Little slammed and slammed again

The Little payment debacle seems to have been played down here. It’s an awful look for Andrew Little and will take a lot to recover from.

The problems are detailed by David Farrar: Incompetence from Little and Labour

1. Hiring a right wing journalist to advise on your Labour Party leadership campaign in the first place
2. Not paying him promptly when invoiced on 10 November
3. Not responding to the next three e-mails from Cohen asking to be paid
4. The Leader’s Chief of Staff gets involved on 22 December and doesn’t get it paid that day or even tell the Leader
5. Two weeks later still unpaid, and COS gets e-mailed again.
6. Another three weeks goes by and it is unpaid, and the journalist (NB journalist!) has to e-mail again
7. The COS finally tells Little at the end of January and Little doesn’t get it paid that day
8. Another week and another reminder and still no action
9. Little gives a speech on how Labour wants to help small businesses, infuriating the self-employed journalist who e-mails again, now angry. Warning bells should be ringing loudly by now.
10. Two more weeks later Cohen writes an article in NBR that appears in their print edition last Friday complaining he has not been paid. The incompetence is so huge that this does not result in a payment being made by end of day, but is ignored
11. Four days later Steven Joyce raises the non payment in the House and finally it is paid
12. When confronted over the bad look for the Labour Leader to not be paying a worker the money he is owed, Little gets angry at the media and demands they call him a contractor not a worker!

Farrar also points out:

The public rate competence well ahead of ideology.

It’s not just the public who will be querying his competence (in particular the small business part of the public that Little is targeting for support).

But when the media spot incompetence they punish it. And when they get a bad reaction from their target they punish that too.

And a comment at Kiwiblog slams Little some more.

Little’s leadership campaign was a personal campaign and nothing to do with the Labour Party machine per see, so McCarten isn’t to blame at all. Thius is Andrew’s mess pure and simple as the CEO of his Leadership Campaign…..

Little should have had his campaign staff organised with a simple Accounts Payable spreadsheet recording all entities engaged, their tasks, agreed costs, whether those costs had been paid in part of in full, contact details etc.

The fact his staff weren’t organised and didn’t under take simple management of the engagements and costs indicates Little doesn’t have good organisational skills and/or good leadership skills – as obviously his campaign staff cocked it up completely and the work of his staff is a reflection of him interms of staff selection and management

He then compounds it by getting angry with the media. Why just not say yip organisational snafu by the campaign team, just found out about it and have paid up.

And then to top it off the Contractor v Worker BS. Personally as a CONTRACTOR myself I find his characterisation of a CONTRACTOR as not a WORKER bloody insulting!!!! Just because I’m not a Corporate/SME employee or a Unionised employee doesn’t mean I don’t damn well work for a living and am therefore not a WORKER.

Andrew thanks for confirming I shouldn’t listen to Labour any more – you have confirmed if I’m not an employee then I am not someone you give a damn about except as a potential source of additional taxes to fund your redistribution dreams…

Oh and great job distracting from Nationals multiple mismangaments of issues lately [Sabin/Sky City] I am sure Joyce will shout you a drink in Bellamys in thanks….

Little’s learning curve suddenly turns his public image to looking far less favourable.

And to top it off Cameron Slater gets in a payback dig:

And Cameron Slater points out of course that one of the condemnations in DIRTY POLITICS was that certain journalists did work for politicians, and lobby groups, and other interests without clearly revealing full authorship.

Manolo Manumpty

Manolo is one of the politically frustrated regulars at Kiwiblog. As Psycho Milt said there yesterday:

I know the concept of commenting in some form other than one-line ad hominem or variations on “I hate Muslims” is a really big, hell probably too big a stretch for you…

That’s how he operates, usually putting down Muslims, Barack Obama (and sometimes both at the same time), Maori criminals and me plus a few others he has taken to stalking.

He’s not very original, often repeating the same lies and smears. He seems to feed off a few fellow numpties who uptick his attacks.

He has recently taken to claiming I will join Labour and stand for them as a candidate in 2017. That’s the sort of nonsense he dreams up. So yesterday I posted this:

Setting the record straight – Manolo is well known for lame smears and repeatedly making things up.

I have no intention of joing the Labour Party or any political party. I have no intention of putting myself forward as a candidate in 2017 – and I think there’s no way Labour would consider me as a candidate even if there was a vacancy here (which there is no sign of), apart from other things I’m probably from their least sought after demographic for candidates.

