    howdarethey: Quite possibly; maybe I’ve been reading Pete George’s comments too much! :)

    But Hansard is the official report of the proceedings of the House. As such, is it inconceivable that at some stage in the future someone might refer to this quote to bolster their case for requesting a particular right be granted to a Muslim?

    “I refer you, Your Honour, to the affirmation of the House on the 13th of February 2013, that the rights and dignity of all people—in particular, of Muslims—should be upheld …”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Andrei (2,651 comments) says:

    Would people be happy for a Catholic priest to be seated on a plane next to an unaccompanied child?

    And on a post about bigotry we see an absolutely disgusting and revolting example of it from the little twerp who has been pontificating on this subject for days

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Manolo (13,767 comments) says:

    The easily-offended brigade came to the fore. Howls of despair. Oh, dear.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Andrei (2,651 comments) says:

    I’m not offended Manolo, I’m not even a Catholic, I’m just sick of the pompus prattle from that silly little man

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Manolo (13,767 comments) says:

    I wasn’t talking about you, Andrei. Just those who feel sorry for those poor, peaceful Muslims. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. BeaB (2,123 comments) says:

    howdarethey

    Great way to save a few dollars on makeup – walk round in a hot black sack all day with slits for your eyes.

    They used to say slaves loved slavery too.

    And some Catholic nuns fought to keep their medieval habits.

    Graham
    Thanks for pointing out what should have been obvious to Pete George if he wasn’t hoist on his own soapbox. I was beginning to doubt my own ears!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. grumpy (260 comments) says:

    So, in asking for special equality for muslims, is Wussell asking for Sharia Law.

    Give everybody getting on a plane a pork pie – if they don’t eat it they can catch a bus!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. howdarethey (32 comments) says:

    Graham

    What you suggest is quite conceivable, even preferable, in a democracy. If in future someone were to reference Norman’s Motion to bolster their case, debate being what it is, someone would say something like ‘Yes but that Motion was passed at a time when the rights of Muslims to have the rights of citizenship were being challenged’. Then someone would say ‘Are you talking about special rights or just rights?’ Then a smart Speaker of the House would recall that years ago he had read a fascinating, intelligent even wise debate on just this topic by 2 bloggers on Kiwiblog, our discussion today would be tabled in parliament, and the MPs would be stunned into silent awe by our erudition.

    Then someone would say something else, start some other debate, and off we go again. Thing about democracy, if we’re busy talking at least we’re not out killing/harming people.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    graham I agree with howdarethey ^ – I’ve said that previously. As far as I’m aware that motion has no effect other than making a statement, and Parliament seems to have seen fit to balance the inflammatory statements made by one if it’s MPs. That’s all as far as I can see.

    Are you asking Prosser to make a decent apology instead of his Claytons “sorry if anyone was offended” crap?
    Are you asking Peters to make a decent show of taking this as a serious error rather than successful grandstanding?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Re using screens in court:

    Are there any special rules about how a witness may give their evidence?

    (Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s.185D; Evidence Act 2006, s.105)

    The judge may direct that any witness in any proceeding may give evidence in an alternative way. An “alternative way” means evidence can be given from in the courtroom behind a screen, from outside the courtroom (in New Zealand or elsewhere), or by a video record made before the hearing.

    A party can apply to the judge to give this direction or the judge can make a direction on his or her own initiative.

    (Evidence Act 2006, s.103)

    A direction that evidence may be given in an alternative way can be made on any of the following grounds:

    the age or maturity of the witness
    the physical, intellectual, psychological or psychiatric impairment of the witness
    the trauma suffered by the witness
    the witness’s fear of intimidation
    the linguistic or cultural background or religious beliefs of the witness
    the nature of the proceeding
    the nature of the evidence that the witness is likely to give
    the relationship of the witness to any party to the proceeding
    the absence or likely absence of the witness from New Zealand
    any other ground likely to promote the purpose of the Evidence Act 2006.

    http://www.communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-28-criminal-court-proceedings/the-court-hearing/

    There is only a generic religious reference: “the linguistic or cultural background or religious beliefs of the witness”. That gives no special status to Muslim witnesses.

    I would be surprised that if related to accused people it’s anything other than based on generic law and precedents.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Kea (12,824 comments) says:

    It helps if you remove the religous factor and look at who is killing who around the world.

