Xenophobia

81 comments on “Xenophobia ”

• Comments are now closed

1. the sprout 1

   7 July 2010 at 7:53 am

   I reckon Gillard has snookered him into it, and Key’s too green to have understood what was coming. Probably still doesn’t. I wonder how many refugees Key has met in his life?

   Always a sad day when pollies get into refugee bashing.
   • Tigger 1.1

     7 July 2010 at 8:37 am

     Any evidence of a refugee ship being turned away as Key claimed on the news last night? It sounded very much like a ‘Bill and Mary Smith’ moment…

     Why on earth would we want to wade into this issue? Apart from brown-nose points with the new Aussie PM it gains us nothing and throws us into the middle of a variety of human rights and international law issues…

     And just calling it a ‘processing centre’ stings my liberal heart. Makes them sound like beans to be canned…
   • the pinkpostman 1.2

     7 July 2010 at 2:34 pm

     Extra sad Sprout when the person making the refugee bashing comments is the son of a refugee. Amazing how some people cforget their roots . In fact its a common tread among the Political Right, take Basher Bennett as another example.
     • prism 1.2.1

       7 July 2010 at 3:07 pm

       And more – Gillard is the daughter of Welsh immigrants. But when do you start closing the door to the Ark?
       • the pinkpostman 1.2.1.1

         7 July 2010 at 3:59 pm

         There is a bid difference between being an immigrant and a refugee.
         immigrant come and go when they like but refugees have one and one only chance of a decent life, I am an immigrant but must admit some of my fellow immigrant give me the shits,They never really leave their country of birth . However most refugees prove to be the very best of citizens, our history is full of refugees who have become citizens to be proud off. Lets face it if a person is willing to sail the cold deep sea in a rust bucket ,in fact risk their lives to come and live here I say WELCOME . they are just the sort of people this underpopulated country needs. Black green or brindle who cares lets make such determined people welcome.
   • toad 1.3

     7 July 2010 at 5:33 pm

     Please, sprout, don’t use “green” in that context – Key is not at all Green, and has no idea what Green is about.

     This is the right jumping onto genuine concerns about foreign investment, like the Chinese bid for the Crafar farms, and trying to distort it into a xenophobic argument about refugees.

     That is why it is always so difficult to raise foreign investment issues as issues of principle – because the racist right will always seize on it to their own ends.

     But we must keep trying.
     • big bruv 1.3.1

       7 July 2010 at 5:47 pm

       ‘the racist right”?

       This from a member of the Greens, a party that supported the Labour government and allowed it to introduce the seabed and foreshore legislation?

       This from a member of the Greens, the only party (aside from the Apartheid Maori party) who is supporting openly racist legislation and the creation of two types of Kiwi.

       I know you are desperate Toad but as soon as you label all those on the right as racists you begin to look like a bigger idiot than you already are.

       The real racists are the Maori party and the Greens.
       • felix 1.3.1.1

         7 July 2010 at 5:52 pm

         Paid up yet, bludge?
2. Daveosaurus 2

   7 July 2010 at 7:55 am

   I was interested to hear some overseas investment person whinging on and on about racism on the radio news last night. Oddly enough, though, I must have missed hearing this person’s outrage when the Government were ripping off the TÅ«hoe a few weeks back. The radio mustn’t have thought it was sufficiently newsworthy on that occasion…
3. just saying 3

   7 July 2010 at 8:31 am

   This, and the foreign ownership statement recently, are empty rhetoric aimed at alarming the public (ie whistling the dog), sounding masterful, and romancing the winnie vote IMHO.
   • Rosy 3.1

     7 July 2010 at 8:58 am

     Yes, dog-whistle politics 101, and watch this get picked up by the media. There will be some other detestable decision the nats want ignored.
4. TightyRighty 4

   7 July 2010 at 8:48 am

   strange how when wealthy foreign investors come here, the left considers it a bad thing. “Asylum” seekers who bring nothing? pile them in. It’s “racist” to turn away the “asylum” seekers. It’s not racist to turn away business folk.
   • Emp 4.1

     7 July 2010 at 9:14 am

     oh don’t you understand, you must be STUPID tighty righty, people who can make an economic contribution and investment and create jobs are bad, people who will live off welfare for 10 years and vote labour good.
     • george 4.1.1

       7 July 2010 at 9:46 am

       Idiots. Foreign investment doesn’t mean anyone has to come and live here.
       • TightyRighty 4.1.1.1

         7 July 2010 at 10:08 am

         idiot. it’s still racist and xenophobic to turn it away on the basis of it being foreign if it’s also racist and xenophobic to turn away boat people if they are foreign
         • felix 4.1.1.1.1

           7 July 2010 at 10:40 am

           Come on TR you can do better.