Manolo  is either wildly guessing or being deliberately malicious. His past record suggests at least partly the latter.

Sure I’ve put myself forward as a candidate on two occassions, 2011 and 2013. On both occassions that was for particular reasons and very worthwhile and interesting experiences, getting to meet and know better politicians I wouldn’t otherwise have had any contact with. But that’s in the past.

And I learnt a lot about the practicalities of our democratic system, including the difficulties of going against the status quo that is dominated by media selection. A very useful insight.

I’ve written about some of the successes and positives of Andrew Little, that’s all. And about some of the negatives and challenges facing Little and Labour.

I hope that Little does succeed in rebuilding Labour (but it will take much more than him).

This doesn’t mean I support Labour over any other party. I support all parties being as useful and as strong as possible, because that’s good for our democracy, for our Parliament and for our country.

Manolo seems to prefer a one party state but there’s no party in New Zealand that fits his fringe ideological wishes. So he seems to have nothing to do but continue to be an armchair smearer.

I’ll keep promoting positives in politics and also hold to account those who try to smear – and if they contnue to do it then it will prove it’s malicious.

Predictably Manolo couldn’t resist responding.

What a disappointment! Silly me who thought Don Quixote of Dunedin would stand for socialist Labour.
I forgot that sitting on the fence, a la Humpty Dumpty, is always his style.

Don Quixote of Dunedin is one of several names he calls me. Another is Mother Theresa. Very funny, but he seems to think it’s insulting or something.

‘Sitting on the fence’ is often thrown at me,just another lame ad hominem in absence of any substance – Manolo rarely actually debates or substantiates any of his claims, he’s just another gutless hit and runner hiding behind anonymity.

He knowingly repeats falsehoods. His acknowledgement of reading my statement will confirm that any repeats are simply malicious. I expect that to continue, it’s the numpty way he operates. This post puts this on public record.

Blog vultures

In the previous post Left versus lefter Martyn Bradbury proves to be the champ of chumps but one barb against Lynn Prentice does have some (partial) merit.

Blah blah Lynn – you are a Labour Party middle class stooge from the old school. 60 years olds using ‘dickhead’ as vernacular is embarrassing.

I’m not 60 and I know Lynn is younger than me so that part is nonsense (although he does come across as a cranky old bugger).

But Prentice is an old school Labour activist floundering in the 21st century, as he demonstartes in a response to me at The Standard.

I said “perhaps left wing blogs will stop their bloody mindedness, stop attacking anyone deemed to not fit some narrow ideal, and stop infighting (as per today) and support the recovery instead of scrapping over who gets to dig deeper holes.”

Prentice responded.

It’d be nice. However there is the usual problem. We could “turn the other cheek” to left blogs, right blogs, blogs that think they are in the ‘centre’, politicians, media or whoever. However experience tends to show that when we do that all it does is simply encourage idiots to attack more.

Confronting crap is an important part of political debate.

They usually go off to create stupid myths that consist largely of people telling each other that they have heard for someone else. It then causes considerable extra work explaining to thick buggers who can’t think (umm a face comes to mind) that regardless what they’d heard, it didn’t happen.

These days I’ll ignore some of it, do a few warning shots. If people don’t take the warnings then I will go into problem fixing mode. That consists of wading in when the tactical position is suitable, ripping their entails out and spreading them on the ground for the vultures.

He thinks that’s what he does. And he has a very loose leash on his resident vultures at The Standard. It might have been effective in public bar political arguments last century but when printed in permanent public record in new century social media it looks at best big dickish.

If it happens again, then I will simply escalate how badly I eviscerate. If it gets too irritating repetitive then I figure out a debilitating meme to cover them with to see if I can increase the risk of peritonitis. It isn’t pretty, but it is usually highly effective eventually at preventing people trying to climb somewhere on our sites carcass.

But it isn’t effective. Prentice doesn’t seem to have comprehended the sating about repeating the same old mistakes.

However the reflex is almost entirely reactive. If people stop attacking stupidly then I will usually stop ripping into them (unless I start thinking that they are a real danger).

I do find it pretty damn irritating when fools start trying to claim silly crap like blogs screwing them up because they’d prefer to believe it rather than looking at real problems. Like what in the hell are their MSM liasons and politicians doing? Having a single “senior MP” playing silly games is a hundredfold more damaging. Chris Carter for instance.

Blogs may have a major impact on general public opinion. They sometimes do if they manage to get the MSM interested – because you’re trying to affect millions of people. That was the success of the dirty politics resonance chamber until Hager nobbled it.

Despite the grand dreams of Cameron Slater in particular blogs rarely have a major impact on general public opiniion. The vast majority of people don’t know that Whale Oil or The Standard exist let alone carfe about there attempts at influencing opinion.

And as Slater has discovered if they repeat the nasty bastard approach it is more likely to turn opiniion against them. They might have small wins but eventually the shit catches up with them.

But where blogs have an effect is inside the political parties and chattering classes. The reason for that is obvious. There are only a few 10’s of thousands there. In the case of political parties, when politicians start working at cross-purposes with their party members that starts showing up in the public sphere pretty damn fast these days.

When blogs keep working at cross purposes to decent debate it contributes to making their associated parties look like dirty rabble.

If a politician can’t convince their own members that a course of action is the way to go, then I suspect that they will fail badly with the public as well. David Shearer being a particularly good case in point. perhaps he should have read the blogs?

The most vociferous participants on blogs like The Standard and Kiwiblog (comment at Whale Oil has been neutered and is now a tame chorus) are not a good target for parties to impress. Many of them are the unsatisfiable idealists and extremists.

Reading The Standard will give a neutral observer little idea about Labour Party thinking and behaviour is likke. It is likely to do little other than deter an imvolvement in poltical debate or with Labour. Most people don’t want to walk into an abusive uninviting environment.

So the blog becomes little more than a poor advertisement for it’s associated party, discouraging decent debate and contributing to widespread disillusionment with politics.

And Prentice and his entrailing and wailing is one of the biggest culprits, one of the left’s worst enemies of progressing and rebuilding in the 21st century. Which is a shame because The Standard could be far more effective if it encouraged far less vitriol.

Ditto Kiwiblog and National, except that David Farrar has a hands off approach and isn’t a recidivist arsehole.

Political blogs could contribute a lot to the political discourse in New Zealand. Unfortunately when some olf the biggest are controlled by the likes of Slater, Prentice and Bradbury the prospects don’t look great.

It’s their own entrails that they are spreading out, and their own vultures picking over the bones.

Maybe there simply isn’t the market for positive political blogs.

Which would be a pity because the voting public are fed up with dirty politics and dirty blogging.

It baffles me why Prentice things that being a blowhard arsehole will achieve anything positive.

“Capitulated to the mongrel bastards”

In Ugly reactions at Kiwiblog I linked to contentious Charlie Hebdo cartoons but chose not to show the cartoons myself because I don’t like offensively provocative satire and I don’t fully understand the French context.

The right to choose what one publishes is at least as important as the right to free speech and freedom of the press.

But a comment at Kiwiblog sees things differently. IGM:

DPF: I must endorse Fletch, it is good to see you have intestinal fortitude, unlike Pete George, who has capitulated to the mongrel bastards.

I think that’s a mongrel bastard accusation IGM.  Your attitude and intolerance is as bad in it’s own way as that of the terrorists. All you lack is their physical violence.

Ugly reactions at Kiwiblog

Comments at Kiwiblog are dominated by intolerance of 1.6 biliion people because of abhorrent actions of a small number of supposed Muslims.

The posts are fine. David Farrar has two posts on the Charlie Hebdo murders. This morning he posted some of the controversial cartoons – The cartoons that 12 were killed for -and commented:

It is important not to reward the terrorists by self-censorship. Only if their actions lead to the cartoons getting more widely published, might they stop.

Huffington Post has the full set.

I don’t like derogatory and deliberately offensive cartoons and don’t fully understand the French cartoons and their context so won’t post them here.

Yesterday Farrar posted A murderous attack on free speech where he links to an early report on the atrocity and comments:

This is basically religious fascism – killing people who do not subscribe to their religious tenets. These killings will have a chilling impact on media around the world – who will self-censor in fear of similar executions.

What would be a great response is for every media outlet in the western world to publish images of Mohammad, to send a signal that the more you use terror to try and create censorship, the more it will backfire.

So he has followed up on that. Reasonable posts. But there is a large and ugly reaction to Muslims in the comments. Farrar suports free speech as a basic principle so allows people to express whatever they like, but a lot of it isn’t pretty.

A typcial comment from EAD

@ DPF – publishing cartoons is not going to cut the mustard and our PC media hasn’t got the balls to do such a thing anyway less they “cause offence”.

This is what years of PC culture does – instead of fighting these bastards and kicking them out of OUR countries, we make excuses for their bad behavior and keep letting them in.

Instead of expressing disgust in this barbaric behavior, we launch “twitter campaigns” to express sorrow or make sure Muslims feel safe #I’llridewithyou.

Currently 40 likes, 4 dislikes.


We should take very serious note. We certainly won’t be immune to these ‘people?’. They should be confined to Muslim countries as they not only don’t fit in with our culture but they easily take offence which leads to tragic consequences in all too many cases. As far as I’m concerned I don’t want them in our country as they are not all peaceful as they try to make us believe.

25 likes, 4 dislikes

I posted a media link and said:

The France attacks won’t help the tensions and growing intolrance thoughout Europe.

Attacking and ostracising innocent Muslims is not dissimilar to terrorists attacking people. Both show a lack of tolerance of others.

6 likes, 45 dislikes

A response from EAD included:

You can take your tolerance and shove it where the sun don’t shine. While you’re at it, I suggest you read Classics and in particular Aristotle who had this to say on tolerance:

“Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society”

39 likes, 4 dislikes

A response from IGM:

PG: Get your head out of your arse . . . you are the type these scumbags gain their support from.

24 likes, 5 dislikes

They are more likely to react against the likes of IGM than get any support from me – I don’t support terrorists at all.


Maybe it’s time for the West to take some drastic measures:

Ban ALL immigration of muslims.
Export ALL non-citizen muslims, be they tourists, refugees, visitors or immigrants.
License ALL practicing muslim citizens.
Ban preaching of religious seperatism (of any kind).
Start treating anyone convicted of terrorism-type offenses the way they treat their victims (public death and dismemberment).
Ban ALL trade with any country overtly (or proven to be covertly) supporting islam in any form.

Now that ME oil is no longer able to hold the world to ransom, if the West as a group plus China take these measures I suspect the actual threat of islam will rather quickly fade.

16 likes, 7 dislikes

Dave Mann:

What would be a great response is for every media outlet in the western world to publish images of Mohammad, to send a signal that the more you use terror to try and create censorship, the more it will backfire.

Yes, that would indeed be a good prong to use in a two-pronged response. The other prong should be for the West, led by France, to nuke the whole area of Iraq and Syria which is currently held by these animals. Pour encourager les autres.

11 likes, 5 dislikes

mikenmild responded to that:

Ah, the first call for millions of deaths as an appropriate response. How about tracking down the actual killers and their supporters and financiers?

10 likes, 21 dislikes

That’s just some examples from the first couple of hours in a long thread.

It’s not all ugly reactive and intolerant.

Nigel Kearney shows some decency and commonsense and gets some support for it:

Splitting people into groups and setting them against each other is a leftist strategy. I prefer to judge people as individuals, irrespective of good or bad acts that have been done by others of the same race, gender, religion or whatever.

We aren’t going to protect ourselves from this kind of thuggery by deporting the guy who runs my local dairy.

14 likes, 3 dislikes

Late in the thread UrbanNeocolonialist commented:

To all those who would recommend war on Islam as the answer; would this be strictly an enlightened bomb them from afar war? Kill all the children babies and other non combatants and let Allah sort them out? Or would you be putting your life on the front line? would you be pushing your families and friends to be on the front lines? You know, a money-where-your-mouth is approach rather than frivolously spending other people’s lives.

War is not a toy you play with. Innocent people die both directly and indirectly from impoverishment, it creates injustices and animosities that are passed on for 50-100 years (during which time some of those aggrieved will get nukes) and lets the worst of humanity – the thugs and psychos – off the leash to wreck havoc (eg see Balkans, Rwanda, Taliban, Iraq …). It costs insane amounts of money both immediately and for the next generation or two as the human and material wreckage is managed, and is in sum the deadly fucking serious use-as-a-last-resort-only stick.

I know this is mostly internet chest beating and you are probably not serious, but for any that are: don’t be fucking idiotic.

Scott Hamilton:

‘I gave a definition of integrate I gave a definition of integrate and spelled out the reasons why it was impossible for
muslims to integrate into any western society’

I can’t find that definition in this thread, cricko. You’ve simply repeated that Muslims are awful for NZ and always will be, and that we should boot the devils out. As Kimbo pointed out, you’re recycling the same sort of generalisations we used to hear about Irish and Chinese.

