Muslims feel target of NZ politician's speech

Here they go whining again, "Waahhnnnn, stop picking on me. The truth is too painful to bear"

((((Javed Khan, president of the Federation of Islamic Associations, told Radio New Zealand the speech made it clear that Brash wanted immigrants to fit his view of a mainstream New Zealander, and therefore excluded people like Muslims.))))

You see, even taking this statement on its own terms reveals so much. The idea that it is something terrible for New Zealand to want immigrants to become part of mainstream society, that this is an example of a prejudice against Muslims. Javed Khan must know that there is something special about Islam and Muslims then, that it cannot reconcile itself to core mainstream New Zealand values - the shrillness of his protest betrays this. I suppose the only recourse is to describe this as chauvinism, when in reality, every other immigrant group can more or less reconcile themselves to New Zealand mainstream values without too much discomfort, or at least without too many hiccups.

But Islam, and Muslim response to this is pathological - Islam must dominate and not be dominated.

Pancha Narayanan, president of the Federation of Ethnic Councils, said a comment by Brash that immigrants should have a good command of English, or quickly learn the language, was a sign that he would prefer them to come from English-speaking countries.

Nonsense. It is a baseline requirement to speak English if you are going to move to an English speaking nation.

He said the speech had an element of racism and an anti-Muslim tone.

The 'element of racism' spiel is an example of the default mendaciousness that surrounds this whole debate.

That an Indian (I presume Hindu, as his name is the same as the creator of Malgudi) should become a bloodhound for Islam, sniffing out 'anti-Muslim tone' wherever it can be found (and lets leave aside the fact that asserting the primacy of certain values such as gender equality is immediately described as being anti-Muslim -- I think that is as straightforward an example of an acknowlegment that everything Brash says is correct as you will find) is an insult to those he should be representing, those immigrants who seem able to intergrate well, and who probably agree with Brash and have no problem with his statement - I mean the Hindus from India, the Chinese from Hong Kong, who probably do face genuine discrimination and need some advocacy at times.

No - Narayan shall shill for Islam, and all immigrants are obliged to defend them and their anti-Western, non-integrationist ways, because an attack on Muslims is an attack on them, right?

Well, that's the way the reasoning goes. Muslims, who hate, despise and are bigoted towards Hindus, Sikhs, Chinese, Jews, use the rhetoric of anti-racism and ethnic minority solidarity to hide their true complaints and agenda. In doing so, they taint the achievments and struggles of other immigrant groups.

What a shame. And what a disgrace that this discourse is allowed to flourish unchallenged. The bigotry of Islam and the leftists who have made it their mission to shill for it - that Islam that shall dominate, and will kcik and scream against anything that neuters its virulence and venom.

Same shit, different day.

My heart is just bleeding for those poor offended muslims. Perhaps we should change their diapers for them as well.

Seriously though, they are psycho, and should be treated as such. Makes one start to think that in contract, GITMO is very humane.

Haidon

How's your work with the NZ ummah getting along?

Australia said Muslims should "Clear off" if you don't share Western values

Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national television. "I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that is false.

If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to other country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said. Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country.

Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off". "Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off," he said. Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

Can we borrow this guy?

In his speech, Mr. Brash defined the values of which he spoke as "an acceptance of democracy and the rule of law, religious and personal freedom and legal equality of the sexes".

In his own words, Mr. Khan then told Radio New Zealand that Mr. Brash's view of a mainstream New Zealander excluded people like Muslims.

From those two statements, it follows that Muslims (and unnamed people like them {Martians?]) do not accept democracy, the rule of law, religious and personal freedom, or the legal equality of the sexes.

So, Mr. Khan, why then shouldn't New Zealand deport Muslim immigrants?

"...likening it to drinking red wine." Make that arsenic instead of wine.

The truth hurts, doesn't it, followers of the false prophet Mohammed (pigs be upon him)?

It is racism to agree with Muslims because Islam sees Black people as slaves and Jewish people as the enemy who must be killed. Read the Koran, the hate is there to see.

Greetings Infidel Pride

I'll try not to engage in a ranting (and unintentionally bemusing) tirade like I did in our last conversation.

