Kiwiblog

Not afraid of ruins blogs:

Last Saturday I went to the protest against asset sales organized by Aotearoa Not For Sale. I was marching with my friend Maia, discussing the latest episode of The Good Wife in between chants of ‘hey hey ho ho/John Key has got to go’.

Halfway up Willis St we overheard a guy behind us talking: ‘This is all because John Key is a money-hungry Jew.’ Maia immediately turned around and told him that he was being anti-Semitic and that it wasn’t ok (she’s great like that). The guy explained that she didn’t understand the historical context, that ‘they took over this country with their money’, before finally giving up and telling her ‘you must be Jewish’ (incidentally, she isn’t. Not that it’s relevant’).

By that point I’d already walked away. I was in no mood to hear about how I control the world’s money and am personally responsible for the economic recession.

This wasn’t the first time that anti-Jewish racism has cropped up at Aotearoa Not For Sale events. Last year a guy named Nathan Symington joined an anti-asset sales march in Auckland holding a skateboard with swastikas chalked on it. The same man was later charged with the racist vandalism of the Symonds St Jewish cemetery.

Now you can’t control who turns up to a protest march, but a good point is made by the author:

There were similar instances of anti-Jewish racism at Occupy spaces in 2011, and on the facebook pages of several of the Occupy groups as well. …

Aotearoa Not For Sale organisers can’t be held personally responsible for the actions of every single person who attends one of their protests. But they do need to take responsibility for ensuring that racism isn’t tolerated—or worse, nurtured.

One way to do that is to stop the nationalist rhetoric. Campaigns against privatization have a nasty habit of appealing to populist nationalism, because it’s an easy way of galvanizing support. That slope is both slippery and dangerous. Its logical conclusion is in racism and xenophobia. It’s essential that arguments against the privatization of public assets are based on an ethic of economic and social justice, not nationalism.

We see an ever growing level of populist nationalistic rhetoric. It is, as the author says, a very easy way of galvanizing support.

This was pushed into various letterboxes in Auckland this weekend.

The resistance are part of the small fringe neo-nazi movement that Kyle Chapman and others are involved in.

But they do not exist in a vacuum. When politicians rail against Chinese immigration, rather than all immigration, they add fuel to the fire.

When politicians condemn a Chinese company buying a NZ farm, but remain silent over companies from other countries doing the same, they give solace to these people.

No one with an IQ over 50 really thinks there will be a Chinese armed invasion of New Zealand. But it must be sad and somewhat distressing for Chinese New Zealanders to have to put up with this crap.

The Herald reports:

Migrant groups aren’t convinced New Zealand is a racist country, despite a new poll indicating overwhelmingly that it is.

Actually it does no such thing.

Seventy-six per cent of responses gathered by TV3′s The Vote on Wednesday night agreed with the proposition that New Zealand was racist.

That is not a poll. It is a meaningless self-selected sample. The results are in no way representative of the NZ population. It is representative of people who wanted to see a debate on TV3 about if NZ is racist and felt strongly enough to vote on it in their online survey.

There is a place for reporting unscientific surveys such as blog and online polls. But they should never ever be treated as representing NZ public opinion – let alone the basis for an entire news story.

The Herald reports:

A white supremacist Christchurch group is planning to distribute anti-Chinese flyers around Auckland, a city council ethnic panel member says.

Chinese woman Bevan Chuang said she had received information that the Right Wing Resistance was planning to distribute leaflets in Titirangi, Manurewa and Onehunga attacking Chinese immigration.

“Safety is the most important thing, so please don’t confront the white power people with your bare hands,” Miss Chuang said in an email circulated to leading members of Auckland’s Chinese.

The Hong Kong-born panel member has also alerted the police Asian liaison officer to the matter.

Two years ago, the same group distributed “Stop the Asian Invasion” flyers in areas with high Asian population, such as Howick, Northcote and Pakuranga, sparking police concerns that the action would lead to racially motivated violence.

The far-right group also tried then to recruit non-Asian immigrants to join its campaign against the Chinese. …

Miss Chuang said she had been receiving “crazy neo-Nazi posts” on her Facebook page, attacking her ethnicity.

An unsolicited post received by Miss Chuang described Chinese people as “the cancer of New Zealand”, bringing mass pollution and “over-breeding”.

It added, “Go back there, we don’t want your rubbish communist politics in our free country”.

Another described Asian people as “fish faced” and said they moved to New Zealand only after poisoning the water and rivers at home.

“You … claim to be Kiwi when you are not born here, so you are not,” one post said.

“Tell your Asian mates they ain’t welcome, spread it around like Chinese whispers we don’t want you here.”

 I’m pretty sure that Miss Chuang’s politics are not communist!

Almost all the communists in New Zealand are Europeans, and are current or former Green Party MPs

If we didn’t have Chinese New Zealanders, we wouldn’t have hilarious shows such as Flat 3. There are six web-episodes, and its a pretty funny show about three young Kiwis.

