Imagine if 81 million New Zealanders upped stakes and moved to Mumbai and Delhi, and then started issuing ultimatums to the Indian government. Imagine if 78 million Kiwis landed in Beijing and Shanghai and started demanding special laws from the Chinese government – or else. How do you think the Indians or Chinese would react? There’d be a non-stop string of flights to Auckland International, repatriating those uppity Kiwis right back where they came from. That’s if they were lucky enough to not end up in a concentration camp in Xinjiang.
Ignore the fact that, of course, there aren’t 78 or 81 million New Zealanders: the point of this hypothetical is to put into relative terms the sheer, overwhelming scale of the twin butter-chicken-and-fried-rice tsunamis which have swamped New Zealand in recent years.
And the sheer, arrogant chutzpah of those who’ve barged into Kiwis’ home.
New Zealand’s Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh and Islamic councils have issued an ‘election ultimatum’ demanding every party promise hate speech policies, highlighting the ethnic voting bloc as a significant 18.4 per cent of the population.
Welcome to your future, New Zealand.
Over the next decade, as these migrant groups surge, as they will, to be the majority of the ‘New Zealand’ population, do you really think they will ease back on making demands? Or go even harder?
The push followed a video from Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki urging New Zealand to ‘purge’ Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims and burn mosques and temples ‘tit for tat,’ which he cast as reciprocity for Christians’ persecution in India.
Clutch their pearls in Grey Lynn and Ponsonby all they like, Tamaki is well within his rights to say what he said.
Human rights barrister Scott Sheeran said Tamaki’s remarks broke no New Zealand law. Tamaki called it a “power grab,” insisting free speech “must remain protected”.
Whether you agree or not on “tit for tat”, the fact is that Christians are heavily persecuted in India, in Islamic countries and in China. Do you think the migrants will leave those attitudes behind as they flood New Zealand? If you’re inclined to Pollyanna optimism, I would merely point to the wave of church burnings and desecrations in Europe following the Merkel migrant wave. New York has barely elected a Muslim mayor and already churches are burning.
Click to view
No doubt some will read of the supplanting of the New Zealand population by migrants and snigger, ‘Now you know how the Māori felt’. Which, even the whataboutism if it was comparable, does nothing to actually rebut the argument. In fact, it reinforces it. It’s literally admitting that mass migration is an existential threat to the host population. Two wrongs, as the saying goes, don’t make a right. Nor can any of us do anything to erase the wrongs of the past – but we can try to prevent the foreseeable wrongs of the future.
Bringing up the Māori raises another important point: while around a third of New Zealanders overall are self-professed Christians, more than half of the Māori population are regular churchgoers. The migrant tsunami will affect Māori grossly disproportionately.
In many ways: despite the undeniable history of dispossession, the very fact that the Treaty of Waitangi exists at all shows that the British at least had some concern for the rights of the Māori. The ongoing disputes over the Treaty/Tiriti show that that concern has, if anything, grown stronger. It’s part of the history of the Kiwi population.
But the migrants supplanting the Kiwi population don’t share that history. Does anyone think they’ll seriously give a rat’s @r$e about the rights of the Māori – who will be a minority within a minority – when they become the dominant population of New Zealand? As they will, on current demographic trends, within a decade?
As in Australia and Europe, political elites are fundamentally altering the nature of their societies, and the homegrown populations get no say in it. If they dare speak up, they are simply told to shut up. By no one more forcefully, as we see, than by the migrants who are claiming New Zealand for their own. The same migrants who, in their home countries, wouldn’t tolerate for a second anyone else telling them what they feel so entitled to tell New Zealanders.
The Māori, for all their fierce resistance, had little chance against the newcomers 200 years ago. New Zealanders today have every chance to fight back at the ballot box: all they lack is the will to do so.
Lushington describes himself as Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard. This article was first published HERE
14 comments:
The writer overlooks the observation that members of immigrant communities, especially from the second generation on, tend to become more like the host population with regard to attitudes and social norms. This includes increasing secularisation. Second and third-generation immigrants are unlikely to be concerned about the inter-religious tensions "at home" (which it no longer is) than their parents/grandparents. This is good news.
Also on the bright side, they are less likely to experience any guilt trips about the 'plight' of the 'indigenous' people of the host nation, whom they owe nothing. This will translate into more political support for putting an end to racial favouritism for those 'indigenous' groups.
How many of the incoming immigrants realise that they are going to be second class people in their new country ?
No Maori DNA, too bad, your role now is to support Maori and whatever they require of you.
Barend, I'm sure I read somewhere (I can't recall where) that there seems to be a very real trend of second generation Muslim immigrants to the UK/Europe becoming radicalised?
