Dividing by race

December 13th, 2013 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

Karul du Fresne writes:

The latest census confirms what was already obvious: New Zealand has quietly undergone a profound demographic revolution. From being one of the world’s most homogeneous societies, it has become one of the most diverse.

One in four New Zealanders was born overseas – an astonishing statistic that makes us one of the world’s most immigrant-friendly societies. Asian ethnic groups have almost doubled in size since 2001.

The change is most dramatic in Auckland, where a 2011 study found that 40 per cent of the population was born in another country.

What’s even more remarkable is that, in contrast with Britain and Australia, this has been accomplished without any obvious social or racial tension.

Apart from the pressure on housing prices, New Zealand has painlessly absorbed the new arrivals. Our embrace of ethnic diversity confirms that we are essentially a liberal, tolerant and easy-going society.

And we should be proud of that.

Yet that social harmony is potentially under threat – and the great irony is that the threat comes not from conservative New Zealanders, but from people purporting to represent immigrant groups.

On Jim Mora’s Afternoons programme on Radio New Zealand this week, Dr Camille Nakhid, chairwoman of Auckland Council’s ethnic people’s advisory panel (whose members include Bevan Chuang, erstwhile paramour of mayor Len Brown), talked about the need for ethnic groups to have more say in local government.

No-one could object to such groups having an advisory function, but Dr Nakhid, an academic who lectures in something called social sciences (no surprises there), was talking about much more than that.

She believes ethnic representatives should be given a statutory role in decision-making – just like Auckland Council’s non-elected Maori statutory board, whose two members recently exercised a casting vote in favour of a living wage for council employees.

Dr Nakhid talked airily about not compromising democratic principles, but in fact was advocating exactly that. She seemed to draw a self-serving distinction between democratic “principles”, which she believes justify special rights for ethnic groups, and something less important called the democratic “process”.

Apparently the tired old idea of one person having one vote doesn’t quite cut it anymore.

She talked about the need for ethnic minorities to have “separate but equal” representation with Maori in Auckland – in other words, compounding what is already an abuse of democracy. And she didn’t really answer Mora’s question about how ethnic representation could be arranged when Auckland has an estimated 200 ethnic groups. A minor technicality, no doubt.

If Dr Nakhid had deliberately set out to create friction where currently there is none, she couldn’t have found a better way to go about it. Nothing is more likely to arouse resentment of immigrant groups than demands for privileged treatment.

This is the problem with special privileges for one race. Others then want the same.

Tags:

72 Responses to “Dividing by race”

  1. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    ‘One in four New Zealanders was born overseas – an astonishing statistic that makes us one of the world’s most immigrant-friendly societies’

    And that’s why Kiwi’s got no jobs.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (13,590 comments) says:

    This is the problem with special privileges for one race.

    There is no reason to maintain Maori seats or any race-based privileges.

    All New Zealanders should be equal against the law. The problem is we have no political party prepared to embraced this idea. Most of our politicians are ready to trade their principles and surrender to the racists (the arrangement, read deal, between National and Maori a few years back is prime example of this attitude.)

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. BigJase (1 comment) says:

    This is very sick. I find Special seats for maori bad enough. This is just a whole new level of sad.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Akaroa (552 comments) says:

    Well, David, that’s all fine and dandy and, like you, I don’t like to think of our society drifting in the direction indicated by the learned lady academic doctor.

    But we’re our own worst enemies in this, don’t you think? And in saying that I think of the sheltered – indeed statutorily protected – position in our society extended to and enjoyed by those claiming some Maori genetic strain.

    Now don’t get me wrong, I’m no anti-Maori. I don’t know many Maori personally and I have no feeling either way about their status in our multi-cultural society. Just as I have no feeling either way for Scots people, South Africans, English, Samoans or any other of the multitude of groups that are being successfully absorbed into our Kiwi society.

    But as long as SOME racial groups benefit solely by virtue of their racial origins, then our society remains flawed IMHO.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. tas (623 comments) says:

    Separate but equal is a great term to sugar coat the gradual demarcation of racial tears in society. It’s a terrible idea, but maybe we should get the left to implement this — then the right can tear it down and take Maori seats with it.

    One person one vote!

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Komata (1,180 comments) says:

    A question: As the Doctor’s comments sound depressingly familiar, is she by any chance a Muslim?

    If so, (with Britain and France as examples) then we already know what is going to follow…..

    If not, then it’s only a matter of time.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. wreck1080 (3,885 comments) says:

    I don’t understand — Tony Alexander says it is not foreigners causing the auckland housing bubble — yet, when 40% of Aucklanders were born in another country, how does this reconcile?

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    She should read Will Kymlicka. Immigrants do not gain special rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Our embrace of ethnic diversity confirms that we are essentially a liberal, tolerant and easy-going society.

    Either that or our apathy allowed us to be conned.

    Britain moved into NZ after missionaries created sufficient furore about the bedlam and general uproar being created by whalers and freebooters trading muskets to increasingly aggressive Maori raiders. Then came the Treaty of Waitangi.

    The second great genetic re-engineering of NZ has been sprung on us without debate or any semblance of discussion, without any resistance, and with complicity of the main political parties.

    It’s not just Auckland. For example, the dairy bubble has brought about 2000 Filipinos to remote Southland, and they aren’t going to go back. The universities and other tertiary institutions and teaching colleges bring in business by offering students the prospects of citizenship. They are selling off the country in their own interest, in other words.

    Whether diversity is good or bad could be debated, but it hasn’t been in NZ.

    The country has been sold under our feet, and there won’t be any equivalent of the Maori Land Court and the Waitangi Tribunal to get it back.

    Present day Kiwis are more like the hapless Moriori than the proud Maori of the 1840s.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    ‘Either that or our apathy allowed us to be conned.’

    The biggest political tool of the trivialist western democracies.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson (3.45 post) brings up Will Kymlicka, Canada’s philosopher of multiculturalism.

    It’s interesting that the Leftists who back multiculturalism champion special rights for Maori (water, wireless spectrum, etc). They also seek special rights for new immigrant groups. It’s an international multiculturalist pattern: equal rights out, and in come special rights for the indigenous and the new immigrant groups, but not for the immigrant groups who first interacted with the indigenous.

    In the end these Leftists want special rights for everyone but the predominant ethnic group, usually European. However, multiculturalists would want Japan to give special rights for Ainu and the Korean minorities. In China, where they would be shot, the multiculturalists would want special rights for everyone but the Han.

    In the end multiculturalists go round the circle and end back up with discrimination — against the dominant group.

    Klymlicka’s Utopianism now extends to animal rights. He is asking why “feminist, post-colonial and multiculturalist theory” has not been extended to violence towards animals – mainly that is, to farming of animals. Jackson, I trust that you are a vegan and thus not a hypocrite.

