NZ First want to make immigrants ‘respect’ stipulated values

Respect is usually earned, not imposed, but somehow want to make immigrants respect values that they want to stipulate.

What next – making non-immigrant New Zealanders adhere to prescribed values?

RNZ: ‘Their values do not necessarily match up with our values’

The obvious point to make here is that ‘our values’ are quite diverse.

New Zealand First is one step closer to campaigning on a law that will force immigrants and refugees to sign up to a set of core values.

They already have to do something that none of us who were born here have to do – pledge allegiance to the Queen. That’s a value I don’t put much weight on – I’m glad I haven’t been made to pledge to that.

The remit, which passed with some opposition, was hotly debated by party supporters at the 25th annual conference in Tauranga at the weekend.

If enacted the Respecting New Zealand Values Bill would require new migrants to respect gender equality, “all legal sexual preferences,” religious rights, and the legality of alcohol.

Respect the legality of alcohol? Would that disallow disrespecting the huge amount of problems caused by alcohol abuse?

Wairarapa NZ First supporter Roger Melville said the law could not come soon enough.

Mr Melville described the attitudes he had encountered from immigrants throughout the North Island.

“Arrogance, downright ignorance of putting people down and forcing their ways and means.”

Former NZ First MP Mahesh Bindra also supported the remit.

Born in Mumbai, Mr Bindra came with his family in 2002 and was the party’s ethnic affairs spokesperson.

“We do have certain cultures, or subcultures coming into the country, and their values do not necessarily match up with our values.

“There are certain practises – I don’t want to name any religion – that are not conducive to our way of living.”

That fairly obvious swipe at some religions seems at odds with respecting religious rights.

Pita Paraone, another former NZ First MP who dropped out of Parliament at the last election, is also a fan of the proposed policy.

“I think the fact there’s discussions about young girls being married off at a young age or being betrothed to older men is certainly something that runs against the New Zealand psyche.”

While probably largely historic has he not heard of the New Zealand psyche of shotgun weddings? Threats of having a baby taken away if you don’t get married?

But the youth wing of the party was not convinced.

William Woodward said it was good to have debate but it was not a policy that was needed.

“Speaking form a young NZ First point of view, New Zealand as a free first-world country has all of those avenues for people to be able to express their religion, to express their freedoms in a very free and safe way.”

Good on him for speaking up, but I think that in NZ First the youth voice is a fairly small minority.

Party leader Winston Peters said the law was needed.

“If someone’s over here who wants to change this country and doesn’t want to support this country’s law … who thinks women are cattle and second-class citizens, that person should not be here, sorry.”

What about politicians who see other politicians as second class? What about parties who bring in laws to make MPs not just second class but evict them from Parliament if they don’t agree with their party leader?

What about all the journalists who Peters has made clear he thinks are worse than second class?

I wonder if one value they would consider would be the value of politicians being open and honest with the public and not refusing to give straight answers.

This proposed law trying to impose some sort of conformity is both dumb and dangerous.

The only good thing about it is it is unlikely to get wider support. Labour and National should reject any attempt to set standards or values for immigrants or any group of people here beyond laws for everyone to adhere to – ‘one law for all’. Surely the Greens at least would stand up against it on principle.

This proposed law looks like pandering to intolerant minorities.

Would NZ First want something like determining acceptable values to the people via a referendum?

Or do they only want people who agree with their defined values to decide what values everyone should be forced to abide by?

Respect can’t be forced by law.

Previous Post

54 Comments

  1. Gezza

     /  October 1, 2018

    I’ll wait till Corks has posted.

    • Is procrastination a good Kiwi value that should be legally enforced?

      • Gezza

         /  October 1, 2018

        Let me get back to you on that. 😎

      • Corky

         /  October 1, 2018

        No, I can’t stand procrastinators. I’ll wait for Gezza.

      • Gezza

         /  October 1, 2018

        Could be a long day.

        • Gezza

           /  October 1, 2018

          This proposed law looks like pandering to intolerant minorities.
          This proposed law looks like a dog’s breakfast already. And a dog whistle.

