New Zealand MP believes Muslims shouldn't be allowed to fly on western airlines

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

New Zealand member of parliament, Richard Prosser, had this to say in a column he wrote for a national magazine.

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

Go ride a camel instead.

[Muslims are a] sorry pack of misogynist troglodytes from Wogistan, threatening our way of life and security of travel in the name of their Stone Age religion.

Source

Needless to say, this is causing quite an uproar, and there are calls for him to be thrown out of parliament.


Thoughts?

Before you guys storm his arse, I would like to mention that he was elected by someone, which means that there is a group behind him that supports him. He's an MP... he doesn't wield a lot of power, does he? Are you going to throw him out of Parliament because of what he said? Great freedom of speech on your part. Yeah, protest his arse if you'd like, but you can't do much to him except for not voting for him next time, can you?

Oh, and if you're not from New Zealand, there isn't much to do here, so I wouldn't bother. Incidentally this includes me, and I say - "I don't give a toss". On another note, I'm really liking this British speak I picked up from a tv show I was watching online. Neat stuff.

Eh, the party is called "New Zealand First"...figures. Apparently they got about 7% of the vote last election.

But yeah, can't throw him out of parliament, but his party could disown him. Which they won't, of course.

...

I particularly like the part about "looking Muslim", in that it'd be a delightfully easy rule to extend to whoever you wanted.

His freedom of speech is important. But that right comes with the burden of being globally shamed for what you say, if what you say is racist nonsense.

I hope his words are carried the world over and dog him until he begs the planet in general for forgiveness, and slips into historical obscurity.

itsthesheppy:
His freedom of speech is important. But that right comes with the burden of being globally shamed for what you say, if what you say is racist nonsense.

I hope his words are carried the world over and dog him until he begs the planet in general for forgiveness, and slips into historical obscurity.

Actually, a worryingly large amount of people in at least Europe (can't speak for other places, really) do believe the sole reason for existence for Muslims is to steal our jobs/lives/liberty/freedom and rape our women/children/sheep... yeeaaaaah, if anyhthing, there is a large amount of people applauding for this man right now.
And considering he is an elected official, at the very least his voters in New Zealand would agree with him.

Well, looks like somebody didn't stay awake during statistics class. And judging from the first quote don't really know anything about what he can do or how laws work... which is rather unfortunate for an MP. Clear case of Crazy, though there's something to be said for honest politicians.

Aside from the "...from Wogistan, threatening our way of life and security of travel..." part, I agree with the second quote though, if for somewhat different reasons: Its dogma is Misogynist, Homophobic, anti-polytheist and so on, fit only to be regarded as divine truth by illiberal troglodytes indeed.

Glasgow:
...
Are you going to throw him out of Parliament because of what he said? Great freedom of speech on your part. Yeah, protest his arse if you'd like, but you can't do much to him except for not voting for him next time, can you?

Europe really don't have much in the way of free speech protection when it comes to religion, and neither does these old colonies of it. Knowing the UK, his statement would probably be illegal as "incitement of religious hatred", and New Zealand is generally even more uptight than its old administrator when it comes to quenching free speech. So he could end up being prosecuted.

European court of Human Rights:
"Whilst there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech (..), a wider margin of appreciation is generally available to the Contracting States when regulating freedom of expression in relation to matters liable to offend intimate personal convictions within the sphere of morals or, especially, religion(..)

Hence why political agendas are increasingly pushed using religion: In most of Europe/Commonwealth, they're then legally protected from being denounced as firmly and efficiently as they otherwise could be. A problem the US model eliminates, but alas, US free speech norms haven't migrated here just yet.

I tend to turn these overgeneralizations around on them.
"If you are a Christian Klu Klux Klan member or look like you might be a Christian Klu Klux Klan member or come from a country where there might be Christian Klu Klux Klan members, you are not welcome on our planes."
It's nonsensical. There are more than a billion Muslims in the world. You can't do profiling based on something like that. It's not only unjust and bigoted, it's incredibly stupid and impractical. But I'm sure he has his particular audience.