    If we look at the international stats, we can quickly see that Christian North Americans are far more likely to present a threat to us than Muslim people in the Middle East. The Christians are the ones occupying Muslim lands, dropping bombs, shooting people and launching hundreds of Drone attacks all over the world, to advance their particular ideology.

    The fact that we may support the US and Western values, does not change the reality of what is happening. Globally the US & its allies are a far greater threat to Muslims than Muslims are to us.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. BeaB (2,123 comments) says:

    I love all these new grades of apology – not enough any more to say you are sorry. You have to say it over and over, at the right time, in the right words, convincingly enough to win over all your political foes blah blah.
    I am over apologies. They have become a ritualised formula. Just like shouting for people to resign at the drop of a hat.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. howdarethey (32 comments) says:

    BeaB

    What???

    You seem to believe that all Muslim women must reject the burkah? Your generalised reference to a black sack seems to suggest you distain the garment. You are unable to accept that a woman has the right to decide. You seem to believe by your comment “They used to say slaves loved slavery too” that there is something similar in the two examples, presumably that wearing the Muslim faith’s garments is necessarily a choice made under coercion.

    You’ve got a brain, at least one equipped to contribute to blogs. Time you accept that other people, even those completely unlike you, have brains equipped for self-choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    BeaB – you might be happy then that Whale Oil has pointed out that Prosser’s apology is meaningless, he doesn’t believe on them. Unless forced to do an ungenuine apology by an ungenuine party leader. Which still makes it meaningless.

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/02/quiet-in-the-cheap-seats-prossers-apology-not-genuine/

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. BeaB (2,123 comments) says:

    howdarethey
    What a pleasant tone you adopt.

    Of course I distain the garment. I also disdain it.

    Self-choice? Just look at what happens to women who step out of line!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,752 comments) says:

    To paraphrase David “I support Diversity except for Diversity of opinion”.

    [DPF: Bullshit. I have defended the right of neonazis to be able to have freedom of speech. But that is different from saying I won't criticise what neo-nazis say, and that I won't criticise what bigots say]

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    My take on this.

    1. the motivation of Mr Farrar on this is presumably to point out how much of a mistake it is to react to a threat with bigotry.
    2. and then how people try to defend Mr Prosser by calling his concerns about security legitimate.

    However those doing so should realise, this is not the point, the manner of his doing so was the issue at hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Akaroa (557 comments) says:

    A Hundred and forty four responses to the original post – and still counting!!

    My sainted aunt!!

    If this is all that the blogging classes in this country have got to worry about we’re in finer fettle than I’d feared.

    Trivia, people, trivia!

    Why not argue about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?.

    That question is about as relevant to anything as all this pseudo-intellectual dissection of what some half-baked pollie, who was evidently experiencing a brain-fade, wrote in a largely unread fringe magazine.

    What was that quote again? Oh I know – ‘A Matter of Sound and Fury – Signifying Nothing!!”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. howdarethey (32 comments) says:

    BarB

    My apologies for my typo, says a lot about you that you would mock it. Your air of superiority is not infectious, but does tell me a lot about why you adopt the views you do.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. bc (1,367 comments) says:

    Bravo, DPF. A well said post, although i would go further and say that some of the comments are outright racism rather than bigotry.

    It’s a shame that people racism has blinded them to the outright stupidity of Rosser’s comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Pete George at 4:32 pm.

    Sorry, don’t understand. Are you asking those questions of me? If so, why?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Brian Griffin (22 comments) says:

    By Allah, this brings out the nutters. God bless the enlightened Prosser for bringing this important subject into the open for all to air their wonderfully diverse views and show how tolerant New Zealand has become.

    I think, for the better of the Nation, we ought to round up anyone who looks odd, or is a racist or could be mistaken for one, and anyone from any religion or race I don’t like, and anyone else, chuck them in a camp (needs to be big) up near Waiurou and let them all sort out their differences.

    That would be the Christian thing to do. If any survive, they should have their own airline.

    Inshallah.

    Brian (not an actual Moslem name, but you know…)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. bc (1,367 comments) says:

    Oops, I meant Prosser. (who still sits there in parliament collecting a massive salary for doing nothing).

    The truly offensive thing about Prosser’s comment is that he wants to ban ALL young Muslim males based on the actions of a few extremists. To those people who agree with him: I wonder how you would feel if your basic rights were denied because of the actions of a few extremists, eg white males should be banned from having guns because mass shooters are white males.