Mathew Dearnaley at NZ Herald reports:

A senior Grey Power official has complained about the planned increase in immigrants in Auckland – prompting claims from his national president that his submission is racist.

Auckland zone director Bill Rayner wrote in a submission to Auckland Council that the community and lifestyle of the region’s older residents “is under serious threat from the rapid and huge changes in size and ethnic mix projections included in the Auckland Plan”.

His submission also calls on Auckland Council to hold a forum to make decisions about the Super City’s “optimum size and ethnicity”.

It is not at all racist to say the pace of immigration is too high. It is racist though to say we only want people from certain ethnicities.

One size should not fit all when it comes to hairdressing licence fees in a multi-cultural Auckland, says Grey Power regional director Bill Rayner.

Arguing against a standardised fee of $207 across the region, Mr Rayner has referred Auckland Council to the varied hair types .

“It is clear that in South Auckland with a large Pasifika population, [with] big people with good heads of hair, the hairdresser needs are quite different from Remuera where perms and pin curls are probably still a key feature of the hairdressers’ professional skill,” he wrote.

Members of the Asian population have very straight hair, and “due recognition should be given to the greater productivity that results from cutting thinning hair in areas of a high population of seniors”.

Oh dear. I think his comments speak for themselves.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

NZ First MPs are privately seething at Richard Prosser’s call for Muslims to be banned from Western airlines.

I’m not surprised.

There are some good people in NZ First. I’m no fan of Winston but some of his MPs are trying to be productive Representatives in Parliament. I’m sure they are cringing at the thought of having to explain to their friends and families how they are part of a party where an MP can refer to Muslims coming from Wogistan and calls on anyone who is “or looks like” a Muslim being banned from air travel if they are a young male.

The list MP went to ground yesterday after his remarks were widely publicised and provoked controversy. NZ First leader Winston Peters has refused to sack him and says he doesn’t have to apologise.

They should be equally angry at Winston. He has made it impossible for them to distance themselves from the views expressed, as not even the bare minimum of an apology has been given. They have no defence against people saying they are part of a party that effectively allows MPs to label some New Zealanders as wogs and that wogs shouldn’t be allowed on our planes.

A NZ First source said its MPs were furious and believed Mr Prosser “acted like a stupid idiot”.

Did no one in NZ First think to vet the column before publication. It is common in pretty much every party for columns to be go through the Leader’s Office in advance. You can’t allow an MP to claim they are a journalist and an MP, and what they write as a journalist is exempt.

And if I was in NZ First, I’d also be annoyed that the Leader knew about the column for three weeks and did nothing.

In a later interview he stood by his views and went on to say that an Israeli airline that bans Muslims is one of the world’s safest carriers.

Incidentally this is wrong. They do not ban Muslims. And having travelled to Israel let me tell you the security there is far more rigorous than merely losing a pocket knife as happened to Prosser. It took me over an hour to clear security – and you know I don’t “look like a Muslim” so the references to Israel are quite wrong.

“We are a mature party, we don’t go round telling people off. After a rational discussion he has changed his mind,” Mr Peters said. “. . . We can’t take it any further than that. He’s had a chance to reflect . . . he admits it was unbalanced.”

Rational?

The comments have gained some attention overseas, being well covered by Australian news organisations and turning up further afield in such publications as the Singapore-based Straits Times and Channel NewsAsia, Dubai-based Gulf News, and the UK edition of the Huffington Post.

I doubt there is another country on Earth where a legislator has actually seriously called for a travel ban on anyone who “looks likes a Muslim”, and is young and male.

UPDATE: The spin doctors have now got to Prosser and after saying he stands by what he wrote yesterday, he today said on Nine to Noon he regrets his choice of words (yet defends the use of the word wog!) and that he should have called for a debate on profiling, not a travel ban. There is a world of difference between what he wrote and what he now says he should have written.

He’s also trying to distract by saying my release of the story was part of a National strategy to cover up some (unidentified) other issue. Maybe he means the Papal abdication?

As I tweeted this morning, no one in National knew of my blog post before I made it. The only person who knew would be my flatmate after I showed him the article last night. You see, I only purchased a copy of Investigate on Monday afternoon, read the column with disbelief, and wrote my post that night timing it for 10 am Tuesday. So the conspiracy theory is just a desperate attempt to divert attention.

UPDATE 2: A very personal blog post from a Kiwi Muslim on what Prosser said.

I am a Bengali New Zealander. I am also a feminist, a bookworm, a foodie and a cinephile. Some days I have good taste in music and some days I have bad taste in music. I love the beach but hate getting sand everywhere. I speak several languages. I still get upset at the thought that Dumbledore dies. When I lived in Auckland, I thought of West Auckland as home. Now that I live in Wellington, I think of Auckland as home, and of Wellington as “my city,” whatever that means. I bake decent brownies (oh the irony).