    Klymlicka is an ultra-extremist Leftist nut case. Why am I not surprised you brought him up in this thread?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. OneTrack (3,024 comments) says:

    “Apparently the tired old idea of one person having one vote doesn’t quite cut it anymore”

    The Greens have been saying the same thing for years. The MSM just keep a lid on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Maggy Wassilieff (344 comments) says:

    @ Komata….. At peril at being thought a stereotypist…… and solely based on Dr Nakhid’s clothing in this image, I would say not a Muslim…… (well definitely not one of the fundamental camp)…….

    http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/aboutcouncil/advisorypanels/ethnicpeoplesadvisorypanel/epapmemberprofile.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Odakyu-sen (600 comments) says:

    I don’t recall the New Zealand population being asked whether they wanted to undergo a “profound demographic revolution” (whatever that means). On the other hand, they seem to have been happy for the rising property values and the stimulation of the local economy, and they didn’t lift a finger to protest, so I guess they’re cool with it.

    There must be a term for the kind of government policy that really changes the ethnic make-up of a nation. Does anyone have any suggestions?

    Some nuts go on about the “whites being in power,” but if such a group really was out to look after its interests, why would it allow highly capable and competitive non-white groups into the country? Doesn’t make sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. JMS (319 comments) says:

    Another issue is how Census/Statistics NZ has for decades reported data where the respondent has identified with more than one ethnic group.

    (Department of Statistics 1981: 7-8):
    “Half or more origin is the general criterion for inclusion in an ethnic group and cases
    of half origin are currently assigned to one particular ethnic classification, according to
    the following priority order: New Zealand Māori, Pacific Island Polynesian, Other Ethnic
    Groups (excluding European), and European. Thus, as an example, a person who
    is ½ New Zealand Māori – ½ Cook Island Māori, is counted as a New Zealand Māori”

    I always keep this ‘priority order’ in mind when reading the stats .

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. duggledog (1,528 comments) says:

    Maori will never agree to getting rid of the seats because the majority of Maori will think (somehow) that this is racist, and that they are losing taonga or some shit. You can’t take anything away from Maori once you’ve given it to them, even if the country cannot afford it or it is effectively pointless or any use.

    That’s why Labour funded Maori TV to the tune of 50 million a year that gets flushed down the toilet like so many other things courtesy of the taxpayer. Cullen and Clarke knew if National ever tried to de-fund Maori TV they’d have a hikoi on their hands. Mind you, there’s a hikoi every ten minutes these days

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    There is no reason to maintain Maori seats or any race-based privileges.

    Yes there is.

    The Maori had a dominant culture (ours) forced upon them, whereas Indians, Fijians, etc. chose to move here. If the latter don’t like it here, they can always fuck off back home (do you hear that Saffers and Poms?), but the Maori have no other home to go to.

    Since people’s culture tends to matter dearly to them (especially when they are a minority) it matters a whole lot to their welfare, so if we care about their welfare equally with everyone else, we owe them recognition of their cultural values, and indulgences where it costs the rest of us nothing to do so (such as letting Sikhs circumvent helmet laws). But we don’t owe them that much, because they can always go back to where their culture is the dominant one.

    In general, this just means giving minority groups representation in public broadcasting and stuff like that. There’s really no need for political representation outside of the Maori, for the reasons mentioned above.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. wreck1080 (3,885 comments) says:

    @tom — no there isn’t.

    The future will be full of pain and anguish for everyone if maori keep getting more privileges, and they will based on current trends.

    Really, based on your comments only maori have the right to be here so you should fuck off back home too if the maori had their way.

    Of course, your ‘home’ would reject you because they don’t care about your family history.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    That’s why Labour funded Maori TV to the tune of 50 million a year that gets flushed down the toilet like so many other things courtesy of the taxpayer.

    You should try watching it sometime. It is the last place in New Zealand where professional journalism is actually being practiced, and if you want to see Maori bigwigs held to account in a way that the mainstream media would never dare, watch Maori TV.

    People on this blog constantly complain about corruption in Maoridom. You should support Maori TV which is doing more than any other institution in NZ to expose it and to shame the offenders.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Really, based on your comments only maori have the right to be here so you should fuck off back home too if the maori had their way.

    Not at all. The Maori are what Kymlicka calls a “national minority”. The rest of us have been here long enough so that we form a distinct cultural group (New Zealanders) with its own values, accent, etc. Same goes for Canadians and Australians. They don’t have anywhere else to go either.

    But Indians, English, Chinese, etc. all have countries where their cultural group is the dominant group, so they have an alternative if they don’t like living in New Zealand. The Maori have no such alternative, and neither do the Australian Aboriginals, Francophone Quebecers, First Nations, etc.

    Compared to virtually any country in the world, New Zealand is a paradise of race relations with the indigenous minority.

    Of course, your ‘home’ would reject you because they don’t care about your family history.

    I’m a dual citizen of NZ (by birth) and the UK (by descent), and hold both passports.

    Try again.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    An interesting article here on “diversity” –
    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/

    Quote – “It has become increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.

    But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.”

    The constant “companion” of “diversity” is “multiculturalism”.
    On that topic, here’s a great article about Malmo in Sweden –
    http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2013/05/malmo-case-study-in-multiculturalism.html

    Quote – “The dismal experience of Malmö undermines the theory that immigration has benefited the Swedish economy. The historical birthplace of the Social Democratic movement increasingly resembles a blighted American city in terms of segregation, poverty, crime and poor economic performance. ”

    My point is simply that increasing diversity is not all “unicorns flying over rainbows”.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. kowtow (8,326 comments) says:

    Multi ethnic is OK.

    Multicultural is not.

    Immigrants should feel they can become NewZealanders and share in and participate in New Zealand culture.

    Once you say multiculturalism is good and OK it means that immigrants don’t have to integrate .And if you don’t want to integrate and become a NewZealander then

    FUCK OFF.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    Several interesting links on the “multiculturalism has failed” theme –

    “State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron” –
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

    “Merkel says German multicultural society has failed” –
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11559451

    “Multiculturalism has failed, says French president” –
    http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/local_news/multiculturalism-has-failed-says-french-president_129221.html

    What is telling is that despite these statements, the immigration floodgates still seem to be open in these countries.

    Sweden has had some pretty negative effects from its huge immigration but I doubt that we’ll ever see a statement similar to the above ones from a Swedish leader.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    As an immigrant this idea horrifies me. Immigrant groups definitely need to be encouraged to integrate. I love the diversity of Auckland and relish it very time I go to the night market and have some Thai or Malaysian or Hungarian food. But there is a difference between celebrating our diversity and entrenching our differences. The fact that the unelected Maori reps in Auckland were able to make a major financial decision like granting the living wage to council workers is terribly undemocratic. Adding more race based seats is the last thing we need.