    BeaB: Trying to justify your racism and be on the moral high ground because of burquas is particularly offensive. To think you were a teacher. I shudder to think what you said to the young minds you “taught”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    bc, people who choose to worship for a long dead paedophile are not a race so those who do not like paedophile worshiper are not racists.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    What’s your point?

    Isn’t it obvious? My point is this: The chances that a ‘man of Muslim appearence’ is going to be any more danger to you than any other man are negligible, therefore to discriminate against him based upon his appearance amounts to an irrational fear – whereas, referring to the example you used of unaccompanied children on airline flights, the chance that a random male may also be a pedophile is small, but significantly high enough to justify mitigating action based upon rational discrimination.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. bc (1,367 comments) says:

    Hmmm, interesting point Chuck.
    The word bigot to me, means someone who is intolerant. Prosser and those who agree with him strike me as a lot worse than that.
    If the word racist doesn’t apply, I wonder what does!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Kea (12,824 comments) says:

    And, as a modern woman and former teacher, I may be bigoted in your terms but I cannot find any justification at all for genital mutilation of children (girls and boys), shrouding women in black bags with slits for eyeholes, chopping off hands, stoning, declaring fatwahs and jihads, banning girls from activities like swimming – the list goes on and they are all aspects of Islam. I don’t like a lot about other religions too but again, as a woman, I have a legitimate fear that, one day, we might be subjected to some of this. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury championed Sharia law for gods sake.

    Women.. blah blah blah… girls blah blah blah…. women blah blah blah…. girls blah blah blah

    Well right there we have a prime example of an idiotic, bigoted, profoundly ignorant and sexist post. I really want to like it for being so un-pc. But BeaB is just too narrow minded and stupid even for my tastes.

    What the feminist harpie author needs to learn, is that women are Muslims too. They can, and often do, have fundamentalist conservative views. In my experience, even more so than the men. Islam is not imposed upon them, they are part of it. Women promote those values she opposes, so who is she speaking out for ?

    Women are NOT victims.

    BeaB needs to get over herself and learn that her Western feminist views are not a gold standard measure for anyone. Muslims do not give a shit what she thinks and nor should they.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    bc

    Albeit indirectly, you raise an interesting point, bigotry against Moslems is not racism – however the way Prosser expressed his bigotry against Moslems was racist – the deliberate use of the term “wogistan” was a crafted to appeal to white race Christians “threatened” by Moslems of another race.

    Moslems in Europe have sought protection from attacks against their religion under hate speech laws designed to protect people from racist abuse. The term “wogistan” indicates that prejudice against Moslems is being used to justify racist attitudes. That is of some irony as one of the strengths of the mosque is the inclusion of all peoples/races.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Bob R (1,373 comments) says:

    ***Isn’t it obvious? My point is this: The chances that a ‘man of Muslim appearence’ is going to be any more danger to you than any other man are negligible, therefore to discriminate against him based upon his appearance amounts to an irrational fear – whereas, referring to the example you used of unaccompanied children on airline flights, the chance that a random male may also be a pedophile is small, but significantly high enough to justify mitigating action based upon rational discrimination.***

    @ Scott Chris,

    It’s the same thing. In both cases you have one group that is statistically more likely to commit a certain behaviour. So they may attract greater scrutiny than members of other groups that have a lower statistical risk. Similarly young males tend to get charged higher car insurance premiums.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Kea, do you mean some Moslem women are forcing others not to get an education or forcing them to dress as they choose to do? Or that because some women choose to wear the scarf/veil/chador, it is OK if this is forced on others who don’t agree?

    The better response is to say that grievances against Moslems over what happens in their culture (past history or present) is not directly related to the topic of Prosser’s racist expression of his bigotry – except as to demonstrate that others are capable of finding another excuse to justify their own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. duggledog (1,556 comments) says:

    Bigotry is the human story. Who’s more tolerant of the other, the West or Islam? The West is currently eating itself.

    One on one, people generally will find something in common and get on which is human nature. Groups are a different story put 50 random people into a box for a few days come back and they will have separated into groups.

    Prosser’s a tool though

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Kea (12,824 comments) says:

    SPC, as an atheist and a socially liberal person, I do not support the religious beliefs of Islam. But…

    The point I was making is that Islam is not imposed upon Muslim women, they are part and parcel of it. Certainly the Muslim women I know would take offence to the suggestion that they had their faith imposed upon them. Take female circumcision as an example. It is carried out by women upon women by women who consider it the right thing to do for women. I have (ahem) known a few and all of them have had certain modifications performed. Even if they came from liberal minded educated families.

