“Middle East leftovers”

Written By: - Date published: 9:19 am, February 3rd, 2017 - 31 comments
Categories: bill english, human rights, im/migration - Tags: , ,

Look what Lloyd Burr found – Bill English: ‘We don’t need Middle East leftovers’

Prime Minister Bill English once described Middle Eastern asylum seekers as “leftovers” who should be blocked from entering New Zealand.

Just over 10 years ago he criticised then-Prime Minister Helen Clark as being a “soft touch” on migrants – and promised a National Government would “turn the green light red”.

“New Zealand is now seen as a soft touch for other fascists, terrorists, whoever is on the losing side in bad regimes, unwanted at home and unable to get into any other country,” he said.

The comments were written in a National Party newsletter by Mr English on May 9, 2005. He was discussing the case of Ahmed Zaoui – an Algerian refugee who had been granted asylum, despite being identified as a security risk by the SIS.

Scoop has a copy of the original release.

Compassionate conservatism in action. No wonder English was so tame in his criticism of Trump’s Muslim ban.

31 comments on ““Middle East leftovers” ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Siobhan 1
    3 February 2017 at 10:24 am

    “You shall treat the alien who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you; have the same love for him as for yourself; for you too were once aliens in the land of Egypt” (Lv 19:33-34).

    He would also do well to re read the Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of Labor)1891.

    Of course his treatment of the ‘natives’ (of all colours) being what it is, I don’t hold out much hope for the ‘aliens’.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.1
      3 February 2017 at 11:44 am

      Blinglish may be a practising Catholic but he’s no more Xian than the Devil himself and the Devil is far more honest.

      • Siobhan 1.1.1
        3 February 2017 at 12:00 pm

        If we have to have a Left-Footer in charge, why can’t we get a ‘cool’ one like Justin Trudeau?

        • Morrissey 1.1.1.1
          3 February 2017 at 12:49 pm

          Or JFK.

          A New Camelot would be better than English’s tawdry Scamelot….

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2711246/Bill-English-defends-taxpayer-cash-for-house

          • Siobhan 1.1.1.1.1
            3 February 2017 at 1:05 pm

            The invasion of Cuba or the 61-2 napalming of south Vietnam?? Or the carry on in South America? The phrase ‘reckless foreign intervention’ comes to mind. Imagine the crap hitting the fan if Trump starts up that sort of action.
            Touch wood that he doesn’t.

            I do wonder if Bill sees himself as a Kennedy with that noble heart, solid jaw and movie star smile of his.

            • Morrissey 1.1.1.1.1.1
              3 February 2017 at 3:03 pm

              Fair comment, Siobhan. I was thinking only of the cool and debonaire part of JFK when I wrote that.

              I realise exactly what a menace to world peace Kennedy was, and the part he played in the destruction of Indo-China.

              He was also a fraud and a plagiarist. I recommend you read Sy Hersh’s magnificent biography of him, The Dark Side of Camelot.

              For all that, I’d still take him over the Double Dipper though.

  2. Bill 2
    3 February 2017 at 10:28 am

    Ah yes, NZs bloody shameful treatment of Ahmed Zaoui. Tell me again. Who, politician wise, came away from that one looking good? Any one?

    • Morrissey 2.1
      3 February 2017 at 11:36 am

      Who, politician wise, came away from that one looking good? Any one?

      Keith Locke did. For his courage and his integrity and his refusal to accept the nonsense peddled by the French secret service, he suffered the likes of Clark and Cullen and Peters sneering at him and repeating the vile lie that he had supported Pol Pot.

      • Bill 2.1.1
        3 February 2017 at 11:55 am

        Any others?

        • Morrissey 2.1.1.1
          3 February 2017 at 12:48 pm

          There were others, but Keith Locke was the one they isolated for special trashing and ridicule.

          It was a shameful time for New Zealand democracy. During parliamentary debates about the Zaoui persecution, Labour thugs like David Benson-Pope joined with National louts like Gerry Brownlee and New Zealand First’s Winston Peters to bawl out things like “Send ‘im home!”

  3. Draco T Bastard 3
    3 February 2017 at 11:45 am

    As I said days ago – National would probably support the present US position on immigrants from ME countries.

  4. adam 4
    3 February 2017 at 11:45 am

    Can we all just pause for one minute.

    This is not new.

    http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/national-groups/page-13

    Indeed we have been down this road before with the Tories.

    Just to remind people the USA also been down this road before.

    http://www.history.com/topics/chinese-exclusion-act

    Pause have a deep breath, now think how best to oppose this.

    Because working people are suffering, so rather than go on a merry-go-round of reaction. Time to work on plans to combat this at it’s core.

    • Bill 4.1
      3 February 2017 at 11:56 am

      I’m thinking – okay, maybe just hoping that I sense – a shift that looks beyond this stupid fucking headline call to ‘resist’.

      • adam 4.1.1
        3 February 2017 at 12:03 pm

        What the point in resisting? If all you are doing is putting off dealing with an issue by reacting to it.

        The issue of racism and the continued use by the corporate elects to divide working people against each other is sickening. We need answers, not bush waving.

      • marty mars 4.1.2
        3 February 2017 at 12:04 pm

        hmmm – if it isn’t resist what is it? Why is that word so bad – overuse? confused meaning? To me resist is a very empowering word – it conjours up so much – from WW2 resistance to resisting via sabotage and civil disobedience.

        Although saying that – resistance is better for me that resist.

        edit – and to you adam – whats the point of resisting??? Think about the opposite and then answer.

        • Bill 4.1.2.1
          3 February 2017 at 12:12 pm

          Resistance is reactive – kind of based on self preservation – and has no direction of travel beyond having successfully withstood whatever is being resisted.

          It has its place.

          • marty mars 4.1.2.1.1
            3 February 2017 at 12:41 pm

            Don’t really agree with your definition. For instance I think resistance is active and based on the opposite of self preservation – think WW2 – active and nonself serving because of the consequences of getting caught. What about Gandhi – active though nonviolent and non-self serving. Both of those had very clear end strategies too.

            Now maybe as adam says this is just the latest cycle of it based upon the next group to be hated in this way – surely then resistance is even more valuable because we know what happens with it, and we know what happens if we don’t do it and we have plenty of examples of that.

            • Bill 4.1.2.1.1.1
              3 February 2017 at 1:22 pm

              Breaking it down.

              Resistance can only be in relation to something else. (ie -reactive)
              The ‘something else’ is presumably perceived as a threat ( hence the self preservation…whether that be of the personal self or something larger that the ‘sense of self’ relies on )

              When the ‘something else’ is gone, all that the resistance was is gone too. And then everything usually resorts back to some approximation or continuation (albeit perhaps disjointed) of what had gone before.

              Nothing I’m saying is meant to imply that resistance is in any way not active, or that resistance precludes self sacrifice. What I am saying is that it has limits – that those limits are set down by whatever is being resisted.

              Throw in a healthy dose of pro-active organising – (freedom to on top of or beside the freedom from) and everything changes. The limits and possibilities are self determined and can then self perpetuate beyond the end of resistance and that which was being resisted.

              The WW2 French resistance or Italian resistance wasn’t simply resistance. Vision for the future was developed. Unfortunately all that went into organising for the future was suppressed or squelched post WW2.

        • adam 4.1.2.2
          3 February 2017 at 12:14 pm

          It’s a point of intersection marty mars, not to just resist. But to think and plan for a long term outcomes and concrete answer to this issue which keep rolling over us ever 30 to 40 years.

          Own the issue. Own the outcome. Own what we need to have, to have a civil society.

          • marty mars 4.1.2.2.1
            3 February 2017 at 12:46 pm

            I think the bit you are missing is that it is US not THEM. We are part of it and unless we resist it, we are complicit in the outcomes.

            We can’t own the issue unless we look at our own fears and bigotry, individually and as a society and we aren’t doing that as evidenced by this ‘issue’ coming back again as you say.

            Resistance is the ONLY way to fight these ideas we oppose at least initially imo.

            • adam 4.1.2.2.1.1
              3 February 2017 at 2:56 pm

              I’m not saying don’t resist. I’m saying don’t be reactionary. Keep the big picture in mind.

              I’m privileged, I get to be reflexive. Which I think is a key to dealing with what you are talking about in/of fears and bigotry. But people need the time and input to reflect. Time is the hard one, we are bombarded constantly with images and messages. What we need is time away from that to look at issues.

              I do it regularly – I just walk away from it all. I’ve come to trust others so I can do that. We need it, and we need encourage others to do it, so they don’t burn out. Tracey from here being a good example. Wonderful writer, but she burnt out.

    • marty mars 4.2
      3 February 2017 at 12:01 pm

      “Because working people are suffering”

      a lot of people are suffering adam – why? Nothing to do with the many who oppose racist immigration policies of the mango mussolini or dullbill.

      Because it has happened before we know that to stand around and do nothing whilst wringing our hands constantly saying bad, bad, bad doesn’t help anyone.

      I’m not saying you are doing or advocating that and I’d like to know what actions YOU think we should take after our wee pause.

      • adam 4.2.1
        3 February 2017 at 12:11 pm

        Wee pause being the right way to frame that marty mars. Not a long one, but a pause to take the issue over.

        We need to take full control of the issue, and own the outcomes we want.

        Personally it’s that whole debate around civil rights and putting them all in one basket. Seeing the interconnections of all points, to let women led, and get to the core of why the corporate elects don’t want people to have civil rights.

        I fully agree hand wringing will get us no where, fast. My point this is the same issues that have been around for a while, time to engage in solutions for the long term, rather than just react.

        • marty mars 4.2.1.1
          3 February 2017 at 12:54 pm

          be good to see some links to what you are thinking re the wee pause – there have been a few debates on here around intersectionality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality, for instance. Is that part of what you are meaning?

          • adam 4.2.1.1.1
            3 February 2017 at 2:41 pm

            A wee pause is just a simpler version of asking people to be reflexive rather than reactionary. By that I mean, taking a moment to think how you want to respond, and keeping in mind what you want as an outcome short and long term.

            A good example are the lawyers at airports across the states offering their time for free. That is resistance, reaction, but also send a message about the debate. And their desire to live in a country that runs to the rule of law.

            Yes, intersectionality, the women’s protest did a grand job on that.

  5. Psycho Milt 5
    3 February 2017 at 1:29 pm

    Yes, but to be fair to Bill English, think about what a disastrous decision it was to allow Ahmed Zaoui to claim asylum. If we’d only listened to Bill and sent Zaoui back to Algeria to be tortured and killed, we’d have been spared all the terrorist murders, rabble-rousing and political agitation he’s been carrying out since he was released from custody – oh, wait…

  6. Ovid 6
    3 February 2017 at 2:29 pm

    Zaoui isn’t Middle Eastern, anyway. As an Algerian he is North African.

  7. The Pink Postman 7
    3 February 2017 at 4:34 pm

    Interesting that Key is the new Chairperson of the Republican “Democratic Union .No wonder English is so mild at Trump’s scary antics .

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.