Nor do I get a sense that you are familiar with any of the various quite different ideological currents and ethnic and linguistic groups that make up the Muslim community in NZ. How on earth can NZ’s sizeable community of Ahmadiyya Muslims, for example, which is outspoken in its rejection of jihadism and active in inter-faith activities, be considered a terrorist threat?

‘My points are self evident to most people Scott’

I think your grasp of NZ public opinion is about as sure as your grasp of Muslim opinion.

So it’s not all awful. And the anti-Muslim segment of Kiwiblog represents only a small part of New Zealand society. But it’s a window into an ugly and intolerant segment of our socety.

David Farrar supports the right of cartoons to offend. He also supports the right of commenters to offend. That’s fine. It doesn’t hurt to see that we we do ugly in New Zealand.

Fortunately in the main New Zealand is one of the most tolerant societies in the world.

Right of National (the coffee party)

A proposal for a Right of National party from Holysheet at Kiwiblog (curreently well supported with 30 upticks and 4 downticks) is little more than a futile wishlist.

Redbaiter and all other moaners about what National is not doing, here is a challenge for you. Instead of saying what national are not doing, why not say what you would do if you had the chance.

Hypothetically, we form a new party called Right of National (the coffee party)

My starting list of changes would include the following,

– Abolish all race based representation in local and national government. There is no need for the maori party or separate seats in local govt set aside for maori.

That’s a common and popular wish from the right, but there’s no sign of it being popular with any parties in Parliament apart perhaps ACT..

It’s up to voters in the current system to decide if there’s any need for the Maori Party. I think holysheet means there is no need for Maori seats. I don’t see any particular problem with them, they give similar numbers of voters the opportunity to vote for their preferred party or candidate as general electorates.

What is the actual problem with the Maori seats apart from them having a special status? Do they cause any democratic problems?

– Abolish all unnecessary govt departments. The following would be gone by lunchtime. Dept of child, youth and family services, Ministry of culture and heritage, Ministry of pacific island affairs, Ministry of Women’s affairs, (Woman don’t need govt money to have affairs), Ministry of Youth development, Office of ethnic affairs, Office of treaty settlements, Ministry of maori development. Ministry of social development. Ministry of Research Science and Technology, Ministry of economic development. Employment relations service. Citizenship and Passport office ( why have we got these separate?) By my calculations thats a total of 13 CEO’s and all office staff not required. Together with all the funding it would reduce govt expenditure greatly.

Also very popular on the right. Again there doesn’t seem much desire in Parliament to greatly reduce the bureaucracy.

This reflects an idealistic wish to have smaller government but proponents rarely analyse the actual value we get (not just monetary value) from having these departments.

I’d prefer government expenditure to be reduced but at what cost?

– Introduce minimum sentencing for any crime for which there is a jail sentence of more than 2 years jail. Remove the right to automatic name suppression.

Is there any evidence that current sentencing is not approximately the best balance?

The right to automatic name suppression is primarlly to protect victims of crime so that shouldn’t be removed. There’s a small number of high profile cases involving name suppression that look like an abuse of privilege but I don’t see any evidence that name suppressin as a whole isn’t working reasonably well.

– If you stand for election on a party list seat and an electorate seat, and you do not get elected by the electorate you wish to represent, then you do not get into parliament on the list seat. If you cannot convince your electorate to vote for you, then you obviously aren’t good enough to be in parliament.

I don’t see any point in this, I don’t know what it is trying to fix.

It would lead to a poorer quality of list candidates or less competition in electorates, neither of which would improve anything.

It would also mean that electorates would see less party variety in election campaigns, pretty much ruling out Green and NZ First electorate candidates. Some electorates could end up being virtually uncontested.

It would mean Paul Goldsmith would either not get into Parliament or would not have stood in Epsom. What would that improve?

It would mean Chris Bishop wouldn’t have become a list MP or he would have chosen not to run Trevor Mallard close in Hutt South. What would that have improved?

It would mean Labour’s most promising leader for six years would not have stood in an electorate or would not have got in on the list.

A number of promising MPs are brought into Parliament via the list but gain valuable experience in electorate campaigns.