    I agree with your second paragraph but I was addressing a specific point raised by BeaB, in the most confronting way I could think of at short notice ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Kea, the practice of female circumcision is not one of Islam, it is one of a certain cultures and regions of the planet, Islam is not its source. The continuance of the practice is managed by women on other women, but the source was for the management of women by men. That the victims of the practice impose it on the next generation of females as a cultural inheritance does not make it a choice that is being passed on – where it continues the woman presumes the younger female must be as she was to also find a man – be as men of the culture expect women to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Fletch (6,386 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson, Pauleastbay et al, you ought to read Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries by Paul Fregosi. The Muslims were invading pretty much everywhere for centuries long, long before the Crusades et al; in fact, the Crusades were a reaction to the invading that was going on.

    Jihad, the Muslim holy war against Christians and others, has raged for 1300 years with bloody conquests in Europe dating from campaigns to convert the infidels in the 7th century to today’s random acts of terrorism in the name of Allah. Yet this huge unrecorded ‘hole’ in European history has been censored and stifled by political and literary authorities who have feared reprisals from angry Muslims trying to hide a legacy of brutality vastly more bloody and six times longer in duration than the atrocities of the crusades. This is the engrossing factual account of the immense and little-known Islamic military invasions of Europe, and the major players who led them, beginning around 650CE. The Islamic Arabs (and later the Moors) occupied a number of the Mediterranean Islands, and invaded Spain and Portugal in 711CE, and ruled over much of the Iberian peninsula for the next 800 years. France was attacked and invaded, as was Italy, and the European coasts all the way to Ireland and Iceland. The Muslims swept over the Balkans, besieged Vienna, and were intermittent masters of Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary into the 19th century, destroying the Byzantines, taking Constantinople (turning it into Istanbul). Ambitious and unrelenting, the Muslims also sought to conquer Austria, and Russia. In a bright and brisk narrative, Paul Fregosi’s unique and provocative work is the first, and only, general history of the Jihad, the most neglected and disregarded phenomenon in European history.

    http://www.amazon.com/Jihad-West-Muslim-Conquests-Centuries/dp/1573922471/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360823519&sr=8-1&keywords=paul+fregosi

    Well worth the read.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. cha (4,013 comments) says:

    This review reckons the Fregosi book is a bit shit Fletch.

    Anyhoo, here’s the view from the other side.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    First we were threatened by Moslems carrying swords, then they were threatened by Moslems who came unarmed as immigrants. I suppose that only shows how soft some European bigots have become.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    @Fletch

    Jihad, the Muslim holy war against Christians and others,

    What rubbish. Jihad is primarily about non-violent religious struggle, and Christians, as “people of the book” are mentioned sympathetically in the Quran, which falsifies Fregosi’s position.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Kea (12,824 comments) says:

    SPC (2,158) Says:
    February 14th, 2013 at 7:15 pm

    Ok, that was a load of crap. The literary gymnastics you performed, to portray women as victims, were indeed amusing. But in terms of addressing today’s reality, you fall well short.

    If I accepted your logic, I could apply it to any social norm. For example: the norm that women are equal was passed on to us. The novel idea blacks are people too, was passed on to us. Every single idea you defend was instilled into you by others.

    Some folk had different norms taught to them. Why are yours any better ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Viking2 (11,470 comments) says:

    Barnsley Bill (829) Says:
    February 14th, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    I hope this does not mean that we will no longer be able to discuss the very real evil that is Gingas.
    Or have you stopped that since your domestic arrangements changed?