    As far as the argument that Maori need biculturalism and race based seats to empower them, I would say that has been disproved by decades of continued poverty and social problems despite the move to biculturalism. The focus should be on helping those in poverty rather than Maori. Not all Maori are poor and oppressed and not all the poor and oppressed are Maori. Pasifika people in particular are disadvantaged by Maori getting special political powers. Immigrants need to integrate and we all need to be equal before the law and in the political process.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Bob R (1,363 comments) says:

    ***Our embrace of ethnic diversity confirms that we are essentially a liberal, tolerant and easy-going society.***

    No doubt part of that is that NZ has a skill selection criteria, which ameliorates the loss of cohesion that accompanies increased ethnic/religious diversity (eg. Harvard researcher Robert Putman’s findings).

    I think it also reflects a population cowed into submission. Frank Salter had a series of articles in Quadrant discussing how this had occurred in Australia, through the media and academia in particular demonising any European advocacy (while aggressively promoting the interests of other ethnicities).

    “The media review also revealed a pronounced status difference in Australian ethnic relations. Ethnic minorities are routinely represented by university-educated elites with access to the mass media and government while the ethnic majority is usually not. Rare exceptions, such as Professor Geoffrey Blainey was perceived to be in the 1980s, prove the rule, as does the fury they provoke from the mainstream media and Left activists. The class difference corresponds with institutional support, such that minority advocates are privileged by the establishment while majority advocates are excluded. Minority ethnic activists are treated with respect by government, the media, universities and corporations. They receive positive media coverage, jobs and other perks from the multicultural and immigration industry. They are invited to participate in government forums. Political parties sometimes favour them for preselection as a means of attracting the “ethnic vote”. Activist lawyers volunteer strategy and legal services. Peccadilloes and indiscretions are overlooked. By contrast, majority activists are derided by the media, university experts, minority activists and government officials. There are no jobs for advocates of Anglo-Australian interests in the multicultural industry or in government agencies. They are not invited to government forums. Lawyers demand full payment. Majority advocacy can stunt careers. Peccadilloes and indiscretions become the whole story. Throughout the West, efforts continue to legislate ever harsher penalties for expressions of loyalty to shrinking white majorities.

    Vilification of Anglo ethnic consciousness helps perpetuate this difference. The resulting stigma helps silence the professional class that could marshal a powerful electoral and cultural defence of the historical nation.”

    https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2012/10/the-war-against-human-nature-iii-race-and-the-nation-in-the-media/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Odakyu-sen (600 comments) says:

    Kowtow notes: “Immigrants should feel they can become NewZealanders and share in and participate in New Zealand culture.”

    Ah yes, the “New Zealand culture” concept. Now, it could be that some immigrant groups might readily share in some aspects of “New Zealand culture” while doing very poorly or flatly rejecting other aspects. For example, Japanese immigrants will be very familiar with the concept of Christmas, but won’t really be too keen on baking yer gold ‘ol Kiwi Christmas cake. (Japanese Christmas cakes are quite a different beast Ref: http://www.examiner.com/article/make-your-own-japanese-christmas-cake

    So, take any immigrant group (gosh, I can feel a generalization coming on…). What will they readily adapt to in NZ and what will they tend to reject?

    Who’s going to start the ball rolling…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    “This is the problem with special privileges for one race. Others then want the same.”

    Quite right:

    I’m really pissed that somebody is giving the bloody Indians all the Dairies and Liquor Stores when they know us Honkies/Murri/Fob’s want to slave 24/7 too! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Johnboy posted at 8.54:

    …I’m really pissed that somebody is giving the bloody Indians all the Dairies and Liquor Stores when they know us Honkies/Murri/Fob’s want to slave 24/7 too!

    Does your sarcasm mask a dream of getting into the synthetic-narco pipeline, Johnboy?

    Or perhaps you of those who used to say, “the Maoris don’t want to work,” and now proclaim over their chardonnay and nibbles, “New Zealanders don’t want to work”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. hj (6,922 comments) says:

    ***Our embrace of ethnic diversity confirms that we are essentially a liberal, tolerant and easy-going society.***
    ………………..

    As with debates about biculturalism, the media play a critical role in determining the nature of public discussion and private/public understanding. Along with certain institutions, especially the education system, the media provide one of the most
    important, and possibly the most important, point of contact. The media, in all its diverse forms – print, radio, television, electronic – is a key institution in the creation and distribution of images and messages about our community(ies). Those significant others in our community, in the absence of in-depth personal contact or experience, will be described and explained to us via the media.

    http://canada.metropolis.net/events/metropolis_presents/media_diversity/Spoonley%20%28Eng%29.pdf

    He is saying that the media overides a community and can create it’s own reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Re Odaku-Sen at 8.54:

    I think your point of sharing in some aspect of culture and rejecting others is a fair point.

    You could add it helps if new arrivals add something to the local culture. Cuisine is a typical one. Sushi and Indian food are popular now everywhere in the West. From Japan, we also have martial arts, some great films and a realisation of the potential of new art forms and new landscaping. Japanese honing of manufacturing techniques can also enrich us.

    IMHO, American style assimilation would be a good model for NZ. Children of Asian Americans and Latin Americans are as patriotic as everybody else, but expect no special treatment because of ethnic origin. These days it seems thousands of the first wave serve in the American military as a step to gaining entry and citizenship, and military service is an effective way of assimilating people into a culture.

    Over all, however, the point remains that the huge ethnic change occurring in NZ has been introduced without public debate or discussion. In fact multiculturalists try to shame the public into apathetic silence by raising the cry of “racism” when the issue is raised. Or, as by Johnboy above, and by the dairy industry, shouting “young New Zealanders don’t want to work” whenever attention is drawn to youth unemployment while migrants are imported for semi-skilled work such as taxi driving.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. hj (6,922 comments) says:

    When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible.

    It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants – from anywhere – as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties.

    Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly ‘vibrant communities’.

    If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.

    Revolutionary students didn’t come from such ‘vibrant’ areas (we came, as far as I could tell, mostly from Surrey and the nicer parts of London).

    We might live in ‘vibrant’ places for a few (usually squalid) years, amid unmown lawns and overflowing dustbins.

    But we did so as irresponsible, childless transients – not as homeowners, or as parents of school-age children, or as old people hoping for a bit of serenity at the ends of their lives.

    When we graduated and began to earn serious money, we generally headed for expensive London enclaves and became extremely choosy about where our children went to school, a choice we happily denied the urban poor, the ones we sneered at as ‘racists’.

    What did we know, or care, of the great silent revolution which even then was beginning to transform the lives of the British poor?

    To us, it meant patriotism and tradition could always be derided as ‘racist’.

    And it also meant cheap servants for the rich new middle-class, for the first time since 1939, as well as cheap restaurants and – later on – cheap builders and plumbers working off the books.

