Petition on Slater’s hate speech

128 comments on “Petition on Slater’s hate speech ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ropata 1

   31 October 2015 at 7:54 am

   Screenshot for the record…

   Just to remind people what Cameron Slater is inciting on hate blog today. It’s not subtle. pic.twitter.com/DCHOgYzgCX— Peter Aranyi (@onThePaepae) October 29, 2015
2. NZJester 2

   31 October 2015 at 7:58 am

   You would think Cameron Slater would like Muslim Extremists, as they are all definitely far right wing in their views.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.1

     31 October 2015 at 11:34 am

     I suspect that, like most RWNJs, he doesn’t like competition. Basically it comes down to only his people are allowed to seek power and wealth.

     It’s how the RWNJs can be such good collectivists while declaiming collectivism.
3. BM 3

   31 October 2015 at 8:13 am

   The man is a fool, especially since his blog relies so heavily on google ads.
   • Tracey 3.1

     31 October 2015 at 10:41 am

     I suspect this latest ploy suggests rati gs must be dropping…
     • BM 3.1.1

       31 October 2015 at 11:18 am

       If you read the terms and conditions of google adsense there’s quite a high chance that he’d be in violation of those and google would ban it’s ads from his site.

       From what I’ve read/seen on his site this anti Islam/Muslim stuff certainly isn’t a one off.

       https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/1348688?hl=en
       • Tracey 3.1.1.1

         31 October 2015 at 12:09 pm

         thnx BM
4. vto 4

   31 October 2015 at 8:14 am

   Unfortunately the entire world is getting more and more extremists like Slater.

   He is just like the brown shirts of H1tlers
5. Naturesong 5

   31 October 2015 at 8:44 am

   Complaints can also be lodged with OMSA, of which WO is a member: http://www.omsa.co.nz/how-we-work/complaints-form/

   The relevant section is here:

   Standard 6 Discrimination and Denigration
   Publishers of news and current affairs content should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the New Zealand community on account of gender, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status, or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.

   Guideline
   6a. This standard is not intended to prevent the publication of material that is:

   • factual, or
   • the expression of genuinely held opinion, or
   • the reporting of legitimate humour, drama or satire.
   • Psycho Milt 5.1

     31 October 2015 at 9:22 am

     Complaints can be lodged, but anyone lodging one will need to figure out how to get them over this hurdle:

     6a. This standard is not intended to prevent the publication of material that is … the expression of genuinely held opinion…

     Good luck with that.
     • Naturesong 5.1.1

       31 October 2015 at 9:44 am

       I’d argue that he genuinely hates Muslims, which is fine.
       You are allowed to be a bigot in NZ.
       Also no issue publicly expressing that bigotry.
       All good so far (well, you know what I mean).

       But exhorting people to kill Muslims?
       Not so much.
       • Redbaiter 5.1.1.1

         31 October 2015 at 10:03 am

         “But exhorting people to kill Muslims?”

         He didn’t.

         This is an inaccurate and misleading claim that will see your action come undone.

         As is your use of the term “bullying”.

         You may well perceive Slater as a bully, but who is he “bullying” on this occasion? ISIS? The PLO? You’re going to make such a ridiculous allegation in court? Good luck with that.

         Hate speech laws were criticised when they were legislated because they provided so many opportunities for misuse.

         Here you are giving that criticism legitimacy by means of a seriously flawed attack on a guy whose a pain in the arse to the Labour party and the left. Its so easy to mark this down as politically motivated and therefore lacking credibility.

         Also- This is what is wrong with Labour today. All tied up with PC issues when they should be focused on working conditions wages labour laws etc.

         A large part of the blue collar Labour voting public would see nothing wrong with Slater’s comments and probably share his sentiments on ISIS.

         I say again, a major tactical blunder, based on very weak material, and likely to backfire by making Slater a martyr, failing in its intent of a prosecution thereby making him a hero and a winner, and bringing him even greater support.

         Is that what you want?
         • Naturesong 5.1.1.1.1

           31 October 2015 at 10:13 am

           You may want to read what I actually wrote and respond to that.

           I am not accusing anyone of bullying.
           I am not suggesting that hate speech laws or in fact any using any legal means to silence him or his blog.

           The point I’ve obviously not articulated well enough, is that the blog WO is a member of OMSA.
           As a member the blog agrees to a minimum set of standards.
           I’m suggesting that the blog be held to them.

           It’s a personal responsibility argument.

           edit: Also, I’ve not idea what Labours is up to.
           • Tracey 5.1.1.1.1.1

             31 October 2015 at 10:43 am

             read ? before responding? stop it natyresong you will make his/her head explode
         • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1.2

           31 October 2015 at 11:39 am

           Also- This is what is wrong with Labour today. All tied up with PC issues when they should be focused on working conditions wages labour laws etc.

           And another RWNJ comes out and tells the Left what they should be doing which basically comes down to don’t upset the RWNJs.
         • Et Tu Brute 5.1.1.1.3

           31 October 2015 at 2:02 pm

           Exactly Redbaiter. Slater is referring to the PLO and ISIS in reference to a hashtag #SlaughterTheJews.
6. Keith 6

   31 October 2015 at 8:55 am

   John Keys mate is he not?
   • Tracey 6.1

     31 October 2015 at 10:45 am

     only person Key has considered worthy of a puic apology. Ranked him ahead of a victim of attempted sexual assault in that regard
   • Tracey 6.2

     31 October 2015 at 11:04 am

     only person Key has considered worthy of a publc apology. Ranked him ahead of a victim of attempted sexual assault in that regard
   • Chris 6.3

     31 October 2015 at 11:12 am

     Hooton moves in the same circles.
     • Tracey 6.3.1

       31 October 2015 at 11:18 am

       given hooton provided hagers address to odgers in tesponse to do hagerphysical harm he must be relieved the harmful communications act wasnt retrospective.

       frankly if hager were like slater he would have sued multiple arses by now and laid heaps of police complaints. IF he were indded like Slater
7. les 7

   31 October 2015 at 9:01 am

   an overweight layabout who found a way to get attention.
8. Paul 8

   31 October 2015 at 9:03 am

   Slater
   Hosking
   Henry
   Veitch

   The voices of an ugly, aggressive, selfish, narcissistic New Zealand.
   They are the shrill voices of neo-liberalism.