Oh, yes, I am also a Muslim. …

Richard Prosser’s comments hurt because he’s saying I’m not a real New Zealander. I am an Other. I am suspect because I don’t, undoubtedly, look like his daughters. My little brother, now 20, studying a Bachelor of Commerce, with his terribly cheesy sense of humour and his kind, kind heart, who loves his sports and protein shakes but who I will partly always think of as that bossy toddler with chubby cheeks, is for no other reason than because Mr Prosser, from his position of power and privilege says so, not enough of a New Zealander. Because of only one thing, out of the many things that he is, because he is Muslim. Not enough of a New Zealander to deserve the minimum modicum of respect one would expect from an MP when talking about one of the citizens of this country, simply based on his faith, and, let’s be honest, the colour of his skin. Not enough of a New Zealander to get on his Western planes.

A very personal and moving post.

UPDATE3: The Radio NZ audio is embdedded below.

Stuff reports:

Peters said this afternoon Prosser had made a mistake.

A mistake? It was a column! He wrote it. He says he stands by what he said. How can you claim it is a mistake!

He said he knew about the article three weeks ago, and told Prosser it wasn’t acceptable to present only one side of the argument.

“I’ve told him he cannot have a view that doesn’t have the balance in the other side of the argument.”

You think the lack of balance was the issue Winston? Not calling people wogs and saying people who look like wogs shouldn’t be allowed on planes? The issue wasn’t balance. Columns are not meant to be balanced. They are meant though not to be racist.

Prosser wrote the column as a journalist, not as a NZ First MP, and the views expressed were not those of the party, Peters said.

Are you serious? He wrote it as a journalist, not as an MP? That’s your excuse for doing nothing.

He said a press statement was imminent from Prosser – but the MP had said he stood by his comments.

Barry Soper reported that Prosser had said he stands  by his comments.

Trade Negotiations Minister Tim Groser is technically Muslim (as he married a Muslim). If he was a bit younger, then according to Prosser he should be banned from flying on Western airlines.

Many interesting, outraged and humourous comments on Twitter under the Wogistan hashtag.

Jess Mutch from One News has tweeted:

David Shearer says Richard Prosser’s comments were “offensive and completely inappropriate” but wouldn’t say if he would stand him down.

I would have thought that was an easy call for a Labour leader. But I guess he doesn’t want to upset a future coalition with Winston.

The Herald reports:

NZ First leader Winston Peters says there is an ‘element of truth’ in the column and he has not asked Mr Prosser to apologise.

Incredible.

The PM has said:

Prime Minister John Key said Mr Prosser’s comments were “an example of the depth of thinking coming out of New Zealand First”.

“It’s an appalling thing to say. It was premeditated. It was written in an opinion piece. It’s clearly what New Zealand First think of other New Zealanders but it’s a bit buffoonish if you ask me.”

And others:

Asked whether the NZ First MP should have kept his comments to himself, Mr Harawira said: “It’s best that they’re actually expressed openly because when people hold views as extreme as that it’s best that we hear them.”

I agree. It’s good to know that at least one NZ First MP things wogs shouldn’t be allowed on planes.

Act Party leader John Banks said the comments were “crazy” and “bizarre”.

“What can you say? I believe in good in all people, all races, all people.”

Asked whether there was a place for such extreme views in Parliament, Mr Banks said: “That is going to be tested by this member.”

United Future leader Peter Dunne also criticised the remarks on Twitter.

“It all reveals an ugly racist seam lurks just below the skin of too many people here – very uncomfortable,” he wrote.

We often call things racist too often. But in this case it is hard not to conclude it is racism when he writes of Wogistan and banning from travel anyone who “looks Muslim”.

Imagine how stable a Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana Government would be!

UPDATE: Listen to Richard Prosser on radio here. Some quotes:

• it isn’t anything derogatory particularly
• I certainly think it is appropriate for me to be making those comments
• This is what we are here for – we are here to represent

Here to represent people who don’t like wogs.

New Zealand First MP Richard Prosser has a column in Investigate Magazine. In his latest column he refers to certain people as coming from “Wogistan” and also declares that no young male who is a Muslim, looks like a Muslim or is from a Muslim country should be able to fly on a Western airline.

It is worth realising that these are not comments made off the cuff in an interview. A New Zealand Member of Parliament sat down and wrote a column that refers to Wogistan and calls for basically dark-skinned people (how else do you interpret look like a Muslim) not to be allowed to fly.

36,000 New Zealanders are Muslims. A New Zealand MP has said they should be banned from flying or Air New Zealand if they are male and aged 19 to 35. I’m sorry, but that is appalling.