– If you are elected into parliament and and you have a dispute with your party and leave that party then you have to resign from parliament. No ifs or buts. No waka jumping, no forming another party while on the public purse.

There’s pros and cons to this.

Walking out on the party that enabled you to get into Parliament and going solo or starting another party is not a good thing.

However there’s a risk that parties (or party leaders like Winston Peters) would abuse their power by getting rid of non-supportive or non-silent MPs.

Would this actually fix anything? How often is it a problem? And what would it improve?

If Brendon Horan had been compelled to resign when dumped by Peters then Helen Mulford would have replaced him from the NZ First list. What would that have improved? Mulford wasn’t on the NZ First list this year.

Holysheet’s list is popular in the right of or to the right of National but it’s as viable as Labour’s left wishlist like a return to compulsory unionism or the top tax rate doubled or a ‘livable wage’ for everyone whether they are in employment or not.

End of year blog rankings

Whale Oil Beef Hooked

  • September: visits 3,716,364 page views 5,309,045
  • October: visits 2,008,487 page views 3,275,031
  • November: visits 1,776,421 page views 2,981,810
  • December: visits 1,764,050 page views 2,999,841


  • September: visits 695,190 page views 1,093,806
  • October: visits 373,637 page views 604,405
  • November: visits 301,119 page views 522,519
  • December: visits 278,787 page views 515,827

The Standard

  • September: visits 429,438 page views 868,342
  • October: visits 255,449 page views 561,703
  • November: visits 194,646 page views 431,100
  • December: visits 182,211 page views 392,090

The Daily Blog

  • September: visits 504,304 page views 813,779
  • October: visits 210,877 page views 347,647
  • November: visits 160,716 page views 259,736
  • December: visits 126,534 page views 203,1264

Visits for the top three dropped a little in December which is to be expected.They are now all a bit under a half of the election month hits (September).

The Daily Blog has slumped to about a quarter (and The Transport Blog is now ranked ahead of it).

Not all blogs supply Open Parachute with site statistics, notably Public Address and Pundit.

Open Parachute sitemeter rankings:

I’m not an Atheist

Yesterday Kiwiblog had a very active thread after DPF posted Ten Commandments for Atheists. Jesus would weep at what gets said in his name and against him. Possibly. Presuming he existed and is as claimed.

I kept out of yet another cycle of futility. Until this morning,

I’m not an Atheist. There’s few of them. There’s a lot of people similar to me don’t believe in what is commonly claimed as God or Gods but apart from not being theist there’s no common ideology that ties me to Atheists or atheists.

Trying to define an atheist set of commandments for Atheists seems more weird to me than religious commandments. Who is doing the commanding?

I see problems with rigid commandments. They have been long superceded by a far more extensive legal system.

Jesus told me to love Him, to love my neighbour, to love my enemy. He told me to sacrifice myself for the good of others.

I can’t love a historical ‘Jesus’ figure any more than I can love Aesops or Theodoret or any of the ancient writers and subjects of writings.

Why should I love my neighbour? I get on ok with my neighbours but it doesn’t go any further than co-existing respecting their rights and boundaries and socialising with them a bit.

Loving enemies seems even more strange. Maybe I just don’t understand the wider meanings of the word ‘love’. It’s one of the most misused terms on the English language, and is frequently used without feeling or genuineness which seems contradictory.

Life, love, morality and human relationships and societies are far too complex to be encapsulated in a handful of phrases. As has been shown many times it just leads to dishonesty, abuse and excuses for abhorrent behaviour.

An argument over Muslim immigration

There have been a number of arguments about Muslim immigration at Kiwiblog on the Sydney hostage thread. One was made by David Garrett, who championed three strikes but wants to give zero chance of a range of people immigrating to New Zealand.

I have come to this very late…so someone has almost certainly said “Why are we at all surprised?”

It appears to be an invariable rule: Let Muslims get to 2% of the population (2.5% in Australia apparently) and you get problems…let them get to 5% (as in the UK) and ghettoization and atrocities occur…It seems the jihadis in Australia aren’t waiting until they get to 5%…

As for the bullshit that banning further immigration from Islamic countries would mean we had a police state here, what a total and unmitigated load of crap…Very very simple: a change of policy to allow no immigration at all from specified countries…easy peasy…


Shawn: Yes, I think that’s probably right…but why not play safe, and just let no more of them in? I agree with those who say trying to deport those we already have is probably impossible…it is certainly impossible for those born here, and overseas experience shows that they are far riskier than their parents, unfortunately…

As for the clown who asked “which countries”? Are you serious? Any country in the Middle East (even Israel, there are Arabs there too) plus any other country which is officially Islamic – such as Pakistan – and any whose citizens have been involved in terrorism… I don’t give a rats how many countries that is…

Call it racist if you like – I really don’t care – but can anyone really argue that illiterate uneducated Somalis add anything to our society…except risk??

A good response from Scott Hamilton:

According to David Garrett, we should prevent a Muslim demographic bomb from exploding in NZ by banning migration ‘from any country in the Middle East’, plus any other country that is ‘officially Islamic’.

As someone pointed out upthread, though, many of the migrants that have arrived in NZ from Middle Eastern nations are not Muslim. A very significant number of the Iraqi Kiwi population are members of religious minorities – Chaldeans, other Christians, Mendaens. Another big chunk of the Iraqi migrant population is Kurdish.

These communities have arrived here not because they want to import the ideology of ISIS and Al Qaeda, but because they have been displaced from their homes by Bush’s war and the various religious fundamentalists that have taken power in its wake. It’s hard to think of any New Zealanders who would be less inclined to raise the black flag of jihadism.

The example of NZ’s Iraqi community shows why bigoted generalisations shouldn’t be allowed to guide immigration policy.

Fortunately people commenting on blogs tend to have no influence on immigration policy.

First they came for the Muslims…

Actually the Muslims are sixth on this list from a comment at Kiwiblog by ‘waikatosinger’

First they came for the Salfists,
and was happy because I don’t like Salafists.
Then they came for the Shi’ite,
and I did nothing because I am not Shi’ite.
Then they came for the Kurds, the Sunni and Pashtuns,
but I am not any of those.
Then they came after
… all Muslims
… everyone who owns a copy of the Q’oran,
… all people from the Middle East,
… the Baha’i and the Hari Krishnas,
… Masons and Mormons because they sound a bit like Muslims,
… the Jews on general principle,
… women who keep their heads covered,
… Catholics, Buddists, people who mediate,
… vegetarians, veterinarians, veterans
… and now they are coming for me.

That’s not likely to change many minds, the Kiwiblog thread on the Sydney hostage situation ain’t pretty at times.

That was posted in response to this:

Reversing the trend will involve discrimination. Reclassify Islam as a political belief system. Identify the most virulent strain of Islam (as they are not all the same) and revoke the citizenships of members of that group. Pick one group at a time. Work through the process politely and professionally. Review progress. Proceed on to the next group if required. (Of course, such a process can only happen with the support of the New Zealand people.)

Fortunately ‘the New Zealand people’ aren’t well represented by the active commenters at Kiwiblog. Kowtow reacted:

The problem is not that ‘we” are coming for anybody. But they are most dfinitly coming for us and evrything we have.

You can stand idly by, singing Cum By Ya , meanwhile the world is burning.


“Basically a big groundswell of hostility, resolution and restriction will be the only result.”

Hostility is mounting from the general populace. But there’ll be damned little resolution from our politicians and restrictions will largely be on the general popualtion who speak out,we’re racists you see.

There’ll be no change on the treacherous immigration policies that allow these lunatics to come here and flourish.

And his own version:

First they came for the girls in the parks and beaches
Then the off duty soldiers
Then the on duty policmen
Then the people in the cafes
The night clubs and pubs
The buses,the trains and planes.

And still the left spoke out
Let more of them in.
When enough of them were in
And they became the majority
They came for the Left who had spoken out for them.

And the only sound in the Land was

Allahu Akbar.

And then:

Sydney Syndrome.

Muslim takes hostages in Sydney and cultural marxists on kiwiblog want to increase the danger in New Zealand by continuing to allow more Muslims to immigrate.


“The very notion of laws intended to alter, via the force of the state, the religious make-up of a population is anathema to democratic values and liberty in general.”

By allowing Muslim immigration then democratic values and liberty are endangered.Not today or next year but eventually. Europe is already fracturing into unprecedented little Muslim enclaves .Tower hamlets is a good example where the Queens Writ no longer runs. Plenty of parisian suburbs too,and there’ll be many more.

massive and uncontrolled Muslim immigration is the cause.

We have neither massive nor uncontrolled immigration of Muslims.

Kowtow’s leaning on this is not isolated there.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,580 other followers