   This is a New Zealand that has given up on its global responsibilities.
   A New Zealand that scores terribly on environmental reports by the OECD.
   A New Zealand that will not commit to fighting climate change head on.
   A New Zealand with the worst levels of domestic violence.

   1984.
   The year NZ was betrayed.
9. Redbaiter 9

   31 October 2015 at 9:07 am

   The graphic doesn’t make the complaint clear.

   Is this racist or is it religious bigotry?

   If he’s talking the Muslim religion, then it can’t be racist as that religion embraces many races.

   So the complaint must be about religion. Therefore the stuff on race in the above graphic is inaccurate.

   So he is talking about a religious group? What group is this? Is it Muslims as a whole or is it a particular sect?

   If Slater’s words are directed at ISIS, then surely you are not suggesting that it is illegal to make such a statement?

   Then there is the context. What was it, a tweet? Good grief, so much is said on Twitter that can’t be taken seriously by any rational person.

   You really need to give Slater all of this publicity? Make him a martyr? On an issue that has such a shaky foundation?

   My view is this move is a major tactical blunder that will seriously backfire on its owners.
   • Wainwright 9.1

     31 October 2015 at 10:03 am

     It says right there in the graphic “(WhaleOil Blog, 29/10/15)”. Don’t you bother checking any facts before jumping in to defend your favourite thug?
     • Sacha 9.1.1

       31 October 2015 at 10:22 am

       “My view is this move is a major tactical blunder that will seriously backfire on its owners.”

       No higher recommendation, then.
       • weka 9.1.1.1

         31 October 2015 at 10:28 am

         heh.
     • Redbaiter 9.1.2

       31 October 2015 at 10:56 am

       “before jumping in to defend your favourite thug?”

       FFS, I’m no friend of Slater, as the slightest bit of research (fact checking) would tell you.

       The very first comment on this thread references a tweet. The complaint is unclear enough as it is without more confusion as to whether its the tweet or the blog post that is the subject.
       • Wainwright 9.1.2.1

         31 October 2015 at 1:00 pm

         Then why didn’t you reply to that comment? All seems pretty clear to anyone with half a brain who isn’t just here to derail.
       • odot 9.1.2.2

         31 October 2015 at 3:54 pm

         “Religion of peace? No way, it is a death cult and we should kill them before they kill us.” – that is the final line taken directly from the post, is it just me or does anyone else notice the cringe-worthy irony in slater using the exact same logic that ISIS and other terrorist groups use to legitimise themselves.
   • weka 9.2

     31 October 2015 at 10:24 am

     Righty can’t tell whether their strawman is an ethnicity or a religious identificiation, what a surpise.
   • Et Tu Brute 9.3

     31 October 2015 at 2:00 pm

     He isn’t even talking about the “Muslim religion” – he is referring to a hashtag #SlaughterTheJews used somehow in relation to the PLO and ISIS. He is against such a doctrine of hatred, which – correct me – most the western world is in some way at war with.
10. vto 10

    31 October 2015 at 9:10 am

    Slater’s call applies to himself with respect to the rest of New Zealanders
11. vto 11

    31 October 2015 at 9:11 am

    and that is the entire danger with people like Slater and their utter ignorance

    it spreads like cancer
12. Psycho Milt 12

    31 October 2015 at 9:19 am

    I certainly wouldn’t sign this petition, because the Human Rights Commission has no place in this. If Slater’s comments are incitement to violence they open him up to prosecution, and if they aren’t incitement to violence then they’re free speech that ought to be protected under NZ law. In neither case does the Human Rights Commission have a role to play.
    • Redbaiter 12.1

      31 October 2015 at 9:25 am

      Well said Milt.
    • Tracey 12.2

      31 October 2015 at 10:46 am

      Agree
    • Tracey 12.3

      31 October 2015 at 11:19 am

      and possibilities under the new digital communications act
      • Psycho Milt 12.3.1

        31 October 2015 at 12:56 pm

        Don’t get me started. Good job we’ve got a National government to protect us against PC-gone-mad nanny-statism like the Digital Communications Act, eh? /sarc
    • Et Tu Brute 12.4

      31 October 2015 at 1:58 pm

      Where did Slater say anyway his comments were directed at ‘Muslims’? He is responding to a hashtag #SlaughterTheJews and is venting his spleen at the PLO and ISIS. Surely this sort of hatred with hashtags like #SlaughterTheJews should actually be reviled?
      • odot 12.4.1

        31 October 2015 at 3:58 pm

        “Religion of peace? No way, it is a death cult and we should kill them before they kill us.” – final line taken from the post, I really really hope slater gets taken to court for that
        • Et Tu Brute 12.4.1.1

          31 October 2015 at 4:11 pm

          Poorly worded and I wouldn’t have added that at the end but all context in story is aimed at #SlaughterTheJews and PLO/ISIS. I don’t think he is advocating mass killings. He is advocating war with PLO/ISIS.
13. Morrissey 13

    31 October 2015 at 9:36 am

    Slater is vile, but what he has said and says is no different to the rhetoric used by people like Paul Henry and John Ansell.
    • weka 13.1

      31 October 2015 at 10:26 am

      Probably true for Ansell, but does Henry believe that we should kill Muslims before they kill us?