    [DPF: the shame - I am now living with a ginga. And the hellish offspawn]

    Ah, so trying to join the Vikings then.
    Lots to learn before we allow you to join.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Kea, just correcting the impression that it was a Moslem practice, it is not. And also noting that females at puberty are not in a position to deny this being done to them. And that the men of the culture expect their wives to have this done to them – thus effectively imposing this practice on the mothers of the children.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Griff (7,694 comments) says:

    V2 Even us Celts would not let him join
    blonds are just redheads with the fire fucked out of them.
    The most famous British Celtic Queen – Boudicca, is described by the Romans as having red hair which hung to her knees, and grasping a heavy war spear, spoke with a harsh British voice

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. wiseowl (893 comments) says:

    scott@11.44
    one of the best posts /responses ever

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    wiseowl,

    Just like the Bohemian Grove guys want you to think, eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. hj (7,011 comments) says:

    OMG David Farrar (the holy man) hss had an epithany!
    However we shouldn’t confuse non bigots with Real estate agents or the Property Council (big business/big cheese/development juganaut) wot only loved for their money!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Fletch (6,386 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, sorry but you’rte misinformed. ‘Jihad’ is not peaceful, but it is being portrayed that way these days by apologists and those who want to pull the wool over the eyes of Westerners. The ‘People of the Book’ must also submit and are not free from the requirements that Islam imposes on infidels, ie, paying a Dhimmi tax.

    9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya (tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Fletch, can you name any country that imposes a dhimmi tax today? Or any country on jihad involving use of armed force?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Fletch (6,386 comments) says:

    SPC, you just need to go to jihadwatch.org or Atlas shrugs who keep up with the daily attacks on Christians and the Sharia laws slipping under the cover in countries all around the world. I don’t go there much any more because it’s so disheartening to see, but it’s happening alright.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Fletch, you missed the point, struggle (i.e. jihad). is not about peace. I said that it was primarily non-violent, which is not the same as being peaceful.

    Your interpretation of surah 9:29 ignores the fact that Islam does not sanction aggression against other parties unless those parties have planned or initiated aggression or oppression against Muslims. In other words, you’ve taken the verse out of context.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Fletch, what is the threat which gives rise to the need that you speak of (re jihadwatch.org or Atlas shrugs)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Fletch (6,386 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, rubbish.
    The name “Islam” itself means submission.
    What are the Christians in these Arab countries doing to initiate aggression against Muslims?
    Nothing, they just want to be left in peace.

    You’re totally wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. KevinH (1,227 comments) says:

    Excellent post DPF, Prosser is a bigot and it would appear that he has plenty of equally bigoted friends here on KB. However the underlying principle at stake here is freedom of speech, we may not agree with what is said but it is Prosser right to express it, I doubt that in a New Zealand context that it could evolve into something as evil as anti Semitism, but for some commentators on this thread a reality check on humanity would not go amiss.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    Does anyone want to sign a petition I am sending to Te -papa?

    At Pete George’s suggestion, I am having a statue of Pete commissioned…..with his head in the sand…..living life on his knees….under Muslim rule.

    We all know that the government department, Te-Papa, once displayed a statue of The Modonna inside a condom. This caused outrage amongst Christians in NZ and those who saw the stupidity of it.

    Given the fact the current government, and the opposition, doesn’t like ‘offending’ Islam, then it is unlikely that we will ever see a statue of Mohammed in a Condom displayed anywhere in NZ.

    However, a statue of Pete George at Te-papa, I suspect, wouldn’t offend anyone -and would most certainly remind us all- of what happens if you regulary fail to think before you speak! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Fletch (6,386 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, the threat is of Sharia Law being implemented in Western countries, which is already starting to happen.
    Laws which are incompatible with Western culture but which are being implemented through political correctness.
    And it dare not even be spoken of. Look at Theo Van Gogh being killed in Holland; look at Geert Wilders who needs 24/7 security in case he is killed. Look at the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie just for his book. Look at cartoonist Molly Norris who had to change her whole identity – her whole life, and go into hiding just because she suggested in a column, Draw Mohammed Day, and a Fatwa was placed on her.

    Where were the liberals speaking up for her free speech? Suddenly they were silenced.

    Islam is the religion and political system that dare not be criticized, or you end up dead.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The name “Islam” itself means submission.

    Yes, submission to Allah, not submission to Muslims.

    What are the Christians in these Arab countries doing to initiate aggression against Muslims?

    For example: “God told me to smite Iraq” ~ George Bush

    You’re totally wrong.

