Garrett on 2% Muslims and immigration

David (Three Strikes) Garrett has a guest post at Kiwiblog that has received a lot of support there but also raised some important issues about his  call for an immediate stop to immigration of Muslims.

Guest Post: David Garrett on A case for immediate cessation of all Muslim immigration

It is really very simple. Every western country which has allowed its Muslim population to exceed 2% has experienced problems generated by that community – or at least arising because of their presence within those societies. The severity of the “problems” appears directly related to the proportion of Muslims in any given western society.

In Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Sweden – and now Australia – there have been civil disturbances which can be directly linked to the presence of a sizeable Muslim community. Those disturbances range from harassment of women dressed “immodestly” at the low end, to mass murder – most recently in France – at the other.

Garrett and others have brought up the 2% (or some number plucked out of I’m not sure where) threshold. I haven’t seen research that backs it up.

When New Zealand has allowed it’s ACT supporter population to speak freely it has threatened intolerance and civil disturbance (actually that’s probably unfair on ACT, I doubt that David Seymour would go anywhere near supporting Garrett’s case.

I have asked the question many times – on this very blog and in my life in the real world – “why would our experience of allowing a Muslim population to develop above 2% be any different from that of all other western countries’?”  The usual response is that there is no evidence of anything bad happening here. The response to that non-argument is of  course “not yet – we  have not yet reached what appears to be  the tipping point of 2%”.

Garrett went all Godwin.

I truly believe we are, in a very real sense, in exactly the position Western Europe was in the  early 1930’s. The prevailing sentiment among both  the political elites  and the population of Britain at large was then, as ours is  now, one of tolerance, or at least wilful blindness to the dangers posed by the rising tide of fascism in Germany. It is important to be reminded that the very word “fascism” had none of the pejorative connotations in 1933 that it most definitely carried ten years later.

If I recall correctly Hitler’s fascist state tried to drive out and exterminate one particular religious group.

Our rulers and the political elites seem blandly unconcerned about Muslim immigration into our country, and deride people like me who warn of the possible consequences of it. I recently received a letter from the colourless Minister of Immigration in response to my letter expressing concern. The Hon. Minister tartly informed me that: “New Zealand does not select [immigrants] on the basis of race or religion.” How utterly un-reassuring. One can almost see the rolling eyes of the 22 year old staffer drafting a reply  to “another crack pot”. The letter did not even warrant the Minister’s signature.

That doesn’t sound like a tart response from the Minister of Immigration.  It sounds like a very basic tenet of a decent democratic country.

Why act now?

Again it is very simple – if we don’t act now, it will be too late if doomsayers like me are right. We are endlessly lectured by the greenies about “tipping points”; that if this or that greenhouse gas emission is not reduced to some unfeasible level  by next week,  unstoppable catastrophic climate change will ensue. Once it has happened, we are told, it will be too late to reverse it.

Well, I know very little about climate change, but simple logic tells me that if I am right about the dire effects of a Muslim population above 2%, it will be impossible to do anything about it. The reason is again simple. We have 50,000 odd Muslims now, a bit more than 1% of our population. There are nowhere near enough of them to cause any significant trouble – yet.

Even if we closed our borders to all of the Muslim faith immediately  – I would go further than that, and exclude all  immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries – we could not stop the ones we already have from multiplying. Given their greater birthrate, it is a certainty that in 10 or perhaps 20 years at the most, we will have a Muslim population well above the crucial tipping point of 2%.

He repeats the ‘tipping point’ of 2%.  “But simple logic tells me that if I am right about the dire effects of a Muslim population above 2%” – is a claim without logic and especially without anything solid to back it up.

What do we lose by stopping Muslim immigration right now? My argument is that we lose absolutely nothing of value. Unlike the vibrant communities which have developed from our South East Asian immigrants – which by and large have had overwhelmingly positive effects on our society – there is nothing from overseas experience which suggests there is anything of value to be gained from having communities of stern bearded men and their subjucated women among us. And that’s assuming none of them are or could be  terrorists.

We lose a significant moral position for a start.

And Garrett’s stereotype of one a half billion Muslims shows the depth of his argument – his post is shallow, dangerous prejudice.