Now before anyone says this is just political correctness, and one should be able to talk about the fact almost all airline terrorism incidents have been done by young male Muslims – I agree.  I there there is an absolutely valid discussion to be held on issues such as the pros and cons of profiling, the costs of airline security, and the fact that so much terrorism is done in the name of Islam. In fact I have blogged on these issues several times.

But one can have that discussion without referring to Muslims implicitly as Wogs and without calling for Muslims to be banned from flying on Western airlines.

Some of the quotes from the article:

I will not stand by while their [his daughters'] rights and freedoms of other New Zealanders and Westerners, are denigrated by a sorry pack of misogynist troglodytes from Wogistan …

I mean seriously – effectively calling people wogs. I actually like Richard Prosser and agree with him on a few issues, but this column is seriously offensive.

If you are a young male, aged between say about 19 and about 35, and you’re a Muslim, or you look like a Muslim, or you come from a Muslim country, then you are not welcome to travel on any of the West’s airline …

When he says looks like a Muslim, does he mean look like a wog? Because let’s face it any sensible wannabee terrorist could simply wear non-religious attire if they really wanted to blow up a plane. So I can only imagine “look like a Muslim” means if you look South East Asian or Persian or Arabic or Turkish etc? Never mind that they may in fact be Christian or Hindu or anything. If they look like a Muslim, we have a Member of Parliament saying you should not be able to travel on Western airlines?

Taking Richard literally, Air New Zealand should refuse to accept any passengers from Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Malaysia etc if they are a young male. This presumably includes all the students from those countries that are students at New Zealand universities.

If the belief systems of ancient history are so important to you, and the advances of the decadent West so abhorrent, go ride a camel instead?.

Now this comment was not directed at the extremists, but at anyone who is a Muslim, looks like a Muslim or comes from a Muslim country.

Now again, there is a very legitimate debate to be had about profiling, terrorism, extreme Islamists and the like. I’ve been attacked myself for writing on some of those issues.

But never in a hundred years would I refer to Wogistan and advocate that people be barred from flying based on their appearance or country of origin. And to have a Member of Parliament deliberately write that is staggering.

Labour and the Greens are desperate to form a Government with NZ First as they know it is near impossible without them. Will any Labour or Green MP come out and state what they think of their potential coalition partner writing about Wogistan? Winston wants to be Foreign Minister again. Does he stand by the views of his MP that young men from Malaysia and Indonesia should be banned from travelling on Western airlines?

A photo of the second page of the column is below.

The HoS reports:

PPTA official Bronwyn Cross interjected at the meeting, describing the idea of placing the new schools in impoverished areas of south Auckland and Porirua as racism.

Trying to improve educational outcomes in South Auckland and Porirua is now racism. Really?

But the PPTA opposed the idea of sponsorship. Bunker said: “If there are commercial people out there wanting to contribute to the school system, they’d be better to pay additional taxes actually.”

How dare commercial people want to help local school kids. Does the PPTA also advocate no businesses donate items for school auctions?

Stuff reports:

A man found guilty by a jury of what the judge called “despicable” racial attacks on Asian people has been jailed for three years and six months.

David Alan Dooley, 26, was upset when the jury returned its verdicts at the end of his Christchurch District Court trial and still does not accept the outcome. He is seen as a high risk of reoffending.

Dooley was sentenced yesterday on two charges of assault with intent to injure, injuring with intent to injure and burglary.

Defence counsel Allister Davis said Dooley was reluctant to accept the verdicts of the jury, so showed no remorse. He accepted that Dooley was on release conditions from prison when the offending happened.

Judge Alistair Garland said that on September 24, 2010, Dooley was walking along Riccarton Rd when he yelled at three teenage Asian males and ran across the road to them.

He used his left arm to push one to the ground, and a co-offender punched him. They then punched a second man to the ground and kicked him in the head and body.

The group continued along Riccarton Rd and yelled at an Asian man riding his bicycle. Two of the group chased him and kicked him in the head and upper body.

Further along the road they followed a couple on to their property while shouting racial abuse. They cornered the man and banged his head against the door.

Thankfully such racially motivated violence is rare in New Zealand. I don’t know what is in the water in Christchurch that they are unlucky enough to breed people like Dooley.

Dooley has previously been found driving while disqualified, breaches of supervision, breach of community work, and breach of bail, theft, obscene exposure, and breach of prison release conditions.

The SST reports:

A self-described “little old Chinese lady” has waded into the racism debate, saying she has suffered decades of racial abuse.

Victoria Beck, 70, said she has been abused in the street, told to go back to Asia, and even been hit by passers-by, despite calling New Zealand home for most of her life. And the situation was worsening, she said.

“As a little old Chinese lady, I am the target of much more physical, verbal and emotional abuse today.” …

Her complaint came after Blues coach Pat Lam suffered racist attacks on internet message boards and talkback radio because of his team’s failings.

Beck said she was not surprised at the attacks against Lam and his team. She migrated here with her family at the age of six and was given an English name to ease the transition. She later took on her husband’s surname.