      I reckon you could have used ‘and’ in that sentence instead of ‘but’.
14. Morrissey 14

    31 October 2015 at 9:50 am

    Ten years ago Winston Peters, in a rabid speech entitled “End of Tolerance”, spoke of Muslims as “a serpent underbelly with multiple heads, capable of striking at any time and in any direction.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10338138

    Slater is not an aberration, he fits in to an established pattern of race-baiting in this country.
    • Redbaiter 14.1

      31 October 2015 at 10:06 am

      “fits in to an established pattern of race-baiting in this country.”

      FFS, is it a race or a religion?

      You guys are so anxious to use the term “racist” as a smear you can’t even apply it with any logic. And this feverishness just makes you look weak and silly.
      • weka 14.1.1

        31 October 2015 at 10:27 am

        Looks like you are too dimwitted to understand the intersection between ethnicity and religion. Or maybe it just suits your agenda to trot out that tired old trope.
        • Redbaiter 14.1.1.1

          31 October 2015 at 10:35 am

          So sophomoric its painful.

          African, Asian, European. The three basic racial categories.

          Any one of these can be a Muslim.

          Same for any sub-category.

          Your conflation of race with religion is just an attempt to make it easier to smear people.
          • Tracey 14.1.1.1.1

            31 October 2015 at 10:48 am

            https://muslimreverie.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/debunking-the-islam-is-not-a-race-argument/
            • weka 14.1.1.1.1.1

              31 October 2015 at 10:51 am

              Nice one Tracey.

              I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard Islamophobes and some well-intentioned non-Muslims make this argument whenever Islamophobia is addressed. The purpose, of course, is to derail conversations about Islamophobia and racism.

              Or in this case, to derail a conversation about race hatred by a well known right wing bigot.
              • Tracey …

                31 October 2015 at 11:01 am

                there is a good discussion here about laws of blasphemy… bill of rights, crimes act and international convenntions etc to which nz is a signatory.

                per the crimes act i believe mr finlayson has to grant leave for a charge.

                http://blasphemy.nz/international/recommendations/
            • Chris 14.1.1.1.1.2

              31 October 2015 at 11:47 am

              Generally speaking, ( therefore putting aside for a moment potential hurdles like this one http://thestandard.org.nz/petition-on-slaters-hate-speech/#comment-1088946 ) would it make any difference if any complaint under the HRA were on the basis of race or on the basis of religion because both are grounds specified under the Act?
            • nadis 14.1.1.1.1.3

              1 November 2015 at 9:34 pm

              I read that and don’t get the distinction he is trying to draw.

              I could kind of appreciate the process in reverse, not “all muslims are arabs” but rather “all arabs are muslims”. Would that be religiousification rather than racialisation?

              I also don’t get the point of this argument – whether a group of people are demonised because of their religious preference rather than race, the effect is the same. Whats the difference?

              Personally I’m more concerned about muslims who are extremists rather than the subset of arab muslims who are extremists.
            • Daniel Cale 14.1.1.1.1.4

              2 November 2015 at 11:43 am

              Painful as it was, I read through your cite looking for something meaningful to justify the redefinition of race and found nothing. Islam is a belief system. It is not a race, and attempts to define it as such are nothing more than thinly disguised attempts to remove it from public critique.
              • Tracey …

                3 November 2015 at 8:04 am

                It was, as anyone rding it could tell, a statement of someone’s opinion. Just as you have stated yours. It clearly hasn’t been removed from the “public critique”, and few here (if any) have suggested it shold be. Now, back tot he topic. What do you think about Mr Slater’s pronoucnement that “we” should kill Muslims before they kill us?
                • Et Tu Brute …

                  3 November 2015 at 9:42 am

                  He isn’t talking about Muslim but ISIS. That is really clear from context.
                  • tracey …

                    3 November 2015 at 9:55 am

                    thanks Et Tu Brute, I apologise
                • Daniel Cale …

                  3 November 2015 at 9:38 pm

                  I’m with Et Tu Brute. It was obvious from the context that Slater was referring to ISIS, and perhaps islamic radicals generally, not muslims broadly. His wording may have been clumsy, but his intent was clear. Slater has a particular angle on life that I don’t necessarily share, but the solution to that is to expose his opinions to daylight, not advocate for what is effectively censorship. The concern I have about islam in particular is that there seems to be an active movement to suspend all critique directed at it. Religious ideas, like all other, must be able to be subject to scrutiny without fear or favour.
                  • mickysavage …

                    3 November 2015 at 9:59 pm

                    The context keeps shifting with every edit Slater made to the post and the use of the photos and the heading made his real intention clear.

                    His wording was deliberately clumsy.

                    Whether he is clumsy or obnoxious or both does not really matter. The decision of Google to cut his pay was perfectly appropriate.
          • weka 14.1.1.1.2

            31 October 2015 at 10:50 am

            There’s no such thing as race (apart from Homo Sapiens). If you can’t understand real world concepts of race, ethnicity, racism and religion etc (as opposed to abstract ones you are getting from a dictionary) I suggest that you google racism 101 and do some reading.

            You appear to believe that racism is related to biological concepts of race (which you also get wrong), perhaps because the words look similar. But racism is prejudice based on perceptions of difference and perceptions of classificiations around ethnicity and sometimes nationality and sometimes religion. It’s not a difficult concept to understand unless your bigotry gets in the way.
            • Redbaiter 14.1.1.1.2.1

              31 October 2015 at 11:08 am

              ” There’s no such thing as race ”

              It actually doesn’t matter. In spite of Morrisey’s waffling, the real issue here is culture. and being as you were brainwashed by the advocates of Critical Theory rather than being educated, you can’t see the conflict.

              Western civilisation, (that you despise and smear at every opportunity), among so many other things requires respect for women and homosexuality yet here you are encouraging immigration from a CULTURE that is implacably opposed to those two principles.

              And that is just the tip of the iceberg in cultural differences.

              And you expect to be taking seriously as a rational thinker driven by logic. Your entire worldview results from a lack of education and as a substitute, a solid immersion in Critical Theory.

              That’s why you’re cheering for a retrograde and repressive sub-culture to replace our current culture.
              • Tracey …

                31 October 2015 at 11:15 am

                maybe move your focus to the harmful communications legislation. What do you think about it in those terms?
                • Redbaiter …

                  31 October 2015 at 11:19 am

                  Tracey- it is a mistake to give Slater any publicity. Or a means to generate sympathy and support. He is fading away, his finances are failing, his Freed news venture has gone nowhere, he’s begging his readers for financial support.

                  Just let him fade into obscurity.
                  • Tracey …

                    31 October 2015 at 12:15 pm

                    I was looking at it more intellectually. I dont go to his site and dont preshme my comments here fuel any fire in terms of generating puicity for him

                    I agree 100% with your assessment re his finance etc… this is a calculated stunt and he wont care at whose expense. He needs to be careful what he wishes for though… a site full of rabid bigots?
              • weka …

                31 October 2015 at 11:42 am

                ” There’s no such thing as race ”

                It actually doesn’t matter.

                If course it doesn’t matter. You were the one making a big deal over academic definitions of race and religion. I just pointed out that your definitions were inaccurate, and that they were irrelevant because we’re talking about bigotry not biology.

                the real issue here is culture. and being as you were brainwashed by the advocates of Critical Theory rather than being educated, you can’t see the conflict.

                Ok, goal post shift noted. I can see the conflict clear enough, I just disagree with you on the solution.

                Western civilisation, (that you despise and smear at every opportunity), among so many other things requires respect for women and homosexuality yet here you are encouraging immigration from a CULTURE that is implacably opposed to those two principles.

                Oh dear, your bigotry is showing again. You do get that there are Western muslims right? And muslim feminists. And plenty of places in the West where women are treated like shit.

                And you expect to be taking seriously as a rational thinker driven by logic. Your entire worldview results from a lack of education and as a substitute, a solid immersion in Critical Theory.

                Ok, you’ve resorted to ad hominems to try and undermine my points. That’s boring.

                That’s why you’re cheering for a retrograde and repressive sub-culture to replace our current culture.

                Nah. The difference is that I believe that tolerance begets tolerance and bigotry grows more bigotry as well as suicide bombers. You can wank on all you like about respect for women and all forms of sexual identity but I know that the veneer is pretty bloody thin for people like yourself who believe that the solution to their fears is bigotry and hate. Ultimately your world view is dependent on the person with the biggest stick and it’s never going to be women or gays. It wasn’t people like you who fought for women’s and queer rights, it was the people who wanted an inclusive, humanistic world.
          • GregJ 14.1.1.1.3

            31 October 2015 at 11:19 am

            When your complaint basically boils down to “you aren’t using precisely the correct term for my specific form of bigotry” then you’ve probably lost the argument…

            There is ongoing discussion at the UN, the European Union and even in the US on the extent that anti-Muslim (& other religious) prejudice is driven out of xenophobia and racism. Putting simple demarcation lines around an act of prejudice and bigotry is simple minded given the complex nature of the reasons that generate that prejudice and bigotry. It is the reflexive, elusive, near-thoughtless evasion of the issue. That type of dismissal has become so commonplace that it is, more often than not, run through with a vein of long-suffering annoyance, not entirely dissimilar from the one heard immediately before the words “race card” or “political correctness police” are uttered.

            It ‘s pretty easy to see that much anti-Muslim sentiment in the West is driven by cultural and ethnic stereotypes – like the attacks on the wearing of the Abaya, Hijab and Niqab – distinctive forms of Arab cultural dress (or the Chador or Burka items of cultural attire from Iran/Persia and Afghanistan). If you want a historical version of this look at anti-Catholic prejudice in the US in 19th century (or even Australia in the 20th century) – driven as much by WASP antipathy to Irish and Italians as to the practice of religion itself.

            If you needed more evidence of the racism in-bedded in much anti-Muslim sentiments look at how much of the anti-Muslim animosity has been borne by Hindus, Sikhs, and other people (mainly Asians) who don’t have anything to do with Islam (and indeed, in many cases, have grudges with Islam that go a lot further back than “ours” in the West). What they do share though is that they are “other” – principally that they have a different skin colour. There is an image of what “Muslims” look like, and that image doesn’t have white skin.

            Frankly your semantic gymnastics is just bullshit.
            • RedLogix 14.1.1.1.3.1

              31 October 2015 at 11:34 am

              like the attacks on the wearing of the Abaya, Hijab and Niqab – distinctive forms of Arab cultural dress (or the Chador or Burka items of cultural attire from Iran/Persia and Afghanistan).

              The wearing of these garments is nothing to do with Islam per se. It’s likely they have a very old cultural origin, but they did not become commonplace in the Islamic world until around the 14th century when they became an expression of a fundamentalist mania that gradually took hold after that time.