           It would be racist to turn away foreign investors on the basis of their race.

           So if anyone were saying (for example) “let’s have Africans invest here but not Slavs” then you’d have a point.

           But they’re not. So you don’t.

           If you need further clarification I’m a little busy today but if you leave a message here I’m sure someone will be able to help. Do try to figure it out on your own if you can though, a lot of other kids need attention too.
           • TightyRighty 4.1.1.1.1.1

             7 July 2010 at 11:02 am

             it’s racist when based on race, it’s xenophobic when based on being foreign. come on felix, try to keep up. Your example is ridiculous. If africans could invest here, it would put bob geldof out of a job. Maybe there would be a live aid for sheep?
             • felix …

               7 July 2010 at 2:46 pm

               You said:

               “it’s still racist and xenophobic to turn it away on the basis of it being foreign if it’s also racist and xenophobic to turn away boat people if they are foreign”

               Your words TR. Racist and xenophobic you said.

               Show me a single example of someone advocating racist policies on foreign investment. Just one. I dare thee.

               Actually don’t bother, no one gives a shit what you think.
     • Draco T Bastard 4.1.2

       7 July 2010 at 9:47 am

       You may not have noticed but almost none of the wealthy foreign investors that come here produce jobs.
       • Rex Widerstrom 4.1.2.1

         7 July 2010 at 3:55 pm

         Bingo. Yet when NZF was pointing out that the thousands of “business migrants” were “investing” in flash homes in Howick in which they abandoned their teenage kids to attend local schools while they returned to conduct their business in their country of origin, both left and right screamed “racist”.

         Yet the bit about increasing our refugee intake (IIRC it was about 700 a year at that stage and we’d suggested *gasp* 900) was never mentioned by our opponents, or the media.

         Indeed one media floozy went so far as to take a comment I made on background about finding abhorrent the kind of knuckle-draggers who “drive round the suburbs throwing bricks and screaming “[racial epithet]” at people”; and use it to ask “did you or did you not say ‘[racial epithet]’ earlier today?”

         With that kind of utter dishonesty being the benchmark for reporting the wider issues, facts like that raised by Draco never enter the debate, and nor do the moral and ethical obligations we have toward genuine refugees.
     • uke 4.1.3

       7 July 2010 at 9:53 am

       “people who can make an economic contribution and investment and create jobs are bad”

       I wonder why you didn’t add…

       – Drain off NZ wealth by way of profits going off shore
       – Run down national assets (eg. railways)
       – Exert pressure on the political process (eg. right, we want to mine your national parks)

       “Investment” – such a neutral-sounding word – actually means “I want something for nothing, gimme”.
       • TightyRighty 4.1.3.1

         7 July 2010 at 10:10 am

         simpletons of the world unite, you have found your champion in Uke. Uke – if that is all investment consisted of, i would be a millionaire.
         • uke 4.1.3.1.1

           7 July 2010 at 10:16 am

           Maybe you have been “investing” so as to not to make a profit? There’s your mistake!
           • TightyRighty 4.1.3.1.1.1

             7 July 2010 at 11:05 am

             I’m not simple like you Uke. I hope to profit from my investments. That’s why armaments companies figure high in my portfolio.
       • A Post With Me In It 4.1.3.2

         7 July 2010 at 10:27 am

         Not all foreign investment is good for NZ. Not all foreign investment is bad. That it is why it is a tricky issue.

         Trying to argue this in a black an white fashion will be a pox on both your houses. However investment is an ECONOMIC issue.

         Refugees are a MORAL issue.

         It is rather amusing to watch people try to argue the two against each other and rather sad that people let trolly righty drag you into it.
         It appears the only common ground the two topics have is racism?!

         lolz
       • Rex Widerstrom 4.1.3.3

         7 July 2010 at 4:06 pm

         “Investment’ such a neutral-sounding word actually means “I want something for nothing, gimme’.