But having an English name did not stop the racism, she said. “I want people to know how damn vicious some whites are here. The root of it has always been a colour division.”

She recalls being pushed into the gutter in Auckland’s Parnell by a group of young people who told her to “go home, Asian”.

Growing up here, she said, neighbours would scrawl racist remarks on the footpath outside her home. “I felt shame as if there was something wrong with me, my family, my race,” she said. “Chinese have long been a despised minority here.”

My gut feeling is that Chinese New Zealanders probably suffer the worse overt racism in New Zealand. It’s ironic as they generally have the highest employment rates, educational achievement and lowest crimes rates.

The Herald reports:

A UK student who posted a series of racist comments on Twitter following footballer Fabrice Muamba’s cardiac arrest has been jailed for 56 days.

Liam Stacey, 21, caused widespread revulsion by reacting to Muamba’s mid-game collapse by writing: ‘LOL [laughing out loud], **** Muamba. He’s dead!!! #haha.’ He responded to criticism of that message with vile racist tweets. …

Stacey initially claimed his account had been accessed by somebody else, but later pleaded guilty to racially aggravated harassment. He was sent to prison to “reflect the public outrage” at his comments.

Stacey also faces expulsion from Swansea University. The third-year biology student had hoped to become a forensic scientist. Describing his tweets, prosecutor Louise Barron told the court: “The offence is clearly racially aggravated.

“There was sustained and gratuitous racism. These were unprovoked comments and persistent abuse. The recipients were disgusted.”

Jailing the student at Swansea Magistrates’ Court, District Judge John Charles said: “Not just the footballer’s family, not just the footballing world, but the whole world were literally praying for Muamba’s life. Your comments aggravated this situation.

“I have no choice but to impose an immediate custodial sentence to reflect the public outrage at what you have done.”

Now let’s be very clear. His comments were vile and racist. Some of his actual tweets are here. He absolutely deserves to be vilified in turn, to be kicked out of his university etc. Gloating that someone may die as they have collapsed on live television is awful.

But should someone go to jail just for saying something which is racist and offensive? I am uneasy about that. I think they should be exposed and suffer consequences as most people will shun them for what they said. But I think a prison sentence for a 21 year old who did some racist tweets is not a good thing.

I’ve had to do this over two graphs so one can see how miniscule the amount of land purchased by Chinese domiciled people or companies have been.

This strongly suggests to me that racism has been a significant factor in the opposition to the Crafar sales. There was nothing like this level of outcry when land was sold to people in Liechtenstein or Canada or the UK or Australia.

This is not to say all those against the Crafar sales were motivated by racism. Many opponents are genuinely against all foreign land purchases, but some opposition is clearly based on the race of the purchasers, or worse politicians playing to those sentiments.

Sarah Hallmen from Germany is doing a paper on Maori in NZ, and has to write about the topic “racism between Maori and Pakeha”, looking at whether racism is still an issue, is it in one or both directions, and what the Government does to avoid it.

She has a questionnaire which is linked here and embedded below. If you have 5 – 10 minutes to spare, it would help a student out if you can fill in the questionnaire and send it to sarahhallmen at yahoo dot de. Polemics are not needed, but honest opinions are welcome.

Questionnaire – Fragebogen.

The enbedded version is below. But use the one you can download if you are willing to complete and e-mail it.

Fragebogen

Craig Ranapia blogs this item from Radio New Zealand:

Grey Power is being criticised for calling on Auckland Council to review the number of Asian immigrants in the city.

As part of a submission for Auckland Council’s 30-year plan, the lobby group asked for a forum to look at the changing face of Auckland and the impact of different cultures.

Grey Power’s submission is based on population forecasts which suggest the Asian community will be the dominant ethnic group in Auckland by 2040.

Auckland regional director Bill Rayner says the proposal is not meant to offend anyone, but many of its members want the country’s population to remain Pacific-based and not have such a large Asian component.

How sad that a group which purports to seek a fair go for older New Zealanders, exposes itself as having a racist agenda.

Immigration should be colour-blind. Individuals should be assessed against criteria such as education, skills, wealth and ability to settle and assimilate in New Zealand. When a group like Grey Power says they want fewer Asians immigrating to New Zealand, what they are saying is that no matter what their individual qualities, prospective immigrants should be ruled out on the basis of their race or ethnicity.

There are legitimate debates about the pace of immigration, as excessive immigration can strain infrastructure. But that debate should be about the overall level of immigration to NZ, not about keeping one ethnicity out or down.

Marika Hill in the SST reports:

A Maori academic says immigration by whites should be restricted because they pose a threat to race relations due to their “white supremacist” attitudes.

The controversial comments come in response to a Department of Labour report, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Star-Times, which found Maori are more likely to express anti-immigration sentiment than Pakeha or any other ethnic group.

