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.

Peters wants ‘Hindi’ votes nullified

Winston Peters is asking for the votes of all Hindi speakers in the flag referendum because of a slight translation variation in instructions.

On the surface at least this is one of his silliest stunts yet, and there’s quite a bit of competition for that.

Stuff reports: NZ First calls for Hindi flag votes to be nullified, after translation differs

A slight change in the Hindi translation of flag referendum instructions is “misleading”, claim NZ First.

Therefore, party leader Winston Peters has called for all votes from Hindi-speaking people to be nullified.

The pamphlet titled ‘How to vote’ accompanies the ballot papers, and sets out the first step in English: “Tick the flag you want to be the New Zealand flag”.

However, the Hindi translation reads: “Tick the flag you want to be the new New Zealand flag” – the word ‘new’ had been inserted.

I’m sure Hindi speaking voters, and even NZ First voters, can figure out that they tick the flag they prefer.

Peters believed the wording was an attempt to manipulate the vote towards the Prime Minister’s flag preference.

“It can’t be a mistake. The fact of the matter is that this is a deliberate manipulation. And it’s not the first time,” said Peters.

“For example, the first flag on the voting paper is not our flag, the existing flag. No, it’s the new one.

“What it does mean is…even though the Hindi voters are totally innocent, we can’t surely count this vote now.”

We can’t be sure if Peters is too stupid to vote or not, so maybe his vote should be nullified.

The issue was raised by NZ First MP Mahesh Bindra when he came across the pamphlet on Wednesday morning, and he said a couple of people from the Hindi community had also contacted him.

“They’ve said ‘Why is it that the Hindi version differs from the English one?'” Bindra said.

“The voters get a different impression from the language.”

Most Hindi speaking voters in New Zealand can probably read English too.But it seems that Peters doesn’t want them own property or vote here.

This isn’t the first time Peters has tried to exclude certain ethnicities from voting, he wanted non-citizens to be banned from voting for the flag as well.

This is someone who is so patriotic he will try any sort of stunt to keep the Union Jack.

Peters isn’t totally stupid, I presume he’s aware that it would be practically impossible to filter votes by languages spoken.

This just looks like more anti-ethnic rhetoric from Peters.