    About what?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Fletch (6,386 comments) says:

    See the list of Islamic terror attacks in the modern day here –

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

    That’s just some of them of course. Click the links underneath for other years. There have been 20,388 Islamic acts of terrorism since 9/11/01 according to the counter on that same site.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Fletch (6,386 comments) says:

    Here’s the list for last week –

    2013.02.12 (Gulbahar, Pakistan) – Sectarian Jihadis gun down two people at a hardware store.
    2013.02.11 (Mosul, Iraq) – A Shahid suicide bomber takes out eight Iraqis, including a 7-year-old boy.
    2013.02.11 (al-Shadada, Syria) – Two al-Nusra suicide bombings leave fourteen people dead.
    2013.02.10 (Orangi, Pakistan) – A Shia father and son are murdered by Sipah-e-Sahaba gunmen.
    2013.02.10 (Yala, Thailand) – Islamic militants overturn a truck with a bomb, then shoot five survivors to death.
    2013.02.08 (Aleppo, Syria) – Nine people, including women, children and a cleric are reportedly killed by a Sunni rocket attack on a Shiite mosque.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Fletch, Sharia law has the same origin as English common law does. This is a threat to those who rely on the civil system for protection in the sense that a just system will punish the guilty. Western culture draws from both common law and civil law, but western politics is heavily influenced by the civil system, which is fundamentally predatory.

    Van Gogh was an idiot for blaming Muslims for 9/11.

    Geert Wilders was a hypocrite for calling for a ban of the Quran while he enjoyed free speech.

    Rushdie smeared characters from within the Quranic narrative. including Abraham.

    “Draw Mohammed Day” seems innocent enough, and the fatwa against Norris supports your position against Islam.

    Islam is not a political system, the Muslim brotherhood is such a system. Criticism of any religion should be done tactfully, the fact that religious differences can cause wars should not ignored.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    So Fletch can cannot name any country that imposes a dhimmi tax today. Nor any country on jihad involving use of armed force.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Fletch, the end goal of acts of terrorism is political, not religious. Islam specifically prohibits using religion for political ends, so it isn’t appropriate to blame the religion of Islam for Islamist political goals. I think that the reason that people don’t want to acknowledge this distiction is that is leads to the issue of the Christian religion being used for political ends via the Westminster system, with one political goal being the oppression or victimization of minorities.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Islam is not a religion..I agree with Geert Wilders that it is a totalitarian ideology..It is also a deadly cult. There is no freedom in islam. There is only endless persecution for non muslims living under islamic dominance. There are multiple types of jihad including economic jihad. This is why so many non muslims from muslim dominated countries currently live here.
    All the faux outrage is pathetic..What about Choudary and the cross he wanted removed? His complaint to Helen Clark re the number of senior females in her government..What of Hone and his wmf comment?
    So many hypocrites …and blind fools.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Joana, Islam is a religion because it describes a set of beliefs about deity.

    Geert Wilders is a fool and a hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Fletch (6,386 comments) says:

    Unlike many religions, Islam includes a mandatory and highly specific legal and political plan for society called Sharia (pronounced “sha-r�e-uh”), which translates approximately as “way” or “path.” The precepts of Sharia are derived from the commandments of the Quran and the Sunnah (the teachings and precedents of Muhammad as found in the reliable hadiths and the Sira). Together, the Quran and the Sunnah establish the dictates of Sharia, which is the blueprint for the good Islamic society. Because Sharia originates with the Quran and the Sunnah, it is not optional. Sharia is the legal code ordained by Allah for all mankind. To violate Sharia or not to accept its authority is to commit rebellion against Allah, which Allah’s faithful are required to combat.

    There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam; rather Islam and Sharia constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level. While it is in theory possible for an Islamic society to have different outward forms — an elective system of government, a hereditary monarchy, etc. — whatever the outward structure of the government, Sharia is the prescribed content. It is this fact that puts Sharia into conflict with forms of government based on anything other than the Quran and the Sunnah.

    You need to get you some learning – http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Daigotsu (457 comments) says:

    DPF, to call somebody who is attacking you violent… is not bigotry.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Fletch, again with the need. Jihadwatch is wrong because the Quran specifically prohibits political imperatives.

    Let there be no compulsion in religion.
    Quran, Surah 2:256

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    DPF, to call somebody who is attacking you violent… is not bigotry.

    No, but there’s been much more to it than that, for example implying that one and a half billion non-violent people are responsible for the actions of a few extremists. And saying all Muslims threaten civilisation. Etc Etc

    bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
    Synonyms: narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

    There are many examples of that in this and other Kiwiblog threads, and in what Prosser wrote.

