A Little Bit Racist?

I watched the first part of TVNZ’s series ‘That’s a Bit Racist’, and it was the most biased, one-sided and in itself racist programme that I had ever seen. It was brought about, of course, by the dreadful Christchurch massacre, but that was the first mistake. The mosque shootings were perpetrated by a non-New Zealander, who identified as an ‘eco-fascist’ and targeted Muslims because of their birth rate. Islam is a religion, not a race, and so the attacks, dreadful as they were, were not racially motivated.

The programme missed the point altogether that inherently, everyone is racist. I lived in Hong Kong for a while and the local Chinese, 98% of the population, clearly thought that they were the superior race. I didn’t blame them for thinking that because I thought I belonged to the superior race too. None of us is right or wrong. It is all just a matter of personal opinion.

This programme detailed a number of incidents where people felt they had been racially profiled, and they might be right, but they might equally be wrong.

Columnist and comedian Oscar Kightley – who, if we’re honest, is a national treasure – revealed the reason why his comedy troupe The Naked Samoans don’t go to Christchurch. You guessed it, racism.
Despite being a group of household names and national icons, Kightley says they were subjected to not one but two shocking instances of racist prejudice when performing there. They arrived to perform and the stage security wouldn’t let them into the dressing room in case they stole something, he recalls. After the show, a bartender refused to serve them unless they could prove they had money.

Stuff.

Oscar Kightley’s comedy troupe is called The Naked Samoans. He brings attention to their race right there, so can hardly then expect everyone to ignore it. If he really was treated the way he says, then that is a disgrace, but was this really true? Did the barman actually demand to see their money before he agreed to give them drinks? Most bar staff don’t hand over drinks until they are paid for, no matter what colour you are.

I know a very successful businessman who is a Maori. He told me once that he is often ignored in restaurants, as the waiting staff don’t want to serve him. This man is attractive, presentable and well dressed, so I believed that he was being racially profiled and was duly horrified.

A couple of weeks later, however, I had a similar experience in a restaurant. Nothing we did seemed to get the wait staff to take our order. The waitress was European, and so am I. Instead of thinking that she was racist, I just assumed she was inefficient. And then I wondered… are such things interpreted as racism sometimes when really it is just staff overwork or inefficiency? Maybe sometimes people are a little too sensitive?

Oscar Kightley may be right that the barman was being racist, but I have had a similar attitude to white people at times. Sometimes, you just know someone is not going to pay or behave in an acceptable way, and race has nothing to do with it.

If anything, I think most Kiwis have become much more multicultural in the last decade or so, and it is happening naturally. The professional office where I worked in the 1990s had less than 10% non-Europeans. That office now has over 30% non-Europeans. No one bats an eyelid, and nor should they.

I was in my local dairy a couple of weeks ago. It is run by an Indian family. The man behind the counter was watching the cricket. I made a racial assumption and commented that the Black Caps had dodged a bullet by having their game against India rained off. He was having none of it. “Nah,” he said. “We can beat India no trouble”. The British born woman hi-fived the man of Indian descent in a show of national support for ‘our’ cricket team. We are both New Zealanders and proud of it.

I liked that.

Hone Harawira is a racist. He said he would not allow his daughter to date a ‘mo fo’ white man. That wasn’t mentioned in TVNZ’s programme.

We are all racist, to some extent, because it is human nature. Upbraiding people constantly for being racist does nothing for racial harmony. It just reminds you that people are different from you when you might not have thought about it before. Programmes like this make racism worse, not better. Those of us who interact perfectly harmoniously with those of other races on a daily basis feel insulted by this patronising attitude.

It is like we are being told – you can judge white people by their manners, their attitudes and their honesty, but do that to a non-white person and you are a racist. Non-white people cannot be judged by the same standards as you judge other white people, and that is just wrong.

And yet, as I watched the Cricket World Cup final (yes… let’s not go there), I was struck by how multicultural we really have become. From Trent Boult of Ngati Tahu descent, to Ross Taylor who is part Samoan, to Ish Shodi who was born in India, to Colin de Grandhomme, who was born in Zimbabwe… to Jofra Archer, born in Barbados, Adil Raschid of Pakistani descent, to former England captain Nassar Hussein in the commentary box, and all those children of Indian descent in the Lord’s crowd with the English flag painted on their faces (not to mention those waving New Zealand flags)… it seems to me were are doing okay in the racial stakes. Not perfectly, maybe, but still okay.

If only these supposed do-gooders would just let us treat people with the respect they deserve… whatever colour they are.

The world is already a melting pot. Let’s let it melt naturally, without forcing anyone to behave in a way that they don’t like and won’t accept.

Brother against Brother…

An Auckland couple were given 90 days notice 4 days before the July 1st deadline for higher levels of insulation, because the landlord had not completed the work on time.

Unfortunately, if the landlord had not completed the work on time, he had no choice. It is now illegal to have tenants in a rental property where the insulation does not meet the new legal standards, and the tenant can demand a payment of $4000 for failure to comply.

Please note that the payment goes to the tenant, not the government.

A couple who were evicted from their home of 10 years four days before new rules to make rental properties warmer and drier came into effect are considering legal action against their landlord.

On Thursday, the pair from Henderson in West Auckland received a letter saying they had to leave the house within 90 days so the homeowner could renovate it to meet insulation standards.

Landlords had until Monday to ensure their rental properties met the standards, which require that rental properties must have underfloor and ceiling insulation. Those who have failed to comply with the regulations can be forced to pay their tenants up to $4000.

The wife said the house had been in a state of disrepair for some time – they had put buckets out every time it rained because the roof leaked, but multiple property managers had overlooked the issues.

They were still living there, though. Why? Because the rent reflected the state of the property, and the few rentals available.

“I have to say, we feel pretty gutted about it all.”
To make matters worse, the woman’s husband, who is in his 70s, has heart problems and the couple doubted they could find suitable rental accommodation in their price range because they have dogs.

So, they have dogs, they are on a limited income, so they are not in a great position. Nevertheless, the offer to dob in the landlord was just too tempting.

They planned to ask for the $4000 from their landlord because the landlord had failed to bring the property up to standard by the July 1 deadline and would then look at legal action.

Phil Twyford is trying to push a law that says that landlords cannot just evict tenants without a good reason (although failing to bring a property up to the required legal standard in time must qualify as a good reason) but this has not happened yet. In other words, the landlord is within his rights to give the tenant notice… and it is likely that there is nothing that they can do about it. Yet.

Auckland Tenants’ Protection Association co-ordinator Angela Maynard said kicking tenants out to avoid complying with the law seemed like “a rather stupid idea” for landlords.
She believed tenants who had been evicted over the standards could file an application with the Tenancy Tribunal for retaliatory notice.
A retaliatory notice is where a landlord issues a tenant with an eviction notice in retaliation to a tenant standing up for their rights.

Stuff.

This will be an interesting case if it does ever get to court. A landlord is not allowed to have tenants living in a property that is not compliant. In this case, it seems that the landlord has opted to do a number of renovations at the same time… but didn’t want to risk being fined $4000 for non compliance.

He had obviously read his tenants well.

Yesterday, I was in my favourite Asian store, buying multiple boxes of Chinese teabags. Normally, of course, they would give me a plastic bag. They didn’t offer one, but I had momentarily forgotten about the total ban. I almost asked for one… and then stopped. The last thing I would want would be to get them into trouble for trying to look after their customers, in case there was a climate Nazi in the queue behind me. So I left the store, juggling boxes of teabags, reminding myself for the millionth time to bring bags when I go shopping.

What I don’t like here is the insidious attitude in these policies, both of which came in on the same day, that the authorities will do nothing, but instead will rely on people dobbing in errant landlords and errant shopkeepers.

Since when did we live in a society where people dobbed in others to the authorities, for relatively minor infringements – particularly the plastic bags?

This government is pitching ordinary people against each other. Just like China under Chairman Mao, or Russia under Stalin, we can now dob in people we don’t like, even if they have done nothing wrong. What is stopping one of the other Asian stores in Lower Hutt from dobbing in one of the others, just to ruin their business?

All of this sounds like the Stasi to me.

Photoshopped image credit: Luke

What do you think, Comrade?

She has More Cheek Than a Fat Ladies Bottom

by SB on July 2, 2019 at 9:00am

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has been pointing the finger at Simon Bridges and the National party for their stance over the UN Migration pact. Considering “Comrade” Ardern’s personal background as the president of the Far-left International Union of Socialist Youth she has a hell of a cheek.

Someone who said “Comrade” 15 times in just 7 minutes has no business berating Simon Bridges because someone somewhere decided that people who are against the UN Migration pact are far-right politically.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has slammed the National Party over its stance on the UN migration compact […]
And while she wouldn’t say whether she thought National was trying to court far-right voters, she did not dispute Winston Peters’ description of the movement opposing the compact as neo-Nazi.

Instead of debating the issues, she is smearing her opponents. It is like the sheep in the political fable Animal Farm. ” Four legs gooood…two legs baaaad,” except in her case it is Far-left gooood…far-right baaaad or more to the point For Pact gooood, Against Pact baaaad.

The Government signed up to the compact at the end of last year despite claims from the National Party that it would restrict the ability of future governments to decide on which migrants were welcome and which weren’t.
Legal advice from Crown Law and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade confirmed that the compact was not legally binding, nor did it restrict New Zealand from setting its own migration policies.
But National leader Simon Bridges stood by his earlier stance, saying in a statement that New Zealand should decide its immigration settings, not the United Nations.
He noted that the US and Australia have not signed the compact.
“This Government has become more concerned with impressing the UN, rather than what matter to New Zealanders – and that’s immigration being decided by us.”

Simon was quite right and, as we pointed out at a later date on the blog, New Zealand had been lied to.

In a frank exchange with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr. Hebner of the AfD drew out an admission that it is, in fact, legally binding. As well, that it will be adopted as rule for all UN Member states once enacted.

voiceofeurope

Winston Peters disagrees with this view and said that…

[…] misinformation around the migration pact, particularly the incorrect view that it would be binding on signatories, was based on propaganda from Austrian neo-Nazis, in particular far-right movement leader Martin Sellner.

Watch the video for yourselves and hear the words out of Merkel’s own mouth. Oh, Wait….I can’t. The video evidence has been removed from both our article and the article written by the Voice of Europe. Youtube has flushed it down the memory hole.

Draw your own conclusions as to why that is. One thing is for certain. With the truth censored, Jacinda Ardern is free to make statements like these.

[…] she said National’s position on the compact was irresponsible.
“I did hold concerns because we weren’t having a debate that was anchored in the facts.
“They claimed that we wouldn’t hold sovereignty over our own borders – that was totally factually incorrect and remains incorrect. We would never sign away the sovereignty of the maintenance of our own immigration policy.