blogging it real

I don't agree with eveything that National is outlining in the policy (4 years is way too long for the provisional residency, 2 years is probably a better figure - but it would still main that after 4 years of living in New Zealand they could become NZ citizens), but I am surprised you would quote Tze Ming Mok' response

"HOW FUCKING DARE YOU TELL ME WHO I AM ALLOWED TO BE???? FUCK YOU AND THE SINGAPOREAN CHINESE NEW ZEALANDER YOU FUCKING RODE IN ON!!!!"

DC: Do you really agree with the statement "FUCK YOU AND THE SINGAPOREAN CHINESE NEW ZEALANDER YOU FUCKING RODE IN ON!!!!"? Don't you consider this statement offensive, if not even possibly racist?

I think Brash is arguing against multiculturalism which can be seen from his statement of not wanting immigrants "who come with no intention of becoming New Zealanders or adopting New Zealand values."

I can't disagree with Brash on this point and which I believe is the common theme in his speech and the underlying rationale behind the policy change. I have real problems with multicultralism (Susan Okin's articulates some of the problems I have with multicultralism in her article "Is Multicultrualism Bad for Women"

I am surprised you would describe Brash's statements as "scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel, half-arsed, Winstonesque "policy" ". Have you actually read what Brash said. I am not expecting you to agree with his policies, but are they really "Winstonesque". Won't National's policy stop the so-called "whitening immigration trend" which have occured under Labour? I don't see you criticising Labour for this even though it is more overtly aimed (at least indirectly) at Asian immigrants.

-Dinkas
 

What exactly are these "New Zealand values"?

Owning an SUV and catching undersize fish on your 20 foot boat or binge drinking and smoking dope?
 

I've just whizzed over the first quarter of that article (I'm busy dammit!) on multiculturalism and it appears that she mainly has a problem or identifies the problem as non-white immigrants. She mentions Muslims a bit.

Presumably only those who are near identical to the country they are entering should be allowed to enter. The alternative being to do what every western country does and just shut up, take their money and hope to brainwash their children.

For the record I, and I can include 100% of all foreigners I met in Korea over 4 years had no intention of becoming Koreans or adopting Korean values whilst in Korea.

I guess the major issue is should people who choose to go and live in another country HAVE TO adopt that country's values and culture whatever they may be (the goalposts get moved whenever it suits).

And if they do make an effort how big should the effort be?

And where is the line drawn?

All sounds a bit problematic to me.

What if we won't let Muslim students wear headscarves at school but the girls brother plays rugby and drinks Lion Red?

Meanwhile an Australian immigrant is trying hard to start up an Aussie rules team and poach all the local rugby players?!

picky, picky.

wink wink.
 

NRL Round 23
Eels vs Bulldogs Both eels
storm vs warriors bennyasena warriors jessup storm
raiders vs rabbits both raiders
roosters vs sharks bennyasena roosters jessup sharks
tigers vs cowboys bennyasena cowboys jessup tigers
broncos vs dragons both broncos
knights vs eagles jessup knights bennyasena knights
NRL Rnd 23
 

Yamis: I won't see that New Zealand values are easy to define, but Brash is quoted as saying

"We do not want those who insist on their right to spit in the street; or demand the right to practise female circumcision; or believe that New Zealand would be a better place if gays and adulterers were stoned. If immigrants don't like the way we do things in New Zealand, then they chose the wrong country to migrate to."

And yes, female circumcision does take place in New Zealand. People who wish to migrate to New Zealand need to accept that these views are not within so-called "New Zealand values".

"I've just whizzed over the first quarter of that article (I'm busy dammit!) on multiculturalism and it appears that she mainly has a problem or identifies the problem as non-white immigrants. She mentions Muslims a bit."

I am also busy and just read my notes from when I read Okin's article (I have a few other articles about multiculturalism, but they are not available freely online, so that was my main reason for linking to her article).

"Presumably only those who are near identical to the country they are entering should be allowed to enter. The alternative being to do what every western country does and just shut up, take their money and hope to brainwash their children."

I disagree, it is not about what people's views are *when* they migrate, but whether they will assimiliate. This of course does not mean that New Zealand should not accept immigrants, but should make better efforts as assimilating the immigrants that come to New Zealand.