Thank you for pointing that out, Hugh. You are quite correct. Factors that contribute to this would include ghettoisation and balkanisation of immigrant communities, creating more of a "them versus us" mentality that persists beyond the first generation (in fact gets stronger). This article in the Daily Mail remains topical:
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-3125530/The-breeding-ground-jihadis-ice-cream-lady-wears-burka-great-textile-town-Dewsbury-undergone-terrible-transformation.html
(I cracked up when I saw the icecream lady in full burka...... I wondered whether it was a wind-up but it appears to be true!)
A critical mass principle would seem to be in operation. In Sydney, Lakemba has been described as "Sharia territory".
As for Sharia law, there are over 80 Sharia councils that act as courts in the UK, and 10 in Australia. While these have no legal authority in the eyes of the State, they do deal with civil cases such as marriage (including polygamous marriage) under Sharia law.
There are lessons here for NZ. If we bring Muslim immigrants in, make sure they are scattered throughout the country, not all concentrated in one place. And we should not allow a dual legal system to develop as in the UK.
The most disturbing factor in what some of us now see occurring in our nation is the blindness of the general population. We note over the last decades the appalling deceit of the various govts, such that they appear to be facilitating and encouraging the impending collapse of a hard-built national unity that has survived for some 150 years. And it all appears inevitable under the treasonous management of our major political parties. There is though a small shaft of light appearing from across the Tasman. Australia seems to sense the dangers we face, and is gradually waking to reality. Paulin Hanson’s One Nation party may be the example we need to follow, as urgently as possible.
How many descendants of immigrants are commenting in this article? How many actual immigrants are commenting? The irony is so, so rich. I bet there isn’t a sniff of indigenous blood among you. Prove me wrong, kids, prove me wrong.
Anon 135, I am an "actual immigrant", having first come to these shores in1961 with my parents under the auspices of the Assisted Migration Programme that ran 1947-62. I have carried a NZ passport since 1972. Now kindly tell me why that is such a big deal for you in the context of the above discussion.
Hey Barend! The relevance is that the opinion piece makes rather overt suggestions that immigrants have a negative impact on the people who call New Zealand home.
Here is one relevant snippet of many from the article:
“Over the next decade, as these migrant groups surge, as they will, to be the majority of the ‘New Zealand’ population, do you really think they will ease back on making demands?”
Here is another:
“the point of this hypothetical is to put into relative terms the sheer, overwhelming scale of the twin butter-chicken-and-fried-rice tsunamis which have swamped New Zealand in recent years”
It’s like when people complain about being stuck in traffic. The problem isn’t the traffic, Barend, YOU are the traffic.
Thanks for the debate, enlightening and enjoyable. All the best to you and your family.
This article appears to be suggesting something about immigration and immigrants
Anon1.35 indigenous is whom? Maori migrated here 800 odd years ago. Or do you mean first migrants finders keepers
Pauline Hanson’s party? The grifters funded by a brutal mining corporation billionaire? No thanks mate, I’ll stick to my freedoms.
Anon333, the writer of this article appears to be concerned about non-Western immigration - people from non-Western societies who bring in their own cultural and religious hang-ups that then start playing out here. S/he also makes the unsubstantiated claim that those immigrants will somehow be bad news for Maori. Then you come in and ask how many immigrants and descendants of immigrants are commenting here, noting that "the irony is so rich." You then reiterate a couple of claims made by the writer, and tell me it's little old me, a Dutchy who came here as a kid over 60 years ago, who is the problem. Sorry, but I'm not connecting the dots.
I constantly see people who have migrated here who have not accepted and taken up kiwi culture and principles. Why, some immigrants I know refuse to learn even a moderate amount of Te Reo. If you don’t want to get on board with what a country is, you should t bother coming here in the first place. If that’s too hard, you, as a non-assimilant have No Right to comment on others not assimilating. Hypocrisy with a capital H all happening in MY country.
So what are "Kiwi culture and principles"? From what I can make out, traditional NZ culture is largely Anglo-Saxon in derivation. As well as the English language, some of the main things Dutchies had to take on board in the 60s were Sinter Klaas (Santa Claus) coming 3 weeks later, adding milk to tea, and driving on the left side of the road. Things Maori did not enter into the equation.
"Kiwi principles" includes tolerance of diverse opinions and ideas. That gives me a right to comment on anything I damn well like, including assimilation issues that come with people arriving here from very different cultures than the Dutch. On a 10-point scale, Dutch and Anglo-Saxon would be next to one another, whereas Afghan culture and Anglo-Saxon would be around 8 or even 9 points apart.
My refusal to have anything to do with an artificial lingo that mimics an indigenous tongue does not make me a "non-assimilant". I have assimilated quite well - I love a Steinlager or three, enjoy a mice and cheese pie, and bet on the horses. How much more culturally adept can one get?
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.