The work is going allright I suppose. The NZ Muslim community has its problems as any other Muslim community though. However I think its a more progressive Muslim community. I think Javed's observations are wrong however. I agree with Don Brash. Its very simple. If Muslims (or any other immigrants) can't embrace (not just tolerate) New Zealand's values than they should "clear off" or be deported.

Many Muslims here have been here for decades. They do not wish for the caliphate, they do not wish for shari'ah. Keep in mind that the NZ Muslim community did not go off the deep end over the Muhammad Muslim cartoon controversy as did every other Muslim community. We did not like like the cartoons, but we understand that it is a part of being in New Zealand (taking the piss out of religion).

Of course, the community sponsored the notorious Wahabi Bilal Phillips who argued that NZ Muslims hsould separate from the populace and form an enclave. There is much work to be done and it is an uphill battle. But we have a much better, loyal community than anywhere wlse in the region. Australian Muslims are disgraceful.

Cheers
TH

Haidon, when you say NZ's Muslims didn't go off the deep end protesting the infamous Cartoons, the speed at which the march through Auckland was organised for the next day after the Dominion Post published the cartoons in their Saturday edition was most disturbing to many people. But, suppose nothing was set fire to, so that at least is a good thing.

Kia ora tatou Lucyna

Fair enough Lucyna. I personally supported publication of the cartoons.

But the protests however muted. And the Muslim community, while upset at the cartoons, engaged in dialoge with the Dom and teh Race Relations Commissioner. It was a good result. The Dom post DID NOT capitualte and the Muslims had to accept it.

But the bottom line is that we got over it, unlike many other Muslim communities.

Cheers
TH

Haidon

Thanks for responding. Actually, you are only 1 of 2 Muslims in the world that I respect (the other being India's president) - which is obviously saying a lot. I make it a point not to engage in a slinging match with you. Reason I invoked your name was the impression you gave last time that you are working with NZ's Muslim community, so I was curious to what extent they agree with Javed. (In another thread on J/W, I've called for Kofi Annan to be assassinated the next time he goes to Lebanon, so feel free to take a wild swing at me when you get there.)

I didn't expect you to disagree with Don Brash. In fact, if one wanted to avoid the cultural confrontation, one could have simply said that English is the official language of NZ - end of story. It's not a religion or even a race issue: if you chose to live in Italy, better know Italian (or is that not true anymore?) In the US, despite immigration being a very controversial issue, people are unanomous about English being the official language of the US.

When you say you have a more loyal community than anywhere else in the region, do you include Singapore in the region?

Hi Infidel Pride

There is a clear division between new immigrant Muslims here and the Muslims who have been here for decades, and Muslims who have been born here. I do some ocassional work FIANZ. Older Muslims here would not agree with Javed. Javed is in an interesting position. He is genuinelly moderate; he cooperates with the Security Intelligence Service and has challenged radical Imams head on. However, ocassionally he has to do something to please younger elements in the community. Being a moderate can be a dirty business. Seriously. Because you can only go so far. If you want any credibility, you have to, at the end of the day mitigate any moderation with a dose of staunch support for anything Islamic. I'm not defending it.

But think about it. True moderates need to be careful and strategic. They need to push for moderation while at the same time defending the community under percepived attack (without compromising moderation). I think Javed has done this here. Otherwise they become as useless as Kamal Nawash, or my mentor and dear friend Sheikh Ahmed Mansour.

Infidel Pride, your call for Kofi Annan's assasination is monstrous, and you are a bad person and an evil fu*&wit). (I'm being sarcastic).

Regarding Singapore Muslims, they are loyal, but they also live under somewhat repressive conditions. Because of the legal framework they have to be loyal. I think NZ Muslims are different because that legal framework does not exist.

Cheers
Thomas

Respecting a Moslem, any Moslem, is an ugly thing too see. This is because Moslems worship evil and the doing of wrong. A cursory glance at the scriptures proves that.

Dealing with Moslems is a sure recipe for degradation. A cursory glance at their history proves that.

We should concentrate on producing many cartoons of Mohammed, a ridiculous and awful roach. My cartoon would be of Mohammed selling kidnapped Jewish women into sex slavery. Or how about the one where he steals a hot bride from a younger relative.

This is the Sunnah. Anybody who observes the Sunnah is low down.

We should concentrate on disrespecting and shunning of all Moslems. Every Moslem. Doing this would be a positive act. They need to deal with themselves by dropping the cult before being accepted in any way.