Glasgow:
Before you guys storm his arse, I would like to mention that he was elected by someone, which means that there is a group behind him that supports him. He's an MP... he doesn't wield a lot of power, does he? Are you going to throw him out of Parliament because of what he said? Great freedom of speech on your part. Yeah, protest his arse if you'd like, but you can't do much to him except for not voting for him next time, can you?

Getting elected doesn't entitle one to racism or defamation, which possibly even breaks the law. MPs aren't above the law.

Besides, this isn't speech of any kind. He wasn't expressing anything, merely being an idiot. Unless there's a separate 'right to idiocy' I don't see why it should be protected.

Blablahb:

Glasgow:
Before you guys storm his arse, I would like to mention that he was elected by someone, which means that there is a group behind him that supports him. He's an MP... he doesn't wield a lot of power, does he? Are you going to throw him out of Parliament because of what he said? Great freedom of speech on your part. Yeah, protest his arse if you'd like, but you can't do much to him except for not voting for him next time, can you?

Getting elected doesn't entitle one to racism or defamation, which possibly even breaks the law. MPs aren't above the law.

Besides, this isn't speech of any kind. He wasn't expressing anything, merely being an idiot. Unless there's a separate 'right to idiocy' I don't see why it should be protected.

New Zealand MPs don't get special protection?

Skeleon:
I tend to turn these overgeneralizations around on them.
"If you are a Christian Klu Klux Klan member or look like you might be a Christian Klu Klux Klan member or come from a country where there might be Christian Klu Klux Klan members, you are not welcome on our planes."
It's nonsensical. There are more than a billion Muslims in the world. You can't do profiling based on something like that. It's not only unjust and bigoted, it's incredibly stupid and impractical. But I'm sure he has his particular audience.

Arguably that is actually a poor comparison. There are far more people who are or look like Muslims than Klan members, especially from the perspective of airports security. I know an Italian guy who's been searched by airport security a few too many times for me to put much of any faith in their ability to determine what looks like a terrorist.

OT- Completely moronic. At the very least, they should be blacklisted for this bullshit.

Glasgow:
New Zealand MPs don't get special protection?

I'd be amazed if they were above the law for one thing.

Also special protection of MPs in regards to hatespeech and similar offenses, is ussually related to the political value of what they say. "I hate Muslims" is not a political debate and wouldn't deserve the additional leniency you sometimes see when politicians get accused of racism or such.

It would be different if he had attacked their culture, religion, or integration problems he thinks are related to religion, but going straight after the people themselves without any form of political expression is insulting and slanderous, plain and simple.

Revnak:
Arguably that is actually a poor comparison. There are far more people who are or look like Muslims than Klan members, especially from the perspective of airports security. I know an Italian guy who's been searched by airport security a few too many times for me to put much of any faith in their ability to determine what looks like a terrorist.

Hehe, true. My old German and Philosophy teacher is white as they come but he has a full beard and has quite a few anecdotes to tell along that line. Still, my point was about the same basic idea: If you look white you could be a Klan-member.

TopazFusion:
New Zealand member of parliament, Richard Prosser, had this to say in a column he wrote for a national magazine.[quote]If you are a young male, aged between say about 19 and 35, and you're a Muslim, or look like a Muslim, or you come from a Muslim country, then you are not welcome to travel on any of the West's airlines.

"Or look like a Muslim". This is by far the stupidest part (and every part is stupid, this just takes the cake). Not only should people be punished for a belief they hold, they should be punished because they look like they MIGHT hold a certain belief.
Seriously, why is this man allowed to hold any form of power in a democratic nation?

Glasgow:
Before you guys storm his arse, I would like to mention that he was elected by someone, which means that there is a group behind him that supports him. He's an MP... he doesn't wield a lot of power, does he? Are you going to throw him out of Parliament because of what he said? Great freedom of speech on your part. Yeah, protest his arse if you'd like, but you can't do much to him except for not voting for him next time, can you?

Oh, and if you're not from New Zealand, there isn't much to do here, so I wouldn't bother. Incidentally this includes me, and I say - "I don't give a toss". On another note, I'm really liking this British speak I picked up from a tv show I was watching online. Neat stuff.