          • Corky

             /  October 1, 2018

            They haven’t fleshed it out. I could do that in a couple of days. Even less if they shouted me a bag of Raspberry buns with an organic jam filling.

            • Gezza

               /  October 1, 2018

              Ok. I can wait.

              The problem they’ll have is getting agreement within their party. Whenever anyone attempts to define our values, beyond some obvious big headliners it starts getting muddled.

              Respect for religion is a problem. That one needs to go, imo.

            • Corky

               /  October 1, 2018

              ”The problem they’ll have is getting agreement within their party.”

              Mikey said something similar. And you are right, it’s more than a problem..it simply wont happen.

              ”Respect for religion is a problem. That one needs to go, imo.”

              Given Muslims don’t understand secular society, I would go with explaining our country was built on Christian values, but it is not governed by Christians…or any other religion for that matter. Religion is something you do in your own time and home and place of worship.

              However, remnants of the Christian religion are still active in our secular lives. They must respect that at all times.

              This is where the rubber meets the road. Any balking or readily agreeing to all that without question means you are on the first flight home.

            • So if I say we should ditch an inappropriate prayer on Parliament should I be on the first flight home? Or should I be on the first sailing ship home, as that’s how my ancestors got here.

              Legally forcing people to agree with stuff stipulated by politicians is patently undemocratic as well as dangerous.

            • robertguyton

               /  October 1, 2018

              “Legally forcing people to agree with stuff stipulated by politicians is patently undemocratic as well as dangerous.”
              All of our laws are “stuff stipulated by (democratically elected) politicians”.
              Aren’t they?

            • Gezza

               /  October 1, 2018

              The problem you’ll run into with mentioning Christian values is that Muslims believe in the same mythical god & Christians think it’s just an Arab version of Jaweh – so you won’t get support.

              I’m not saying we should hate religion – just don’t build it in as a value that must be signed up to. Let the deluded just do their thing. You’d be better off specifying the particular values you want to take out of Christianity.

              Owning slaves and killing non-believers should be a no-no but Jesus never repudiated the Old Testament. So best just to pick out the good bits that we like these days. Don’t mention that particular religion. Or any religion.

            • Corky

               /  October 1, 2018

              ”So if I say we should ditch an inappropriate prayer on Parliament should I be on the first flight home.”

              No, of course not. You are a native New Zealander.

              ”Legally forcing people to agree with stuff stipulated by politicians is patently undemocratic as well as dangerous.”

              Dangerous, yes. But have you seen the alternatives regarding Muslims?

            • Griff.

               /  October 1, 2018

              “All of our laws are “stuff stipulated by (democratically elected) politicians”.”
              Aren’t they?
              Nope.

              The English common law originated in the early Middle Ages in the King’s Court (Curia Regis), a single royal court set up for most of the country at Westminster, near London. … The common law of England was largely created in the period after the Norman Conquest of 1066.

              That is the basis of our law and it certainly was not from a democracy.
              FWIW.
              We live under the monarchy of her Majesty QE11 New Zealand aka Queen lizzy.
              She holds all authority under the law ya know ………Until she carks that is. At 92 its odds on she will not even get to send her self that telegram. Then Its his Royal Highness Prince Big Ears the first of New Zealand’s turn at being the only voter in our “democracy”.
              I dont make the rules ya know i just report them .

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  October 1, 2018

              It is complete rubbish to say that Muslims don’t understand secular society. Any such generalisation is ignorant drivel.

        • robertguyton

           /  October 1, 2018

          Every day’s a long day (if you’re lucky).

    • artcroft

       /  October 1, 2018

      “let’s not forget being judged by our worst would mean NZ culture = domestic/sexual violence, youth suicide, and indigenous abuse.” According to statistics, hose are Maori values.

    • Corky

       /  October 1, 2018

      ”Hold the line. The first lot of migrants haven’t learn’t how to respect Maori values.”

      Yeah, they did bro. They gave you the treaty. And for all its flaws it protected you from each other.

      Well, OK,not quite. Whitey did buy those smoked heads off you.

  2. Ray

     /  October 1, 2018

    One wonders what the age limits on NZ First Youth Wing might be, not receiving the pension?

    • Corky

       /  October 1, 2018

      Their younins look like they have stepped out of the Tardis. That isn’t surprising given NZ1 critics say their values and prejudices are so yesterday.

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  October 1, 2018

      Stale news, we all know about the Women’s Temperance Society. We learned about it at school, forsooth.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  October 1, 2018

  3. Blazer

     /  October 1, 2018

    there was an absolute meathead on morning report this morning giving his viewpoint on NZ values…very vague and unconvincing.

    • Corky

       /  October 1, 2018

      Obfuscation….people like Felix don’t want change..they hide behind what about; what if.

    • robertguyton

       /  October 1, 2018

      Difficult question that requires debate with input from across the spectrum – hence Winston’s raising of the matter.

  4. david in aus

     /  October 1, 2018

    Nationalism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. I should have added Winston the last sentence as Scoundrel, Nationalism and Winston are natural bedfellows.

    • Blazer

       /  October 1, 2018

      I thought cliches were the last refuge of the…scoundrel.

      • david in aus

         /  October 1, 2018

        Your thoughts are your own. Thanks for sharing.

    • sorethumb

       /  October 1, 2018

      So who benefits from globalism?

      • david in aus

         /  October 1, 2018

        Define Globalism as you understand it. Climate change policy can be more effective from a global perspective, as are agreements of flights, Geneva convention on torture etc. Even the UN is useful on occasions.

        Tradewise, it gives us access to crude oil, electronic goods etc that we can’t produce or lack.
        There are pluses and minuses.

        What people do not like is the loss of sovereignty that you cede in multilateral agreements. For NZ, a small fish amongst whales, rule-based systems are good. For the mighty powerful nations, it constrains their power and I can understand those in America that are skeptical of international institutions (Globalism).

        Saying ‘Globalism’ this and that is meaningless. First, define you are talking about.

  5. Zedd

     /  October 1, 2018

    At first glance, this sounds like the old ‘kiwi catchcry’.. “If you dont like it here, then PISS OFF back where you came from !”

    BUT there is a difference between the ‘Rugby, Racing & Beer’ mentality of the 1950s- & more recently seeing women in full burques & NZ chinese TV channels etc. Most ‘new kiwis’ do need to make some effort to ‘fit in to the societal norms’.. not create their own ‘separatist cultural ghettos’ etc.

    “You will be assimilated.. resistance is futile” :/

    • Zedd

       /  October 1, 2018

      just another day for YOU & me.. here ‘in paradise’ ? 🙂

    • Missy

       /  October 1, 2018

      I agree Zedd, new immigrants do need to make an effort to fit in with our societal norms, and as we see in Europe many don’t, creating their own communities, flouting laws, claiming racism & persecution when pulled up on it, and using Western Liberalism against their new country to create the conditions of where they left, (ie violence against those that criticise etc).

      I disagree on saying they have to assimilate, I think that new migrants do have to integrate and accept our laws and way of life, but I wouldn’t go so far as saying they have to assimilate.

      • Zedd

         /  October 1, 2018

        Ok :/

        my comment about assimilation; a quote from Star Trek.. dont take me too seriously.. will you ?

        • Corky

           /  October 1, 2018

          The Borg, Zedd?

        • Missy

           /  October 1, 2018

          I have never watched Star Trek so i missed that reference.

          • Corky

             /  October 1, 2018

            Lucky for you Missy. The Borg are a nightmare. The nearest we humans have to them is a socialist hive…similar to the one taking over Aotearoa. The Borg also live in communities called ”hives.”

  6. High Flying Duck

     /  October 1, 2018

  7. Loki

     /  October 1, 2018

    Interesting to see his pet blogger lift himself out of his hammock to promote Winston’s latest brain fart this morning and then attack Tracy Martin in the next post for shooting it down.
    It is nothing more than the old codger having a crack at Jacinda wanting to complete Clark’s policy of turning the West Auckland electorates into Koran flavoured fortresses who all vote Labour.

  8. sorethumb

     /  October 1, 2018

  1. Ardern does not support NZ First’s ‘Kiwi Values’ bill | Your NZ