Margaret Mutu, head of Auckland University’s department of Maori studies, agreed with the findings and called on the government to restrict the number of white migrants arriving from countries such as South Africa, England and the United States as they brought attitudes destructive to Maori.

“They do bring with them, as much as they deny it, an attitude of white supremacy, and that is fostered by the country,” she said.

At this stage I’m wondering whether Mutu qualifies as a brown supremacist? If a white person called on the Government to restrict the number of brown migrants, they would probably be called a white supremacist.

In my world immigration should ignore skin colour. Migrants should be assessed as individuals, and decisions should be based on their level of skills, experience, education, wealth etc etc. Of course you would also filter against people with criminal convictions and those with extreme anti-democratic views.

Lincoln Tan at the Herald reports:

A far-right Christchurch group is planning a “massive anti-Asian rally” in Queen St after its recruiting drive in Auckland, its leader, Kyle Chapman, told the Herald yesterday.

The Right Wing Resistance is handing out flyers in areas with high Asian population, such as Pakuranga, Howick and Northcote, claiming an Asian invasion is taking place.

Mr Chapman, a former National Front leader, said the drive was to recruit “like-minded Kiwis” to organise the rally, which the group plans to stage before the general election on November 26.

I’d rather not have neo-nazis in New Zealand, but if we are to have them I’m glad they are constantly led by imbeciles who couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery. If they actually ever had a leader who could tie his shoelaces up, then they might actually be something to worry about.

He said the Resistance was against mass Asian immigration, because Asian migrants “stole jobs” and “destroyed white New Zealand culture and heritage”.

When asked by this reporter, an Asian originally from Singapore, if he was one of those the group would like to keep out of the country, Mr Chapman said: “You’re not the kind of Asian we’re against.

Good question Lincoln. You must be relieved to know you are not one of the job-stealing culture-destorying Asians.

“The tactic we’re taking at the moment is the anti-communist tag, and too many Chinese are coming in with communist affiliation,” he said.

“We don’t want to be taken over by communists.”

The commies are coming! Man the bunkers.

UPDATE 1225: TVNZ have taken my advice and suspended Paul Henry without pay until 18 October. Okay, may not be on my advice, but I do note that most people were calling for either just a better apology or outright sacking. As far as I know few people advocated suspension as the appropriate response.

A sacking would make Paul a martyr. The suspension both is humiliating for him, but also sets a very clear boundary. If he does similar in the future, then clearly the response needed from TVNZ will be stronger than suspension.

ORIGINAL: I’ve been thinking about what would be the appropriate response from TVNZ in relation to Paul Henry’s comments yesterdays. A “sorry if you were offended” apology does not come close. However I’m not in the camp demanding he must be sacked, and never work in broadcasting again. I do respect greatly the decision of Ben Gracewood to quit his beloved spot on Breakfast reviewing gadgets – a very principled gutsy call which will have far more impact on TVNZ than the few hundred people who have joined the anti Paul Henry facebook group (his pro one has 35,000).

What TVNZ should do, is the same as radio stations do when a “shock jock” steps over the line. They should suspend Paul Henry from on air duties. That sends out a very clear message about what is acceptable, without being commercially reckless. It may also serve as a learning exercise about boundaries.

I enjoy Paul Henry’s humour greatly, and think he is remarkably talented broadcaster. However what he did yesterday was not humouous. It was simply ugly. And I don’t think TVNZ (or Paul) have realised how different this is to other incidents.

If humour is sincere, you can get away with a lot. For example when friends ring me up and tell me awful Jewish jokes, I don’t mind a bit – because I know it is 100% humour and they don’t really have an anti-semitic bone in their body. If however some neo-nazi skin-head was telling the joke, it would be creepy as genuine dislike or contempt or even hatred is what motivates them.

And that is the challenge with watching Paul Henry in future. He no longer will be that funny offensive guy Paul Henry. He will be that guy who looks down on people with a different skin colour, and you will wonder if what motivates his humour is racism?

There’s a fair bit I don’t agree with Joris de Bres on, but his quotes in the Herald are spot on:

Mr de Bres said Henry often said things to challenge or shock people “but this one was off the planet”.

“What he was saying was that if you were an Indian New Zealander and you were born here, you went to school here, you went to university here, you practised law here, you became a judge, you became an ombudsman and you became a Governor-General, that a key presenter on national television still thinks you don’t look like or sound like a New Zealander.”

Mr de Bres said Sir Anand probably knew Henry well enough to ignore his comment, “but I know that it does have an impact on other Indians and other New Zealanders”.

This is the truly sad thing. We should celebrate Sir Anand’s achievements. He was born in New Zealand to immigrants from Fiji. He succeeded at school, at university, was a successful lawyer, became a Judge and then a hugely respected Ombudsman. Finally he is appointed Governor-General. But despite all of that, some people think he is still not a real New Zealander. Now think about the awful message that gives to young New Zealanders who have immigrant parents. It is that no matter how well you achieve, there are some New Zealanders that will think you are not a real Kiwi because of your skin colour.

