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.

Sydney hostage situation

There is little detail known at this stage about the hostage situation at the Lindt chocolate shop in Martin Place, Sydney, apart from there being one or possibly two terrorists and thirteen hostages.

This is surreal and shocking but not surprising, there have been indications there could be some radical Islamic action in Australia and specifically in Sydney for months, including a known plot planned for the same location in Sydney.

The signs are ominous. It is quite likely this will not end well.

CNN (Sky87) has live coverage and TV3 is relaying Channel 7 coverage live with some breaks.

They are now saying there could be as many as fifty hostages.

Martin Place Sydney

A police statement now (3.56 NZT) says there is “an armed offender holding an undisclosed number of hostages”.

The police still don’t have direct contact with the offender.

We have just spoken with 2 hostages inside the cafe. Gunman has 2 demands: wants ISIL flag in exchange for 1 hostage, and a call to our PM

Doesn’t sound like the usual sort of Muslim terrorist.

TEN Eyewitness News @channeltennews

They also state there are 4 bombs… two inside the Lindt café at Martin Place – and two further in the Sydney CBD.

You have to wonder at some people:

“4 bombs… two inside the Lindt café at Martin Place – and two further in the Sydney CBD”

Police have identified who the gunman is. He is known to police. NSW Police have asked the ABC not to identify him

Press release from the Australian Muslim Community:

Judith Collins to open Muslim forum

Judith Collins will open New Zealand’s first Muslim forum tomorrow.

Ethnic Affairs Minister Judith Collins will open New Zealand’s first Muslim World Forum in Auckland tomorrow and says it’s an example of our nation’s world-leading approach to building harmonious relations.

“This Forum is a fantastic opportunity for the Muslim community to reflect on its journey so far and discuss its future contribution to New Zealand,” Ms Collins says.

Ms Collins says the Government’s support of this Forum signals its appreciation of the contribution that Kiwi Muslims make, and will continue to make, to society and New Zealand’s national goals.

“Earlier this year the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination noted that many of New Zealand’s efforts to combat racial discrimination represented best practice globally and are being recommended to other countries,” Ms Collins says. 

“Regardless of our religion, ethnicity or place of birth, we are all on the same journey – to find our voice as New Zealanders.

“This Forum will break down stereotypes so we can appreciate diversity and be in a better position to take advantage of all the opportunities this diversity brings”.

Muslim World Forum 2013

Image of Nasir-ol-Molk Mosque
Event date:

Saturday, 23 November 2013

50 Mayoral Dr

The Muslim World Forum is open to all with an interest in the contemporary issues relating to New Zealand’s relationship with the Muslim world and the New Zealand Muslim community.

More information about the Forum:

What Prosser should have addressed – airport profiling

“One aspect of Prosser’s rambling polemic touched on something of genuine importance.” Airport profiling.

Richard Prosser caused an uproar when he bashed all Muslims with his keyboard in an Investigate column. When this surfaced in blogs and mainstream media this caused a furore. Prosser began as unrepentant, but quickly changed his stance, making an “unreserved” apology – of sorts. See Prosser: ‘I’m apologising unreservedly’ - see also Retreat from Wogistan.

Prosser also suggested what his approach should have been.

Mr Prosser said rather than calling for young Muslim men to be banned from travelling by air, he should have called for an investigation into the merits of “target profiling”.

A column in D Scene by Associate Law Professor Colin Gavaghan has picked up on this.

Should we use security profiling at airports?

One aspect of Prosser’s rambling polemic touched on something of genuine importance. The controversial suggestion terror suspects should be identified based on their appearance is being taken seriously in some quarters.

US philospher and neuroscientest Sam Harris has argued it makes sense to target airport security efforts at youngish Muslim males, as they are the group almost exclusively resonsible for suicide agttacks on aircraft.

Since there us no test that can be administered to detect “Muslimness”, profiling will inevitably boil down to singling out people who “look Muslim”. Read: of middle eastern or south Asian appearance.