I have an interesting thought on that, he represents the people and there is most likely at least a couple muslims living in the area he represents not to mention the way he votes affects the country which has muslims. So I wanna know is it right that these muslim constituents are ostracized, they are being represented by a racist that hates them. Should a politician be allowed to do that? They are representative of the people, we have laws that protect people of all races and creeds. Specifically our protections are fundamentals that can't be broken like the government can't be unfair to certain races or religions well that exactly what this one rep is doing. Even if all he is doing is talking, talking in that way should require you to defend your statements in front of the rest of parliament and risk sanctions possibly even kicking him out if he continues to do it. Representatives should always be held to a higher standard, if he wants to propose laws that allow legal discrimination of muslims fine it will get voted down or made unconstitutional by the judicial system however he gets no punishment for saying disrespectful and hateful things. And while you may say he will get his punishment during the election, I wanna know what happens if he is reelected.

I mean modern democracy isn't JUST majority rule, it's also minority protection.

Realitycrash:

TopazFusion:
New Zealand member of parliament, Richard Prosser, had this to say in a column he wrote for a national magazine.[quote]If you are a young male, aged between say about 19 and 35, and you're a Muslim, or look like a Muslim, or you come from a Muslim country, then you are not welcome to travel on any of the West's airlines.

"Or look like a Muslim". This is by far the stupidest part (and every part is stupid, this just takes the cake). Not only should people be punished for a belief they hold, they should be punished because they look like they MIGHT hold a certain belief.
Seriously, why is this man allowed to hold any form of power in a democratic nation?

Of course, everyone should have the same moral values and standards, and if you don't have it then you are illegible for office.

*sarcasm*

Would this be the same if a Muslim government declared that only Muslims can vote and be voted into Parliament? So now that he holds certain opinions he can't be voted into Parliament?

Dear God the American Hegemony is mind-boggling.

dmase:

Glasgow:
Before you guys storm his arse, I would like to mention that he was elected by someone, which means that there is a group behind him that supports him. He's an MP... he doesn't wield a lot of power, does he? Are you going to throw him out of Parliament because of what he said? Great freedom of speech on your part. Yeah, protest his arse if you'd like, but you can't do much to him except for not voting for him next time, can you?

Oh, and if you're not from New Zealand, there isn't much to do here, so I wouldn't bother. Incidentally this includes me, and I say - "I don't give a toss". On another note, I'm really liking this British speak I picked up from a tv show I was watching online. Neat stuff.

I have an interesting thought on that, he represents the people and there is most likely at least a couple muslims living in the area he represents not to mention the way he votes affects the country which has muslims. So I wanna know is it right that these muslim constituents are ostracized, they are being represented by a racist that hates them. Should a politician be allowed to do that? They are representative of the people, we have laws that protect people of all races and creeds. Specifically our protections are fundamentals that can't be broken like the government can't be unfair to certain races or religions well that exactly what this one rep is doing. Even if all he is doing is talking, talking in that way should require you to defend your statements in front of the rest of parliament and risk sanctions possibly even kicking him out if he continues to do it. Representatives should always be held to a higher standard, if he wants to propose laws that allow legal discrimination of muslims fine it will get voted down or made unconstitutional by the judicial system however he gets no punishment for saying disrespectful and hateful things. And while you may say he will get his punishment during the election, I wanna know what happens if he is reelected.

I mean modern democracy isn't JUST majority rule, it's also minority protection.

His words don't constitute as incitement to violence, do they? I don't see an issue here where the minority is in danger. Like you've said - if the opposition to this idea won't work then the Judiciary can oppose this as it stands against the country's values or declarative document, err... Does New Zealand have a constitution?
So he said something racist. Big woop. You want to oppose him, let your voices heard. But you want to silence him? I don't approve of it.

Glasgow:

Realitycrash:

TopazFusion:
New Zealand member of parliament, Richard Prosser, had this to say in a column he wrote for a national magazine.[quote]If you are a young male, aged between say about 19 and 35, and you're a Muslim, or look like a Muslim, or you come from a Muslim country, then you are not welcome to travel on any of the West's airlines.

"Or look like a Muslim". This is by far the stupidest part (and every part is stupid, this just takes the cake). Not only should people be punished for a belief they hold, they should be punished because they look like they MIGHT hold a certain belief.
Seriously, why is this man allowed to hold any form of power in a democratic nation?

Of course, everyone should have the same moral values and standards, and if you don't have it then you are illegible for office.

*sarcasm*

Would this be the same if a Muslim government declared that only Muslims can vote and be voted into Parliament? So now that he holds certain opinions he can't be voted into Parliament?

Dear God the American Hegemony is mind-boggling.

The reason he shouldn't be eligible for Parliament, as in 'in a world of sane people, this man shouldn't be in Parliament', is that he believes some people should be judged by their appearance, thus he fails quite deeply at understanding how a Democracy works. He doesn't want a democracy himself, he wants some form of government where we judge people not by their actions, or even their words, but the color of their skin. He can sincerely go fuck himself.
Now, I'm fully aware that as long as people want him in office, he should and will be in office (because that's democracy), I'm just laminating that there are sufficient people that actually want him in office.

I also find it deeply amusing that think I'm from the US.

Glasgow:

His words don't constitute as incitement to violence, do they? I don't see an issue here where the minority is in danger. Like you've said - if the opposition to this idea won't work then the Judiciary can oppose this as it stands against the country's values or declarative document, err... Does New Zealand have a constitution?
So he said something racist. Big woop. You want to oppose him, let your voices heard. But you want to silence him? I don't approve of it.

While I'm not going all out to say this guy must be punished but there should be a more complex discussion then he has the right to free speech. He is after all a representative of the people so when he speaks he is speaking as the government not a person. And above all the government should be as far from racist as possible, so does this rep have a right to speak as a person or as a member of the government? From my experience in america if a bureaucratic make a public statement that is racist there is a big situation and that person is fired. If NZ is anything like america parliament has to confirm cabinet members and when they go to confirm these people they go through all of the things he says not just positions he know holds.

Also his idea could be phrased in a reasonable way that does't make it blatantly racist. He could say, "we need to limit people that look like terrorists from boarding our planes". Is it still meant to get "darker" people oh hell yeah but he isn't presenting an obvious bigotry that is counter-intuitive to an inclusive government message. And yeah I do think this is an instance where the majority could continue to vote this racist back in.

Silencing him or what I'd say is change his attitude to respect the position he is in where he has to represent all people. He can represent people's ideas and beliefs but not their bigotry or only a portion of the populous.

Realitycrash:

Glasgow:

Realitycrash:

Of course, everyone should have the same moral values and standards, and if you don't have it then you are illegible for office.

*sarcasm*

Would this be the same if a Muslim government declared that only Muslims can vote and be voted into Parliament? So now that he holds certain opinions he can't be voted into Parliament?

Dear God the American Hegemony is mind-boggling.

The reason he shouldn't be eligible for Parliament, as in 'in a world of sane people, this man shouldn't be in Parliament', is that he believes some people should be judged by their appearance, thus he fails quite deeply at understanding how a Democracy works. He doesn't want a democracy himself, he wants some form of government where we judge people not by their actions, or even their words, but the color of their skin. He can sincerely go fuck himself.
Now, I'm fully aware that as long as people want him in office, he should and will be in office (because that's democracy), I'm just laminating that there are sufficient people that actually want him in office.

I also find it deeply amusing that think I'm from the US.

No, not you from the US. It's the cultural hegemony I see from it.

...Are you listening to yourself? A (representative) democracy is a place where the people elect their representatives that hold their beliefs and will work on their behalf. This means that he probably has people who voted for him and that support what he said here. If you silence him, you also silence their voice.

dmase:

Glasgow:

His words don't constitute as incitement to violence, do they? I don't see an issue here where the minority is in danger. Like you've said - if the opposition to this idea won't work then the Judiciary can oppose this as it stands against the country's values or declarative document, err... Does New Zealand have a constitution?
So he said something racist. Big woop. You want to oppose him, let your voices heard. But you want to silence him? I don't approve of it.

While I'm not going all out to say this guy must be punished but there should be a more complex discussion then he has the right to free speech. He is after all a representative of the people so when he speaks he is speaking as the government not a person. And above all the government should be as far from racist as possible, so does this rep have a right to speak as a person or as a member of the government? From my experience in america if a bureaucratic make a public statement that is racist there is a big situation and that person is fired. If NZ is anything like america parliament has to confirm cabinet members and when they go to confirm these people they go through all of the things he says not just positions he know holds.

Also his idea could be phrased in a reasonable way that does't make it blatantly racist. He could say, "we need to limit people that look like terrorists from boarding our planes". Is it still meant to get "darker" people oh hell yeah but he isn't presenting an obvious bigotry that is counter-intuitive to an inclusive government message. And yeah I do think this is an instance where the majority could continue to vote this racist back in.

Silencing him or what I'd say is change his attitude to respect the position he is in where he has to represent all people. He can represent people's ideas and beliefs but not their bigotry or only a portion of the populous.

He is not speaking as the government. The government is the executive branch, not the legislature. He is from the legislative branch, thus he does not represent the government of New Zealand but the people who elected him to that role.

He raved against Islam. What he said was racially charged. Racism is when you say that a certain group of people that have similar physical or cultural features are better or worse than others. White Supremacy is racism. Saying that all Jews are parasites is racism. Calling all Muslims terrorists isn't racist, as much as calling all (expunged) drunks&whores is not racist.

Yeah, you generally shouldn't judge people based on their appearance. I do it all of the time, do you?

Glasgow:

Realitycrash:

Glasgow:

The reason he shouldn't be eligible for Parliament, as in 'in a world of sane people, this man shouldn't be in Parliament', is that he believes some people should be judged by their appearance, thus he fails quite deeply at understanding how a Democracy works. He doesn't want a democracy himself, he wants some form of government where we judge people not by their actions, or even their words, but the color of their skin. He can sincerely go fuck himself.
Now, I'm fully aware that as long as people want him in office, he should and will be in office (because that's democracy), I'm just laminating that there are sufficient people that actually want him in office.

I also find it deeply amusing that think I'm from the US.

No, not you from the US. It's the cultural hegemony I see from it.

...Are you listening to yourself? A (representative) democracy is a place where the people elect their representatives that hold their beliefs and will work on their behalf. This means that he probably has people who voted for him and that support what he said here. If you silence him, you also silence their voice.

I'm not interested in silencing him. I'm saying he shouldn't be in office, because he's a moron. Not that he should be banned from office.
Same reason I'm saying Sarah Palin shouldn't be anywhere close to the white-house, or we shouldn't ask blind men to perform surgery, or ask medical advice from four-year olds.
I'm expressing a wish that people grow some sanity and do not vote him into office, not that he legally be banned from office.

Glasgow:
If you silence him, you also silence their voice.

Personally I'd have been happy to kill Hitler and silence the voice of those who elected him. It'd only be unfortunate that the bigots who voted him in suffered no consequences beyond this silencing.

Dijkstra:

Glasgow:
If you silence him, you also silence their voice.

Personally I'd have been happy to kill Hitler and silence the voice of those who elected him. It'd only be unfortunate that the bigots who voted him in suffered no consequences beyond this silencing.

Godwin's law, ACTIVATE!
You forgot to say that before comparing him to Hitler. Sheesh, I see the comparisons to this all of the time. The third reich wasn't some cesspool of evil that you can keep comparing stuff to it, you're doing a disservice for both.

Glasgow:

Dijkstra:

Glasgow:
If you silence him, you also silence their voice.

Personally I'd have been happy to kill Hitler and silence the voice of those who elected him. It'd only be unfortunate that the bigots who voted him in suffered no consequences beyond this silencing.

Godwin's law, ACTIVATE!
You forgot to say that before comparing him to Hitler. Sheesh, I see the comparisons to this all of the time. The third reich wasn't some cesspool of evil that you can keep comparing stuff to it, you're doing a disservice for both.

What's sad is how people like to scream Godwin's Law instead of being able to look at it logically and seeing that democracy isn't magic.

Dijkstra:

Glasgow:

Dijkstra:

Personally I'd have been happy to kill Hitler and silence the voice of those who elected him. It'd only be unfortunate that the bigots who voted him in suffered no consequences beyond this silencing.

Godwin's law, ACTIVATE!
You forgot to say that before comparing him to Hitler. Sheesh, I see the comparisons to this all of the time. The third reich wasn't some cesspool of evil that you can keep comparing stuff to it, you're doing a disservice for both.

What's sad is how people like to scream Godwin's Law instead of being able to look at it logically and seeing that democracy isn't magic.

Look at it logically? You compared him to Hitler, and now you want me to look at it logically?

I don't see it that way. If you cherish your 'values', go and silence him, but then don't complain when others get silenced because of other reasons...

Glasgow:

Dijkstra:

Glasgow:

Godwin's law, ACTIVATE!
You forgot to say that before comparing him to Hitler. Sheesh, I see the comparisons to this all of the time. The third reich wasn't some cesspool of evil that you can keep comparing stuff to it, you're doing a disservice for both.

What's sad is how people like to scream Godwin's Law instead of being able to look at it logically and seeing that democracy isn't magic.

Look at it logically? You compared him to Hitler, and now you want me to look at it logically?

By making that complaint you're again being illogical. You're just whining incessantly about the name 'Hitler' instead of giving a good reason that the example isn't a problem for your espoused principles.

I don't see it that way. If you cherish your 'values', go and silence him, but then don't complain when others get silenced because of other reasons...

And here we see another reason you should use logic. Slippery slope fallacy.

Dijkstra:

Glasgow:

Dijkstra:

What's sad is how people like to scream Godwin's Law instead of being able to look at it logically and seeing that democracy isn't magic.

Look at it logically? You compared him to Hitler, and now you want me to look at it logically?

By making that complaint you're again being illogical. You're just whining incessantly about the name 'Hitler' instead of giving a good reason that the example isn't a problem for your espoused principles.

I don't see it that way. If you cherish your 'values', go and silence him, but then don't complain when others get silenced because of other reasons...

And here we see another reason you should use logic. Slippery slope fallacy.

and what's your argument you so well explained earlier?

:'Personally I'd have been happy to kill Hitler and silence the voice of those who elected him. It'd only be unfortunate that the bigots who voted him in suffered no consequences beyond this silencing.'

You're saying I'm illogical while you did nothing to support your position except for comparing him to Hitler.

Glasgow:

Dijkstra:

Glasgow:

Look at it logically? You compared him to Hitler, and now you want me to look at it logically?

By making that complaint you're again being illogical. You're just whining incessantly about the name 'Hitler' instead of giving a good reason that the example isn't a problem for your espoused principles.

I don't see it that way. If you cherish your 'values', go and silence him, but then don't complain when others get silenced because of other reasons...

And here we see another reason you should use logic. Slippery slope fallacy.

and what's your argument you so well explained earlier?

:'Personally I'd have been happy to kill Hitler and silence the voice of those who elected him. It'd only be unfortunate that the bigots who voted him in suffered no consequences beyond this silencing.'

You're saying I'm illogical while you did nothing to support your position except for comparing him to Hitler.

Your leaps in logic and ability to ignore the obvious issue are not my fault. The point is that it doesn't really matter all that much if bigots get silenced, sometimes it is for the better. There is no principle that works that says they never should be silenced.

Dijkstra:

Glasgow:

Dijkstra:

By making that complaint you're again being illogical. You're just whining incessantly about the name 'Hitler' instead of giving a good reason that the example isn't a problem for your espoused principles.

And here we see another reason you should use logic. Slippery slope fallacy.

and what's your argument you so well explained earlier?

:'Personally I'd have been happy to kill Hitler and silence the voice of those who elected him. It'd only be unfortunate that the bigots who voted him in suffered no consequences beyond this silencing.'

You're saying I'm illogical while you did nothing to support your position except for comparing him to Hitler.

Your leaps in logic and ability to ignore the obvious issue are not my fault. The point is that it doesn't really matter all that much if bigots get silenced, sometimes it is for the better. There is no principle that works that says they never should be silenced.

And now you're insulting me. 'Pluralism' is, as far as I know, something that liberals and modern supporters of the widespread democratic republic idea cherish as a base value. So is freedom of speech. So you can't deal with a different opinion and you silence it, and your excuse is that he is like Hitler.

I don't want to talk with you anymore. You annoy me. You come in and pull a Godwin's law and then you complain I'm illogical and - while you don't even bloody explain yourself in the first place.

Glasgow:

Dijkstra:

Glasgow:

and what's your argument you so well explained earlier?

:'Personally I'd have been happy to kill Hitler and silence the voice of those who elected him. It'd only be unfortunate that the bigots who voted him in suffered no consequences beyond this silencing.'

You're saying I'm illogical while you did nothing to support your position except for comparing him to Hitler.

Your leaps in logic and ability to ignore the obvious issue are not my fault. The point is that it doesn't really matter all that much if bigots get silenced, sometimes it is for the better. There is no principle that works that says they never should be silenced.

And now you're insulting me. 'Pluralism' is, as far as I know, something that liberals and modern supporters of the widespread democratic republic idea cherish as a base value. So is freedom of speech. So you can't deal with a different opinion and you silence it, and your excuse is that he is like Hitler.

I don't want to talk with you anymore. You annoy me. You come in and pull a Godwin's law and then you complain I'm illogical and - while you don't even bloody explain yourself in the first place.

You confirm that you are illogical. You come in acting as if I will care what a bunch of people will value. As if I need to follow them. Terrible reasoning.

And there was no excuse that he is like Hitler, that is your own fabrication. I did not say he was like Hitler, I pointed out that this idea of free speech being sacred to be inapplicable to all things, at least if we're going to be pragmatic.

And Godwin's Law is meaningless in terms of logic.

Glasgow:
...Are you listening to yourself? A (representative) democracy is a place where the people elect their representatives that hold their beliefs and will work on their behalf. This means that he probably has people who voted for him and that support what he said here. If you silence him, you also silence their voice.

But it's not silencing him. Kicking him out of parliament would not be silencing, but rather merely removing his soapbox. He can still spew all this bile, he just doesn't have a convenient and far-reaching platform to do so.

It's the same when radio shock jocks say something awful. Taking them off air is not silencing them. Almost none of us (I suspect) have a radio show that broadcasts to entire cities or countries. Does that mean that we are silenced, and our right to free speech is being violated? Of course not. I can say whatever I want, as can you, as can a racist dickhead, we just don't get as convenient a means to spread it.

I'd like to see a bunch of airlines ban him.

Glasgow:

He is not speaking as the government. The government is the executive branch, not the legislature. He is from the legislative branch, thus he does not represent the government of New Zealand but the people who elected him to that role.

Ugh if you live in America you should not believe that at all it's entirely contrary to everything I have every learned about the government because when someone ask what are the branches of government we don't just say executive. He votes on legislation that affects everyone in NZ but even if he was only in charge of a principality he is still part of a part of the government that isn't supposed to be racist and he shouldn't be of the opinion that muslims are non-people

He raved against Islam. What he said was racially charged. Racism is when you say that a certain group of people that have similar physical or cultural features are better or worse than others. White Supremacy is racism. Saying that all Jews are parasites is racism. Calling all Muslims terrorists isn't racist, as much as calling all (expunged) drunks&whores is not racist.

I can't tell if your saying that calling a group of people terrorists isn't racism or that muslims aren't a race so it doesn't apply. Either way your arguing semantics over something a government official shouldn't say.

Yeah, you generally shouldn't judge people based on their appearance. I do it all of the time, do you?

I'm not talking about me or you I'm talking about a government official and his disrespectful and "racially charged" comments.

dmase:

Glasgow:

He is not speaking as the government. The government is the executive branch, not the legislature. He is from the legislative branch, thus he does not represent the government of New Zealand but the people who elected him to that role.

Ugh if you live in America you should not believe that at all it's entirely contrary to everything I have every learned about the government because when someone ask what are the branches of government we don't just say executive. He votes on legislation that affects everyone in NZ but even if he was only in charge of a principality he is still part of a part of the government that isn't supposed to be racist and he shouldn't be of the opinion that muslims are non-people

He raved against Islam. What he said was racially charged. Racism is when you say that a certain group of people that have similar physical or cultural features are better or worse than others. White Supremacy is racism. Saying that all Jews are parasites is racism. Calling all Muslims terrorists isn't racist, as much as calling all (expunged) drunks&whores is not racist.

I can't tell if your saying that calling a group of people terrorists isn't racism or that muslims aren't a race so it doesn't apply. Either way your arguing semantics over something a government official shouldn't say.

Yeah, you generally shouldn't judge people based on their appearance. I do it all of the time, do you?

I'm not talking about me or you I'm talking about a government official and his disrespectful and "racially charged" comments.

*not an american*
New Zealand is commonwealth nation, so I assumed it has a similar parliamentary system like in Britain, which means that the legislative is not the same as the executive and that the legislative is a representative of the people, not the government. A government official can also be a bureaucrat in the auto-office, it doesn't mean much.

Glasgow:
...Are you listening to yourself? A (representative) democracy is a place where the people elect their representatives that hold their beliefs and will work on their behalf. This means that he probably has people who voted for him and that support what he said here. If you silence him, you also silence their voice.

Which is good, because it prevents such fringe elements from spreading hatred, destabilising society, and possibly even overthrowing the government and instating a sort of dictatorship based on racism and ethnic hostilities. If people voted for that guy because they hate Muslims, that's hardly their legitimate idea. Ussually you're dealing with the bottom of the lower class, dumb people, uneducated people, who are typically disenfranchised (not in the last place because they can't comprehend how society works if they wanted to) and then go with what some populist screams.

Latest example of the failure to control such fringe elements: Greece tried to let them talk. Now they have daily attacks on any foreigners by fascist gangs, political scam trials, and a nazi party controlling 5% of the parliament already.


It's far better to build some checks and balances in a system. You seriously don't want hatemongers going around freely like that. You gain nothing from letting them, and stand to lose a lot. While we're not talking about anything more than common sense restrictions here, that you wouldn't even need to be familiar with to talk all your life and never say anything even remotely against the rules.

Alright, I am a New Zealander so I will weigh in on this:

1) The quotes this guy made are from an opinion piece he wrote for a right-wing conservative magazine.
2) He has every right to write or say these things if he wishes - we aren't as restrictive about speech as the UK (as far as I am aware).

3) He can be kicked out of parliament for it because of the type of MP he is.

I will explain our system:
We have an MMP system (Mixed-member proportional). I won't explain it in full but it allows some MPs to come in under a party vote based on party vote percentages. At a general election you vote for two things; your electorate (local MP) and party. This is intended to prevent NZ being simply a two-party system. For example: no single area can elect an MP for "minor party x" but, throughout the country, 10% of the population would like to have an MP from that party in Parliament. So their party votes, when tallied up, show that 10% of the MPs need to come from this part to best represent the country as a whole. The party will have an internal list which decides who, in their party, sit in those seats. These are the list MPs and they are supposed to vote on all bills in favour of their party because that is, in effect, why they were elected - exceptions are on "conscience issues". MPs elected directly just get a seat and don't have to worry about it and can vote against their general party-line if they wish.

This is how he got in. He wasn't elected directly but the party reached a 7% of the overall party vote and so got 8 (I think) MPs to come into Parliament. Who gets in are decided by that party's own lists and, if one of their MPs step out of line, they could kick him/her out and replace them with the next person on the list if they choose. Obviously MPs elected directly (by an electorate vote) can't be removed this way. In fact none of his party were elected directly this time around - and they ran a campaign based purely on getting party votes.

My view is that he is an embarrassment and, if the party has all balls, they will hold an internal vote to see if they want to oust him.

Oh yeah; feel free to query my explanation above if it didn't make sense or update/correct me if made any errors.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here