This is not about offending a singer from the UK. This is about a statement that really will affect  lot of Kiwis. This is not an issue of freedom of speech – because that is not the same as freedom from consequences.

TVNZ issued a separate statement defending Henry – a release that Mr de Bres said was more “discouraging” than Henry’s original one.

Issued by spokeswoman Andi Brotherston, it said: “The audience tell us over and over again that one of the things they love about Paul Henry is that he’s prepared to say the things we quietly think but are scared to say out loud.”

I agree that the statement in defence was disgraceful. TVNZ badly miscalculated. This is very different to Paul’s other complaints.

A stronger response is needed than an apology. I think an on-air suspension would be the appropriate response. Anything less, and TVNZ looks like it condones racism. Because this is not just about Paul Henry, but also about TVNZ’s initial response defending him as saying he is prepared to say out loud what we think quietly.

I cringed when Paul Henry asked the PM this morning whether in appointing a Governor-General would “choose a New Zealander who looks and sounds like a New Zealander this time?”.

I have a lot of time for Paul’s humour, even his offensive humour, because humour is often offensive.

But this was not a joke, this was not even comparable to Paul Homes with his “cheeky darkie” comment, which was meant to be a parody.

This was a blatant statement that NZ born Sir Anand does not look and sound like a New Zealander because his parents are Fijian Indians.

What Paul really meant is that he does not sound like a white or British New Zealander.

If TVNZ don’t take firm action on this one, they will find themselves in a very umcomfortable position. They should also arrange for an apology to the Governor-General. He was born in New Zealander, and is every but as much a New Zealander as Paul Henry.

UPDATE: Paul Henry has apologised:

I sincerely apologise to the Governor General, Sir Anand Satyanand for any offence I may have caused.

I am aware that Sir Anand has made an outstanding contribution to New Zealand.

Anyone who knows anything about me will know I am a royalist, a constant defender of the monarchy and the role the Governor General plays in our society.

If my comments have personally offended Sir Anand, I regret it deeply.

I am sure it will still be the lead item on the news tonight, and in newspapers tomorrow.

A friend of mine sent me the e-mail below, in response to my heated posts at what Hone Harawira said. He has given me permission to blog it:

Hi David

Have thought long and hard about saying something after reading your blog on Hone’s comments at the weekend.

I too disagree with Hone’s stance (yet another legacy of his mother) but, please be careful not to guild the lily to prove him wrong. Things are improving rapidly in terms of people being colour blind in good old Aotearoa/NZ. However, my observation and own personal experience tells me this is has been more in the last two decades and most particularly the last 10 years.

It was the 40s when my grandmother was refused a bank account in Te Awamutu because she was Maori. A young pakeha lawyer found her outside in the main street crying and asked her what was wrong. She told him and they got talking. He asked her what her maiden name was – Guildford. He took her back inside and they let her open an account in her maiden name.

Later that decade my father – her oldest son – got strapped at school for speaking Maori.

It was the 60s when my Dad experienced tension and discomfort when my mum’s family there was general unease about Maori and Pakeha getting together. Mum and Dad were lucky that her wonderful parents came round. That then saw them commented about in suburban Christchurch. It was at this time that they were both at teachers college and Dad was told: “Only one thing worse than a Maori teacher. Is one that thinks he’s clever.” Well, he was. A straight A student, letters in piano, and a fine singer.

This is within the “50 years ago” that you mentioned, but the legacy of such things still linger is my whanau.

However, it was only the mid to late 80s when I was banned from going into Cathedral Square in Christchurch. The city I was born in. Because it wasn’t safe for Maori to do so. I’m hardly the darkest hori you’ll ever come across.

That morphed in the 90s into a lot of non-Maori creating different categories of Maori. On a number of occasions I got comments like: “You’re not like those Maoris…. Bloody Maoris… Oh, but we don’t mean you.”

Yes things are changing. For the better. Most of that change has been in the last 30 years and most of that in the last decade. Lets not over ice the cake.

My correspondent is right that it is more the last two decades, that has seen racism become unacceptable, than the last 50 years. I regard true prejudice as so illogical and stupid, that I probably do tend to minimise that it does occur. And also there is a difference between life in urban Wellington and other parts of NZ.

Of course I stand by my point that you don’t fight prejudice with your own prejudice.

I regard myself lucky to have lived in this generation. Not only do we get air travel, the Internet etc, but we also live in a time when human rights have never been stronger.

It is amazing that only 100 or so years ago women were not even allowed to vote. Up until the 1970s Maori could not vote on the general roll. The US still had segregation up until the 1960s. It was basically a criminal offence to have gay sex up until the 1980s. I’m living through part of the change. Future generations will look back with bemusement at our history.

