Dare to have a different point of view.
Frequent reaching for emotive, king hit labels to denigrate and demolish whatever the writer is on about, such as:
Racism: Belief in/advocacy of the theory that some races are superior to other races. – Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism based on this.
Nationalism: Devotion to one’s nation. Advocacy of, or support for national independence. Socialist. Communist. Fascist. Right winger. Benefit bludger. Tree hugger. Xenophobic. Homophobic. Etc.
To take an example that has been occurring quite often in our history and has been in the news on numerous occasions in recent times and is likely to be seen with increasing frequency. That is the accusation that those who dare question ownership of our land or key assets being taken over by foreigners are somehow racists.
Could it not simply be that those being accused are devoted to their country and the efforts they make for their families, their community and their country and don’t want that taken away from them. Is it that (whether they articulate as such or not) they see such increasing foreign ownership as destroying their desire for continued national independence – in other words the erosion of their desire to have a country the way they want it, rather than having it changed into the way others might want to use it, even although they don’t live here.
So when some criticise, or express concern at the loss of NZ control over key aspects of things which they cherish and know are fundamental to having some independence and some control over their own resources, why should they be labelled and denigrated as “racist”?
Numerous countries have quite strict controls over purchase of land by foreigners. Is that racist or just good sense?
In recent years at different stages there have been concerns voiced about coastal land being purchased by US citizens, UK citizens and farmland and residential land being purchased by Chinese companies and individuals.
To take China, they have very strict rules preventing purchase of land by foreigners. I think that is very sensible, but is it racist” I believe not. And if not, why should any NZer be accused of racisim for wanting similar controls to prevent the alienation of their land and national assets?
To their cost, Maori know only to painfully what it means to lose sovereignty over one’s land.
Another weapon used against those promoting caution about foreign ownership is to stick the label Xenophobe on anyone brave enough, or foolish enough to raise their head above the parapets.
Such denigrating labelling comes from many directions: politicians, editors, columnists, commercial interests, etc. It is all intended to shut down any nascent opposition from taking hold. Shoot the opposers is the intention, and silence is the result from many who might be disturbed by the trend.
Sensible, important, reasonable examination of issues and healthy debate is annhilated before it can progress, Democratic rights of free speech are stifled by fear of being labelled racist, xenophobic, tree hugger or whatever other bullying name the bullies wish to use.
Some other examples include attempted discussions about the sustainable aspect of the size of NZ’s population – its distribution across the nation (eg should it all be centred on Auckland), its ethnic mix, immigration policies to achieve appropriate skills,, size and balance, the part to be played in achieving the latter through our education system, etc.
16.3.13