    And some of those most vocal in repeatedly warning (and scaremongering) against Muslims are Christian people with a clear intolerance of different beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Griff (7,694 comments) says:

    You forgot the most important synonym for bigot on kb

    Christian

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. big bruv (13,887 comments) says:

    joana

    “Catholicism is not a religion..I agree with Geert Wilders that it is a totalitarian ideology..It is also a deadly cult. There is no freedom in Catholicism.”

    There you go, I fixed it for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Griff – not all of those promoting ‘Muslims under the bed’/’the Muslim Peril’ are Christians but some closed minded Christians are prominent amongst the regular bigots. It reflects more on their own style of faith than anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Although one would have thought we would have evolved enough to move past it, bigotry is in fact innate within all of us.

    By nature we are geared to view those as ‘different’ with some form a suspicion. It was usually those who were ‘unfamiliar’ to us that caused harm. As animals it is an instinct. As social beings, that instinct became reinforced by the survival and conquering behaviours of other humans,from other places who were a ‘different colour’, spoke differently (language, dialect, accent), dressed differently etc. In society as religions formed and was at times the most major part of the human social world, anyone that was not of a same faith, was seen as the ‘enemy’.

    So in reality, such bigotry is not completely unexpected, however, surely we have advanced somewhat from the ‘animal’ inside all of us.

    Being scared of terrorism is not a fault. Nor is being scared of terrorists being weak. We’ve seen the damage they can do. We are more than justified with our thoughts. Blaming an entire group of people, because they ‘different’ and practice another religion, or a religion, is however, dumb!

    But not quite as ‘dumb’ as poking a sharp stick in the eye of a group terriorists known to retaliate against such things.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    By nature we are geared to view those as ‘different’ with some form a suspicion.

    Probably, but there are also advantages on welcoming differences, especially a diversity of genes, a diversity of knowledge and a diversity of resources. Trade is dependant on dealing with people who are diferent.

    I think we are split broadly into two types, those who shun and/or fear differences/diversity, and those who are open to it.

    And even in small social groups being able to tolerate differences can be important.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    I think we are split broadly into two types, those who shun and/or fear differences/diversity, and those who are open to it.

    That’s unusually binary for you pete. What happened to you your now legendary, endlessly postulated fence sitting?

    No matter.

    Your ‘two types’ characterisation applies to immigrants and existing residents equally.

    I’m all for shunning the ‘differences/diversity’ sought by immigrants who would see their system of barbaric Islamic law imported and installed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    What happened to you your now legendary, endlessly postulated fence sitting?

    That’s a myth, a weak attempt at discrediting rather than debating, perpetuated by those who have trouble having their opinions challenged.

    And “split broadly into two types” is not binary. That allows for many degrees and overlap.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    It reflects more on their own style of faith than anything.

    It’s inherent to Pauline Christianity. Galatians 4:21-26, written by Christianity’s most prominent Pharisee, makes an allegory of the family feud which led to the advent of Islam. The allegory describes Sarah (Judaism) as freedom and Hagar (Islam) as slavery.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. howdarethey (32 comments) says:

    Fletch

    You write
    Here’s the list for last week –

    2013.02.12 (Gulbahar, Pakistan) – Sectarian Jihadis gun down two people at a hardware store.
    2013.02.11 (Mosul, Iraq) – A Shahid suicide bomber takes out eight Iraqis, including a 7-year-old boy.
    2013.02.11 (al-Shadada, Syria) – Two al-Nusra suicide bombings leave fourteen people dead.
    2013.02.10 (Orangi, Pakistan) – A Shia father and son are murdered by Sipah-e-Sahaba gunmen.
    2013.02.10 (Yala, Thailand) – Islamic militants overturn a truck with a bomb, then shoot five survivors to death.
    2013.02.08 (Aleppo, Syria) – Nine people, including women, children and a cleric are reportedly killed by a Sunni rocket attack on a Shiite mosque.

    The website you reference for this information must be delighted to draw wool over the eyes of people like you. In all of the incidents listed above, no Westerners were involved. In all instances it was sectarian violence, ie horror between Shiites and Sunnis.

    In Iraq, there is a 90/10 split between the population with regard to Shiite/Sunni. Warring between these sects is historic, and continues to define the state of the Middle Eastern world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. muggins (3,715 comments) says:

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/winston-peters-be-kingmaker-again-rv-p-135906

    It looks like Prosser might have helped his boss.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    And “split broadly into two types” is not binary. That allows for many degrees and overlap.

    Ahhh, welcome back pete :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote