Thursday, February 14, 2013

ZenTiger Prosser gets Shearer into shark infested waters

"MPs from other parties have condemned Mr Prosser's comments as offensive and racist. Labour Party leader David Shearer said they could incite hostility against people in New Zealand and overseas.

That's an ironic statement from Shearer. He's effectively said: "I'm not a bigot, but don't say anything to upset the Muslim nut-jobs, because they might go ballistic and kill Kiwis"

Mind you, change 'Muslim' to 'Catholic' and he'd probably be a national hero by now, crowned by the same PC crowd currently demanding a ritual lynching of Prosser. We'll see over the next few years how serious the NZ Government is on freedom of religion
What is also interesting is watching this situation being turned into an opportunity to lynch David Shearer for Prosser's misbehaviour. Not that he's being criticised for the point I made above - no, the tweet went out from @MutchJessica at TVNZ razing Shearer for not coming out strongly and promising to fire Prosser if he was in the Labour party.

Prosser is a NZ First MP, but it's more fun apparently to make it Shearer's problem by giving him hypothetical situations to test his leadership skills. Shearer could have responded he'd ship any muppet asking such inane questions off to an Australian island detention centre for such cheek, but instead, he's apparently wimped out and hasn't answered the hypothetical question strongly enough for a Labour Party Leader.

Sharks are circling. And blood is in the water.

4 comment(s):

wretchedwithhope said...

"comments he made about Muslims were not balanced" pot, kettle blah blah.

Since when is 'balanced' soemthing evinced by muslim politicos - and those manipulating them for longer term gains? To kill two birds with this and the previous post:

"Muslim-Catholic dialogue: "Muslims, Soldiers of Allah" hack Ottawa Catholic School Board website to display anti-Valentine's Day message"

Is there a word in arabic for ‘hypocrite’? apparently there’s no word for peadophile (i think i spelled it wrong, but am reluctant to look it up), no surprise there:

“In Islamic law, marriage is of two kinds: permanent and temporary. Permanent Marriage means the marriage in which there is no fixed time. The wife in this marriage is known as “the permanent wife”. Temporary Marriage means the marriage in which the time limit is fixed to a year or more or less. The wife in this marriage is known as “the temporary wife “short-term” is a fixed-term or short-term contractual of a woman by temporary marriage…If the girl is a virgin than the father has a right to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the contract which leads to wealthy Arabs paying off fathers to gain their approval for their daughters to agree to hire themselves. The contract for Nikah Mut’ah is paid upfront or half before the start and half if sexual pleasure is derived. It is automatically dissolved upon completion of its term.” (wiki on nikah mut’ah).

Why not simply arrange a short-term ball-and-chain for Valentines so that the most hypocritically indignant propagandists of, at least what athiests and anti-christs call the common era, can keep quiet for once and we can enjoy our chocolates?

As for these ‘pleasure marriages’, “the push for alternative forms of marriage not only undercuts the special status of marriage, but also paves the way for legalized polygamy. The biggest beneficiaries of the gay-marriage movement will be polygamous Muslim men.”

Kilpatrick, William. Christianity, Islam and Atheism. Ignatius Press.:

wretchedwithhope said...

p.s. to qualify the 'most hypocritical' - i really can't decide if freemasons actually take that cake.

p.s.s. there's an almost thirty muslim woman in this country - born here, has a good job, good friends - her parents, nice people, were born in the 'old world'. She does not want to marry a muslim, still lives at home and lives in two cultures - the world behind the door at home and outside it - I reiterate, she does not want to marry a muslim (think about that) - her parents are deteremined she will. if she marries before they pass on, I'd be surprised, whether her husband falls either side of the heterodox judeo-christian sect with the satanic verses.

KG said...

I left a comment over at "your NZ" blog, where the fools and hypocrites are in full cry:
"If you're going to start quoting the Koran, Ugly Truth, why not carry on and quote the parts which talk about the duty of conquest over infidels and the duty to kill or enslave Jews, describing them as "apes and pigs"?
And you do know that later sura and hadiths supersede the earlier, don't you? The earlier ones - in places - call for tolerance, the later explicitly forbid it.
And why not talk about the 20,000+ attacks by islamists since 9/11, about Beslan, about hate preachers in mosques both in islamic countries and here in the West. About female genital mutilation. About wives kept as little more than slaves. About muslims who raise their kids to be "martyrs", dressing them in cute little homicide bomb vests.
Showing tolerance for evil is no virtue--it's either stupidity or cowardice.
As for the idiotic statement:
"Also, terrorism relates to political objectives, not religious ones."
Indicates you can't tell the difference between religion and ideology. Islam is a totalitarian ideology dressed up as religion. Islamist terrorist attacks are inextricably connected to both."

ZenTiger said...

Liberals busy attacking Prosser for his statement seem to be worried that saying such things is dangerous around Muslims. Consider this somewhat unguarded statement by Sean Plunket:

"Here's hoping Mr Prosser hasn't convinced any moderate young New Zealand Muslim to strap on a bomb or hijack a plane because people like him will never let them truly belong in our country"

and that's just the moderates Sean Plunket typecasts as prone to flipping out completely. I suspect Sean hasn't quite realised that such statements actually suggest Prosser's sentiments dwell even within the PC crowd - this fear that moderates are merely one bad word away from becoming extremists.

Sean's article was actually quite good - it made fun of the MPs scrambling to declare that what one MP says might not reflect their views. It's hilarious.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.