    It wasn’t our wages that were depressed, or our work that was priced out of the market. Immigrants didn’t do the sort of jobs we did.

    http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/04/how-i-am-partly-to-blame-for-mass-immigration.html

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. hj (6,922 comments) says:

    ***Our embrace of ethnic diversity confirms that we are essentially a liberal, tolerant and easy-going society.***

    Contemporary Issues

    The politicization of immigration in New Zealand has contributed to a growing public ambivalence about immigration and its contribution to the development of New Zealand’s society and economy. Briefing papers prepared for the recently re-elected Labor government signal a number of concerns about current levels of immigration in general and the impact of immigration on Auckland’s society and economy in particular. Minister of Immigration Lianne Dalziel has indicated that several aspects of the current policy, in addition to the level of English required by prospective residents, will be reviewed over the next few months.

    Notwithstanding this ambivalence, there seems to be clear recognition and acceptance that New Zealand society is going to become more diverse in terms of ethnic and cultural groups over the next 20 years. Immigration will play a major part in this diversification of communities, especially immigration from countries in Asia. Fortunately, there seems to be a broad consensus among the main political parties as well as many of the minor ones that this is not something to be feared or resisted at all costs. In this regard, there appears to be some consensus of party view (excluding the position adopted by New Zealand First) that continued immigration at or above present levels will produce positive outcomes for the country’s economy and society.

    In part this approach to immigration policy reflects the long-standing culture of international migration into and out of New Zealand. It also reflects increasing recognition by policy makers that the root causes of immigration lie largely beyond their reach in the forces of the global economy. Likewise, the protection of human rights constrains the ability of the New Zealand government to respond to the racial and ethnic concerns of voters and to impose harshly restrictive measures on immigrants or their dependents. What is perhaps significant about the current discourse is a genuine concern among some politicians, journalists, and academics to ensure that the public is better informed about international migration in New Zealand before the immigration debate becomes dominated by a destructive, xenophobic rhetoric.

    http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=86

    There is consensus amongst the political parties with the exception of NZ First. Winston Peters talked of the possibility of a “tsunami of migrants”; Mary Wilson asked: “should we even be reporting him”? etc ect. A fair discusion was never allowed it has always been : “good people this side; xenophobic, economically illiterate racist rabble on that”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. hj (6,922 comments) says:

    He is saying that the media overides a community and can create it’s own reality.
    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
    ………………….
    In the context of the rest of Spoonleys writings :”the politicisation of immigration” (the making of a non problem a problem), I think Spoonley is talking Joseph Goebells.

    After 1997, and certainly since 2000, opinion and feature writers
    adopted a very different approach, prompted in part by a major downturn in Asian
    immigration and a greater appreciation of at least the economic benefits of
    immigration but also as a result of a growing awareness amongst journalists that
    they had a role to play in explaining (positively) the complex issues of immigration.

    There was a realisation, from both managers and the journalists concerned, that these
    new migrants were an increasingly significant audience in their own right, underlined
    by the decline in print sales and revenue. There were some exceptions in terms of a
    small number of columnists in particular and of news reporting generally.

    Reporting Superdiversity. The
    Mass Media and Immigration
    in New Zealand
    Paul Spoonley & Andrew Butcher

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. EAD (1,001 comments) says:

    Why is that ALL White Christian Western countries are undergoing exactly the same transformation? If you are after a template, refer to the Frankfurt schools 11 point plan to implement marxism by destroying from within:

    1. The creation of racism offences.
    2. Continual change to create confusion
    3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
    4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
    5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
    6. The promotion of excessive drinking
    7. Emptying of churches
    8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
    9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
    10. Control and dumbing down of media
    11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

    Timothy Matthews:
    “Western civilization at the present day is passing through a crisis which is essentially different from anything that has been previously experienced. Other societies in the past have changed their social institutions or their religious beliefs under the influence of external forces or the slow development of internal growth. But none, like our own, has ever consciously faced the prospect of a fundamental alteration of the beliefs and institutions on which the whole fabric of social life rests … Civilization is being uprooted from its foundations in nature and tradition and is being reconstituted in a new organisation which is as artificial and mechanical as a modern factory”

    J Edgar Hoover:
    “The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    As described in Skousen’s The Naked Communist published as long ago as 1958 they aim to:

    •weaken the traditional family,
    •attack the authority of the father while promoting the importance of the mother,
    •lead schools to present sex outside marriage and homosexuality to young children as ‘normal, natural and healthy,’
    •undermine the moral authority of traditional schools and teachers,
    •promote excessive drinking,
    •infiltrate and empty the churches,
    •infiltrate political parties,
    •replace revealed religion with ‘social’ religion,
    •promote an unreliable legal system with bias towards the offender,
    •gain control of and dumb down the media and state education,
    •promote continual change,
    •encourage mass immigration to destroy national identity,
    •encourage dependency on state benefits

    http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2012/11/13/the-wests-self-destruction-and-the-frankfurt-school/

    It’s based on the Protocols of Zion, and is the basis of a right wing conspiracy theory popular amongst white race Christians about Jews who are atheist communists and atheist communists who are Jews. Those not of the Christian civilisation being seen as a threat to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Re SPC (1.05am):

    We’re trying to have a discussion about multiculturalism, and SPC brings in the ludicrous but nasty Protocols of Zion, concocted by the Tsarist police in pre-Communist Russia to foment hatred of Jews and create support for the vicious pogroms of a century ago. Nowadays, the Protocols of Zion are mainly quoted by those who want to foment hatred of Israel. They are obvious lies to anyone with a modicum of education and an IQ above 90.

    I suspect SPC is an agent provocateur of the Left’s multiculturists. If this is correct, SPC is a Leftist multiculturist presenting himself as someone favouring discussion of migration policy, and then making rabid and ridiculous statements in an attempt to discredit multiculturists’ opposition. Such devious agitprop has long been a tactic used by the far Left.

    This would parallel the main weapon of multiculturists – silence opposition with loud accusations of “racist!”. If that doesn’t work purport to represent the opposition and discredit it with ridiculous and extreme statements and that way intimidate opposition into silence.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    Jack 5, I was replying to EAD, he raised the issue of multiculturalism being a conspiracy against white Christian nations.

    Or are such ludicrous claims supposed to remain without contention in a discussion on “multiculturalism”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    The Tsarist police invented the POZ to present the left as part of an UnChristian threat/conspiracy of a foreign people.

    The Frankfurt school meme is a direct replay (here left wing and Jewish academia – intellectuals migrating into the USA after persecution in Europe). Which is why someone like Hoover believed it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    SPC, why did you bring in the Protocols of Zion?

    Of course there are white supremacists and nutters, but it does seem to me that multiculturalists in general would rather shut down debate than talk about the ethnic change which is occurring in NZ without any prior agreement of existing citizens or any current public debate.