              Certainly for the first five or six centuries of Islam they were relatively unknown and there is absolutely nothing in the Quran enjoining such. This essay explores at least one aspect:

              https://alaiwah.wordpress.com/islam-the-origin-of-hijab/

              It is difficult to say with certainty when the veil was adopted by the rest of the Ummah, though it was most likely long after Muhammad’s death. Muslim women probably began wearing the veil as a way to emulate the Prophet’s wives, who were revered as “the Mothers of the Ummah.” But the veil was neither compulsory, nor for that matter, widely adopted until generations after Muhammad’s death, when a large body of male scriptural and legal scholars began using their religious and political authority to regain the dominance they had lost in society as a result of the Prophet’s egalitarian reforms.

              In other words these items of clothing are really nothing more than symbols of an especially virulent old patriarchy. It’s a funny old world watching liberal westerners defend it.
              • Redbaiter …

                31 October 2015 at 11:56 am

                “It’s a funny old world watching liberal westerners defend it.”

                Exactly, and that is why these kinds of issues are a no win for the left. All they do is give Slater and his friends the opportunity to berate you as illogical and haters of western society.

                I don’t like John Key, but he has your measure. He knows where your weaknesses are and he relishes every opportunity you give him to expose those weaknesses to the voters.

                Until Labour divorces itself from those pushing these issues it will remain a distant second to National.
              • GregJ …

                31 October 2015 at 11:56 am

                As someone who has lived in an Gulf Arab country for the last 5 years I am well aware of the religious and cultural significance and history of Arab dress. I have Arab staff who wear the full range of clothing from Arabic to “Western”. That includes women who wear Abaya & Hijab, those who wear only the Hijab and other that don’t wear a Hijab at all.

                And I have no need to defend the patriarchy inherent in Islam (or any other religion). There are plenty of areas to be critical of in Islam (and I’ve had discussions with Muslims here who will express some of those criticisms) but of course that’s not what we are seeing with the types of bile spewed forth by the likes of Slater.

                And of course you sidestepped the point again – that inherent in much anti-Muslim bigotry & prejudice expressed by the likes of Slater & co is a thinly disguised but pretty obvious streak of racism.
                • RedLogix …

                  31 October 2015 at 12:20 pm

                  I addressed a specific point about the hijab – and was sidestepping nothing. That’s just a sly tactic to try and dismiss the point.

                  The common foe here is fundamentalism. Whether Islamic, Christian or whatever. And in recent times there is no question that Islamic fundamentalism has very openly positioned itself as the enemy of the liberal West.

                  Equally there is no doubt also that the elements of Christian fundamentalism are happy to exploit this to foment antagonism and anti-Islamic ‘racism’ in the broad sense we are using it. Slater’s bigotry fits right in here.

                  This tension leaves all the ‘non-fundamentalists’ who culturally identify with both Western Christianity (including it’s liberal/humanist child) and the broader Eastern Islamic traditions, caught in a pincer movement. While they do share a great deal of history and heritage – at this point in history the two traditions find themselves at irreconcilable odds over many points of social and cultural values.

                  As you have said above – there is plenty to be critical of about Islam. (And I’m sure they will say the same about us.)

                  My position is simple – I condemn the fundamentalist provocateurs on both sides of the fence (like Slater) – but as someone who strongly identifies with the Western liberal tradition I remain wary and skeptical of anyone who derails any criticism of Islam by playing the ‘racism card’.
                  • GregJ …

                    31 October 2015 at 12:45 pm

                    Sorry – I kind of confused you with RB – similarity of handles and such.

                    Actually I suspect you and I are holding quite similar views. However I do return to NZ on a regular (annual) basis and from my perspective I see and hear much of the anti-Muslim sentiment couched in fairly racist terms (as well as often just simply out of ignorance).

                    What might surprise many of NZers is actually how critical many in this part of the world are of fundamentalism and more particularly the failure of government and religious authorities to a) condemn it clearly b) cut off the support to it (tacit & overt) & c) actively combat it through education, regulation, and militarily where necessary. In the same way there was a lot of criticism and comment here by locals about the failure of the Gulf Arab states to play a part in dealing more actively with the refugee crisis in Europe.
                    • RedLogix …

                      31 October 2015 at 12:52 pm

                      It’s OK Greg.

                      Actually Redbaiter and I have a looooong history going back yonks. In days gone by we burned up many thread going at it hammer and tongs.

                      But fair’s fair – it’s possible to read what RB says these days and understand the point he is making.

                      And your perspective from living in the Gulf states is interesting. All moderate people have really good reason to oppose extremism – it’s just that far too often we are silenced by a misguided demand to be ‘tolerant’ of it.

                      I refuse.
                    • Tracey …

                      31 October 2015 at 12:55 pm

                      doesnt surprise me. most people are peace loving
                    • GregJ …

                      31 October 2015 at 1:28 pm

                      RL,

                      Actually I have a much harsher view of Islamic extremism and the problems within Islam than when I first came here (and I was not ignorant of the history and development of Islam when I arrived).

                      What surprised me was the extent of the awareness of this and how many here expressed criticism and even more that they talked to me about it. What I do thing people in the West tend to forget through is that the state of the debate here (and the ability to have that debate openly) is still very much in the same space that Europe was in the 16th and 17th Centuries – and it took Europe 150 years of upheaval, extremism and warfare to move through that period.

                      One hopes it doesn’t take as long or is as catastrophic.

                      Interesting stuff.
                  • Psycho Milt …

                    31 October 2015 at 12:54 pm

                    …inherent in much anti-Muslim bigotry & prejudice expressed by the likes of Slater & co is a thinly disguised but pretty obvious streak of racism.