         One of the dictionary definitions of investment is

         a devoting, using, or giving of time, talent, emotional energy, etc., as for a purpose or to achieve something: “His investment in the project included more time than he cared to remember”.

         Every day I deal with business people who’ve “invested” in their businesses – their money, then at least some of their profits; their energy and most certainly their time. Many have employed other people as their business has grown and contributed to the employment of thousands more though their purchase of raw materials and support services.

         Business investment is not inherently bad. If a foreigner wished to move themselves and their family here, bring their assets with them, and genuinely invest in starting or buying a business then they should be welcomed. But then that’s not “foreign investment” it’s more like “foreigner investment” 🙂

         The fact that the kind of “investment” NZ has experienced has more often than not been closer to uke’s definition than to mine comes down to one factor only: a succession of National, then Labour, now National politicians who have consistently refused to listen to New Zealanders on this issue.
5. Fisiani 5

   7 July 2010 at 8:56 am

   The only person critisising the possibility of humanely helping refugees is that xenophobic red neck Phil Goff. This post is yet another pure beat up.
6. Draco T Bastard 6

   7 July 2010 at 9:11 am

   …trying to flank Winnie or whether he’s just shooting off at the mouth…

   or trying to flank Winnie by shooting off at the mouth?
7. Inventory2 7

   7 July 2010 at 9:23 am

   So the New Zealand left is opposing a suggestion by the leader of Australia’s left? Hmmmm.. interesting …
   • lprent 7.1

     7 July 2010 at 9:41 am

     You seem to be a bit monolithic today. The left disagree with the left all of the time.

     For that matter reading the right in the sewer you get the impression that many of them hate John Keys government….
8. tsmithfield 8

   7 July 2010 at 9:48 am

   If its racist to refuse entry refugees who arrive outside normal due process, often without documentation, and queue jumping those who follow the rules, then count me in. I’m racist.
   • joe bloggs 8.1

     7 July 2010 at 10:11 am

     ditto
   • Bored 8.2

     7 July 2010 at 10:11 am

     No, just plain stupid. People desparate enough to risk life on open oceans in leaky boats dont think about rules and regs aka due process. They merely seek safe haven. You are probably not racist TS, probably only suffering from an extreme compassion defecit.
     • tsmithfield 8.2.1

       7 July 2010 at 10:21 am

       I realise this Bored. However, it is very difficult to screen people coming in under those circumstances. Potentially there could be terrorists seeking to infiltrate NZ amongst the refugees. Once they are actually on our soil it is much harder to send them back.

       Sending them to an offshore processing centre is a very humane thing to do. At least they will be fed and taken care of while they are there. It is certainly a lot more humane than forcing their boats to turn around. They can then be thoroughly checked out and possibly accepted as legitimate refugees. Don’t really see why the left would have a problem with this solution.
       • Pete 8.2.1.1

         7 July 2010 at 10:27 am

         That’s all well and good if this was a zero-sum game ts, but it’s not. There are options besides penning them up offshore and turning them round.

         The problem is they are seeking asylum in Australia and being sent to an offshore territory for ‘processing’ – breaking Intl law, and for NZ our committments under the Refugee Convention.

         Geddit now?
         • tsmithfield 8.2.1.1.1

           7 July 2010 at 10:45 am

           Yeah. We could lock them up for years in Mount Eden prison pending an infinite process of legal action and huge waste of taxpayers money as per Ahmed Zaoui. An offshore centre sounds much more preferable from the point of view of both the refugees and the taxpayer.
           • Pete 8.2.1.1.1.1

             7 July 2010 at 10:50 am

             Zaoui is brilliant example – but unfortunately bears no relation to the issue at hand. But I’m glad you’ve bought it back to what really matters – money trumps human rights and being a signatory to international conventions – Cheers.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               7 July 2010 at 1:03 pm

               And if we don’t have the resources to feed, house and cloth those refugees (which we won’t in a few years) what then?
               • george …

                 7 July 2010 at 1:14 pm

                 You are assuming that refugees are a net cost to the economy. Refugees I have met have all been hard-working people who contributed positively to the economy and to our culture.

