In the hours following the Countdown terrorist incident, serial race agitator Guled Mire tweeted the following:
“To my Muslim brothers and sisters, while we all condemn today’s attacks, please remember you don’t owe anyone an apology. You have done nothing wrong. And the actions of this individual does not [sic] and will not ever represent what we truly stand for.”
As it happens, I agree with the sentiment. New Zealand Muslims are not to blame for what happened last Friday.
But I wonder what Mire’s reaction would have been if a white commentator had posted a similar comment in the immediate aftermath of the Christchurch mosque massacres. “To my white Christian brothers and sisters, while we all condemn today’s attacks, please remember you don’t owe anyone an apology. You have done nothing wrong."
My guess is he would have been apoplectic. He would have denounced it as racist and inflammatory. More to the point, he would have seen it as an attempt to evade blame for an atrocity that Mire seems to think, judging by his many comments about racism in New Zealand, all white New Zealanders share collective responsibility for.
The obvious point to be made in response to Mire’s gratuitous tweet last Friday is that no one actually asked his Muslim brothers and sisters to apologise, for the very good reason that no one blamed them. Not that this deterred Mire, who rarely misses an opportunity to foment mischief.
Here’s the thing about Mire. Even when he’s saying something that no reasonable person would disagree with – namely, that New Zealand Muslims shouldn’t be blamed for the Countdown stabbings – he manages to do it in an overtly (and I suspect deliberately) provocative, confrontational way; one that’s calculated to foster the impression that New Zealand is irreconcilably divided on ethnic and religious lines. The pernicious ideology of critical race theory underpins almost everything he says.
Ironically, the person most likely to excite ill-will against New Zealand Muslims (and I hope it doesn’t happen, because they deserve better) is Guled Mire.
■ Historical footnote: The New Zealand History website informs us that on this day in 1921, the South African Springboks played a New Zealand Maori side for the first time.
The match, played at Napier, was notable not just for that fact, but also for the reaction of a South African journalist who was astonished that the predominantly white crowd cheered for the Maori XV.
In a telegram to his paper, he gasped: “Spectacle thousands of Europeans frantically cheering on band of coloured men to defeat members of own race was too much for Springboks, who [were] frankly disgusted”.
The incident is worth recalling because it tells us something about the unique nature of race relations in New Zealand, which were far more amicable than left-wing revisionist historians would have us believe.
As an aside, one of the reasons I recently backed away from writing a weekly column for the National Business Review was that the paper’s co-editor, Tim Hunter, objected to a paragraph in my inaugural column in which I wrote that race relations in New Zealand had been mostly “harmonious and respectful – a fact attested to by the number of Maori activists with European features and Anglo-Saxon surnames”. Hunter (an immigrant from Scotland) disagreed with that statement and wanted to delete the sentence, along with one other. I refused and decided to cancel the contract I had signed with NBR only days before.
New Zealand history is threaded throughout with examples of Maori and Pakeha not only collaborating closely but exhibiting mutual goodwill and respect, and in the process creating a unique culture that, as I wrote in a recent post, incorporates admirable elements from both constituent parts. The rugby match at Napier was a small but revealing example.
Of course this is not the full story of race relations in New Zealand, but it's one that's largely ignored in favour of versions that highlight only those actions and policies that disadvantaged or discriminated against Maori (of which there were plenty).
A courageous historian could write a book around this theme. The problem would be finding a publisher willing to defy ideological orthodoxy and risk the fury of woke vigilantes.
38 comments:
The great (later Sir) Terry McLean did a good explanation of the 1921 Springboks vs Māori fixture and the subsequent leaked South African journalist’s telegram furore in a chapter entitled, “Consequences” in his classic book which rates with any collection of New Zealand short stories, “Great Days in New Zealand Rugby” (1958).