                    Sure. Along the same lines, much of the anti-Nazi feeling in English-speaking countries in the 1930s had an inherent streak of anti-German sentiment, and much of the anti-communist feeling had an inherent streak of anti-Slavic sentiment. But that inherent ethnic bigotry didn’t make either fascism or communism excellent ideologies that should be welcome in our country. People’s reasons for opposing something that should be opposed are of marginal relevance only.
                    • Tracey …

                      31 October 2015 at 12:58 pm

                      are you saying islam should be opposed? I am not quite sure what to make of your last sentence otherwise.
                    • Psycho Milt …

                      31 October 2015 at 4:02 pm

                      Of course I’m saying Islam should be opposed. Are there any totalitarian ideologies that shouldn’t be opposed?

                      Even if it weren’t a totalitarian ideology (ie, if it didn’t come with a legislative programme and if participants were free to leave), it should still be opposed – the last thing this country needs is more religious conservatives.
                    • RedLogix …

                      31 October 2015 at 5:09 pm

                      My thinking is this PM.

                      I largely agree with your sentiments about extremist Islam. I also hold similar sentiments about some elements of Christianity. Basic consistency demands I should respond to one much the same as the other.

                      Speaking for myself I stand on my track record; for instance:

                      I’ve always tried to maintain the distinction between the historical Islam which from what I was told was a remarkable and largely tolerant faith which contributed quite substantially to the Renaissance in Europe and the same faith now distorted and disfigured by a virulent fundamentalism.

                      Consider for instance the Christian period of the Inquisition. No sane Christian of the modern era would attempt to justify what happened. While it was done in the name of Christ – and was an utter repudiation of everything He stood for and stands as a shameful, humiliating stain of the reputation of the Church – nonetheless it says nothing about the truth and values Christ taught.

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/the-hypocrisy-of-hate/#comment-950441

                      And while this comparison is useful, this does not mean I see Islam and Christianity as equivalents. Clearly they are not.

                      For a start Christian extremism is something endemic and native to the Western world. We get to own it and can respond to it. Islamic extremism is different – and not our responsibility.

                      Nor are they at the same point in their historic arc. I might very crudely compare modern Wahhabism with the era of the Puritans to illustrate how their history lies in quite different phases.

                      Ultimately the moderate Western and Eastern worlds are going to have to take responsibility for their own zealot communities and purge their extremism. The “othering” will eventually come to an end when we focus on a common humanity, and set aside obsolete traditions in favour of a new one which values the essential singleness of humanity above all else.

                      And that is a task only us moderates can achieve.
                    • Sacha …

                      31 October 2015 at 6:11 pm

                      “I might very crudely compare modern Wahhabism with the era of the Puritans”

                      Interesting thought, given the warm relationship between the Saudis and the US right.
                    • nadis …

                      1 November 2015 at 7:26 am

                      The problem has cultural roots, it’s not about the religion. Religion is a cover for cultural extremists. Explain why muslim women in Singapore or Malaysia can dress differently from those in the middle east?

                      I cant find the whole clip, but this talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson is superb.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl1nJC3lvFs

                      If slater re-worded his rant to “kill all religious extremists who want to kill non-believers” I’d have some sympathy for the view, if not the action. And yes that would include elements of all religions.
                    • Psycho Milt …

                      1 November 2015 at 9:21 am

                      Explain why muslim women in Singapore or Malaysia can dress differently from those in the middle east?

                      Because they come from different cultures. Is the fact that people in Asia dress differently from people in the Middle East relevant in some way? Islam is what it is, regardless of what clothes its willing and unwilling participants put on when they get up in the morning.
                    • nadis …

                      1 November 2015 at 5:20 pm

                      milt – thats exactly what I’m saying. the different costumes are cultural in origin and nothing to do with religion.

                      Or in other words, I dont have a problem with Islam or Muslims. I have a problem with cultural extremists who use religion to justify oppressive behaviour.
                    • Tracey …

                      3 November 2015 at 8:05 am

                      Is Islam any more totalitarian than, say Christianity or Judaism? I mean within both of those are extremist elements and amongst the later elemnts whoa dvocating killing others who don’t believe as they do?
                  • Tiro …

                    3 November 2015 at 4:08 pm

                    “but as someone who strongly identifies with the Western liberal tradition I remain wary and skeptical of anyone who derails any criticism of Islam by playing the ‘racism card’.”

                    thank you Redlogix
                    – from a Government report on the Operation Trojan Horse: “evidence that there are a number of people, associated with each other and in positions of influence in schools and governing bodies, who espouse, sympathise with or fail to challenge extremist views.” 2014
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trojan_Horse
          • Anno1770 14.1.1.1.4

            31 October 2015 at 2:28 pm

            “African, Asian, European”

            so where do Native Australians and Inuit fall under your classifications ?
            • Sacha 14.1.1.1.4.1

              31 October 2015 at 6:12 pm

              or all of the Pacific and Central/South America
              #pfft
15. Rawsharkosaurus 15

    31 October 2015 at 10:09 am

    It’s been tried before. Back then it was called ‘the Final Solution’. It failed, but not before millions of preventable deaths in its name.
16. Tom Barker 16

    31 October 2015 at 10:54 am

    Slater is a bloated blowhard.
    • GregJ 16.1

      31 October 2015 at 1:17 pm

      Succinct and accurate 👿
17. djp 17

    31 October 2015 at 10:54 am

    The premise seems flawed, Islam is not a race
    • Tracey 17.1

      31 October 2015 at 11:00 am

      🙄
18. Tracey 18

    31 October 2015 at 11:00 am

    there is a good discussion here about laws of blasphemy… bill of rights, crimes act and international convenntions etc to which nz is a signatory.

    per the crimes act i believe mr finlayson has to grant leave for a charge.

    http://blasphemy.nz/international/recommendations/
19. McGrath 19

    31 October 2015 at 11:07 am

    It’s just one man’s opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt. Petitions like this will only breathe air into it. Best option is to ignore.
    • Tracey 19.1

      31 October 2015 at 11:13 am

      As I wrote above it seems to me Slater needed a “stunt” to boost traffic… and generate income for himself.
      • Redbaiter 19.1.1

        31 October 2015 at 11:20 am

        You’re on to it.
20. Tracey 20

    31 October 2015 at 11:12 am

    I wonder what an “individual is under the new harmful digital comms act…

    any muslim who reads what Slater wrote and feels threatened… or a specific individual must be addressed within the threat?