Leaving aside the social, ethical and legal problems of using ethnicity as a proxy for dangerousness, it doesn’t take a criminal mastermind of Moriarty proportions to see how this system might be gamed.

As security expert Bruce Schneier has warned, it wouldn’t be smart to rely on a system that can be fooled by a bottle of hair dye.

Some more recent developments eschew racial profiling, using putatively more subtle and accurate markers.

The Facial Actions Coding System works by monitoring all the little muscle movements. Other sorts of behavioural profiling focus on how someone walks and how much they are sweating.

All of which is intended to help security people see into people’s minds. Are they filled with righteous rage, or just slightly irritated by the delayed flight?

How far should we go towards a predictive model of law enforcement?

If it works, the safety benefits could be massive – not only in preventing terrorist atrocities, but maybe also spree killings like Sandy Hook.

It’s one thing, though, if the test just results in someone being subject to a minor inconvenience, like a brief search.

It’s quite another if “false positives” result in completely innocent people being shot dead by jumpy police.

In the middle we have a whole range of possibile inconveniences and restrictions to which people could be subject, based on predictions of what they might do.

For those who don’t resemble the profile of a “typical” terrorist, all this may seem like a price worth paying for greater security. But it won’t be them paying the priced.

Of course this column has attracted minimal attention after the raising of the issue by Prosser. A reasoned and reasonable approach doesn’t make the news, even though it addresses the important issues.




Answers to questions on Islam

A number of regulars at Kiwiblog keep warning against Islam taking over in New Zealand, some say it’s just a matter of time, some go as far as wanting all Muslims banned from the country. They somehow think that in a democracy 2% or 6% of voters can dictate to the majority.

One of these commenters is’bereal’ who was typically over the top last night:

Jeez, this is hard work trying to get a point through to many of the self hating, politically correct supporters
of islam and sharia law we have here in New Zealand

I never see any “supporters of islam and sharia law” on Kiwiblog, but some like bereal accuse you of being that if you don’t agree with their extreme views.

bereal also asked some loaded questions, which I’ve responded to:

Would you rather live under a Westminster system of government and justice,
or, would you rather live under an islamic system and sharia law ?

And why ?

I’d rather live under the system of government and justice that we have in New Zealand. It could benefit from some minor changes and would benefit from a change of attitude to how it is implemented (especially government) but it’s as good as nything anywhere.

Secondly. what aspect, if any of islamic and sharia law do you feel are superior to a democracy based on the Wesminster system ?

Don’t know and don’t care, it’s not relevant. There is no chance of very small minority (in New Zealand) religious based law being implemented here, Even those extremists from the (possibly) majority Christian religion can’t impose their views.

New Zealand has a clear separation of state from religion and in practice that works better in practice than pretty much anywhere.

Thirdly, if you have no answer to the preceeding questions why do you go to bat for islam ?

I’ve answered them. And even if I didn’t that doesn’t mean the only other option is to “go to bat for islam”. I am not religious, I don’t have any intention of changing that and I don’t bat for Islam at all.

I do go in to bat for equality, and I oppose discrimination based on people’s beliefs. Anyone who has religious beliefs has a right to not be comdemned and vilified for things they are not doing and there is no indication or evidence they may ever do.

I see pressure to impose religious beliefs and religion based laws from extreme Christians here, and from no people of other religious persuasions. As they are a very small minority I don’t have any fears that they will convert New Zealand into a religious state.

Blog of bigotry

At Kiwiblog I’ve been involved in many ‘discussions’ about Muslims and lately about what Richard Prosser wrote and said. David Farrar noted in a post:

I have to say I’ve been appalled by the fact that more than a trivial number of people (including commenters here – but also on media sites) have actually defended or agreed with what Richard Prosser said regarding banning anyone who is or looks like a Muslim from flying.

To be blunt, they are bigots. You can not defend what he said and not be a bigot. It really is as simple as that.

Below is a sample of what some of the ‘bigots’ think about Islam – and about me. This is from just two threads yesterday, General Debate and The nature of bigotry (which illustrates the nature of some of the bigots).

  • Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own
  • Synonyms – narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

It’s not all bigotry, other descriptions could also be used, but bigotry is a big part.

Left Right and Centre:

They aint kiwis mate- they’re muslims. I like to think those two things are mutually exclusive and that’s that.


All you have to do is take a good look at England so as to appreciate the Enemy Within. That country is screwed and thats due to letting too many imigrants in WHO WILL NOT ASSIMILATE. They want to bring with them the awful lifestyle that they ran away from.

Prosser is simply saying what everyone thinks as they get searched at the airport.

Note the contradiction.


Pete George will be uttering prissy platitudes right up until the moment they cut his throat


I think Prosser was spot on. Muslims are a danger to any society – including their own.


Pete George ; we are not multicultural. Tolerance of differences has never extended to tolerating the intolerant.

“Tolerance of difference” is fine within a pluralist system where the ground rules are shared by the vast majority etc
However once you import large numbers of intolerant ,fundamentalists who have no history or tradition within ones ‘ and claiming multiculturalism and tolerance you are in for a whole heap of trouble.


If we’re so bloody tolerant ,why is there such a fuss about what Prosser said?

Looks to me like we’re intolerant of honest forthright men! (That goes for leftists,multiculturalists ,Muslim apologists,feminists,progressives etc)

Free speech for me but not for thee.

How come we tolerate Saudi money building mosques all over the western world when they won’t allow Christians to pray in private ? Tolerance indeed.

The apologists like PG and the Greens are like traitors opening the gates of the city. The difference is we know and see the danger and allow them to do it.

This is not “tolerance” it is cultural suicide.


Some around here, too many these days, are a prime example of dhimmitude.
Just remember to present the other cheek when they come for you, or the other side of the neck …..


I am fully entitled to be a bigot if I want to. I dont like the muslim life style and they way they regard non muslims.


DPF – I so disagree with you on so many levels. For a start Islam remains an existential threat to Western civilisation.

Over in Europe in places like France there are no-go zones where the police will not go, because they are ruled by Moslems. In Britain there have been calls to recognise sharia law as part of the law of the land.

The simple fact of the matter is that Moslems do not integrate into western countries. There is no separation between church and state in Islam. Given the high fertility and consequent population growth in the Moslem community and the incredibly low fertility amongst liberal western women it is only a matter of time if those population trends continue before Islam takes over. And they do want to take over. Islam divides the world into 2 houses – the house of Islam and the house of war.

So many of us see Islam as an enemy. It cannot be appeased or compromised with, it can only be resisted.

I appreciate that what Mr Prosser said was probably over the top. He should refrain from being a columnist while being an MP. However many of us can understand where his frustration comes from. We bend over backwards to appease Moslems. In my view many liberals like yourself have a rose tinted view of human nature that does not correspond with reality.


The “nature of bigotry” is primarily established by liberals, using the term as a weapon designed to shut down debate.


But why do we have to give “Muslims particularly” more equality, freedoms etc than anyone else?
Because that’s what they voted unanimously for in Parliament yesterday. Sends a shiver along my female spine.

I think BeaB has interpreted the motion in Parliament incorrectly, Muslims were mentioned in the statement but it didn’t give them more of anything.


I don’t think anyone can disagree that there is a piece of Islam that is pure evil (sharia law, genital mutilation, jihad etc), and most Muslims do not agree with those parts, but they do not fight it, not enough. That is why I am happy to oppose all of Islam, because Muslims are not willing to oppose the core, because Muslims tolerate the core, we must fight it.


As I said to Pete George yesterday “Why deny what is happening in Europe Pete………only you would wait to see evidence of militant Islam happening in NZ before you done anything about it.”


I’m going to submit a statue of you Pete…with your head in the sand… life on your knees under Muslim Rule!


Restricting the Muslim population to less than 2% is a matter of public safety!