What's gonna happen in a pacified southern Lebanon, are these people gonna quit the practice of Islam? If not, it is best to keep military operations going there permanently. After all, it is the Moslem "civilians," if there can be such a thing, who are entirely responsible for the hatred and violence there.

But think about it. True moderates need to be careful and strategic. They need to push for moderation while at the same time defending the community under percepived attack (without compromising moderation). I think Javed has done this here. Otherwise they become as useless as Kamal Nawash, or my mentor and dear friend Sheikh Ahmed Mansour.

I know, and that's the problem with the whole exercise. In order to 'defend against perceived attacks', like say, an open discussion about the nature of threat of Islam, it is necessary to marginalize those who criticize and question the very basis of the difference between Islam as it exists, vs the imaginary spin-offs such as 'Islamo-fascism', 'twisted version of Islam', et al. That accomplishes the goal of achieving credibility with the 'aggrieved' community, but undermines the larger campaign against Islam, which is virtually impossible to separate from items like Islamic supremacy, shariah, caliphate, et al.

Regarding Singapore Muslims, they are loyal, but they also live under somewhat repressive conditions. Because of the legal framework they have to be loyal. I think NZ Muslims are different because that legal framework does not exist.

Singapore is what one might call a highly regulated democracy - people have freedoms, but with freedoms come responsibilities, which the government strictly enforces. This would appear alien to many Westerners, particularly those of a Libertarian bent. I recall during one of my many layovers at Changi Airport seeing poster campaigns calling for marital fidelity in order to avoid STD's. Do that in the US, and one would be accused of breaching that China wall that ought to exist between Mr. Church and St. State.

I won't digress into a debate as to which model is better (e.g. whether people should be heavily fined for chewing gum, or spitting). However, I do think that Singapore's method of regulating how Muslims practice Islam has been good not only for Singapore's Infidels, but also for Singapore's Muslims. For instance, Singapore Infidels can't make incendiary statements about Islam the way we do here. The crux of the matter is that such rules cut both ways - Singapore Muslims can't repeat blood libels about Jews. This sort of reciprocity isn't enforced anywhere else in the Infidel world.

APF

Haidon is a practitioner of his own private Islam, while India's president is a Muslim by identification, Hindu by practice. Neither is your garden variety Muslim, which one must be wary of.

I agree with everything else you said above.

Don didn't name islamism, but if the cap fits, wear it. Interesting that the 'muslim community' immediately jumped up: "we're a sexist, undemocratic and anti-law culture, and you're a racist poo-bottom for targeting us!!"

I read Don's speech in detail, and thought it was moderate and sound (and wrote to congratulate him). He is no racist (his wife is Singaporean), and his concerns about people bringing lawless, undemocratic and sexist values into NZ are actually relevant to some recent Pacific Island immigrants, too. There is a lot of domestic violence in those communities, and a defence is often that 'back home' such behaviour is perfectly OK. Also, some Pacific cultures are still very undemocratic, the common people being ruled by chiefs and church. So there is a transition to be made when coming to NZ, not just for muslims from oppressive regimes. He mentioned that immigration is a contract, involving loyalty to the new country and its values. Good, let's put that in writing!

This speech has been the first to show me that Don has some potential, and that a usual Labour voter, I might seriously consider National if they aren't too stupid on other issues. Certainly on this one, Don is the only politican talking any sense!

I wonder how many Labour voters will swing next election because Labour won't stand up for our core (and liberal) values when it comes to other cultures?

BTW, we immediately got public multiculturalists whining that it would be impossible and unfair to try and define NZ values. Clearly they don't subscribe to "an acceptance of democracy and the rule of law, religious and personal freedom and legal equality of the sexes". I guess they should leave then.

The increasingly biased Chris Laidlaw of Radio NZ (a publically funded anti-Israel whinge channel these days) recently interviewed various Polynesian leaders (all men, quel surprise) and smarmily greased up to their general notion that non-democratic chieftain rule was a wonderful cultural way of life. The one interviewee who indicated that actually he'd like to see democracy in his country was not encouraged.

That's the way it is here.
And don't dare to say in your workplace (at least civil service) that you don't want to participate in a sexist Maori ceremony - you could lose your job!