                 I don’t think I can say the same for some of the forgiven investors that have come here and stripped assets, bought IP and shipped profits home.
           • Lew 8.2.1.1.1.2

             7 July 2010 at 11:13 am

             The whole and entire point with Zaoui was that his status should never have been challenged to the extent that it was in the first place. That was where the monetary savings would have come from, not to mention the other issues in play.

             L
             • tsmithfield …

               7 July 2010 at 11:30 am

               Not intending to argue the merits or otherwise of the Zaoui case.

               However, it does serve to demonstrate how much money can be expended on these sorts of cases once they get into NZ. And how there can be little option but to treat such individuals as security risks and thus have little option but to confine them in less than humane conditions (e.g. Mount Eden prison) until there status can be determined. In the Zaoui case he was confined alone. At least in the proposed option refugees will remain with friends and family who have traveled with them.
               • Pete …

                 7 July 2010 at 12:28 pm

                 So, the problem you have is:
                 a. the amount of (taxpayer) money spent on keeping someone in an inhumane location (supposedly Mt Eden prison)
                 b. away from the family and friends they have travelled with (to the country they wish to seek asylum in)?

                 So, would the best solution to this problem be:
                 1. To send them to an overseas territory (breaking the UNHCR convention) to be ‘processed’ (i.e. potentially held indefinitely (Tampa), following the law of the territory in which they are detained)?
                 2. Turning their means of travel around to get around having to face the potential problem of a litigious case of asylum (despite the legitimacy of all asylum seekers aboard)?
                 3. Going through the normal process to determine the legitimacy of their asylum claim (as per the UNHCR convention), laying NZ’s Immigration NZ acceptance criteria over-top (to prevent acceptance of ‘unwanted’ persons), and accepting the asylum seeker (if they comply) under the refugee quota say, while they are located (with friends and family) in a secure refugee facility somewhere in NZ?
                 4. Something else.

                 BTW – here’s the UNHCR convention and protocols if you want to have a read:
                 http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html
                 • tsmithfield …

                   7 July 2010 at 2:28 pm

                   The conventions are more to do with people ACTUALLY DO receive their rights rather than WHERE they receive their rights.

                   Also, the conventions were written prior to 9/11 which provides a new context in which to interpret conventions. Therefore it is entirely reasonable to locate refugees outside NZ/Aus while they are being checked out.

                   Furthermore, we have a limited quota of refugees that we accept so it is a zero sum game with respect to refugees. If we too easily accept refugees who have not followed due process we might be affecting the rights of those who actually do follow go down the right track. This is just as much of an injustice as is locating some refugees off shore until their status is determined.
                   • Pete …

                     7 July 2010 at 2:58 pm

                     Sorry, how is locating asylum seekers in an offshore location (aside from the country they are seeking asylum in) OK in a post-9/11 world? It would appear that this would be falsely interpreting Articles 31, 32 and 33 of the convention. Maybe a lawyer could chime in here to confirm or dispell.

                     And ts, what is your so-called ‘due process’? Yes, if we accept ‘boat people’ we will have to reduce the number of other asylum seekers as refugees under the quota – but how are they any less acceptable as refugees (assuming they meet the UNHCR/INZ requirements)? And how does locating these asylum seekers in another territory resolve that problem?
                   • Pete …

                     7 July 2010 at 3:17 pm

                     And here’s the UNHCR’s report on the end of the ‘Pacific Solution’, which would be used as the template for the Pacific Solution 2.0 (Timor-Leste):
                     http://www.unhcr.org/47ac3f9c14.html

                     And I quote:
                     “today’s closure of the centre on Nauru signals the end of a difficult chapter in Australia’s treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. Many bona fide refugees caught by the policy spent long periods of isolation, mental hardship and uncertainty and prolonged separation from their families”

                     Didn’t someone once say “The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing” – is this not true here? And does the actual state of how things may be in Timor not give you pause?
                   • tsmithfield …

                     7 July 2010 at 3:25 pm

                     “Sorry, how is locating asylum seekers in an offshore location (aside from the country they are seeking asylum in) OK in a post-9/11 world?”

                     Pete, it seems to me that the spirit of the convention is that refugees should be treated well and fairly. The location doesn’t seem to matter so far as that is concerned.

                     Those same conventions also have definitions for what legitimately qualifies someone as a refugee and specifies ground for which refugee status may not apply. Consequently, it is not actually clear that people arriving on a boat without documentation even meet the definition of “refugees”. Until this can be determined it is not even clear that the conventions you point to would apply. Bringing them into the country as refugees is therefore premature.

                     If they are actually physically located here they would become the focus of every bleeding heart zealot too naive to grasp the possibility that these people could be security threats in the future. This would put considerable drain on the legal system. 100 Zaoui cases anyone?

                     Along with the terrorism threat there is also the possibility of infectious diseases and the like, so locating them offshore would help keep possible contagious diseases out of the country.

                     “And ts, what is your so-called ‘due process’? Yes, if we accept ‘boat people’ we will have to reduce the number of other asylum seekers as refugees under the quota but how are they any less acceptable as refugees (assuming they meet the UNHCR/INZ requirements)?”

                     You’ve asked and answered your own question. At the time they arrive we don’t know if they meet those requirements, so by being allowed to stay here they are getting a huge and unfair advantage over those refugees who take the time to validate their credentials as refugees before coming.
                   • Pete …

                     7 July 2010 at 3:54 pm

                     “At the time they arrive we don’t know if they meet those requirements, so by being allowed to stay here they are getting a huge and unfair advantage over those refugees who take the time to validate their credentials as refugees before coming.”

                     FFS, this is NOT what happens.

                     You have to be in the country you wish to seek asylum in before you can claim asylum there and have your refugee status confirmed or otherwise.

                     This is the whole damn point. Asylum seekers are being taken away from the territory they wish to seek asylum in IN ORDER TO PREVENT THEM LODGING AN ASYLUM CLAIM, or, to significantly delay it.

                     NO refugee will ‘validate their credentials as refugees’ before coming – that is simply a stupid statement. That all happens after they have arrived and asked to be considered for refugee status under the convention.

                     Maybe if your thinking weren’t so insular you could understand what the debate is about in the first place.
                   • tsmithfield …

                     7 July 2010 at 4:15 pm

                     There is a BIG difference between refugees we accept under our quota and those who rock up to our shores in their boats without our permission. I stand by what I said. Those that we accept under our quota have been pre-vetted before they even get here. They are a much lower risk than people we know absolutely nothing about.

                     We obviously need to detain people somewhere while their status is determined. What is wrong with East Timor? Along with meeting the immediate humanitarian needs of the refugees it will bring much needed jobs and income to the East Timor economy.
                   • Pete …

                     7 July 2010 at 5:11 pm

                     OK, excuse the semantics of refugees v asylum seekers, what I was referring to was their rights.

                     From the site you referred me to (here http://www.refugeeservices.org.nz/faqs/refugees_in_nz):

                     On asylum seekers:

                     “These people are sometimes referred to as Convention Refugees but their status is then really just the same as other refugees who arrive in the official quota”

                     “Asylum seekers who arrive in New Zealand without proper documentation are often detained on arrival, to allow the government to confirm their identity and ensure that they do not pose a threat to our national security or have criminal intentions.

                     Once this has been established, such people may be “conditionally released” into the community. They must live in an agreed location and report periodically to the authorities while they are awaiting the outcome of their application for refugee status.”

                     What is wrong with Timor-Leste? They cannot logistically do it. They are still having to sort out the issues that are the result of recent wars and war crimes. They shouldn’t have to become embroiled in another action that will see them viewed negatively on the world stage (except by the likes of you).

                     Oh, and it’s quite sweet that you think the asylum seeker’s humanitarian needs will be taken care of. You should look up how other boat people have been treated in Nauru, Christmas Island et al.
                   • tsmithfield …

                     7 July 2010 at 5:56 pm

                     OK. So now our only point of disagreement is where they should be detained.

                     Here is what I think would be a reasonable solution to the problem.

                     Firstly, the UN should establish refugee camps at strategic locations around the world specifically for boat people, or others who attempt to gain entry to countries through informal means.

                     Secondly, countries who detain these individuals send them to the nearest camp.

                     Thirdly, these refugees/asylum seekers are vetted through the UN processes and are repatriated to a member country through the existing refugee program.
                   • Pete …

                     8 July 2010 at 7:37 am

                     That’s not actually a bad proposal ts if it means that the location is secure (and a signatory party to the convention, with other rights afforded within the country), free from corruption, family groups remain together, human rights are upheld, and the vetting process is short and sweet.

                     That’s not likely to happen in East Timor, and in the meantime NZ should continue as it always has by recognising the rights of asylum seekers in the same way they do now – including the potential for detention if a security risk is recognised. But not allowing them onshore to create an asylum claim is not right, regardless of potential health/security threats – as shown in Australia’s examples where a massive proportion of the boat people were found to be genuine refugees after their asylum claims were finally processed.

                     Your proposal would also mean a major change to the way we treat refugees now – which isn’t a broken system, and doesn’t appear to be under threat (we are always well under the quota and receive around 200 asylum seekers per year on average).
                   • tsmithfield …

                     8 July 2010 at 9:58 am

                     “That’s not actually a bad proposal ts if it means that the location is secure (and a signatory party to the convention, with other rights afforded within the country), free from corruption, family groups remain together, human rights are upheld, and the vetting process is short and sweet.”

                     Thanks for that. And I would agree with your stipulations. I think we both agree that potential refugees need to be treated well and fairly.

                     What I like about this idea is that it would standardize the process so that all refugees are treated the same so far as repatriation to member countries. A major problem with the way things are at the moment is that those who arrive informally can be treated in an ad-hock manner which may impinge on fairness to them and other refugees.

                     I really have no qualms about where the location of the UN camps are.
           • Richard 8.2.1.1.1.3

             7 July 2010 at 3:07 pm

             tsmithfield wrote…Yeah. We could lock them up for years in Mount Eden prison…as per Ahmed Zaoui. An offshore centre sounds much more preferable from the point of view of both the refugees and the taxpayer.

             If that’s what you want to do. An offshore detention center would be more expensive than locking them in Mt Eden. If any boat people refugees appear, they are not going to nicely appear at our off-shore detention facility.

             They are going to appear on our shore somewhere. The taxpayer will then need to pay to get them flown/shipped to the off-shore detention facility. And then the taxpayer will still need to pay for them to be detained at that facility.
             • Bored …

               7 July 2010 at 4:34 pm

               TS is as usual shooting off wildly prior to identifying and targeting his quarry. Personally if a boat person ships up safely on our shores in a leaky tub I am going to offer them a job as my personal launch master. Might even send them back out to sea with TS with a defined set of instructions on the treatment of trouble makers in maritime places.
               • tsmithfield …

                 7 July 2010 at 4:40 pm

                 So they can all come and stay at your place then Bored? 🙂
                 • Bored …

                   7 July 2010 at 4:44 pm

                   Yeah, why not, as they say more colour more movement, party at Boreds place. Theres always the option of shoving them on the launch.
             • tsmithfield …

               7 July 2010 at 4:58 pm

               Costs will be much cheaper in somewhere like East Timor. Will easily cover the transport costs to get them there.
               • Tigger …

                 7 July 2010 at 5:08 pm

                 Costs for what? Why pay for something which isn’t actually a problem nor is likely to be a problem.
   • uke 8.3

     7 July 2010 at 10:14 am

     Unfortunately, the nature of the refugee experience cannot guarantee a “normal due process”. Refugees do not have all the time and money in the world – like, say, a rich American or Chinese “investor” – to get their papers in order.
     • joe bloggs 8.3.1

       7 July 2010 at 10:24 am

       nor can you guarantee that a refugee is truly a refugee…
       • uke 8.3.1.1

         7 July 2010 at 10:30 am

         Fair enough – nobody is arguing against some kind of process of acceptance. But to demand a blue-ribbon standard of “proper” documentation is just ridiculous.

         PS It’s funny – I guess one can’t guarantee an investor is a true investor (ie. isn’t trying to fleece the country) either, eh?
   • Pete 8.4

     7 July 2010 at 10:21 am

     The experiences of refugees, due to the nature of what they and their families flee, mean that ‘due process’ and ‘proper documentation’ are not options available to them. Often they are unlawfully detained, documents taken, bombed out of their homes, have no possessions etc. And, sorry, when were the boat people queue jumping?

     And ts, you’re probably not racist, just ignorant, and need to think a bit more before you post.

     Same goes for Fisiani upthread – the least ‘humane’ options is penning them up in an offshore territory and delaying assistance in the hopes they’ll turn around and head back to what they have fled – how does this make Goff a red-neck?
9. joe bloggs 9

   7 July 2010 at 10:14 am

   So let me see if I have IrishBill’s logic worked out:

   It’s racist and xenophobic for Key to say that boat people are a potential problem for New Zealand… but it’s not racist or xenophobic for Goff to claim that Boat People are not New Zealand’s problem.

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3892236/Boat-people-not-NZs-issue-Goff

   Frankly that’s complete bullshit IrishBill
   • Pete 9.1

     7 July 2010 at 10:31 am

     Apart from being a good global citizen it is not ‘our problem’ to be dealing with refugees seeking asylum in Australia – Goff was suggesting that we’re only getting ourselves into sh*t by having anything to do with Australia’s proposed policy and process – thanks for the link.
     • joe bloggs 9.1.1

       7 July 2010 at 1:30 pm

       nup he’s washing his hands of the whole refugee issue – “It’s not in my back yard, that’s your issue fellas” says Phil.

       Sounds pretty xenophobic.
       • Pete 9.1.1.1

         7 July 2010 at 2:00 pm

         Xenophobia is a fear of foreigners and/or foreign cultures (amongst other things ‘foreign’ – other defns online).

         Phil Goff is suggesting that Key putting his oar in on an Australian political issue (boat people is BIG in Australian politics) is not a good idea for us AND does not appear to be good for the people of East Timor.

         Looking at the article and your cries of ‘xenophobia’ – I can’t actually see the correlation. The title ‘Boat People Not NZ’s Issue’ also bears no relation to Goff’s statements:

         “Mr Goff said there was “an outside chance” that boat people could try to reach New Zealand but he doubted that would happen.”

         “I’ve read the intelligence reports for nine years on this – you can’t absolutely rule out the prospects of a boat reaching New Zealand but overwhelmingly we know the people smugglers are interested in Australia as a destination,”

         “Mr Goff said it would be unwise for the Government to become involved in an intensely political debate that was going on in Australia in the lead up to an election.

         “That is very rarely an environment in which good decisions will be made for the long-term future.”

         “Mr Goff said East Timor was dealing with the problem of 100,000 internally displaced people.

         “Why we should load this problem onto them I just can’t understand,” he said.”

         So, please, point out the xenophobia to me here joe, and also how Goff is supposedly ‘washing his hands’ of the issue by not demanding we involve ourselves in something politically expedient for the Australians.
         • joe bloggs 9.1.1.1.1

           7 July 2010 at 5:37 pm

           You’re as dull as my gradfather’s hammer Pete…. of course there’s no xenophobia in Goff’s comments – just as there is no xenophobia in Key’s stance … and to label either racist is equally facile.

           Yet IrishBill uses both descriptions in his initial post. I guess that’s what happens when morons try to learn new words.
           • Pete 9.1.1.1.1.1

             8 July 2010 at 7:41 am

             You’re a real clever clogs aren’t you joe? Thanks for adding your wealth of knowledge to this discussion, you champion of truth you.

             And sorry, where’s the ‘racist’ label? I’m not the one throwing round names here.

             And for what it’s worth I think the title of the post is going a bit far, but the writers of this blog are entitled to write what they want. If you write something that’s stupid on the face of it I’ll call you on it.
       • felix 9.1.1.2

         7 July 2010 at 2:50 pm

         It’s funny (but a bit sad) when these morons try to learn new words.

         They haven’t even figured out racism and now they’re trying to use xenophobia in a sentence.

         lolz
   • Bored 9.2

     7 July 2010 at 10:32 am

     Maybe, who knows where Goffs at?

     Bills line about Key wanting NZ to buy into a detention centre in Timor needs more investigation and informed debate. It reads to me that Australia are trying to keep their front line boarder security as far away from their coasts as possible and that NZ might also benefit in a joint forward strategy. In a world that energy and food shortages will make far more volatile expect the future to be full of refugees and displaced desparate people. To Australia t, the issue of boat people is an everyday reality. But for the Tasman it would also be ours.
     • Tigger 9.2.1

       7 July 2010 at 11:36 am

       Goff is only speaking common sense. It’s like us trying to fix Australia’s bush-fire problem by helping fund fire stops… The real xenophobia, as the post points out, is Key beating up the ‘boatloads of stinky refugees turning up on our shore’ problem. There isn’t a problem, Key’s just creating a climate of fear and distrust.