After an initial naïveté about how other parts of the British Empire would consider Māori (who let us remind ourselves were granted the status of subjects of the Crown/citizenships from national inception, something that did not occur for indigenous/aboriginal Australians or South Africans until 1968 and 1994 respectively), New Zealanders were shocked to discover that Māori would not be automatically considered as equals much less welcome in South Africa as representative rugby tourists. Hence the All Blacks toured there in 1928, 1949 and 1960 as per the expectations of South African law. And in 1958 the “No Maoris, no tour” movement was formed. In hindsight we should not have been so compliant concerning the status of our fellow-countrymen at the hands of our fellow-Dominion, and should have insisted, “sorry, if Māori can’t represent us in your country, we can’t reciprocate in sporting exchanges”.
I think the late great Sir Michael King is missed in the present over-stimulated racial context. At least as a voice for Pakeha to remind us there are a whole bunch of reasons why we are as we are as a nation. While most Māori thrive! I’m not happy that that for some reason, a subset of my fellow citizens who happen to be tangata whenua are falling between the cracks on a lot of those negative health, education, income, justice and well-being indicators. Smug complacency about the past maybe does hinder real structural change that can assist. Just as treating Māori as brown-skinned Pakeha in the past MAY have been a factor in our current shared dilemma of comparative failure for some.
But I’m very certain that the dialectic Radical Critical method applied to race in New Zealand is NOT the answer. To that end, Karl, why torture yourself by following and giving oxygen what an obsessive self-serving race-grifter and race-baiter like Guled Mire has to say?! Time to seek out the new Sir Michael Kings IMHO.
The thing about Mire is that he has been granted a scholarship from Cornell UNiversity for his efforts in New Zealand.
Lo and behold, the organisers for stop Asian hate were from Cornell and Yale respectively.
The fundraising, in both cases, was organized by communist Joe Carolan.
Kimbo – Michael King, your great ideal, in his book on NZ history emphasised again and again that until the 1950-60s there was little mixing of our two races – other than that a fair few Pakeha moved out to Maori settlements on Maori land - and that a fair few individual Maori moved into the European cities. It was, of course, understood that the European residents on Maori land followed the customary rules of tribal Maori – and that the Maori in our cities would wholly accept the rules laid down by our city councils. Overall, of course, we all were subjects to our democratically elected government in Wellington – and its agreed to legislation. It is of paramount importance that we realise that for over a hundred years we saw no “fellow citizens .............falling between the cracks on a lot of those negative health, education, income, justice and well-being indicators” (quote from your comment).
For example, the proportion of Maori prisoners was then equal to the proportion of their population. This seems proof that the present disproportion in all the areas you mention is wholly due to the inability of Maori to fit in with our European city culture of individuals just caring for themselves, their spouses and children – so unlike the culture of tribal Maori. This also seems proof that our present Maori problems in no way can be blamed on “colonisation” – which, after all, occurred 175 years before those problems appeared!!!
@ Andy Espersen
Yes, am well aware that Sir Michael King pointed out that, other than waging war together and on the rugby field, the world of Māori and Pakeha did not readily interact before the end of World War II.
Am intrigued, though, that you consider:
1. Colonisation stopped sometime in the 19th Century. Depending on one’s definition (and not necessarily a pejorative one), “colonisation” is an ongoing process. Your three !!! marks doesn’t make “colonisation” stop sometime after the land confiscations that occurred directly after General Cameron’s invasion of the Waikato in the 1860s.
2. You attribute the problem, “wholly due to the inability of Māori to fit into our European city culture”. Actually, many/most do, but it is intriguing you ignore efforts like the Māori Women’s Welfare League, Māori hostels, the development of “urban iwi”, etc,. Indeed, King is adamant Māori are a vibrant adaptable culture who raised themselves off the death bed in the late 19th Century. The 1960s didn’t see Māori act passively when it came to the urban drift.
3. However, your individualistic Eurocentric premise seems to be that the fault was all with Māori. What about the institutions of (post-and-ongoing-colonial) government with policies of assimilation that played a part? As before, if you treat Maori as one-size-fits-all brown individualist Pakeha, why the surprise when there are negative outcomes. Which, by implication means that Pakeha-dominated government policy has played a part in the negative outcomes. As it also did with many of the positives enjoyed by most Maori too. It is that group who slip between the cracks who are the massive concern - for all New Zealanders.
