Suze: NZ Muslims Are Yet to Object Publicly

It’s one and the same for fringe minorities seeking public affirmation through exploiting great chasms of tolerance embedded in our Christian-based law but the answer is not to adopt law changes instilling intolerance, but to nip the opportunists in the bud.

Trannies did it in public libraries up and down the country until Brian Tamaki recently cottoned onto their penchant for openly subjecting young children to flamboyant eroticism. He then campaigned against library events, successfully shutting down the Rotorua Public Library event after canvassing local support and threatening the Hastings City Council with the same.

Wellington Muslims asked the Wellington mayor for permission to blast the locals with the daily Muslim call to prayer. The mayor pontificated and, when Sean Plunket phoned Tory Whanau to discuss the issue, Whanau was horrified to discover that she was live on air and responded immediately with the blasphemy “Jesus Christ, Sean, umm, I’ll come back to you.” After being all gung-ho on the 14th of March the mayor is now undecided. She may as well flip a coin.

Such ignorance is exactly why Christians should protest the introduction of Muslim prayer calls in Wellington, but where are the objectors? Perhaps they’ve already left the capital in search of cities and towns more supportive of their Christian faith.

At any rate, Muslims have not objected publicly to Paul Goldsmith’s recent termination of the partially rewritten hate-speech-as-a-crime law; an eminently sensible decision. As my good mother used to say, if you haven’t got anything good to say then say nothing at all.

The most recent media coverage of Muslim support for hate speech crime law was over a year ago even though Muslims have the right, as we all do, to gnash their teeth publicly when things don’t go their way.

Muslim expectations of the prospective hate speech law are well known.

In 2022 Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand chair Abdur Razzaq Khan expected hate speech law would be included in the Crimes Act, saying the Royal Commission had decided the matter and the Law Commission didn’t need to be involved.

Khan said it was ironic to give this task to the Law Commission when it recognised the Royal Commission as the highest body of inquiry.

“There is a completely separate 40 page document [by the Royal Commission] with a detailed analysis and policy review entitled ‘Hate Speech and Hate Crime Legislation’. This is a supplementary document and as the Royal Commissioners themselves stated, it has analysis of the legislation in ‘greater detail’,” FIANZ’s release stated.

The Muslim community and others had spent many months in consultation with the Royal Commission, and now that entire process has been nullified. For the Law Commission to restart this entire process would inevitably mean reopening the trauma of 15 March.

Federation of Islamic Associations of NZ criticises Government for ignoring Royal Commission points on hate speech (emphasis mine)

Never mind that a Royal Commission can be politically hijacked to guarantee a politically expedient result, as demonstrated by the bias evident in the two remaining members of the Royal Commission on Covid-19, Khan said policy makers were diverted by the issue of free speech instead of concentrating on criminalising hate speech.

But in February 2023 Abdur Razzaq said the Islamic Association had changed its mind entirely about the Law Commission’s involvement. Too tired of waiting for a resolution of a matter very obvious to Islam, rewriting hate speech law was the very devil of a job for lawmakers.

A Muslim community leader says the hate speech legislation is too important to rush through and has welcomed the government’s decision to refer it to the Law Commission. However, he said the legislation was not thoroughly discussed in the public arena and was hijacked by political motives.

Hate speech law ‘too important to rush through’ – Islamic Associations’ Abdur Razzaq

It’s interesting to note the Islamic spokesman’s choice of the phrase “political hijacking” instead of admitting the obvious religious motivation. But don’t expect Muslims to acknowledge another very inconvenient fact, which is that Muslim conversion to Christianity is forbidden in Islamic-dominated countries.

The penalty in Iran for conversion to Christianity is arrest, detention and imprisonment and in Afghanistan, Christians face torture, prison and execution for their faith, with punishment extending to the accused’s family who are expected to hand over their Christian relatives to the religious authorities.

Muslim support for introducing hate speech law in Western countries has its roots in assuaging concerns in traditionally Christian-based communities that the emergence of the Islamic religion is a threat to existing religion. When Muslim leaders speak publicly, it is invariably to defend Islam from its critics.

Missing from Newshub’s defence of the Muslim call to prayer broadcast daily through loudspeakers in Wellington is the fact that Muslims pray five times a day.

Leader Tariq Saeed says they’d be played quietly, to not disrupt neighbours.

“We want to explore the possibility, if the community is okay with it. Still, we want to be very respectful and mindful, so we don’t cause any discomfort to the people.”

Muslim call to prayer in Wellington

That Muslims don’t want to cause discomfort because “they are us” was the blatant lie touted by the most abusive leader in NZ history. Muslim communities convinced Ardern and the Christchurch Royal Commission that the religion of Islam is peaceful, and that NZ Muslims are quiet and unobtrusive, but this theory will not receive traction from fundamental Christians counselled to be “as wise as serpents and harmless as doves”, aware that Muslims massacre Christians on a daily basis in sub-Saharan nations.

The Ardern Government’s push to reform hate speech law was politically motivated.

Ardern’s alienation of dissidents who refused the vaccine mandates can be compared to Muslims maintaining control of their followers. Family, friends and community leaders are encouraged to shame and out the non-compliant, and the end result for New Zealand during Covid and for Christians living in Islamic-dominated countries is the same: dead people, divided families and shattered communities.

The motivation of Christians opposing hate speech is to protect religious freedoms, but Christianity is also fundamentally different from Islam. Christianity is observed through the practices of forgiveness, love and caring for those around you, including your enemies, as per the Good Samaritan story, behaviour which is opposed to the lethal persecution practices of militant Islam.

The Ardern Government is long gone, leaving in its wake some very relieved lawmakers and two religions with opposing views on hate speech crime. The introduction of hate speech as a crime thankfully is dead in the water.

Until biased media are booted from our televisions or take heed of Winston’s cease-and-desist suggestion, they will continue to manufacture distractions aplenty. Still, the coalition Government can chalk up ditching hate speech law reform as a win and move on to their next target, while the population gets on with their lives, peacefully upholding personal values and avoiding offending those who don’t agree.

Muslims would be wise to heed the unsaid message that religion must stay in its lane to avoid veering into the undeniable, militant face of Islam. So far, so good, but let’s remain vigilant.

Suze sees herself as a New Zealander whose heritage shaped but does not define, and believes unless we protect our rights and freedoms they will be taken off us by a few powerful people. This article was first published HERE