Urban Redneck

I wouldn’t allow any immigrants into NZ from countries where Wahhabi Islam is routinely practiced. Period. They can keep their Taqiyah and Burqa over there.


Still got your head in the sand I see Pete….Muslims rule by stealth….by being appeased by people like you!


Dime is basically a bigot when it comes to muslims.

i think their religion is shit. i think most of them are scumbags. i dont care how “peaceful” we are told the majority of muslims are, ive just seen to much bad shit.

it pisses me off how they get a pass from the left too. how many muslim countries are there? int hose countries, how many are gay friendly? how many muslim countries have equal rights for women?

screw em.

At least dime’s honest about how he feels.


Russel Norman appears to be saying that we as a country should be falling over ourselves to tug the forelock to Muslims over and above anybody else.

[PG edit starts: graham has asked that I delete his quote as per his comment below and this comment on Kiwiblog becasue he thinks I have quoted him out of contect. I don’t think I have misrepresnetd what he had been saying across a number of comments but to ensure full context is available I will provide these links:

howdarethey: Wandering slightly from my original point, which was that Russel Norman apparently is asking New Zealand to uphold more rights for Muslims. The question is, what specific rights do Muslims have that need to be upheld and enshrined by Parliament, over and above the rights of any other New Zealander?

If my wife has to become a Muslim to avail herself of these rights, as you seem to be suggesting, then that’s discrimination. If my wife has a passionate belief that she should maintain her modesty by wearing a scarf over the lower portion of her face – nothing to do with being a Muslim, just her own sense of what is proper – should she not be free to avail herself of the same rights that have apparently been accorded to Muslim women?

Russel Norman appears to be saying that we as a country should be falling over ourselves to tug the forelock to Muslims over and above anybody else. Which is actually pretty much what BeaB said at 11:53.

There are a number of other comments by others that may add to context, read the whole thread to see them.

I don’t believe that Norman was asking for any special rights for Muslims, as I and others commented on in the thread.
Also, see my comment here that I believe shows that graham’s claim in his middle paragraph (and in other comments) appears to be incorrect.

Edit ends]


I am all for tolerance but never of the ghastliness of radical Islam.


Islam is not a religion..I agree with Geert Wilders that it is a totalitarian ideology..It is also a deadly cult. There is no freedom in islam. There is only endless persecution for non muslims living under islamic dominance. There are multiple types of jihad including economic jihad. This is why so many non muslims from muslim dominated countries currently live here.

All the faux outrage is pathetic..What about Choudary and the cross he wanted removed? His complaint to Helen Clark re the number of senior females in her government..What of Hone and his wmf comment?

So many hypocrites …and blind fools.

There were challenges to those comments and alternate views but the point of this is to illustrate the thinking of some of the ‘bigots’.There was also a lot of support shown for these comments through the comment voting – while that is easily manipulated it does indicate many share these comments.

These types of comments are regularly expressed at Kiwiblog. I frequently see examples of “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own”.

Kiwiblog is often displays bigotry (and racism and abuse of minorities).
(That is not a reflection on David Farrar, he obviously disagrees with the bigots but provides a free speech forum where bigots often participate).


Prosser’s Clayton’s apology, questions remain

Richard Prosser apologised yesterday, sort of. It was a Clayton’s apology, the type of apology you make when you’re not really wanting to apologise. He said he was sorry if anyone was offended by what he said. By a column that appears carefuilly designed to offend. He expected ‘umbridge':

I don’t believe that is such an unreasonable demand to make. Others will, of course; plenty of commentators will take umbridge at my suggestion, and not only because I’m an MP.

Umbrage definition, offense; annoyance; displeasure: to feel umbrage at a social snub; to give umbrage to someone; to take umbrage at someone’s rudeness.

Still promoting his column

Since making the apology Prosser has been still promoting his column and what he wrote. He provided a link to the column in response to a tweet:

Jordan Williams ‏@JordNZ
Is the Richard Prosser article online anywhere? I’ve got to talk about this this arvo, so best I read it… #WebLazy
excerpt on Kiwiblog. Could also be on Briefing Room, if that site still exists.

And when someone commented on this Prosser promoted his column:

So now @Richard_Prosser is sending tweeters the link to his article… #nzpol #racism #islamophobia #Investigate

Hmm, wouldn’t it be terrible if people read the whole thing for themselves before commenting, instead of just snippets and blogs

Hmm, I don’t think it will change anything. And it leaves some questions unanswered.

The pocket knife

Prosser’s column is based on his pocket knife. He said he was very angry when it was confiscated at Christchurch Airport – this happened on December 3 last year.

Prosser said he had taken the knife with him on thirty previous flights as a commuting MP. And he has flown around the world with it, taken it into parliaments in the UK and Australia and “into our own debating chamber every day this past year”.

So he claims he has gone through numerous security checks around the world and in New Zealand, and was only pulled up on  carrying the knife in December in Christchurch. Everyone who flies knows what a nuisance security checks are, and how sensitive they can be at detecting minor things. I was taken aside and checked over at Athens Airport because of small metal rivets in my shoes.

How did Prosser get through so many checks with a pocket knife? That’s hard to comprehend.

Why would he carry a pocket knife when surely he would know it was not allowed on flights? And not needed.

Why would he carry a knife into Parliament? I’m sure I would not be allowed to do that.

Journalist versus MP

In the early excuses it was claimed that Prosser wrote the column as a journalist (he’d been writing the column for ten years) and not as an MP.

But in this column he specifically referred to being an MP and talked about what he had been doing as an MP. There was no attempt at separation.

Calls to resign

A number of people including party leaders and Islamic groups have called for Prosser to resign. A poll at Stuff currently:

Should MP Richard Prosser resign over his comments about Muslims?

  • Yes 3231 votes, 70.2%
  • No 1371 votes, 29.8%

Fellow MPs have apparently taken umbrage – Andrea Vance at Stuff reported:

NZ First MPs are privately seething at Richard Prosser’s call for Muslims to be banned from Western airlines.

But leader Winston Peters showed no sign of taking any action, in fact he has effectively supported Prosser’s spotlight seeking.

But this isn’t over.  It will have created much tension within the party. And f Peters and Prosser ride this out it will remain as major baggage for New Zealand First right up to the election next year.

The Prosser solution

Richard Prosser has sparked a lot of comment over suggesting anyone that looks Muslim should be excluded from flying on any of “the West’s airlines”.

There’s a far simpler solution to his problem.

When intending to fly Richard Prosser (and the others supporting his selective exclusion, and there’s quite a few at Kiwiblog) should wait by the boarding gate and inspect the appearance of everyone boarding. If he doesn’t like the look of anyone he can go and try another flight.

And if he’s really paranoid about the safety of himself and his daughters he should check the appearance of any drivers he intends sharing a road with. That won’t be quite as simple, but it’s where he will find far more danger.

NZ First’s ban Muslims from flying list?

David Farrar at Kiwiblog has highlighted a column by NZ First MP Richard Prosser in which he said – from the Wogistan  post:

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

Do any of these people “look like a Muslim” enough to get an NZ First flying ban?






I’ve got no reason to believe any of these gentlemen are Muslim. That shouldn’t matter. Neither should it matter what I think they may look like, or anyone thinks they may look like.

I doubt these are the sort of people Richard Prosser would want to stop from flying. They were all NZ First candidates in the 2011 election.

Photo source:

Who’s taking over New Zealand?

I’m a bit puzzled.

Fears are often expressed on blogs about conspiracies of a group to take control of New Zealand, and force us citizens to live under their laws, customs, beliefs. and sexual practices.

When Maori take over New Zealand, and capitalists take over New Zealand, and homosexuals take over New Zealand, and Muslims take over New Zealand, and liberal secularists and atheists take over New Zealand, who will rule?

I understand it’s possible we could get a sudden rise of liberal gay Maori capitalist politicians but I don’t see how they can be atheist Muslims.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 277 other followers