    “Principle 10

    A digital communication should not denigrate an individual by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.”
21. Bill 21

    31 October 2015 at 11:16 am

    Oh well, first I thought I was actually in broad agreement with US Syrian strategy and then I found I was more or less agreeing with Redbaitter. (edit – his initial comments anyway)Whit a day! 😉

    Seriously, who gives a fuck about a tweet from a no-body that’s presented with no context? I could believe that Slater’s a bigot and an Islamophobe and much more besides. But so what?

    Sorry, but the whole thing strikes me as like the times ‘the tell tale’ ran off to mummy to tell on the someone who had called them a ‘bad name’.
    • weka 21.1

      31 October 2015 at 11:47 am

      Except Slater isn’t a nobody. Do I really have to point out how and why?
      • Bill 21.1.1

        31 October 2015 at 12:09 pm

        meh – in my world, he’s a nobody. He was just a pliable, and ultimately dispensable tool for the purposes of all the dirty politics. He has no lasting influence beyond the ephemeral ‘moment’ given him by his political puppet masters. He’s burned bridges and sure, stored up a bit of self preserving info (dirt, if you will) that keeps him falling rather than plummeting, but his 15 minutes of fame are well and truly over.
        • weka 21.1.1.1

          31 October 2015 at 12:28 pm

          probably, and if we on the left all suddenly ignored him, the influence he has remaining wouldn’t diminish because of that.

          Do you think he is not involved in dirty politics anymore?
      • whateva next? 21.1.2

        31 October 2015 at 12:18 pm

        he is now, but he will go down fighting, and trying to wreak havoc….which is exactly what his post is about? and we are giving it oxygen?
        • Tracey 21.1.2.1

          31 October 2015 at 12:50 pm

          im not ready to overstate our impact on drivingvtraffic to his site
          • Sacha 21.1.2.1.1

            31 October 2015 at 6:17 pm

            Though ignoring bullies does not make them go away either. Tactically tricky.
            • Tracey 21.1.2.1.1.1

              3 November 2015 at 8:07 am

              agreed
    • Jester 21.2

      31 October 2015 at 11:55 am

      And to be fair to the Labour Party, it’s nothing to do with them as suggested by RB.

      Action Station is predominantly run by Green activists.
    • GregJ 21.3

      31 October 2015 at 12:04 pm

      On the whole I’d rather Slater’s bile be out there to be ridiculed and shown up to be as stupid & ridiculous as it is.

      I don’t really see much point in a rather meaningless “Facebook” style petition. If someone wants to make an official complaint to the Human Rights Commission then just go ahead and make it.
22. Et Tu Brute 22

    31 October 2015 at 1:55 pm

    FFS this is out of context. Apart from possibly a poorly worded last sentence it is clear he isn’t talking about “Muslims” but ISIS and the PLO – which is what the story is about. He is actually responding to some militant that used the hashtag “#SlaughterTheJews” and posted about raising children to kill in the name of Allah.

    This also isn’t racist because Islam isn’t a race. It is a religion. And Slater raises some valid points about parts of the religion. And most the Western World is at war with ISIS in some form or another.

    Honestly I would have thought The Standard would be more concerned about religious people raising children to kill unbelievers rather than a blogger in New Zealand saying these religious zealots should be killed.

    And no I am not a Slater lover, Tory or anything else people will throw at me to justify ignoring this opinion.
23. Steve Wrathall 23

    31 October 2015 at 2:42 pm

    What utter nonsense. Slater’s post is clearly referring to those Muslims who are waging violent jihad against unbelievers “,,,before they kill us.” Pre-emptive use of force is legitimate and there are many cases where it has saved lives.
    Instead of condemning the daily atrocities that are being committed in the name of this ideology (it’s not a race BTW), like good dhimmis you all are jumping on the global islamist war on free speech, seeking to silence anyone who points out what islam is actually doing, and casting muslims as victims.

    “Muslim Community Leaders Fear Backlash From Tomorrow’s Bombing”.
    • Et Tu Brute 23.1

      31 October 2015 at 3:01 pm

      Isn’t the political left messed up when it cares more about re-interpreting a fellow they hate than the actual fact he was commenting on the hashtag #SlaughterTheJews.

      I don’t care what you think of Cameron Slater, the political left looks stupid when it ceases to rely on facts and goes along with wishful thinking and falls for its own propaganda.
    • RedLogix 23.2

      31 October 2015 at 3:11 pm

      @ Steve and ETB,

      I’ve certainly no truck with fundamentalist Islam whatsoever. Over many years of blogging here I’ve related many a personal anecdote to give colour and weight to what I was trying to say. But this is one topic I hold back on – out of a deep respect for the people involved.

      Allow me to skip the details – but to say that I have every reason to understand the savagery and brutality that is a sad commonplace in the Middle East. I have seen and heard stories first hand that still make my blood curdle.

      It is the middle ground in society which holds it together. I wish to defend this from extremist of all colours whose unwise, unhinged bigotry would unzip the middle.