And he seems ignorant of the fact that many Muslim immigrants and students come from South East Asia, and the Pacific (Fiji).

I can do without that, thanks very much. I much prefer that my beautiful daughter is allowed to go to the beach wearing whatever she likes, and that my son isn’t influenced by people who think his wife should also be his servant. Muslim immigrants are a very real threat to our way of life. We should not take one more of them.

Garrett’s daughter can go to the beach wearing almost anything she likes – but on most beaches it would be recommended she wear something, we do have some basic codes of dress in New Zealand.

Intolerant and inciteful people like Garrett are a threat to our way of life, even if they are allowed to breed to beyond 0.2% of the population.

David Farrar makes it clear “For the avoidance of doubt, the post is the opinion of the author, not of Kiwiblog. Kiwiblog accepts guest posts, even when I disagree with the views in them.”

One comment well down the thread, by Inthisdress:

Mr. David Farrar. I address this to you because let’s face it Mr Garrett is hardly the sharpest tool in the box, and I’d hate to feed his delusive Churchill-complex, by coming across like a appeaser.

I’ve seen some pretty low stuff on blogs before today. I must admit I always thought that when it came to puerile bigotry that The Standard pretty much had cornered the market.

But seriously, for a blog started by an immigrant, of such mixed heritage, given the troubled history and outright barbarism meted out to a religious group, simply justified on the basis of their religion, mind, by derelict politicians hell-bent on reclaiming their careers on the backs of human suffering, well this just takes the biscuit.

Are there any other examples of ‘wilderness years’ politicians capitalising on ignorant prejudices to inflame populist opinion for little more than their own gratification. Think! There must be some examples we can draw from.

To allow a misguided individual, who frankly strikes me as someone in love with the sound of his own ego, to pass off a fictitious scenario based on a dinner party conversation, in which he proposes what is essentially hate-speech backed up with some unproven anecdotal statistic, is an unnecessary, destructive act.

Then to throw a natty little disclaimer at the end as if you are doing us a favour and making some kind of stand for ‘free speech’ Cowardly, at best, borderline sociopathic at worst..

There does seem to be some ego involved in Garrett’s post, he congratulates himself several times in comments.

But I disagree with Inthisdress as much as I disagree with Garrett. If Garrett had asked me to post his 2% of intolerance I would have posted it, as he has as much right to write in New Zealand as any Muslim.

I don’t support the religion of Islam in any way, it has never appealed to me. But I support the basic right of Muslims (or Hindus or Jews or anyone) not to be prejudiced against in New Zealand simply because of their religious beliefs.

We should do all we can to exclude potential terrorists from emigrating here, but checks on that should not be based on religion.

The next post responds more to the Garrett 2% doctrine:

A response to Garrett’s 2% doctrine

Leave a comment


  1. Nelly Smickers

     /  4th December 2015

    Surely, we should have it in our hearts to host a few Muslim refugees 🙂

  2. kiwi guy

     /  4th December 2015

    “Intolerant and inciteful people like Garrett are a threat to our way of life”

    LOL, yeah sure he is Pete, meanwhile your beloved muslims who with their hardcore Third World culture – child brides, clit clipping etc – and their track record of extremist political violence you embrace with blind passion because Multiculturalism(TM), Diversity(TM) and feel feels.

    I pointed out last night you Progressives ( yes Pete you are one despite your pretense at being some kind of middle ground player ) would be in hyper damage control today after your premature Progressive narrative about gun control re the slaughter by Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik blew up in your face.

    Seriously, you are so brainwashed by Multicultural Unicorns and Diversity Rainbows you couldn’t even get a clue with those names? – Syed Farook And Tashfeen Malik.

    You and the other brainwashed useful idiots of Cultural Marxism are the real threat to our way of life – our WESTERN civilisation and culture.

    • “meanwhile your beloved muslims”

      Please retract that, it is a false statement.

      Your extremism is less violent but just as deplorfable as that of Syed Farook And Tashfeen Malik.

  3. Morning KG!!! Good one mateys. That’ll bring out a few.
    One ‘like’ there already, unless that’s you or you?
    Rainbow Progressive PartisanZ here.

    Thanks to you, I feel so privileged this morning being a member of an advanced society like ours. I feel even more thankful I have a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant name, because, according to your logic, it might literally come down to one’s name deciding whether one gets … what … deported … beaten up in the street … one’s business or home torched …

    Here’s a name for you, Barack Obama. Must be a Muslim eh?
    I heard him just now on the radio, repeating over and over again “WE DON’T KNOW” why these individuals committed this atrocity.
    The 355th mass shooting this year in the USA, on Day 338 of the year.

    If you can speculate they did it because they are Muslim and therefore its an act of terrorism, allow me to speculate otherwise.

    – Predispossed to committing a gun crime, a mass shooting – as evidently many Americans are regardless of religion – this Muslim person was tormented and persecuted at his workplace – for being Muslim – following the actions of some extremist Muslim terrorists entirely unknown to him in another country. His dismissal from his employment on these grounds or because of such persecution tipped him (& his partner it seems) over into their psychopathic gun crime personas.
    – Two doors down on the same street where they lived, some Survivalist White Supremacist Yankees decided to postpone their own mass shooting for another day.

    I’ve lost you already, I know. Bloody shame this brevity thing. Finally, ‘comparatively’, we must remember that ‘we’ are only a Western country by right of conquest. There was a time when we were the invaders.

    When, in his younger days, the (later Rt Hon) John Bryce led his cavalry charge against a group of (starving) teenage Maori boys chasing turkeys around beside Handley’s Woolshed in South Taranaki, and cleaved one of their heads to the shoulders with his sabre, Bryce might have looked to those kids parents like a bit of a terrorist?

    It’s a privilege to be a member of Western civilisation KG, we should cherish it with all the tenets that allow those privileges, and the risks attached to them.

    You’ve accomplished something (aside from wasting a bunch of my time)
    You’ve terminated this thread.

    • kittycatkin

       /  4th December 2015

      Where did you read that about the whites (who do seem to commit most of the mass shootings in the US ?) or was it a satirical remark ? I hope so-but would not be surprised if it wasn’t, alas.

      • @ kittycatkin – the remark was mostly invented, but I heard something about another shoot-out between 2 criminals and police just miles from the mass shooting scene. It didn’t constitute a mass shooting, which requires minimum 4 victims.
        I can hear the gun lobby now, “Those disabled children’s centre workers should have been armed. If we can just get enough guns we’ll all be safe!”

      • @ kittycatkin – it was mostly invented. I heard something about a shootout between 2 crims and the police just miles from the mass shooting scene, but I’m not sure if it was the shooters or unrelated. A mass shooting requires 4 victims to qualify I believe.
        I can hear the gun lobby now, “Those disabled childcare centre workers should have been armed! If we can just get enough guns out there we’ll all be safe!”

  4. Goldie

     /  4th December 2015

    In the meantime on planet earth…
    The total number of Muslims in New Zealand is 46,000 – it is in the Census.
    Most are from SE Asia or Fiji, and adhere to a moderate form of Islam that Jihadists believe is heretical.
    The only way to get into New Zealand is either through the refugee quota or the work visa. New Zealand has a refugee quota because we are a member of the international community – by other countries standards, our quota is extremely low.
    The work visa is based on the applicant having skills in an employment area where there is a labour shortage and an employment offer. These people are skilled – doctors, scientists, engineers, etc.

    What we know of jihadists in Europe and the US is that they tend to be young, male, and uneducated and unskilled – many have had previous run-ins with the law, and are basically losers. It is difficult to see that a Fijian accountant or an Indian food scientist will become a jihadist.

    • That’s Gold Goldie. I’d add that some, perhaps many, of the young Western kids who get ‘radicalized’ are society’s losers; the losers created by neoliberalism where, in Maggie Thatcher’s own words, “Society does not exist”. A reminder here, I said “some” or “many”.

      “community is undermined—or even destroyed—to be replaced by virtual equivalents that strive, unsuccessfully, to synthesize a sense of community”.

      Here’s the wadical comparative part. It’s expected of me now so I’d best deliver.
      Is jihadist recruitment really all that different from any other form of militarist recruitment?
      US Army & Marine Corps recruitment offices are strategically sited in slums where disenfranchised youth can be enticed with visions of hi-tech weapons and belonging. I’ve heard they are places where kids who can’t afford the ultra-violent video games can play military ones to see if they want to “act out” in real life.

      • Goldie

         /  4th December 2015

        I lived in Yorkshire, and it was noticeable that British people who were 2nd generation Indian and Jamaicans had assimilated very well (I lived with one, and as a Kiwi I was considered to be the outsider by Yorkshire folk!).

        However, the Muslim ‘Asians’/’Pakis’ were completely unintegrated. They live in ghettoes marked by very high levels of welfare, unemployment (and those who are employed are in very transient unskilled occupations – 25% of taxi drivers in the UK are Pakis), uneducated, arranged cousin marriage the norm (Pakistanis have 3% of the population but a third of UK children born with genetic defects are Pakistani – a chilling indicator of incest), almost completely segregated from British society (especially for Paki women, who have a very very low rate of employment) and with violence towards women. In short, it is a completely f@cked up society.

        But you can have a similar level of social deprivation and segregation in NZ with Maori/Pasifika.

        So I don’t agree that it is just a matter of class or alienation. Clearly Islam has something to do with turning disaffected young men from ghettoes into Jihadists.
        But equally, not all Muslims become Jihadists. The Muslim accountants and doctors I know are completely integrated, and the chance they become Jihadists is about as likely as me bedding Kim Kardashian.

        I think there is a lethal cocktail at work – social collapse of specific underprivileged communities, misogyny and unemployment of young men, and Islam are combining.

        • You are Gold aren’t you!? Really like your last paragraph, “a lethal cocktail”.

          “Islam is combining” I totally agree and because it is combining in Western countries, which these people are now 1st or 2nd generation citizens of, another factor is “Western-with-residual-Christian reaction or backlash to Islam”.

          But you identify the important thing to do, nay, the ONLY intelligent thing to do, since we’re hell bent on globalization (are we not?), which is to clearly identify all the ingredients of “a lethal cocktail”. Then we’ll have decent stuff to work with.

          Shit like “fit in or fuck off” just ain’t decent stuff!

    • Timoti

       /  4th December 2015

      What about the silent support for anti western behaviour amongst moderate Muslims?

      (8 minutes in). She is in Canada and fears for her life.

      • Used up a shitload of my precious data to watch it, but thanks Timoti, interesting.

        Fairly balanced I think? I don’t really think that about your two statements.
        The Muslim academic and commentator says, “Many moderate Muslims secretly support the view there is a war between Islam and the West (with Islam the aggressor). There is that sentiment among …” (or wtte)

        One might ask: How does she know this?
        Are statements to the contrary by moderate Muslim groups not to be given any credit?

        You can only ‘believe’ there’s silent support, right? Unless it vocalises itself there’s no evidence of actual support.

        There will be individual Muslims who think that and even whole cohorts of them, Mosques I guess. Equally, there’ll be whole Christian Church congregations who blindly believe Islam is evil.

        One can equally argue there is (and has been for ages) a war between the West and Islam with the West being the aggressor? Not just Secular-Western-Christendom either.
        Secular-Orthodox-Christendom in the form of Russia (USSR) invaded Afghanistan too.

        And finally, its difficult to level accusations against ordinary Canadian folks when the leading candidate for the Presidency of the United States is saying things like “Take out their families”. The scariest folks in the video were the two white Canadians the reporter conveniently found to also say, “I fear for my life”. (Not so balanced maybe?)

        Like global thermonuclear war, this ain’t goin’ nowhere.

    • kittycatkin

       /  4th December 2015

      I can’t see my dentist , one of the local GPs, the many Muslim GPs and other staff at the hospital, the girls who work at Pak & Save, the young mothers I saw today and the rest of the local Muslims (a fair number of these are the interpreters who risked their lives in their own country by being UN interpreters) being terrorists.

      • Timoti

         /  4th December 2015

        I have no problem with interpreters being granted citzenship. They put their lives on the line.
        National does seem to have a problem though.

  1. A response to Garrett’s 2% doctrine | Your NZ
  2. Garrett, intolerance and ACT | Your NZ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: