New Zealand politician Don Brash has been accused of making "racist" and "anti-Muslim" remarks (hat tip - Tim Blair):
A prominent New Zealand politician was accused of racism on Saturday after a speech in which he said immigrants who did not accept the country's "bedrock values" should not be allowed to stay.
Don Brash, leader of the conservative opposition National Party, defined the values as "an acceptance of democracy and the rule of law, religious and personal freedom and legal equality of the sexes"....
Javed Khan, president of the [New Zealand] Federation of Islamic Associations, told Radio New Zealand the speech made it clear that Brash wanted immigrants to fit his view of a mainstream New Zealander, and therefore excluded people like Muslims.
Pancha Narayanan, president of the Federation of Ethnic Councils, said a comment by Brash that immigrants should have a good command of English, or quickly learn the language, was a sign that he would prefer them to come from English-speaking countries.
He said the speech had an element of racism and an anti-Muslim tone.
Brash's critics' remarks are far more anti-Muslim than anything he said. The critics imply that Muslims inherently reject "democracy and the rule of law, religious and personal freedom and legal equality of the sexes." That is a far more severe indictment of Islam than anything in Brash's speech. Sadly, versions of Islam that do indeed reject these values are all too common in many parts of the world. Hinting at this fact, as Brash did, is not "anti-Muslim" unless one accepts the premise that such views are embedded in the very nature of that religion. Instead of attacking Brash, the leaders of New Zealand's Muslim community would do better to devote their efforts to promoting versions of Islam that embrace the values he listed. By claiming that his statement is anti-Muslim, they merely strengthen the perception that Islam and liberal democratic values are mutually exclusive.
It's also worth noting that Muslims are not a "race," anymore than Christians are. Both religions include adherents of many different races. Even if Brash's remarks really were anti-Muslim, that would not also make them "racist."
Finally, I can personally testify (as can millions of other immigrants in the US and, I presume, in New Zealand) that immigrants from non-English speaking countries can indeed "quickly learn the language." Learning the local language is an important prerequisite for immigrants' economic and social success in any society.
None of these points are particularly profound or original. However, they need to be made because claims that liberal democratic values are "anti-Muslim" and that criticism of radical Islamist ideologies is somehow "racist" are all too common. Those who make such arguments do a disservice to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
I think you are trying to say that Khan's statements tend to lead judicious people to conclude that they ought to become antiMuslim if they are not already.
Bedrock Moslem values:
It doesn't require suggest that people become antiMoslem, but does suggest that Moslems should probably, by their own reckoning, not be allowed to emigrate to NZ.
The Moslem whine is that because "an acceptance of democracy and the rule of law, religious and personal freedom and legal equality of the sexes" are bedrock NZ values, NZ's are not permitted by their own values to prohibit Moslems from emigrating to NZ.
While I sympathize with the notion that a society is prudent to insure that all its members respect the basic political principles on which that society is founded, I suggest that this notion can never be applied in practice. How do we define those principles? Do we require each person to swear to accept those principles? If we did so, a great many American citizens would be deported, because there are millions of Americans who just don't get simple ideas such as the First Amendment. There is simply no even-handed scheme for putting this notion into practice.
US immigrants are required to swear that they accept those principles, at least inasmuch as the Constitution embodies those principles. Not sure if anyone has ever been penalized in any way for violating this oath, however.
For instance, and I know I'm going to make people angry about this, but it's the best analogy I can think of - Reagan's speech in 1980 declaring his bid for the Presidency couldn't be seen, just by its text, as a completely racist piece of work. However, given the history of the racist movements in the United States, and the particular place for which to call for state's rights (Independence, Mississippi, home of the "Mississippi Burning" tragedy), there was no really no other way to interpret Reagan's speech other than being overtly racist. He went on to dominate the south in the GOP primary and then become President.
Likewise, if my suspicions are correct, this Don Brash guy didn't say his first thing about the New Zealand culture wars in that speech, and I think from context Khan's suspicions are pretty sound.
A simple google of ""don brash" muslim" confirms this point.
According to wikipedia, Brash has advocated "racial seperation" - though note the source - probably shows that this isn't Brash's first time of being accused of racism or bigotry, and perhaps if someone else had made the same exact remarks it would have been treated differenty.
A simple google of ""don brash" muslim" confirms this point.
According to wikipedia, Brash has advocated "racial seperation" - though note the source - probably shows that this isn't Brash's first time of being accused of racism or bigotry, and perhaps if someone else had made the same exact remarks it would have been treated differenty.
It will take more than a reference to a Wikipedia article (whose author apparently can't even spell) to show that Brash advocates "racial seperation." It is highly unlikely that an advocate of such could become the leader of one of the two largest political parties in New Zealand, one of the most tolerant societies in the Western world.
As for Reagan's 1980 Philadelphia Mississippi speech, it was certainly ill-advised, but does not prove that he was a racist.
This speech was clearly part of NZ's debate over affirmative action for NZ's Maoris, which has parallels to our own AA debate. Brash is clearly on the anti-AA side, but that does not make him a racist and it certainly doesn't make him an advocate of "racial separation."
Funny that it expressed an "inartful" thought rather artfully.
Justin, that's brilliant! Khan's suspicions are justified in the context - of your suspicions! Since the facts of the piece contradict how you want to perceive the world, the facts must be wrong - and to prove it, you have a wikipedia article that also contradicts your preferred view. I wish I could mock leftist thinking as effectively as you.
The google search confirms at least one of my points - this is hardly the first time, fair or not, that Brash and his National Party has been accused of racism and anti-muslim activism. To act like Khan drew that inference out of clean air seems unlikely to me, even if BGates kindly disagrees - of course, if he believes "leftist thinking" is a mockery, then maybe we have nothing to discuss in the first instance.
When you are in a hole, stop digging.
The greatest difference I see, is that Kos isn't calling for the assassination of his most vocal Democratic opponents.
Furthermore, animus towards muslims because they are muslims is no better than animus towards jews because they are jews, and Anti-Semetism (in the US) is almost completly recognized on the same lines as racism.
Extex
"as with what happened to many east Indian hindu's and Sheiks" --after 9/11 in the US
Just as "anti-Semitism" is understood to mean hatred for Jews, not hatred for "Semites" (which includes Arabs)
I believe Eugene has said on this blog many times that the meaning we understand words to have is the meaning that they have (and I was persuaded by his arguments). If you think we should re-define "racism," by all means say so.
Really? I am not aware of "racism" being a standard term to describe hostility to a religious group. No one ever describes anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, anti-atheist, or anti-Hindu prejudice as "racism." The only context in which the term is ever used to with respect to a religious group that is not also an ethnic group (as Jews arguably are) is in cases such as this one where activists use it to insinuate that hostility to certain extreme forms of Islam is the same thing as racial prejudice. There is absolutely no reason to accept such an equation.