      Year ago I recall listening to a BBC Foreign Correspondent segment about the war in former Yugoslavia. The first 30 minutes were devoted to truly chilling testimony from survivors. Not just the run of the mill madness of war – but a personal sadistic brutality which defies ordinary comprehension. (Or description – I’ll spare you my recollection of it.)

      Yet here was the thing – the people doing this had been neighbours all their lives. They had grown up in the same towns and had lived and worked as a community for generations. No-one had imagined that the hidden fault lines in their society were about to be so violently ripped apart – and result in such extraordinary ferocity.

      The latter part of this report tried to explore the reasons WHY this could happen. The conclusion was that all societies have their underbelly of sociopaths, extremists and anti-socials. They are normally kept in check by the wider community.

      But when the political leadership of that society exploits these hidden faults lines (whether they be racial, religious or cultural – the outcome is the same) for their own political advantage – this constraint on the otherwise marginalised extremes is removed.

      The new political environment emboldens the extremists into action. One atrocity begets another. The violence amplifies and terrifies. Soon no-one is exempt. The exact words of the correspondent were “and that society unzips from the bottom up”.

      This is why I condemn Slater’s stupidity. His words contribute to this unraveling of the middle.
      • Et Tu Brute 23.2.1

        31 October 2015 at 3:37 pm

        I agree entirely. But also so does some of the dialogue on the left. Now people will point to each other and say “he started it” but we, on all sides, need to bring down some of the barriers we have built up. I have a problem with what Cameron Slater said and the manner in which he said it, but I equally have a problem with people on here taking it out of context and vilifying him for something he didn’t say.
      • Sacha 23.2.2

        31 October 2015 at 6:20 pm

        Thank you RL. Eloquent.
    • Tracey 23.3

      3 November 2015 at 8:09 am

      No it’s not “clearly” referring to that or he would have said it. Or are you suggesting Slater is not intellectually capable of making the small change required to get absolute clarity n his statements? Like adding “extremeist” before the word Muslim?
      • Et Tu Brute 23.3.1

        3 November 2015 at 9:47 am

        Funny I don’t remember the word Muslim even being used in the article? Perhaps you could find it? I couldn’t. The subject of the article was ISIS. As per standard English usage the pronouns after this should also be referring to ISIS. The argument against Slater here seems to be a ‘fill in the gaps’ argument. Think what you like of Slater, this is just a stupid and childish crusade to silence someone. What ever happened to freedom of speech? What if people on this blog criticized the Chinese government for treatment of ethnic Tibetans or Uighur? How is that different that criticizing ISIS (an acknowledged enemy) for #slaughterthejews?
24. linda 24

    31 October 2015 at 6:27 pm

    nothing will happen to slater his bff john key who he has the dirt on cant afford slater to get upset
25. Sacha 25

    31 October 2015 at 7:07 pm

    To be fair, Slater does seem to be responding rather narrowly at IS et al over posting propaganda – http://www.donotlink.com/h6c5
    • Sacha 25.1

      31 October 2015 at 7:09 pm

      I resist any suggestion of killing people as the answer, but I can see how a polarised dimwit like him might go there. #blackandwhite
      • weka 25.1.1

        31 October 2015 at 7:31 pm

        I don’t know, he leaves it suitable vague. Who are the ‘us’ for instance?
        • Sacha 25.1.1.1

          31 October 2015 at 7:41 pm

          dolts who love both Israel and bacon?
26. millsy 26

    31 October 2015 at 7:20 pm

    From what I understand Slater is a 7th day adventist, who are pretty much a band of religious crackpots.

    So I am guessing he wants to pick up where the Crusades left off — which is what the past 14-odd years have been about — using 9/11 to kick off a holy war between Islam and Christianity.
    • Sacha 26.1

      31 October 2015 at 7:24 pm

      is he really? certainly prone to zealotry
    • Psycho Milt 26.2

      1 November 2015 at 6:51 am

      …which is what the past 14-odd years have been about — using 9/11 to kick off a holy war between Islam and Christianity.

      That’s all very well, but outside the fantasy world inhabited by nutcase conspiracy theorists it’s not at all what the last 14-odd years have been about.
27. Urban Redneck 27

    31 October 2015 at 7:40 pm

    Some of you people need to chill out a little. Slater is a blowhard with a hyper-inflated sense of importance and entitlement. He would mud wrestle his own grandmother for a boost to his blog hits. Why give the attention-seeking fool any more oxygen ?
    • RedLogix 27.1

      31 October 2015 at 8:56 pm

      That’s not an unreasonable sentiment Urban. In fact that’s the usual response around here to almost all of Slater’s noxious droppings and angry little noises.

      But right of freedom of speech does not come unencumbered with some responsibilities. As the OP stresses this time he is clearly inciting, at least in a general sense, violence and killing.

      Now we can parse and debate exactly what his intended target is, and we can debate whether or not we think the beliefs and actions of ISIS and their fellow travelers justify such a response. But from the majority of responses here it’s plain most people, regardless of political alignment, think he is being more than usually stupid.

      But the fact remains this time he has stepped over a well understood line and needs to be held accountable – at least in the court of public opinion – for this.
      • ropata 27.1.1

        31 October 2015 at 9:23 pm

        Signed it. The petition just hit 500 signatures!
28. infused 28

    1 November 2015 at 12:17 am

    Need that emoticon of the head hitting the wall over and over. That’s the left in a nutshell.

    Jesus.
    • Tracey 28.1

      3 November 2015 at 8:15 am

      Whereas to put the right in a nutshell we would need an emoticon hitting another emoticon against a brick wall 😉

Links to post

1. Futile fulmination on Slater hate | Your NZ: posted on 31 October 2015 at 11:49 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS