Refuting & defining the labels of the Left

“I don’t agree with your point of view so I will label you Islamophobic, far right & a white supremacist.”

I’m over the “Islamophobic”, “far right” and “white supremacist” 
codswallop. The woke snowflakes of the Left have grabbed these words and twisted them to mean anyone who doesn’t agree with their point of view.  I guess the fact that I’m writing on Whaleoil means that they see those labels as applicable to me.  I’m not sure what they think I stand for and believe in, but I’ll have a go at defining and refuting their labels.

“Islamophobic”

I’m not anti-Muslim any more than I am anti-Jew, anti-Sikh, 
anti-Christian or anti any other religion.  What I am is anti any 
religious behaviour that bullies and controls its followers against 
their will or wellbeing.  On that count I have issues with many 
religions – for example the way Islam treats women; the way Exclusive 
Bretheren and Gloriavale excommunicate members for behaving perfectly 
normally; the way Catholicism burdens its members with guilt; the way 
Judaism forbids bacon; the way Jehovah’s Witnesses are forbidden blood 
transfusions.  I have friends across all those religions and many more – 
we sometimes discuss religious matters, have differences of opinion, but 
at the end of it we don’t hate each other, and we remain friends.

However, any religion that preaches and practices “death to
non-believers/infidels”, actively engages in FGM, and disempowers women 
is worthy of precisely zero of our time or protection.  I realise this 
is not all of Islam, but sorting out the good from the bad is a very 
difficult task and our initial approach should be the same as it is to a
bomb scare – we treat it as a risk until proven otherwise.  This 
probably means a lot of careful vetting and ongoing monitoring of Islam 
in this country, or at the very least being careful about the origin and
background of those not only that we allow into the country, but also 
those who have already arrived under what has been a woefully inadequate system of checks and balances.

“Anti-immigration”

I don’t have a problem with immigration per se.  What I do have a 
problem with is immigration that is not in the best interests of New 
Zealand’s future.  We need immigrants who will contribute to our 
prosperity, productivity and future.  We don’t need people who are 
leaving their home country because they aren’t enjoying life (why else 
would you leave), coming here for a better life, and then trying to make 
New Zealand just like the place they’ve left. 

Poms are spectacularly good at doing that – many of them move here, spend a couple of years whinging “that it’s not like home”, move back to the UK again, and then shortly afterwards reappear here having worked out that our country is actually a pretty good place, at least in part because it isn’t like the UK. 

We don’t need low-value immigrants who require welfare. We don’t need immigrants who come with fake qualifications or qualifications that New Zealand doesn’t recognise. We don’t need unskilled immigrants, and above all, we don’t need immigrants who are unwilling to accept the New Zealand way of life. As our cousins across the ditch are wont to say, “Fit in or fuck off”.

In fact, if I take a step back and have a rational look at New Zealand citizens I know I can honestly say there are a fair few people I’ve known since school days who I wouldn’t want to welcome as an immigrant now. Being born here they belong here and we can’t change that but it doesn’t mean we want any more like them.  Going forward we need quality over quantity, and the only way to guarantee that is to change how we let people in. 

Let’s start with only giving probationary residency to new arrivals that is revocable at any time in the first 10 years without appeal for any reason whatsoever.  Criminal behaviour, lying on their application, not managing to contribute to New Zealand. If they are having a negative effect on New Zealand then they are given the great goodbye.  If they survive that 10-year test then the residency becomes permanent and they can apply for citizenship.

Let’s also remove the family reunification loophole. We have no obligation to let people into New Zealand just because they have family members here.  If they want to live here and gain all the benefits of doing so (ACC, healthcare, etc) then they need to be contributing. We don’t need an ever-increasing tide of retired people who impose vast costs on our systems.

We also need to ensure that any contribution is real. People who work here and get the benefit of our public support shouldn’t be firing all their money to family overseas whilst asking for financial help. Any New Zealand resident or citizen who receives any form of public handout (WFF, student loan, ACC, whatever) should be barred from sending money to family overseas. We are paying for their wellbeing, not that of random people in other countries.

“Far right”

Despite my natural political home being to the right of our recent 
governments, I’m fundamentally a responsible socialist.

I believe in ACC and its “no-fault” ethos – it removes so much of the cost and legal bullshit that comes with lawsuits for damages and apportioning of blame.  What we have may not be perfect but it’s pretty damn good.

I believe in social welfare, but only as a safety net to ensure that those who have fallen on hard times can get back on their feet.  A civilised society needs to look after its own – nobody should starve just because life has been unkind to them.  However, welfare has progressively become a career choice, and that needs to cease, as not only is it unaffordable, it’s also damaging to the recipient’s wellbeing and sense of self-worth. 

Some of what needs to change is our attitude to it being more than temporary support of last resort.  I don’t care if it’s paid in vouchers and is “demeaning” – that is a part of the catalyst to exit the welfare system.  I don’t care if it is “not enough” – as long as you are fed, housed and healthy that is all that is required.  If you’re not working and you can’t afford Sky, fags, a manicure, a new car, a tattoo or a holiday you’re not hard done by, you just need to get a job.

That, however, leads to the fundamental problem with the social welfare system. The abatement rates are so high as to be self-defeating.  Why should someone who wants to work bother getting a job if they end up no better off at the end of the week?  I don’t begrudge (for example) a DPB recipient who is currently into us for $800 every week getting a job for 30 hours a week that puts $500 in their hand, yet we still hand $400 
over to them so they are better off working as it’s still cut the welfare bill in half. I do however strongly disagree with handing out money to people just because they have kids. If you can’t afford to have a kid, it’s simple, don’t have one.  The taxpayer has zero responsibility, moral or otherwise, to fund anyone’s fiscally unwise lifestyle choices. WFF needs to be abolished, possibly with some sort of grandfather clause to ensure that kids already reliant on it don’t suffer.

Despite New Zealand having a range of political parties, all of the above leaves me as a voter without a home.

Labour and the Greens are the catalyst for my diatribe. National isn’t really any better, they are just a bit less overtly snowflake. ACT lose me with their refugee policy. NZ First is as dodgy as a three dollar note.

The time and public opinion is right for a new party that sits in National’s traditional position on the political spectrum. Looking at the success of the Brexit party in the EU elections after only existing for six weeks, there are plenty of opportunities for such a party to mobilise before our next elections. 

The only way I can see that happening is for some of the less happy National MPs to break away, get some mentoring from the likes of Don Brash, find a leader with a high public profile outside of politics, and work their backsides off for the next 16 months to gain the support they need to be a serious contender. I’m sorry to say I can’t see that happening. None of them appears to have the spine, presence or work ethic to give it a go.

53%
×