Think what would have happened in this scenario.

A European/Pakeha Member of Parliament is quoted as saying he would not be comfortable if his children dated a Maori.

And then upon further questioning, he said that he wouldn’t have a problem if they dated an American or an Australian, but would not want them dating either a Maori or a Pacific Islander.

I don’t think I am wrong in saying it would be the lead item on TV news. It would be on the front page of every newspaper. The Race Relations Conciliator would have condemned it. A dozen activists would have complained to the Human Rights Commission. Every major newspaper would have condemned the MP in editorials and there would be many calls for them to be sacked.

I’m not saying Hone should be sacked. In fact I will give him his dues that he doesn’t bullshit and says what he believes – no matter what. That is a rare quality in politics.

But I do think he is getting off too lightly from what was a pretty awful thing to say. He’s really abandoned all rights to talk about prejudice, when he declares skin colour matters to him, in terms of whom his children date. Even sadder was he seems to think most Pakeha thing the same as him – only in reverse.

We don’t Hone.

Now the media have not been totally silent on Hone. Rather than get out the editorial condemnation that would if it was a non-Maori MP, they have done the easy thing and asked the PM what he thinks, which the Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key says it is “ridiculous” that MP Hone Harawira would not be happy about his children dating Pakeha. …

Mr Key said he found Mr Harawira’s views ridiculous.

“It depends on you as an individual but I wouldn’t care what ethnicity my kids dated as long as they are happy.”

Asked if he would be happy for his children to date Mr Harawira’s, he quipped: “I guess it would make the wedding an interesting thing, wouldn’t it.

But as long as they were happy, yep.”

Well that would be one way to keep the Maori Party onside – a Key-Harawira wedding.

Mr Key said he had met one of Mr Harawira’s daughters at an art college in Gisborne.

“She seemed a really nice girl, so yes, if Max wants to date her, she’s a bit older than him, though.”

Stephie Key is 17 and Max is 15.

Oh God poor Max. Having his dad talk about potential dates for him.

While the story is amusing, it shouldn’t just be about what the PM thinks on this issue. It should be about whether it is acceptable for any Member of Parliament to openly express prejudice like Hone did.

I guess you can say better to be open about your prejudices, then hide them. And again I do credit Hone with that. But I think it is again a very sad view point he has that race is more important to him than the qualities any individual person may have.

No Right Turn blogs:

The Human Rights Act absolutely prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in employment. It is illegal to refuse to offer someone a job on the basis of their race, colour, or ethnic or national origins. It is illegal to even ask an applicant for details which might indicate an intention to do so. Because of this, all newspapers now carry prominent notices in their employment sections warning that they will not accept advertisements which appear to seek to employ people only of a certain race or gender.

So I was quite surprised to be pointed at this ad from Candle ICT on TradeMe, which clearly and repeatedly states that the position is open only to Maori:

As part of an initiative to kick-start the IT careers of Maori graduates, we are seeking up to 30 graduates to take part in an internship project which will see you learning the in’s and out’s of being a successful business analyst. [...]

These internships are open to all Maori graduates nationwide with training being held in Wellington and Auckland…

(Image here in case they take it down).

This indicates a clear intent to discriminate on the basis of race. It would not be acceptable to advertise a position as open only to Pakeha, and it is not acceptable to advertise a position as open only to Maori. Any racial requirement in employment is unlawful discrimination.

I first saw the ad being twittered last night. I am also amazed Candle ICT let such an ad go up. You expect HR firms to know the law.

I note the ad has now been removed.

Trevor’s post at Red Alert are just getting more bizarre. And I say this as someone who said many times last year Trevor was an excellent blogger. Something has happened over summer.

Trevor’s latest missive is to call John Key racist for criticising Hone Harawira!

So why has John Key been so aggressive in his criticism of Hone?

Hone is a sometimes an easy target. He puts his head up and I’ve certainly had a go at him when it is appropriate.

But contrast this question of a perceived (but not actual) conflict of interest of a member of Hone’s family with the decade of the English whanau ripping the taxpayer off by pretending to live in Dipton. And Wiremu was found to have an interest. And it is continuing.

So is Key kicking Hone because he is Maori and if not what is his explanation for his hypocrisy?

First of all Trevor is lying about Bill. No less than the Auditor-General, Jonathan Hunt, Margaret Wilson and Lockwood Smith have all ruled Bill has been eligible for the Wellington accommodation supplement.

But even putting that falsehood aside (and teh stupidity of trying to compare an issue about a flag with housing allownaces), it is pitiful to suggest that John Key is racist because he criticised Hone Harawira.

Calling the Prime Minister a racist is not an accusation an MP should make lightly. I wonder if Phil Goff would agree with Trevor that Key is a racist for criticising Hone? Maybe someone could ask Phil in front of Hone as he welcomes him onto Waitangi.