"For the record I, and I can include 100% of all foreigners I met in Korea over 4 years had no intention of becoming Koreans or adopting Korean values whilst in Korea."

Are you a Korean citizen? If people want to come to New Zealand to work then they don't have to adopt New Zealand values, just follow the law. Having lived in Asia myself for 6 years, I didn't necessarily adopt all the values of the country I was living in, but I was not intending to become a citizen or to live there permanently.

"I guess the major issue is should people who choose to go and live in another country HAVE TO adopt that country's values and culture whatever they may be (the goalposts get moved whenever it suits)."

Now, I didn't say it was easy, but just because something it is hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done (or at least we shouldn't make an effort to try harder). I am not necessarily saying we go down the French model of assimiliation, but I do think their policy has merits.

One specific example of helping immigrants to assimilate, is improving the English language skills of immigrants.
Keith Locke was whinging about National removing the "family reunification category" and would include family members within the refugee quota. With the money saved National would spend it on "improving refugees' English and helping them settle in New Zealand." I have meet plenty of refugees who have lived in New Zealand for more than 10 years who can't communicate at all in English, can't fill in a simple form in English etc.

How can they ever assimiliate and obtain a job if they can't even speak English? The Greens attack National for refugee bashing because National is concerned that after 5 years of living in New Zealand 80% of refugees are still on a benefit. I see it as fucking national disgrace that more is not being done. At least National is trying to do something constructive about it.

"Meanwhile an Australian immigrant is trying hard to start up an Aussie rules team and poach all the local rugby players?!"

There is nothing wrong with this. No laws are being broken. Hopefully, after a few years in New Zealand he will see the light and take up rugby or even better cricket! If somebody from another country wants to play there own national/local sport there is nothing wrong about this. Come on Yamis, you know this is not what I am talking about.

Summary: I am in favour of assimiliation not multiculturalism.

-Dinkas
 

I was taking the piss with the Australian rules thing but let's face it most people in agreement with Nationals immigration policies have not put anywhere near as much time into thinking about it as you have. All they care about is less asians and non-honkies.

It's a black (and yellow) and white issue to them.

"Insist on their right to spit in the street"? if he said that then it's a disgrace and I'm surprised you put much stock in it. It's clearly shit stirring to get votes from those who know nothing but stereotypes.

Hilarious that he mentions gays as well after recent 'mainstream' comments.

There are so many 'New Zealanders' here, born and breed, first time caller long time listeners that will not only spit in the street but also piss in it (I know 3 guys who have been arrested in NZ for urinating in a public place). I'll take stepping in spit over piss thanks.

I mean come on. That type of shit stirring is shameful.

How many immigrants to NZ practice female circumcision? It's a disgusting practice but the way these grandstanders go on they make it seem as though every person who comes through customs has a bloody scalpel in their bag.

And on assimilation. Well, I find assimilation a bit of a dirty word.

It assumes that all that we stand for is right and anything different is wrong.

A very dangerous belief don't you think?

If all the world believes that everybody coming to their country must assimilate then we will live in a very fucked up world for a very very long time.

"Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, Ignorance, hypocracy, brutality, the elite,
All of which are New Zealand dreams,
all of which are New Zealand dreams,
all of which are New Zealand dreams,
all of which are New Zealand dreams".

Fuck I hope it doesn't become that way but it seems it might be if some have their way.

- Know Your Enemy (Zack de la Rocha and Yamis)
 

"All they care about is less asians and non-honkies...It's a black (and yellow) and white issue to them."

I won't deny that there are probably people out there who vote for National who are happy with this policy probably because they see it is as less blacks and Asians, but I very much doubt that the majority see it like that. If National was so concerned about the race card, would they really want Don Brash (with his Asian wife) as the leader of the party? I doubt it. Isn't also a sign now on how racially tolerant New Zealand is that even though the leader of one of the 2 main parties has an Asian wife and it doesn't matter.

Wasn't it the present Labour government who dramatically increased the English language ability of new migrants/investors (which indirectly affected the Asians)? Surely, some of the bigots out there liked that as well. I just see it as politics. I would rather have Brash and Clark pandering to those people then having more of Peter Dunne and Winston Peters.

I really don't see Brash's policy of being racist. I provided a link to Brash's speech in my first comment. Remember

"Insist on their right to spit in the street"?

Ok, I admit that was probably not the best example Brash could give (is spitting in the street actually illegal?) and it would have been better to leave it out, but it was simply an example

Google hasn't be that helpful with providing me with figures on the number of female circumcisions in New Zealand apart from 'an increasing number'.

I should restate one thing. I am in favour of assimiliation as opposed to multiculturalism, but this does not mean we have complete 100% assimiliation policy. It is not a completely black and white issue, but I am supportive of a greater emphasis on assimiliation that is why I generally support Brash's statement.

I also disagree with you when you state that "[i]t assumes that all that we stand for is right and anything different is wrong". Freedom of speech and press still exists, these matters can be debated into society. Society's views will change on certain matters as the make-up of society changes.

And finally on your comment about Brash, gays, and mainsteam comments. I really don't get what you are on about here. I would certainly say that mainstream New Zealand "values" includes support for gay rights. The only disagreement is about the extent of those rights, but I certainly don't see any widespread support to making homosexuality/homosexual acts criminal. There were quite a few members of the Labour party who were against civil unions as well. Do you think if a national referendum was held on the issue that Brash would vote against civil unions? I certainly don't.

-Dinkas

P.S This is probably it for me on this debate as I have so much study to do this weekend.

The poms are all out.
 

Dinkas said - DC: 'Do you really agree with the statement "FUCK YOU AND THE SINGAPOREAN CHINESE NEW ZEALANDER YOU FUCKING RODE IN ON!!!!"? Don't you consider this statement offensive, if not even possibly racist?'

Hadn't paid a great deal of thought to this particular sentence - I assumed it referred to the idea that Brash would (if pushed) say something like 'Frankly, my wife is a singaporean chinese new zealander.'

The implication being that this makes her a "good immigrant" while those "New zealand singaporean chinese" or whatever are not. Frankly, who gives a shit?

Alternatively, the statement could just be plain offensive, as you suggest. But in criticizing the identity of others Brash opens himself up to ad hominem attacks.

And Brash is happy to portray gays as outside "mainstream NZ" one minute, while pretending to champion liberal values against religious fundamentalism the next?

Final two points:

1) you can also find support in the Bible for stoning gays and adulterers, and there's plenty of Christian MPs who will accept that as the word of god, totally above criticism.

2) as a proud kiwi, I don't always obey the law - which I believe to be an ass in some areas - and I don't always behave well on the street. Tut tut, deport me to Ireland, my 5 generations probation time is still in effect.
 

I've got to go to drop off some library books (nerd), and then go to my parents to watch 4 rugby games, 3 league games and the ashes (sport head).

How many days this year have that much sport?

But first...

I wonder how many NZers even know that Brash's wife is Asian? I wouldn't be surprised if there were an awful lot of voters (including National ones) that just don't pay that much attention. Just a feeling I have. I didn't even know myself until relatively recently (being out of the country and all) and it's one of those things that it's quite easy to forget if it doesn't get mentioned every few months simply because of the number of MPs causing confusion about who did what and with whom.

With the issue about gays and the argument regarding the extent of their rights...

Well there lies the problem really. Why does there even need to be a debate? They should have all the rights that anybody else has. That's the opinion of me of course but I find it retarded how slow people come around on these things.

In a progressive society like I hope NZ is we should be sprinting down the road to having the same rights for all.

And that's why I can't stomach snails pace conservatism, one step forward, one step backwards stuff. Brash pleasantly surprised me with his civil union stance but with enough people from his side of the fence in power bills like that would struggle like hell to get through.

In 20 years gays will be marching down the isle all over the place and they will probably have a joint in their hand at the same time.

Aussie is on the rack.

Poms to go up 2-1 or rain to save the wallaby humpers?
 

Not sure if you heard, Yamis, but Brash voted against the civil unions bill (and not on the grounds that it fell short of full equality!).

http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2004/11/disappointed.html

Enjoy watching all those games you lucky bastard, I'll get back to my hangover.