Is a both/and, not and either/or when it comes to apportioning responsibility to both Maori and Pakeha for the good and bad, I would suggest. And what I am most sure of is that if we forfeit good will to work together - including likely Pakeha learning to accommodate more - the problems will get worse, not better.
But as before, critical Race Theory is ideological snake oil, adding little of value (other than sometimes exposing unjust power structures), but mostly profiting its adherents with the vices of greed, rancour and division.
Not so sure Karl. In 1960 SA said to NZ no Maori thank you, we only want to play white people. To our eternal shame we agreed. A miniscule number voiced objection but were ignored/ridiculed. And then in 1970 we agreed to reclassify B J Williams as an "Honorary White".
Some shame cannot be washed away.
This circulating:
COUNTERSPIN RESPONDS
A recent article by activist Byron Clark claims that “conspiracy theorists appear to be trying to build a movement in rural New Zealand.”
The claim, published on Newsroom.co.nz, was based on a conversation between Agricultural Action Group’s Heather Meri Pennycook and Counterspin host Kelvyn Alp about the possibility of a farmers’ revolt that referred to firearms and resistance.
Counterspin host Kelvyn Alp stated today that he was referring to the Bolsheviks during the Communist revolution in Russia, and that it's true some grassroots, independent organisations who say they represent local communities may not be what they seem.
“I was referring to the murderous communists who targeted and massacred Russian farmers in the millions, who are best represented in New Zealand by Byron Clark and his comrades today.”
Alp said Clark had recently gained mainstream attention as an anti-racist activist in the wake of the March 15, 2019 terrorist attack on Christchurch by Australian psychopath Brenton Tarrant in which 51 Muslims were murdered. But the public needed to be made aware of Clark’s background, which called his motivations into question. Clark was connected to violent revolutionary extremists, including terrorist groups for whom he had actively raised money.
Clark stood for the Christchurch City Council and the mayoralty under the banner of the Communist Workers’ Party in 2007. He was heavily involved in organising Occupy Christchurch, a group of communists and conspiracy theorists who occupied Hagley Park for 160 days from 2011, who called for the overthrow of the government and remodelling of society.
The November 2011, edition of the Spark magazine, the Communist Workers’ Party’s mouthpiece until its breakup in 2013 and edited by Clark, promoted a fundraising drive for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). In 2011 the PFLP carried out terrorist attacks that led to the death or injury of dozens of Israelis. The PFLP was designated a terrorist organization by the US Department of State on the 10th of August 1997.
Clark’s magazine was named after Vladamir Lenin's first newspaper Iskra, or the Spark.
Former members of Clark’s party can be seen leading most of the revolutionary socialist actions by groups often and erroneously described as “grassroots” and “anti-racist” and “environmentalist” by newsreaders today, groups which have proliferated and expanded after securing significant foreign grants and being organised under the control of ActionStation and related groups over the past decade.
Those members include Simon Oosterman of Extinction Rebellion and School Strike 4 Climate, and Kassie Hartendorp, the current director of ActionStation. Hartendorp arranged financing and logistics for both the Ihumātao and the more recent “Protect Pūtiki” land occupations on Waihiki Island, in both cases under the gaze of her American handler Lev Woolf, although other local activists were presented as occupation leaders in both cases in the news. Hartendorp, like Clark, was also directly involved in fundraising for the PFLP.
Self-described anti-racist organisation Paparoa, which is often associated with Clark and reported on uncritically in the press, was set up by known Cold War-era agent of Moscow, Peter Hall-Jones. Hall-Jones joined the Soviet-backed Unity Party in the mid-80s. He was directly sponsored by them on trips to Moscow. Throughout the 80s and 90s, he spent much of his spare time recruiting delegates for communist youth festivals in Pyongyang, North Korea.
A tech wizard, Hall-Jones also heads the extremely influential but little-known New Unionism Network, a covert channel for socialist organizers that claims as members many prominent politicians around the world including New Zealand’s Minister for the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS), Andrew Little.
Johnston,
I publish your comment with the caveat that I obviously can't verify what you say. It would be more credible if you put your name to it.
Ricardo,
We were right in 1921 when we had the chance to demonstrate solidarity with another nation of white colonisers and chose not to. We were wrong in 1960 and 1970 when our right to play our sacred national sport was imperilled.
I wonder if the commenter Kimbo is one of the people who are being paid to "counter misinformation" online, a group that was set up after a trial run by ActionStation. Kimbo's comments prop up in answer to people in this format online in a few places.
Of course, she could be entirely independent, just someone with her own firm beliefs. The trouble is now, we don't know. The government is now paying people to respond to comments online and they don't identify themselves as being part of that unit.
To anyone who considers my last point paranoid, I agree. It is paranoid, but only because we are now living in the sort of state where I can ask that question without being totally delusional.
I think the greater task for us, the debunking of paranoid or conspiratorial thinking or "misinformation" aside, is to strive to live in a state where I am unable to ponder: "I wonder if that commenter is working in the pay of the State to respond to dissenting commentators online?"
I don't even know what happened after the trial with ActionStation. I do know that a number of seemingly government-funded groups have been set up to combat conspiratorial thinking, or "misinformation" online. They are also tasked with combatting racism - somehow. We don't know but presumably an OIA could be made to determine whether those groups are doing roughly what they did during the trial. What they were doing because the same lot seem to be now working for those online monitoring groups.
I should not be able to ask such paranoid questions in an open, liberal democracy in which individuals are free to mostly say as they please and the government is telling the public what is has been doing and what it plans to do next.
@ Ricardo (& Karl du Fresne)
While we should never have been sending All Black teams to South Africa with Maori ineligible for selection, you have down-played, Ricardo, the mass opposition that built in the years leading up to the 1960 tour. There was not just a “minuscule number (who) voiced objection”. The “No Maoris, no tour” movement, formed by Tipene O’Regan’s father in 1958 arguably WAS broad based. Most importantly, it was ultimately successful in its overall aim when the subsequently-scheduled tour of 1967 was aborted by the New Zealand Rugby Union, aided by pressure from that supposed bastion of comfortable conservatism, the Holyoke-Marshall National Government.
It may have been a different era, where people genuinely believed politics and sport should be separated. I’ve known men who played in that era and the past is another country, they do things differently there. The era was such that they literally never conceived that individuals could dramatically change the status quo decreed by foreign politicians, and would have been bemused at the suggestion, placing it on a par with shaking one’s fist at a cloud. A salutary lesson, although future generations will doubtless judge us with similar bemusement on our foibles and blind spots.
Nonetheless, and while it was never right to exclude Maori from representative selection (and arrange alternative NZ Maori tours as a form of compensation), neither Maori nor Pakeha passively accepted the status quo. As George Nepia famously telegrammed O’Regan, “if your organisation needs a fullback, I’m available”. That had followed on the heels of 2nd NZEF General Kippenberger expressing his displeasure that if it was good enough for the men of the famous 28th Maori Battalion to give their lives on the battlefield, then they were most certainly good enough to represent their country in South Africa in 1949.
And believe it or not, Maori rugby players had a firm friend and ally in white apartheid South Africa in the form of Dr Danie Craven. Contrary to the caricature of Craven that has accrued after the fraught events of 1981, and while always doing what he considered best for South African rugby, he was adamant Maori should tour. And he was continually pushing the boundaries, such as securing an invitation for Maori rugby players Pat Walsh and Waka Nathan to visit as non-playing guests during the 1964 75th South African Rugby Jubilee celebrations.
The problem was Craven was a only sports administrator and academic, albeit with influence, but was bound by what the dynamic and Byzantine South African domestic situation allowed. And the genuine fear that Maori would be insulted and treated differently in the apartheid context. One wonders what reception George Nepia or Jimmy Mill would have received if they had gone in 192, or Johnny Smith in 1949, although one suspects the South African passion for rugby may have been as occurred when Sid Going and (part-Samoan) Bryan Williams especially spectacularly broke the colour-bar in 1970.
Craven actually first toured here as a Springbok player in 1937 when the traditional touring fixture against NZ Maori was omitted from the itinerary (maybe as a consequence of the 1921 controversy, although Malcolm Mulholland’s history of Maori rugby catalogues other possibilities). While a man of his times, he had a doctorate in Anthropology, and quickly understood the status and place of Maori in NZ life - and how that would intersect as and when there was contact with South African rugby. Hence it was no surprise he struck up a genuine and lasting friendship with the famous Guide Rangi of Whakarewarewa and her family, an acquaintance he renewed on every one of his many later returns to New Zealand. I digress...
Kimbo,
Thanks for that erudite exposition. I think you may have gone some way toward assuaging Johnston's concerns about your supposed motives.
Karl, I never really suspected Kimbo's motives. It was a poor choice of example to use.
I had been thinking about the online response trial and saw Kimbo's comment as an opportunity to raise the question.
Because we can no longer say with certainty whether or not some online comments were written by government trolls because they did pay to at least a trial a sort of Hasbara unit (by an organisation led by a communist). Here is an article about that trial:
https://kate.frykberg.co.nz/2019/07/29/useful-tools-for-responding-to-online-racism/
Kimbo
I stand corrected and thanks for your gentle enlightenment. I had always thought 1960 opposition was minor but I see 160,000 signed a petition, public meetings were held and protesters tried to stop the plane leaving.
Good to see a strong anti-racist pulse was beating.
Ricardo
@ Ricardo
My pleasure.
Interestingly, much of the anti-apartheid sentiment was because it impacted Maori. For some, maybe many once the South African laws accommodated the 1970 tour, that was the end of the matter. Hence in the 1970s and 1980s those in New Zealand who were out-and-out non-co-operators with apartheid were dismayed to find that the aforesaid George Nepia was very much in favour of continued sporting contact with South Africa. Indeed, he even consented to being elected as an honourary vice-President of the White rugby South African Rugby Board. As before, the past is another country, they do things differently there.
And that view of Nepia was reflected my many staunch conservative Maori rugby fans. Just like wider society, tangata whenua have never been a monolith.
Enjoyed your column thanks Karl, plus the responses from commenters. Not going to waste my breath on Mire anymore...I agree with you 100% on him.
Many here would've noticed the spectacular irony from the PM post-incident, compared with back in March 2020...all down to a lone wolf and no rub-off whatsoever to the Muslims in the land, with the general 2020 rush to implicate pakeha with a taint because white supremacists are amongst us and in numbers, the febrile tone in the media and the ongoing guilt-loaded mea culpas and kowtowing where race is concerned.
Ricardo...another great post.
Johnston...you have a point re the shilling and trolling. And who could argue that the media are not now corrupted by the bucks from the regime?
Sorry...I meant Kimbo, no slight to Ricardo intended by altering that.
Hilary,
I agree with you about the commenters. In fact I'm thinking I should just step aside and leave it to them ....
What a tangled web of words and phrases in the above historical expositions.
Difficult for an ordinary health professional like me to unravel and comprehend.
Thanks anyway Guys.
There was another opinion piece in Stuff by a Muslim on how they felt torn between apologising or accepting that it had nothing to do with the wider Muslim community. Like you, I feel their is no real need for an apology.
Unfortunately, when a similar event us done by a white idiot, the entire white race is held accountable. They must get on their knees and beg forgiveness for, even if they had no idea, they are unconsciously supportive of the idiots actions.
I doubt whether there will be go fund me pages and millions from the taxpayer for the unfortunate families that were court up in this tragidy.
Hilary, none taken. :^))
No no Karl...your great pieces create this fertile ground for others to shine too. SO satisfying.
... the aforesaid George Nepia was very much in favour of continued sporting contact with South Africa. Indeed, he even consented to being elected as an honourary vice-President of the White rugby South African Rugby Board. As before, the past is another country, they do things differently there.
Indeed it was.
At the time of the 1981 Springbok Tour, the MP for Wairarapa, Ben Couch -- a former All Black and Māori All Black who had been excluded from the 1949 All Blacks tour of South Africa because he was not White -- famously spoke at a League of Rights meeting in support of the tour, and in a confused television interview, appeared to say he supported "separate development" in South Africa. I say "appeared to support" because in subsequent comments he did not seem to know what "separate development" stood for in reality.
Couch was a lovely man and quite out of his depth in Parliament, but Muldoon liked to have such people in his Cabinet because, I presume, they supported him and did not ask difficult questions. Think Colin McLachlan, Warren Cooper, Frank Gill, Bert Walker and others...
During the 1981 tour, John Minto was one of my heroes. I greatly respected him because I thought he was motivated by anti-racism and simply wanted to end White minority rule in South Africa. I was appalled with how some police called their batons "Minto bars" and actively sought out Minto to attack him.
Years later, in 1995, when Nelson Mandela was in Auckland for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and was mobbed by adoring crowds everywhere he went, I was at an event at St Matthews in the City in Auckland where Mandela was the guest of honour. Minto was there, and harangued Mandela at length for not banning capitalism in South Africa. An astounded Mandela replied (I paraphrase, it was 26 years ago:) "But where would our people work?"
It was at that moment I realised Minto was actually motivated by Marxism, or socialism, or some version of that; an epiphany that has been confirmed in my mind by his political activities since. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs of course and Minto is without doubt sincere in his, but it was a letdown for me when he exposed himself that way, haranguing a man as great as Mandela.
The past is most definitely another country, but I am glad I lived there, because it gives me a solid historical basis to understand the country and world we live in today.
What a great comment and so applicable to NZ today with our history being re-written or ignored by so many that call themselves our leaders.
"The past is most definitely another country, but I am glad I lived there, because it gives me a solid historical basis to understand the country and world we live in today".
One wonders what in 20 or 30 years time this Government will be thought and spoken of?
@ David
Yes, “history as morality tale” gets very tedious, especially when peddled by the likes of Radical Critical dialectic discontent merchants Minto. And you’ve summed up the one thing he once got half right well.
Good snapshot of Ben Couch, too. I was 14 in 1981, rugby obsessed and like a pig in muck that my beloved Springboks were here and can remember the Couch interview with Ian Fraser, saying he “supported apartheid in South Africa” well. He was not an articulate man and it later emerged he was supporting the doctrine of his Mormon faith - that as long as Mormonism was not persecuted by a government then its policies should be accepted by faithful Mormons.
Incidentally, in 1985 I had the privilege of playing in a rugby team of Pakeha, Maori and it seemed every nation of the South Pacific that was one of the highlights of my life. The All Blacks were scheduled to tour South Africa that year, but I suddenly had the realisation that if I was living in South Africa, such an experience would be impossible. As a result I wasn’t especially disappointed by the court injunction that torpedoed the tour.
Maybe I’d grown up a bit.
Although, even though I am fatigued by professional rugby and hardly watch...I’ll never miss an All Black Springbok game. Too many old heroes and ghosts needing vengeance which make it a compelling grudge match, a classic sporting contest. Which is why I so badly needed them to tour in 1981. One hundred years since Theo Pienaar’s Springbok team toured here, and Jack Steel scored “the try of the Century” while carrying the ball lodged behind his shoulder blade running through the South African defence when we won the first test in Dunedin.
Long may it continue.
And why I knew it is forty years ago this Sunday (September 12) since Allan Hewson kicked that winning penalty to win the epic 3rd deciding test match.
Other than when we finally won that series in South Africa in 1996, which was payback and an assuaging the failure of all those proud All Blacks who had gone before and failed - or due to their whakapapa were not allowed to even try - I’ve never had a more joyous moment following a sports team. But that life changing team with which I played in my emergent youth, rubbing shoulders and working hard with people of different races in a joyous celebration of New Zealand life at its very best was even better. And the one that abides long after final whistle and score line.
Coincidentally 12 September is also the same date (in 1977) that Steve Biko died.
Similar to Mr G Mire, the P.M. rushed into reassure the 'Muslim community" that they were not in any way responsible for the Isis knife attack in New Lynn Countdown.
What a contrast to her reaction to the terrorist Australian mosque murders in Christchurch.
On that occasion there were no similar reassurances given to ordinary Kiwis that they were not to blame.
In fact I recall reading an article by Anne Salmond where she basically laid the blame for the mosque attack on white supremacy, with words like this
"So let's be clear about this. White supremacy is a black strand woven through our history as a nation." and more in the same vein.
Yes Doug, Salmond and Spoonley both disgraced themselves with their wild accusations of "white supremacy". I removed her books from my shelves and took them to the dump.
sux for one, half a bakers dozen the other. Guled Mire is a chancer and as Karl eluded to, I wasn't asking for his apology.
Anyways, off on a tangent. I have no problem with Maori and/or 'part Maori' talking about culture or lack there-of, after all I'm a 7th gen Pakeha from my mothers side whilst ignoring the fact that my Dad was a 10 pound Pom (indentured servant) but it sounds better saying I'm a 7th gen kiwi.
I have no problem with Maori esp 'white Maori' such as Joanna Forbes (Mihingarangi) respecting their whakapapa but having said that, I get a tad pissed off with new comers like Golriz, Guled, Ricardo and Julie Ann Gender to mix it up in-case people thought I was racist and not to forget our beloved Anjum the Muslim from Hamiltin/India 'social agitator
The likes of Guled, Golriz and co make a living and sustenance from our good nature because they know damn well that if they even muttered their words from their own country, they'd be held to account.
Back to my earlier point regarding NZ and blood i.e. Treaty of Waitangi and Pakeha and/or Maori 'blood'.......the reason why we have the likes of Golriz, Anjum, Ricardo etc etc is because deep down inside they know Te Tiriti isn't about them and can you imagine the cringe factor when ANZAC day or Waitangi day hits........I laugh my tits off when the above mentioned say "honour our treaty"???? The truth is, our treaty has nothing to do with Iran, Somalia or Mexico.
I have just seen this vile obscenity in Pravda Stuff, in an article:-
"The question we have to ask is, ‘Did we find a terrorist? Or did we create one?’”
We (New Zealand) are seriously being told that we are responsible for this crazed Isis knifer.
The journalist who wrote this should be ashamed. !!!
Just to be clear, that wasn't the journalist's statement; he was quoting someone.
Fair comment Karl. But the overall theme of this article was that, somehow, we in New Zealand, were at least partly responsible for this Isis inspired knife attack.
[sauce for goose....] Would it have been acceptable to publish an article telling New Zealand Muslims that they had to share responsibility for the Australian murderer who carried out the mosque attack?
Obviously it would not !!!!
Many things can become very clear racist statements when we substitute Maoris, Muslims, Indigenous etc. by white Europeans. E.g.: White Europeans only vaccination centre, White Europeans Party, white Europeans TV....
Doug Longmire - I do not believe that "somehow, we in New Zealand,[are] at least partly responsible for this Isis inspired attack".
I am almost 100% certain that this "terrorist" is simply mentally ill - he is suffering from an acute psychosis. All later information about the case bears this out.
Yes, you can argue that in a way we are responsible - because in 1992 we changed the philosophy behind the treatment of human insanity. It used to be society's right to contain acutely psychotic people in a designated psychiatric hospital. Now we no longer have that right --and the unfortunate, acutely mentally ill sufferer no longer has that protection!
Kimbo,
I've decided not to post your latest comments. You make some legitimate points, but if you're going to directly take issue with people who post comments on this blog under their real names, it's only fair that you do the same (i.e. identify yourself).
Post a Comment