    It maybe that diversity is the better course for New Zealand, but I for one don’t accept that the multiculturalists’ arguments, built on the precepts of loons like Kymlicka establish that, and I’m suspicious of the multiculturalists strong alignment with the Left and apparent disdain for existing Western culture.

    I’m also disappointed in the MSM’s unquestioning, one-sided support of the ethnic changes.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    Er, because the Frankfurt school meme is a straight replay of the POZ conspiracy theory.

    I would have thought that those questioning multiculturalism and or immigration would not want to be aligned to white race culture supremacism – essentially the conspiracy theory meme is from either the white race and or Christian society paranoid about an external threat.

    But I suppose, if one sees a link between multiculturalism and the left and a connection to disdain for western culture as you do, then one might welcome the fellow travellers as allies against multiculturalism and see their arguments being challenged as an inconvenience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    The irony as per multiculturalism is that the driver of it is not a group of academics from Europe to the USA.

    It is ethnic diversity that flows from

    1. global worker migration (USA Green Card and foreigners in their universities)
    2. labour market zones (EU).
    3. Commonwealth/empire (UK and France).
    4. taking in refugees.

    As for ourselves, the economic opportunities for Kiwis to participate in the global market, maybe just Oz, are reciprocated in others finding better economic opportunities here. The outflow necessitates the inflow.

    Frankly one cannot maintain a monoculture and take in economic migrants and refugees from around the wider world. The issue is either a race based immigration policy (and refuse to take in ethnic refugees) or an end to that monoculture.

    In the end the debate turns around what form of multiculturalism and the immigration policy settings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    SPC, in a somewhat narcissistic Leftist interpretation you state in your 8.07 post:

    The Tsarist police invented the POZ to present the left as part of an UnChristian threat/conspiracy of a foreign people.

    In fact, many on the Russian Left hated Jews. Take the Leftist organisation, People’s Will, which assassinated Tsar Alexander II. Here is what historian J.N.Westwood says (in part) of the People’s Will:

    At times it sank to anti-Semitism, welcoming the pogroms as a form of popular rebellion and condemning those few police forces which intervened against ‘the people’ to protect the Jews.

    And in your 8.27 post you resume your smear of linking those who question multiculturalism with extreme racists. You talk of “fellow travellers” and state:

    I would have thought that those questioning multiculturalism and or immigration would not want to be aligned to white race culture supremacism.

    Yet again, multiculturists try to intimidate into silence anyone who disagrees with their Leftist crusade.

    As for your use of “meme”, I unashamedly had to go on the internet to find out what you were talking about. It looks a bit like Leftist mental fog to me, SPC. For others interested in what you are on about, here is the Wikipedia definition:

    A meme (/ˈmiːm/; meem)  is “an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture.

     A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    SPC in your 8.57 post you say:

    The issue is either a race based immigration policy (and refuse to take in ethnic refugees) or an end to that monoculture.

    So you don’t accept the possibility of assimilation into the existing culture.

    AND SPC adds:

    In the end the debate turns around what form of multiculturalism and the immigration policy settings.

    So you don’t accept there is any other possibility of any other outcome but multiculturalism.

    No use debating with you SPC, your Leftist mind is closed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Paulus (2,608 comments) says:

    Thank goodness for our Ethnic diversity – where would we be without our excellent Indian and Chinese restaurants and takeaways.
    Would love to find a good Spanish or Italian outside Auckland.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. EAD (1,001 comments) says:

    @ SPC – why are you bringing up conspiracy theories & Jews? Are you trying to discredit an argument by attacking a strawman?

    Multiculturalism is a powerful tool for the Extreme Left as it one of the ultimate forms of collectivism.

    It attempts to replace individual rights with collectivism by assuming that a man’s identity and value are derived solely from biology, and that what is important is not what a person does as an individual, but rather what some members of his biological group currently do or did years ago. As such, it creates the ultimate power vacuum for Big Government as it assumes that peoples rights are given them to them by the State, rather than given natural right as a free born individual.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    Jack5, how is it narcissistic (and leftist) to pose a motive to the Tsarist police linking a people not Christian with a conspiracy against the same government?

    Of course the left in Tsarist Russia was not necessarily any less anti-Semitic than the rest of the society, but that has nothing to do with the motive of the Tsarist police which was to infer a connection to the left to discredit political opposition to the government. It is the traditional to appeal to nationalism by portraying a threat from a foreign people. This is why Russia has in recent times sought to block foreign funding to local charity groups, so they cannot be independent from government pressure.

    It is interesting that, when asked why you question any challenge to the EAD line of the white Christian nation under threat from some conspiracy, you claim this is some intimidation.

    Is it threatening to yourself to question whether the white race nation is really under attack by the “Frankfurt school” conspiracy and its “leftist crusade”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    Jack5, I appreciate that you would prefer continuance of monoculture via assimilation. But that leads to the issue of taking in those that would best assimilate – by race and religion etc.

    This is why I wrote – the issue is either a race based immigration policy (and refuse to take in ethnic refugees) or an end to that monoculture.

    “So you don’t accept there is any other possibility of any other outcome but multiculturalism”.

    Given the horse has already bolted, no.

    But what I wrote still applies – the debate is about what form of multiculturalism and the immigration policy settings.

    “No use debating with you SPC, your Leftist mind is closed.”

    Given your lack of awareness of variant forms of multiculturalism, and your choice of fellow travellers on this issue, there is no point debating this with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    SPC in his 9.28 post continues with his assertion that the Russian pogroms were aimed at discrediting the Left.

    SPC, you see the world through red glasses.

    There was a strong Orthodox Christian element in the pogroms. They typically took part as part of Christian Easter celebrations. What has that to do with discrediting the Left?

    Your views and arguments are further confirmation of the strong links between the Left and multiculturalism.

    I am open to whether diversity is good for NZ. You are closed to the possibility that it is not.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    SPC, in your final sign off on this topic at 9.37, you talk of my “choice of fellow travellers on this issue”.

    Guilt by association, eh. You would have been a good man in the NKVD.

    That’s just another example of trying to bludgeon into silence anyone who questions multiculturalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    EAD, what was the 12.39pm post again?

    “Why is that ALL White Christian Western countries are undergoing exactly the same transformation? If you are after a template, refer to the Frankfurt schools 11 point plan to implement marxism by destroying from within”

    And you wonder why the term conspiracy theory comes up afterwards.

    “Multiculturalism is a powerful tool for the Extreme Left as it one of the ultimate forms of collectivism.”
    Religion is a powerful tool for the Extreme Right as it one of the ultimate forms of collectivism.

    “It attempts to replace individual rights with collectivism by assuming that a man’s identity and value are derived solely from biology,”
    It attempts to replace individual rights with collectivism by assuming that a man’s identity and value are derived solely from their religious group faith identity.

    “and that what is important is not what a person does as an individual, but rather what some members of his biological group currently do or did years ago.”
    and that what is important is not what a person does as an individual, but rather what some members of his religious group currently do or did years ago.

    “As such, it creates the ultimate power vacuum for Big Government as it assumes that peoples rights are given them to them by the State, rather than given natural right as a free born individual”
    As such, it creates the ultimate power vacuum for Big Government as it assumes that peoples rights are given them to them by the State, rather than given natural right as a free born individual

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    Jack5, are you just playing dumb, so you can parrot the same attack lines?

    Why conflate the attempt of the Tsarist regime to associate opposition to the regime with a foreign people, to undermine the nationalist credentials of the “leftist” opposition, with the actual pogram run by the regimes allies in the nationalist church?

    I suppose it is because you want to pose multiculturalism as left wing and appeal to the nationalist right to oppose it. Looking to broaden the range of fellow travellers from the white Christian nation adherents opposed to immigration and longing for the days of monocultural society – when men were individuals supported in our once grand welfare state.

    The modern right has moved on, to the global market and performance reward meritocracy, of whatever race or creed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. EAD (1,001 comments) says:

    SPC – I try and maintain a degree of respect in online forums but you my friend are a tool.

    You are so hopelessly lost in the false left/right paradigm and you can’t see the wood for the trees.

    Why are you associating religion with individual responsibility, free markets, co-operation rather than coercion, freedom & liberty with being of the “right”. I believe in the power of all the above passionately so I guess that makes me “far right”.

    You are one of those people that believe Hitler, the National SOCIALIST was of the right. The Nazi totalitarian state that educated, fed, provided medical treatment, controlled the media and FORCED people to act according to their worldview is to you the ultimate example of Liberty & Freedom in the world.

    You are COGNITIVE DISSONANCE writ large

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    EAD, I see you do not post here much, but have already established lines for use in debate, presumably because you debate the same topics on a range of online forums.

    I fail to see how I could be a tool, if you think I am “cognitive dissonance”.

    I note that you straddle the right, on the one hand the white Christian nations under threat conspiracy theory line to a celebration of individualism, liberty and freedom, to appeal to the wider spectrum of the right. The right of course includes both the concept of defending the conservative tradition and the negation of popular democratic governance including redistributive mechanisms and public service delivery “socialism”.

    It is I suppose an embarrassment to the nationalist right of the white race Christian nations, that industrialised nation pogram of the Nazi regime, and I appreciate why it would be important to you to declare them socialist to purify the monoculture brand as it were.

    Especially after raising the spectre of Jewish intellectuals being a threat to western Christendom with their multiculturalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    @RightandLeft – “As an immigrant this idea horrifies me. Immigrant groups definitely need to be encouraged to integrate.”

    Agreed. As the old saying says – “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. hj (6,922 comments) says:

    SPC (3,683 comments) says:
    December 14th, 2013 at 7:58 am

    Jack 5, I was replying to EAD, he raised the issue of multiculturalism being a conspiracy against white Christian nations.

    Or are such ludicrous claims supposed to remain without contention in a discussion on “multiculturalism”?
    ………………………………………………………

    December 5th, 2013 at 9:54 pm
    DEFINING IDENTITY AND CREATING CITIZENS :
    THE MEDIA AND IMMIGRANTS IN NEW ZEALAND
    THE MEDIA AND IMMIGRANTS

    The literature concerning minorities and the media, both indigenous and ethnic
    communities, is considerable (eg Spoonley and Hirsh, 1990; Cottle, 2000; Twitchin,
    1988). But there is a much smaller literature which deals specifically with immigrants
    and the media (Barker, 1999; Wood and King, 2001), especially in a New Zealand
    context. However, there is some interesting material, from New Zealand and elsewhere,
    which examines the values of the media, both as particular occupational groups (eg
    journalists, producers, editors), and as media organisations (see Mahtani, 2001; Abel,
    1997; McGregor and Comrie, 2002; Barker, 1999; Jakubowicz, 1994).
    Van Dijk (1993) has been influential, both in terms of the use of a particular methodology
    (content analysis) and the advocacy of a particular approach to the media’s role in
    influencing intergroup relations and imagery. In his use of content analysis, he has been
    concerned with both surface representation and underlying meanings (Mahtani,
    2001:109). For him, the media have constructed and reproduced racism (Van Dijk, 1993:
    279):

    Discourse and the denial of racism
    Teun A. van Dijk
    UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM

    The guiding idea behind this research is that ethnic and racial prejudices are prominently acquired and shared within the white dominant group through everyday conversation and institutional text and talk.
    ….
    It is further assumed in this research programme that talk and text about
    minorities, immigrants, refugees or, more generally, about people of col- our or Third World peoples and nations, also have broader societal, politi- cal and cultural functions. Besides positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation, such discourse signals group membership, white ingroup allegiances and, more generally, the various conditions for the reproduction of the white group and their dominance in virtually all social, political and cultural domains.

    It seems to be more about power of a (white) dominant group; needs to be fixed?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. hj (6,922 comments) says:

    ***Our embrace of ethnic diversity confirms that we are essentially a liberal, tolerant and easy-going society.***
    …………………………
    only if there was a counter to the mob

    “After 1997, and certainly since 2000, opinion and feature writers
    adopted a very different approach, prompted in part by a major downturn in Asian
    immigration and a greater appreciation of at least the economic benefits of
    immigration but also as a result of a growing awareness amongst journalists that
    they had a role to play in explaining (positively) the complex issues of immigration.”
    ……….
    what about the complex arguments against immigration economic, environmental and from a point of view of societies patina and an evolutionary psychologist perspective.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    SPC, you’ve introduced into this thread the Protocols of Zion and the Frankfurt School (of neo-Marxists).

    However the nub of what you are saying seems to be:

    In the end the debate turns around what form of multiculturalism and the immigration policy settings.

    That is, multiculturalism must be accepted, and the only debate possible around it is what sort of multiculturalism.

    You wouldn’t allow us to bring in the findings of Putnam on community trust, or allow us to seek and weigh the views of Maori on how multiculturalism affects them. You wouldn’t let us throw in this quote from former Colorado Governor (and writer) Dick Lamm:

    Diverse peoples worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent.

    I note, SPC, that poster EAD calls you a tool. I wouldn’t go quite that far. I haven’t seen any evidence you’re as useful as that.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Bob R (1,363 comments) says:

    ***A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent.***

    Apparently it is second only to lack of democracy in predicting civil war :)

    “The loss of social cohesion bears emphasis. Disapproving of birds flocking together is beside the point; it is a biological fact that needs to be taken into account.[iv] Rising diversity within human societies tends to drive people apart, causing them to take sanctuary in individual pursuits and ethnic communities. The practical consequences are reduced public altruism or social capital, evident in falling volunteerism, government welfare for the aged and sick, public health care[v]and a general loss of trust.[vi] Ethnic diversity is second only to lack of democracy in predicting civil war.[vii] Globally it correlates negatively with governmental efficiency and prosperity.[viii]

    Thus the thrust of accumulating research in several disciplines indicates that unrestricted mass immigration would be disastrous for wealthy countries. Some of this research has been well publicised; some has been published in Australia.”

    http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2010/06/the-misguided-advocates-of-open-borders/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Bob R (1,363 comments) says:

    Canada provides another example of this bizarre double standard of minority groups seeking group rights, while denying them for the majority. Professor Ricardo Duchesne writes:

    “But multiculturalism contains a negation within its very essence. It protects the group rights of non-Western peoples while simultaneously denying the host (Western) nation any group rights of its own.

