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).



  1. A good thing the hundreds of people who comment on your blog are so much more pleasant, eh Pete?

    Here’s a tip – the fact that somebody disagreed with you in a blog isn’t a story, nobody cares about your hurt feelings except you. For somebody who claims to be about creating debate you really need to develop a thicker skin and a less pompous sense of entitlement.

    • “Sense of entitlement”? Don’t know where you get that from.

      I don’t have hurt feelings – I have a thicker skin than most and am prepared to keep mixing it on a variety of forums, often being prepared to argue against the tide.

      What’s your point apart from having a snarky wee dig?

  2. graham

     /  February 15, 2013

    Pete, please remove my comments from your blog. I did not give you permission to copy and paste them, and you are going against the basic principles of blog etiquette.

    • An integral part of blogging is copying quotes and using links to information that people have knowingly put on public display. Surely everyone is aware that if you don’t want something out there, don’t put it anywhere.

      Would you like to retract or qualify what you said?

      • graham

         /  February 15, 2013

        As I’ve already said at Kiwiblog – which is where I posted originally – I’m not going to enter into a long, drawn-out, dreary, grey, boring and ultimately pointless discussion with you Pete. I will simply repeat what I said at Kiwiblog, then leave it to you as to what you do.

        You lifted one sentence out of several comments I made, and slapped it out of context on your own blog, for your own purposes. You have misrepresented the overall statement I was trying to make, and used it to say I’m a bigot. Now, if people want to visit Kiwiblog and make their own judgement by reading the entire thread in context, then they can judge my comments, and decide for themselves. If, having read all of my comments in context, they decide that I’m a bigot, then fine. But you have misrepresented what I said.

        The proper thing to do, Pete, is to remove my comment from your blog as I have requested. Let’s face it, it’s hardly the most riveting or controversial comment of all the ones you’ve copied, and you’ll have plenty of other comments left here for the hordes of people who visit your blog to read. However, if you lack the decency and integrity to do the right thing, then so be it. I shall keep that in mind for any future comments I make at Kiwiblog.

      • graham, I don’t think it’s good practice to edit posts on request. To ensure anyone who reads it can see the whole context I have added your whole comment I quoted from and provided links to other comments leading up to that. And if anyone wants whole context they can read the whole thread at Kiwiblog.

  3. Barney

     /  February 15, 2013

    One of the challenges that people like refuse to face is the subject of tolerance. Everyone talks about tolerance for these terrorists.
    There are only two types of tolerance. One is that required when someone is learning to drive. Yes they start of not so good buit they will get better.
    The other type of tolerance is to accept behaviour that you wouldnt normally accept – ie: you are lowering the standards that you are prepared to accept.

    I for one will not practice that type of tolerance. I will not accept that its OK to hate members of another religion (as muslims do), I will not accept that its OK to denigrate females, to refuse them the opportunity to be educated etc. Its not bigorty – its refusal to accept behaviour that is quite simply unacceptable.

  4. Ugly Truth

     /  February 15, 2013

    Barney, your position on the denigration of females is consistent with that of the Qur’an (Surah 4:19). Also, terrorism relates to political objectives, not religious ones.

  5. If you’re going to start quoting the Koran, Ugly Truth, why not carry on and quote the parts which talk about the duty of conquest over infidels and the duty to kill or enslave Jews, describing them as “apes and pigs”?
    And you do know that later sura and hadiths supersede the earlier, don’t you? The earlier ones – in places – call for tolerance, the later explicitly forbid it.
    And why not talk about the 20,000+ attacks by islamists since 9/11, about Beslan, about hate preachers in mosques both in islamic countries and here in the West. About female genital mutilation. About wives kept as little more than slaves. About muslims who raise their kids to be “martyrs”, dressing them in cute little homicide bomb vests.
    Showing tolerance for evil is no virtue–it’s either stupidity or cowardice.
    As for the idiotic statement:
    “Also, terrorism relates to political objectives, not religious ones.”
    Indicates you can’t tell the difference between religion and ideology. Islam is a totalitarian ideology dressed up as religion. Islamist terrorist attacks are inextricably connected to both.