The cost of terrorist rhetoric

Written By: - Date published: 10:00 am, November 11th, 2014 - 38 comments
Categories: discrimination, human rights, racism, racism - Tags: , , , ,

When John Key takes to the media to over-hype the risks of ISIS terrorism to NZ, there is a cost:

Devoy: Muslims are being racially abused

Muslim leaders are reporting a spike in racial abuse and the Race Relations Commissioner is concerned. Dame Susan Devoy says the leaders have said the abuse is aimed mainly at women and children, many of them walking to and from school.

“The Human Rights Commission is concerned for the wellbeing of vulnerable Muslim Kiwis, some of whom are being wrongly targeted and blamed for things they are not responsible for and have vehemently opposed,” said Dame Susan.
…
“When we bring the violence and the hatred we see on our television screens into our communities, when we scream hateful abuse at a woman in a veil and her children, we are the ones creating the terror.”

Truly and well spoken.

38 comments on “The cost of terrorist rhetoric ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. repateet 1
    11 November 2014 at 10:40 am

    Dame Susan Devoy speaks on behalf of the new victims but the leaders of the hate campaign don’t care about that collateral damage.
    I mean do Key and his sycophantic followers care about the thousands of victims of his other policies? As long as they are fine all is well with the world.

    • Macro 1.1
      11 November 2014 at 11:12 am

      Exactly.
      I don’t believe they have an empathetic bone in their body. They probably don’t even know why it means.
      Self-centredness, greed, and fear are the only emotions they understand.
      The driving principle in their life is fear. Fear that they will loose their place in society, their status and wealth. This fear is fed on a daily basis by the news media. I saw it most vividly whilst in North America last month. Fear of Ebola, fear of “terrorists”, fear of loss of power. The fear was almost tangible, hour upon hour of media stoked fear. It was incredible. No wonder they all went out and voted in Republicans. So many are so afraid.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1
        11 November 2014 at 3:29 pm

        No wonder they all went out and voted in Republicans. So many are so afraid.

        QFT

        And the thing is that the fear has been created out of whole cloth. The risk doesn’t really exist but it’s a useful tool of the authoritarians running the world.

      • emergency mike 1.1.2
        11 November 2014 at 10:48 pm

        Fear is the most powerful mechanism for controlling and manipulating others. Psychopaths understand this at a deeper level than the rest of us. And they have none.

  2. Chooky 2
    11 November 2014 at 11:20 am

    In Australia farmers who have contracts to sell Halal dairy products to Emirates have been abused and had death threats…. thanks to Tony Abbott talking up the terrorist threat ….and an abusive facebook campaign!

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-09/company-drops-halal-certification-due-to-social-media-pressure/5877584

    It is claimed that these ‘Attacks fall under ‘Islamophobia’.

    We should be very careful that the whipped up anti -terrorist campaign does not affect New Zealand farmers and the agriculture sector here.

    New Zealand should be forging economic and trade links with Muslim countries and Russia

    United States’ and Israel’s problems in the Middle East should not be made our problems …or problems for New Zealand farmers and the New Zealand economy

    • Tiro 2.1
      11 November 2014 at 12:51 pm

      Halal or Kosher (Jewish) slaughter has been an issue for some years it is a separate problem brought in with the increase of the Muslims population to Aussie, NZ and Britain and else where .
      Why has created a problem?
      Because it allows exemptions under the law on (humane) slaughter, Against the Animals based on religion (sheep, cows, chicken i.e. it allows slaughter without per-stunning: meaning the animal is fully conscience (throat- cut and then raised in the air to be bleeding to death extending their suffering by up to 5 min!).
      In other words, as a sheep you can be slaughtered in a country that has so called animal welfare standard, but is of fat use if you end up in a Muslim owned slaughter- house of horror.
      Through lack of labeling people are buying (Britain), against their consciousness, meat that turns out to be halal slaughtered. They are rightfully upset and disgusted that this is even happening.
      These questions are rightfully asked and are not attacks but clearly the pitfalls that exemption of law bring against different sets of ppl in the same country.

      • joe90 2.1.1
        11 November 2014 at 2:07 pm

        Because it allows exemptions under the law on (humane) slaughter, Against the Animals based on religion (sheep, cows, chicken i.e. it allows slaughter without per-stunning: meaning the animal is fully conscience (throat- cut and then raised in the air to be bleeding to death extending their suffering by up to 5 min!

        Nope.

        What about exemptions for halal slaughter?

        In New Zealand there is no exemption to the requirement for pre-slaughter stunning, unlike in some other countries.

        Halal slaughter requires that the animal dies from the “halal cut” to the throat, i.e. that the pre-slaughter stun is not powerful enough to kill the animal.

        In premises that undertake halal slaughter in New Zealand, reversible electrical stunning is used to ensure that animals are rendered unconscious instantaneously and remain unconscious at the time of slaughter, thus complying with both animal welfare and halal requirements.

        http://www.mia.co.nz/industry_information/FAQ-halal/index.htm

        • Tiro 2.1.1.1
          11 November 2014 at 4:23 pm

          Not so – Just another example of wool over the public eyes PR
          I do remember putting in submission on this issue in NZ :
          “The decision followed months of negotiations between Crown Law and New Zealand’s Jewish community over the issue, which was due to be heard in court today.
          Instead an agreement was reached to allow about 1000 chickens to be killed each year using shechita.” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10690864
          And these are so called official figures.

          another bent over for the almighty dollar –

          • framu 2.1.1.1.1
            11 November 2014 at 4:43 pm

            from what i heard the halal butchers agreed that stunning was OK – the kosher butchers are the ones who dug in their heels and refused to change

            if thats true its not actually a problem created by islam but by (ahh i dont want to type it – 🙂 )

            • red blooded 2.1.1.1.1.1
              11 November 2014 at 6:00 pm

              So, if you are concerned for the suffering of animals and their rights, stop eating them. Sorry, but whether “humane” or not, killing is killing.

              • Chooky …
                11 November 2014 at 10:33 pm

                halal yoghurt doesnt have gelatine in it…no killing in the making of halal dairy and yoghurt

                • Tiro …
                  14 November 2014 at 8:58 am

                  And yoghurt is made with oh yes, milk.. coming from cows after calving (flowers and the bees etc).
                  Are you aware what this industry does with bobby calves and have the cows produce milk 3-4 weeks earlier than the gestation period (think chemistry – abortion)?

                  You know that the Japanese are trying to get ha-lal certification for the meat of harpooned whales?
                  Ha-lal (laughter after laughter, lie after lie, etc).

  3. One Anonymous Bloke 3
    11 November 2014 at 12:00 pm

    Hate speech leads to violence and radical preachers are to blame, Prime Minister, so why don’t you step down from your pulpit and pull your head in?

  4. Dont worry. Be happy 4
    11 November 2014 at 12:06 pm

    Isn’t inciting racial or religious hatred and violence illegal?

    • Barfly 4.1
      11 November 2014 at 12:45 pm

      not if John Key does it….

    • Tracey 4.2
      11 November 2014 at 1:15 pm

      you mean like hagers house was raided in a few weeks after emails were hacked and slaters house still hasnt been raided after two years…

      this govt doesnt care. the decision about troops is partial politics and business.

    • Mainlander 4.3
      11 November 2014 at 3:15 pm

      You mean like burning flags and effigies in the middle of Auckland streets, Devoy seems to be somewhat selective in her criticisms

      • One Anonymous Bloke 4.3.1
        11 November 2014 at 3:20 pm

        Yes, the outbreak of violence against authoritarian fearmongers was a real shame. Which planet was that on again?

        PS: on Wingnut, political protest is exactly the same as National Party thugs bullying children.

        • red blooded 4.3.1.1
          11 November 2014 at 6:04 pm

          Hey, do we have any evidence that the people committing these acts belong to or vote for one particular party?

          I’m not a NACT fan, but I worry when people start to make these kinds of sweeping generalisations and assumptions. If you think about it, that’s part of the point of this post.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 4.3.1.1.1
            11 November 2014 at 6:26 pm

            Bigotry is a right wing trait, National has a huge percentage of the right wing vote, and their media mouthpieces routinely employ hate speech.

            Yep, I’m pretty confident that racist thugs vote National.

      • Tracey 4.3.2
        11 November 2014 at 3:31 pm

        the flag that the pm wants to spend 27m changing, that precious piece of cloth?

        • Mainlander 4.3.2.1
          11 November 2014 at 3:40 pm

          No i was referring to the recent burnings of the Jewish flags in relation to this comment “Isn’t inciting racial or religious hatred and violence illegal?” Which i find just as disgusting as any attack on Muslim Kiwis

          • framu 4.3.2.1.1
            11 November 2014 at 4:46 pm

            jewish flags? – dont you mean israeli flags?

            there is a difference – one which we need to keep in mind on this topic. (not all jews are residents of israel, or approve of israels current policy and military directions)

          • minarch 4.3.2.1.2
            11 November 2014 at 4:47 pm

            what does a jewish flag look like Mainlander ?

            Ive never seen one before

          • felix 4.3.2.1.3
            11 November 2014 at 6:45 pm

            That’s a bit like saying that burning the U.S. flag is inciting hatred against Christians.

  5. minarch 5
    11 November 2014 at 2:44 pm

    “the leaders have said the abuse is aimed mainly at women and children, many of them walking to and from school.”

    women and children eh, classic racist/phobic behavior !

    to scared to try there shit on fully grown men

    cowards

  6. Psycho Milt 6
    11 November 2014 at 4:34 pm

    When John Key takes to the media to over-hype the risks of ISIS terrorism to NZ, there is a cost:

    Your post is missing the essential part in which you demonstrate a causal link between Key over-hyping the threat to NZ, and racist abuse of Muslims. Such a link can’t just be assumed, especially not since we’ve had months of TV news items featuring Muslims cutting hostages’ heads off, otherwise murdering or enslaving people, carrying out terrorist attacks in western countries etc. Those would be entirely sufficient on their own to prompt racist nutbars to abuse local Muslims.

    • stargazer 6.1
      11 November 2014 at 8:53 pm

      except, as someone who has to live with this stuff & who is in regular contact with other women who have to live with this stuff, our experience is that the nastiness has gotten considerably worse in the last month. when the government starts talking in the way it has recently, there seems to be a much bigger impact.

      • Psycho Milt 6.1.1
        11 November 2014 at 9:20 pm

        Well, the worsening in the last month or so could be down to the NZ government, or it could be down to the attacks in Australia and Canada. Who knows? I don’t, and neither does the post author.

        • emergency mike 6.1.1.1
          11 November 2014 at 10:43 pm

          I think the author was expressing what’s known as an ‘opinion’. People then comment on that opinion – agree, disagree, etc. You been on teh internet long?

          Crying “Prove it!” like a kid in the playground doesn’t contribute much.

          • Psycho Milt 6.1.1.1.1
            12 November 2014 at 6:33 am

            If your opinion is something along the lines of “I don’t like these pants, they’re cut funny and the colour’s bilious,” sure. However, if your opinion is a claim, in this case “Recent examples of abuse of Muslims in NZ are John Key’s fault,” that claim should be accompanied by an argument for why the claim should be accepted. Providing that argument or not providing it is he difference between being taken seriously and being treated as an ignorant blowhard – if you’ve been on the internet long you’ll have seen that principle in operation on just about every site that allows comments.

            • emergency mike 6.1.1.1.1.1
              12 November 2014 at 3:19 pm

              And how exactly would you like the OP to “demonstrate a causal link” in this case? A paper trail? A signed confession from the racist abusers saying they did it because JK? Not gonna happen is it? Hence the OP was simply implying an opinion, that Key’s rhetoric has contributed to some degree or other to a rise in racist abuse of Muslims.

              You can complain that the OP didn’t give any argument as to why there should be any such connection if you like. But I for one don’t blame him/her for not bothering to go into the numerous examples from history of heads of state ramping up the racially charged bogeyman rhetoric followed by a rise in racist abuse towards that minority.

              Because you’d have to have been living under a rock or something.

  7. weka 7
    11 November 2014 at 6:38 pm

    Speaking of rhetoric, if the purpose of terrorism is to induce peoples fears as a way of controlling them, then what the fuck was the NZHerald doing with this today?

    #BREAKING Vial sent to Australia for testing for Ebola was originally sent to the @nzherald mailroom. All precautions were taken. More soon.

    https://twitter.com/nzherald/status/532003880843083776

    How was the public good served by that tweet? Worse, how did it play into people’s fears and insecurities?

    When the Herald says protocol was followed, does that include running out into the world and yelling FIRE, then later qualifying that with ‘oh, but it’s really just a pretend fire’? FFS, there are now international headlines about jihadists sending ebola to a newsroom. Great protocol.

    Media sanctioned terrorism.

  8. newsense 8
    11 November 2014 at 11:48 pm

    Anyone asks SBW what he thinks about Key and his recent War on Terror no fly list US BS or are the All Blacks who are paid up sycophants of the Key government the only ones who are permitted to speak out?

    That would be SBW the Muslim, you non-sport followers…