    The host nation is seen as a neutral site characterized solely by its provision of individual rights, which apply to everyone, and its provision of group rights, which apply only to non-whites.

    The founding Anglo-French culture of Canada is indeed expected to suppress its own particularities in order to accommodate the particularities of ‘minorities’. The founders are mandated to be ethnically neutral, historically disinterested, and behave as if they were a people representing certain deracinated values that belong to ‘humanity.’

    While multicultural ideologues implicitly recognize that minorities have deep attachments to their ethnic backgrounds, and, in this vein, recognize that humans do have a natural attachment to their own heritage and ethnicity; they call upon whites to practice historical amnesia and pretend they were not the creators of Canada’s institutions, parliamentary traditions, and common law. The historical fact that Canada was built as a nation state around a founding ethnic core must be discarded and hidden from students.”

    http://www.unb.ca/saintjohn/arts/_resources/pdf/vancouverfrombritishtochinese.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    Jack5, no the earlier post by EAD introduced the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory popular on the right. I simply said that it was a replay of the Protocols of Zion meme to protect an established cultural order/regime. Your need to repeatedly misrepresent that says a lot about your lack of perspective on this issue.

    The debate now is about what form of multiculturalism and the immigration policy settings.

    Why, we are in a global market environment where there is free trade in goods, services and investment and nations have a demand for skilled migrant workers and take in refugees.

    As for indigenous peoples, their concern would be the immigration rate not the profile of the migrant. And Maori don’t support you on assimilation, they seek a natural right for their cultural continuance. Their aspiration would be bi-cultural nationhood, whether the wider culture was mono-cultural or multicultural would be irrelevant to that.

    As for community trust, this refers to more than just cultural profile (and here the issue is peoples of being part of the same society equally) but also to there being an economic community whereby people feel included. This speaks to inequality being an issue undermining community trust.

    “Diverse peoples worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent.”

    Are you referring to inter-state nationalism (being diminished by globalisation) or to the historic means of migration, conquest not within rules established by the host nation?

    How is this relevant to the current era? There is no historic precedent apart from periods of imperial peace where there was migration for economic opportunity – but these were confined to regions of the world little of no more scale than the modern EU or the ASEAN group of nations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    BobR, who practices unrestricted mass immigration? The only nation in history has probably been the USA but that came to an end in the early 20th C when they set caps on numbers. And that did not stop the migration across the southern border. Has this caused civil war in the USA and could it?

    The community of trust problem has always been when an immigrant group/ethnic identity becomes associated with inter-generational underclass or a more successful economic elite.

    The basis premise behind acceptance of immigration is

    1. that there are economic benefits in taking in skilled workers or more general migrant labour in areas of domestic shortages.
    2. taking in refugees is a responsibility in a global village
    3. multiculturalism enables greater understanding of foreign cultures and benefits our trade with them.
    4. an appreciation of foreign cultures developed by tourism or by services provided by migrants.
    5. despite multiculturalism providing an ethnic community support network for recent arrivals, those born here will seek to integrate of their own accord.

    Note most so called non western nations now have western community networks in place for skilled workers.

    As for the notion that public welfare for the aged or sick derives from multiculturalism, rather than being left to the volunteerism of a mono-cultural society, that is completely wrong – it was our strong egalitarian principles developed in a very mono-cultural society that determined that.

    As for the decline of volunteerism, is this not more a consequence of the economic pressure for two incomes and the professionalisation of services (requiring qualifications etc)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    SPC posted at 7.39:

    The debate now is about what form of multiculturalism and the immigration policy settings.

    There you go again, SPC. You declare multiculturalism is the the only choice and the debate now can only be about what form it and immigration take. Why are you wasting everyone’s time, then, when we want to debate whether multiculturalism is the optimum path for NZ?

    Your argument: It is, therefore I say this is the way it must be and the only way it can be.

    You have taken a typical totalitarian Leftist approach, no matter how you camouflage it with “nations have a demand for skilled migrant workers and take in refugees.”

    Tell us, SPC, where, for example, the hundreds of migrant taxi drivers at Auckland Airport fit into the “demand for skilled migrants”. Nor do they appear to be refugees. And New Zealand unemployed can’t drive?

    Nor do I understand what you mean by:

    …taking in refugees is a responsibility in a global village

    What global village? And just who is it that says it is a responsibility? Lord SPC?

    As for your:

    ..The community of trust problem has always been when an immigrant group/ethnic identity becomes associated with inter-generational underclass or a more successful economic elite.

    You don’t seem to have a grasp of what Putnam, of Bowling Alone fame was on about when he talked about how he found a decline of community trust as diversity increased. Actually, as I recall, he didn’t say or imply this was inevitable, but suggested new ways might be needed to build it.

    However, you waste our time and our bandwidth discussing multiculturalism when you believe and repeatedly argue the issue is closed: that is, multiculturalism is a done deal, and the only question to debate is what type of multculturalism we must accept. Government by SPC diktat.

    By the way, SPC, you never convincingly explained why you brought into this thread the vile and discredited Protocols of Zion. It has stained your typing fingers.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    Jack5, the thread topic was not multiculturalism.

    It was an article by a columnist in the Dom Post. His concern was that democracy should out over special privileges for separate groups. He did not mention multiculturalism in the column but was wary of the special status given to Maori being seen as a vehicle for claims by other groups. In fact his line is consistent with his opinion about special standing for women as in quotas etc. His stated embrace of ethnic diversity demonstrates that he has no problem with the democracy being multicultural, provided it first remained democratic.

    Those just declaring reasons they are opposed to multiculturalism, are not posing any alternatives. Or how they could be developed in a global market where nations compete for skilled workers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    As for your fixation over my comparison between a conspiracy theory promulgated by a dictatorship in Russia and the conspiracy theory peddled by EAD about the Frankfurt school, and the resort to a form of transference – best means of defence is to attack, it is based on your own embarrassment over your belief in the Frankfurt school conspiracy theory.

    EAD demonstrated a similar embarrassment when trying to suggest that the racist monoculture nationalist regime in Germany be seen as socialist so that those on the right championing small government and posing resistance to multiculturalism do not have to bear any comparison to that form of racist nationalist monoculture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Again, SPC (10.04), you try to shut down debate about multiculturalism. You would have made an effective newspaper censor in World War 2.

    In the very first paragraph of this thread du Fresne is quoted:

    …New Zealand has quietly undergone a profound demographic revolution. From being one of the world’s most homogeneous societies, it has become one of the most diverse.

    And you, SPC, imply multiculturalism isn’t relevant to this thread!

    What du Fresne didn’t mention was Protocols of Zion, and to your shame you introduced that.

    As for alternatives to multilculturalism, the alternative is no multiculturalism.

    You are wrong when you imply that there can be no flow of population, no migration, without multiculturalism. We have had immigration in NZ of groups including the Dutch, Dalmatians, Cook Islanders, and earlier, Chinese and Indians, all without a doctrine of multiculturalism.

    I notice in your latest post you use the word “racist”, the traditional shut-the-debate-down card of multiculturalists.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    A pertinent issue when discussing this matter is in distinguishing between a multi-ethnic monoculture (as if those of identifiable ethnic groups assimilate into the culture of the largest or majority group) and a multicultural democratic society.

    The former, if a Christian culture, could have problems with religious difference such as with Jews, Moslems, Hindus and Buddhists. The latter a secular democratic society, could accept religious minorities more easily.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    Jack5, you demonstrate your paranoia over the word racist being used (you are surely not denying that the word racist is appropriate to describe that nationalism in Germany).

    The resort to all sorts of invective about the left, when the greatest force for multicultural society is economic globalisation, shows that a retarded conservative mental laager mind-set is activated when this is debated.

    I suspect that the real issue is that globalisation results in growing inequality and some threat to the local working class that can be turned into a white cultural nationalism card – similar to the societal pressures in 1930 Germany that led to the rise of a racist nationalist party to power. And, the no Maori seat brown skinned white Kiwi assimilation, not iwi, was just the embryonic form of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    SPC, if I understand the sociology-speak in your 10.39 post, you imply that Christian pre-multiculturalist societies such as NZ’s ( a “multi-ethnic monoculture”) would have “problems with difference” with minorities such as with Jews (etc).

    In fact, my relatives tell me that little Invercargill has elected two Jewish mayors from a Jewish population of 20 people or fewer in a total population of 30,000 to 45,000.

    Now with multiculturalism foisted on us, I suspect Southland’s Muslim minority and growing secularism in place of the region’s previous Presbyterianism, would make it very much harder for a Jew to be elected Mayor – perhaps even impossible.

    To round off this debate, SPC, I think it would be generous of you to bow out by apologising for introducing the vile Protocols of Zion to this thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    Jack5, New Zealand is and has been first and foremost a democratic society, not a Christian culture nation. There was never a religious culture to our political society, even when a majority would say they were Christians on their census forms selecting non Christians to office was never an issue.

    And I doubt that the election of a Jew is made more difficult by the population being less Christian in a more secular society – our current PM had a Jewish mother (and that defines him as a Jew in the Jewish tradition).

    As to the Protocols of Zion matter. I wrote that in reply to EAD’s post about the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory and a threat to white Christian nations.

    “It’s based on the Protocols of Zion, and is the basis of a right wing conspiracy theory popular amongst white race Christians about Jews who are atheist communists and atheist communists who are Jews. Those not of the Christian civilisation being seen as a threat to it.”

    I stand by what I wrote, the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory is just the Western Christendom version of the Tsarist regime’s Protocols of Zion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. hj (6,922 comments) says:

    SPC

    The basis premise behind acceptance of immigration is

    1. that there are economic benefits in taking in skilled workers or more general migrant labour in areas of domestic shortages.

    real estate and building are domestically bound and do not have the
    market potential of export industries. They also have less opportunity to increase productivity
    through new processes and products. The irony is, as these sectors grow, they have incurred
    skills shortages which in turn has increased demand for skilled immigrants. The Department
    of Statistics ‘Long Term Skill Shortage List’ of 28/3/2006 includes carpenter/joiner, plumber,
    electricians, fitter and turners, fitter welders; all indicative of a nation building its
    construction/property sector.

    There is a danger that a sector of the economy is being augmented that is totally reliant on a
    small domestic economy. Not only do these industries have limited potential for per-capita
    growth but ‘deriving growth via factor inputs such as labour places pressure on infrastructure
    such as transport and land supply, and ultimately have a further negative impact on growth
    (ARC 2005). Finally, as the sector gets larger, it gains in lobbying/political strength and can
    lobby for immigration regardless if it is the best interests of the economy as a whole. This
    could be seen in Canada where the development industry has lobbied hard for high sustained
    immigration levels (Ley and Tutchener 2001).

    Canadian Green party supports more immigration.

    2. taking in refugees is a responsibility in a global village

    If a family has 15 kids is it the responsibility of a family with two to take some of them in? The left don’t do over population.

    3. multiculturalism enables greater understanding of foreign cultures and benefits our trade with them.

    So does travel and watching Discovery. It doesn’t justify high levels of migration. When Japan industrialised they sent 19 of their best and brightest to study in Britain. They didn’t require mass migration to learn.

    4. an appreciation of foreign cultures developed by tourism or by services provided by migrants.

    You attempt the same point as above?

    5. despite multiculturalism providing an ethnic community support network for recent arrivals, those born here will seek to integrate of their own accord.

    ..
    but about 30% don’t.
    Parents arrive at 55 and after 10 years are on super.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. hj (6,922 comments) says:

    @SPC

    4.Selecting Voluntary Migrants

    Although ‘national interest’ can mean different things to different people, the definition that has informed our national immigration policy for many years is that we should accept people who will bring skills, capital, or other desirable attributes with them.
    …………………………….
    Since when did the Green’s accept a policy because it had ” informed our ……. policy for many years”?
    https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/immigration

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    SPC – still no apology. No surprise there.

    SPC, your intention in bringing in Protocols of Zion was to discredit and smear any who question multilculturalism. You want any questioners to be seen as a irrelevant conspiracy theorists who should shut down and not ask questions – like everyone-else.

    EAD’s reference was weird (in my view) but in no way sinister. Your jump to the appalling Protocols of Zion was nasty, even a bit sinister. You want to link anyone who questions multiculturalism to the Tsarist brutes of the pogroms. How nasty, SPC.

    I look forward to your further posts in the run-up to the election. In the meantime swat up on the Canadian multiculturalist nut case Kymlicka. You may be able to help him as he spreads his doctrine of multiculturalism to animal rights. You can battle for open entry to the country for crocodiles and snakes. SPC, I can hear imagine you concluding, “anyone who opposes introduction of snakes is a conspiracy theorist”.

    And don’t swallow too many memes on Christmas Day. Whoops! That’s a Western Christmas festival. I mean whatever international festival you choose to replace it with. Whatever, keep up your multiculturalist meme-ntum.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.