       Where is ACT, asking why Key is content to spend NZ taxpayer money on an Australian problem?

       Oh, and watch Key distance himself as soon as he realises he would be aiding a Labour government’s re-election bid by co-operating with Australia. This is a big election issue in Oz and their tories will have words for him.
10. marty mars 10

    7 July 2010 at 10:39 am

    I listened to the radio play “The Outsiders, by Ben Story” (someone maybe able to link direct to the play) and it really bought home to me how utterly terrible the conditions refugees have been and are in. To leave their culture, country, and continent, to be afraid and abused. I would recommend a listen – there is something very illuminating in hearing real stories that happened to real people coming across with a thick kiwi accent. We should provide refuge for these people and yes, everyone wants to stop people trafficers but adding to the abuse of victims is not the answer.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sundaydrama
11. PK 11

    7 July 2010 at 11:28 am

    ***Ironic really that concerns about the damage foreign investment does to economic sovereignty are passed off by the right as xenophobia while this sort of refugee-bashing is welcomed with open arms.***

    The primary concern should be what is in the best interests of the people who pay taxes and elect the government. Whether that results in xenophobia is really a red herring (although it’s a useful emotive weapon for people to silence debate).
12. Bill 12

    7 July 2010 at 12:35 pm

    Why are none of the right wingers arguing that the free market principle should apply to movements of labour?

    How would that work? People freely moving to Australia rather than NZ from wherever due to higher wage levels and availability of work etc. In response, NZ wages and general work conditions would have to gravitate upwards…

    Ah! Can’t have that.

    Better to lock em up in detention centres and keep those extortionate levels of profit flowing.
    • PK 12.1

      7 July 2010 at 3:16 pm

      ***Why are none of the right wingers arguing that the free market principle should apply to movements of labour?***

      Plenty do, look at the US where big business has pressed for unskilled labour from Mexico. In the short term that is great for keeping wages down for the corporations. Unfortunately, the overall impact on the states is disastrous as they impose greater costs for health, education, housing than they pay in taxes.

      Also, where subsequent generations have lower levels of academic performance you get an underclass. This is the case in California where the state is almost bankrupt.

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112167023
13. burt 13

    7 July 2010 at 12:58 pm

    Key is just stupid, everybody knows that we need to protect our shores from Canadians armed with cheque books more than we need to block a few people who just want a place to live. Once we have sold our assets to the Chinese we won’t be allowed to stop these people entering our country. But then Key also needs to keep the Canadians as friends because he might need to use their airports to meet the Dalai Lama every few years.
14. Brewer 14

    7 July 2010 at 1:46 pm

    The Power of Nightmares, subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, is a BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis.

    “Both [the Islamists and Neoconservatives] were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created today’s nightmare vision of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.”

    Finding themselves somewhat short on terrorists, Gillard and Key focus on immigrants.

    http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
    • prism 14.1

      7 July 2010 at 3:04 pm

      Brewer
      I think you will see eventually that it is more pragmatism than dark fantasies that shape political moves on refugees in NZ. It is money and electoral power that is the limiting factor.

      It’s not racism, it’s awareness that there are many people with nothing much willing to give up the little they have to escape. And when they get somewhere permanently, they have mental disorders, tb, sexual diseases, malnourishment and probably mental conditions and a completely different culture that may never become compatible with our aspirations for society. And it all costs government money even if private charities assist and the community that does help out, usually not at the wealthier top, may be fully occupied with their own difficulties.
    • PK 14.2

      7 July 2010 at 3:19 pm

      ***Gillard and Key focus on immigrants.***

      Can you name some countries, european or non-european that don’t focus on who is allowed into the country?
15. max 15

    7 July 2010 at 2:54 pm

    You need to pull some Swayze on John Key
    “im not going to paddle to new zealand”
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102685/quotes?qt0982662

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 6 July 2010 at 7:41 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS