In a video posted on Facebook on Wednesday, the Destiny Church founder accuses Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi of purging Christians in the South Asian nation.
“He [Modi] is currently purging India of all Christians and burning church buildings down,” Tamaki said.
“I think we should reciprocate in kind. Let’s purge New Zealand of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. And, while we’re at it, if they’re burning churches down, why don’t we burn mosques and their temples down? Tit for tat.”
Tamaki explicitly said NZ should be purged of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims, on the basis he doesn’t like what the leader of a foreign country is doing.
For those inclined to defend what he said, think about if he had said:
“Benjamin Netanyahu is currently purging Israel of all Muslims and burning mosques down. I think we should reciprocate in kind. Let’s purge NZ of Jews. And while we’re at it, if they’re burning mosques down, why don’t we burn their synagogues down”
Both statements are equally vile. He calls for a purge of New Zealand citizens based on their religion, and suggests burning down their places of worship. One can condemn what happens in India (which actually sees Muslims, Sikhs and Christians all targeted – not just Christians) without using it to condemn three entire religions. It is especially ironic that Muslims and Sikhs in India are also victims of Hindu nationalism, and Tamaki calls for them to be purged because I guess to him they’re all the same.
The statements do not necessarily meet the threshold for criminal prosecution, but they do meet the threshold to consider whether he should have the privilege (not the right) of owning guns. I prefer gun owners not to call for purges of religious minorities and burning down places of worship.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
4 comments:
Well , Tamaki did get his point across.It was polemic arguing but we are exposed to a lot of this these days. Actually India persecutes other religions as well. Here Christianity is 'persecuted ' by our children having animism and veneration of other Maori spiritual entities forced on them which conflicts with Christian fundamental beliefs. If you complain you are called racist.
Academia has satisfactorily knocked out any mention of Christianity in its hallowed halls on the grounds real learning has to be secular. Secular actually means neutral towards religion not making aggressive attacks on it. I was recently thoroughly ridiculed by an academic in a blog simply because I was supposedly Christian when I hadn't made any mention of my personal beliefs at all.
Tamaki is stating a truth about what is happening in India but Christian beliefs do not support retaliation and he knows that. I believe it was probably pure rhetoric on his part. Marginal but sought of playground taunting stuff. I think you missed that nuance, David.
David, you are a great commentator and a great exposer of rort. But I agree with Anonymous 12:47. We've got to be very careful of becoming the pot that calls the kettle black (no racism intended). The right to freedom of speech is precious, and it doesn't exist just to protect what what we want to hear. Tamaki isn't building up a secret arsenal of flamethrowers and incendiary bombs, and he isn't seriously intending to load kiwi Indians onto slave ships and send them back. He's simply exaggerating for effect in order to draw attention to his cause, and pointing out the disparity between the way the ruling clique in India treat their minorities, and the way we do. He's no doubt also championing the Indian approach, but he's entitled to hold that view. Kiwi Indians happen to be among my favourite people, but some like Tamaki and NZ First are questioning whether we are bringing in too many, too soon. It's valid debate, and one that has its parallels throughout the western world. The seizure of Tamaki's personal firearms in response to his silly comments and Modi's imminent arrival, is an embarrassing overreaction that is as extremist as the harm it is supposed to negate.
I do not agree with Anon 509. "Why don’t we burn mosques and their temples down? Tit for tat" is not an exercise in hyperbole, it is an incitement to violence targetting specific communities. Anyone who spouts off like that is not fit to own firearms.
Bear in mind that freedom of speech has always had limits placed on it. Incitement to violence is one of those.
Reply to Barend Vlaardingerbroek @ 6:32pm. Yes, quite right that Tamaki's comments appear to meet the definition of incitement to violence. However, there is another problem here and that is the state acting as police, judge and jury by removing firearms and firearm licence without due process. Those removals are not temporary but are permanent, requiring an individual to jump through hoops, usually to mount legal proceedings in order to have those rights and possessions returned. This is a worrying trend in law, started by feminist lobbying for Family Court and family law that similarly treats an accused (at least if male) as guilty purely on the basis of allegations without proof. The law allowing the state to seize assets without proof that they were in fact gained through illegal activity is similar.
It seems to me that temporary removal of guns and licence would be justified on the basis of Tamaki's speech, but the state should then be required to prove its case regarding that speech. In this case, I'm pretty sure the state would succeed, but with a few better-chosen words by Tamaki to emphasize it as theatric and theoretical, that would not have been so.
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.