Much has been said of Richard Prosser’s imflammatory column on Muslims. There has been widespread condemnation.
But there has also been support for Prosser’s sentiments, expressed at Kiwiblog and Whale Oil:
And it has initiated talk of the Muslim Peril, how New Zealand should not allow any Muslim immigrants. I’ve seen some go as far as saying all Muslims should be expelled from New Zealand.
The Muslim Peril is a regular topic at Kiwiblog where a handful of commenters repeating their concerns, and they get support from a significant number of others. There has been a history of opposition to people who ‘are different’ – the Yellow Peril, and also Irish, Pom, Polynesian and Asian perils to varying degrees.
La Grand Fromage
This will do NZ First no harm at all. Anyone who has had their toothpaste, deoderant and shampoo thrown out from their hand luggage because it could be a bomb will sympathise with what Prosser says.
Muslims blow innocent people up and subjugate women, they deserve a bit of stick.
Leaving aside the blunt way in which he said it, there is a *great deal of truth* in Prosser’s words.
The stupid politically-correct “offensive speech” laws in the UK and Europe are only *ever* used to silence those who *validly* criticise Islam (like Geert Wilders – ok, he got off, fortunately). You *never* see Muslims hauled into court under those laws for waving around signs saying “God bless Hitler”.
Muslims are a “protected species” under the loony-PC laws of the UK and Europe. They can do whatever they like – they almost never get prosecuted.
I suspect all that prosser has said is what a majority of people think— but are too frightened to say.
Theres nothing particularly likeable about many muslims from the way they behave, the way they treat women, the stupid beliefs they have (21 virgins waiting for them in heaven and all that sort of shit) etc.
And they do pretty much come from wogland – or whatever he said.
Those comments got many ‘Likes’ (and ‘Unlikes’). They are typical of what is often posted. I sometimes challenge them and did here.
Ex Act MP David Garrett responded:
PG: While I dont resile at all from what I said earlier about this guy, I also strongly believe that you and others are extremely naive if you think we won’t get serious problems if he we allow more Muslim immigration here…Everywhere Muslims have gained a significant toehold as a percentage of the population, there have been serious problems. We have an example right over the ditch in Oz…what makes you think it would be any different here if Muslims were – say – 8% of the population rather than 1 or 2 or whatever they are now?
Do we really want suburbs of Auckland where New Zealand women dare not go unless they are in a bloody chador or a burka? I dont….
And big bruv responded to that:
Well said. While I do not agree with the comments of that idiot Prosser (seriously, did Winston even know these other people before the met them in Parliament?) I also do not want mass Muslim immigration into NZ.
I pointed out we have nowhere near the numbers they are talking about.
DG, currently less than 1%. No sign of it getting anywhere near 8%. So whether or not there’s a tipping point % or not (highly debatable in New Zealand, nothing to prove that it would happen) we aren’t anywhere near that and don’t look like getting there.
I simply don’t see that there is any tangible problem. There is certainly no plan of or sign of mass Muslim immigration here.
PG: Jeez, I actually credited you with a few clues! Try and answer my question Peter…just to make it clear, I will put it in quotes: “If we ever got the same % of Muslims in NZ as are currently part of the Australian population, what makes you think we wouldn’t get exactly the same problems that country is experiencing?”
Is that clear enough?
I will give you my answer: It would actually be a bloody sight worse here because of how tolerant we all are of “diversity”, including being totally comfortable with not one but TWO blatantly racist parties in our parliament…granted one of them has about as much support as your mate….
1. There is currently no sign of any problem here
2, New Zealand is a lot smaller than Australia.
3. There is no sign of us getting close to the numbers you are talking about.
4. If we are tolerant of diversity it is just as likely Muslims would feel accepted and unthreatened, therefore safe and unreactionary.
5. There has been fearmongering of immigrant groups in the past that has come to nothing.
Is that clear enough?
PG: well done, you made an effort…btw, the word you mean to use in point 4. is “reactive”…reactionary means wishing to return to a earlier supposedly mythical time when things were better….
But just to address the worst of your points…do you think there was almost certainly “no sign of any problem” in Australia 25 years ago? How would our being smaller make a blind bit of difference?
“do you think there was almost certainly “no sign of any problem” in Australia 25 years ago?”
I don’t know, I haven’t been following what’s been happening there, and have only occasionally heard of problems even now. Are Muslims any worse than other groups? For example, are they involved in the bikie gangs or other organised crime groups?
“How would our being smaller make a blind bit of difference?”
In the modern world larger metropolitan areas seem to have the biggest problem with gangs and ethnic groupings causing problems. We have smaller and fewer large cities, therefore less risk.
And so it will go on. Prejudices, fears and gross overstatements never abate, they just pause until the next time.
As in another thread, Harriet is a regular Muslim Peril commenter”
Islamisation begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious rights. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious rights, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here’s how it works.
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part being regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
-United States – Muslim 0.6%
-Australia – Muslim 1.5%
-Canada – Muslim 1.9%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytise from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Germany – Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom – Muslim 2.7%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves – along with threats for failure to comply.
This is occurring in:
France – Muslim 8%
Philippines – Muslim 5%
Sweden – Muslim 5%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in: -
Guyana – Muslim 10%
India – Muslim 13.4%
Israel – Muslim 16%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in Ethiopia – Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in: -Bosnia – Muslim 40% -Chad – Muslim 53.1%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania – Muslim 70%
Malaysia – Muslim 60.4%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Egypt – Muslim 90%
Gaza – Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia – Muslim 86.1%
Iran – Muslim 98%
Iraq – Muslim 97%
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan – Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia – Muslim 100%
As I said, the figures are now not fully accurate, but the general sense of how this process works is nicely contained in this piece of information.
This sort of detail is commonly shared around the world. There are some valid concerns, but also much over the scaremongering. Winston Peters and Richard Prosser are representing a commom sentiment.
Therev arev people that fear the Muslim popuklation percent – even though current numbers of Muslims in New Zealand and current immigration levels don’t come close to the supposed dangerous levels.
And this all ignores the fact that we don’t have any out of then ordinary problems with Muslims in New Zealand. They seem to be able to live without causing the problems warned of.
New Zealand is very different to other parts of the world. And most Muslims are very different to the very small minority who are involved in terrorism.
Prejudiced provocation creates as much risk as anything here.