What the attack on Malala makes clear is that this is really a battle over education. A repressive mindset has been allowed to flourish in Pakistan because of the madrassa system?

That distiction is probably a bit too subtle for Mr Cox. Also, it doesn't fit his narrative.

The paper (which is probably being run by people that find this crap as puke inducing as I do) could just spike all the racist and bigoted articles as they appear.

That they don't?

Encouraged at various times by the British and the Americans (why we have a Khyber Pass Rd), who found a culture where bribing the chiefs and mullahs with cash, guns and boys was a highly convenient way to forward their geopolitical goals.

He wouldn?t be out of place with the NZCPR crowd.

I wondered which thread I should post a note that Paul Henry's Aussie gigs been cancelled, I'm pretty sure this is it??

With the appointment of Don Brash yes-man Richard Long (the long-time Dom editor, not the newscaster)?

It generates traffic. That's why it's so, so easy to find offensive and inaccurate 'opinion' columns.

He's a bit a WMFOCA, or White Male Feminist Of a Certain Age.

Which is intersectionality was invented: so,?

I disagree on the basis that I believe Cox falls short of inciting racial hatred, rather that he panders to a large slice of society who thinks and reasons as he does.

Furthermore, I think it?

The Times should do no such thing – its an opinion piece.

You can answer it with opinions of your own.

Which purports to present fact. The word "opinion" is not a magic incantation that fixes that. The Press Council has made it clear in decisions on drivel emitted by Paul Holmes and Michael Laws, that even opinion pieces?

There is a way to present all?

It's not so much racism as it is neo-crusaderist 'civilisationism'. Those infamous NYC subway posters by Pamela Geller?

Hmm, dunno about that. For instance, the ?Truth? megaphone Cameron Slater?s currently blurting out of may well be his undoing.

Yeah but it only operates at the margins of society, and that?s where it will stay if we don?t suppress it with censorship. Much better to satirize their folly. Same goes for the rabid Pat Condels and Chris Hitchens of?

A rope requires someone else to tie the other end. But I'd prefer someone was handing out more megaphones.

By which you mean, on the op-ed page of a major daily newspaper?

Go Harvey Norman, Go!

Perhaps it is the duty of the journalistic community to marginalize his views with rational rebuttal. Isn't that what you're doing?

In a Fairfax paper there is generally a left wing fuddy-duddy or two employed to balance the field.

Then again, the exposure of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a political forgery didn't stop it from falling into the wrong hands. The rest?

You're right. But why do right-wing fuddy duddies seem to be taken a lot more seriously than left-wing fuddy duddies? John Minto had a regular column on the Fairfax web not too?

But it?s not fucking subtle at all ? if anyone wants to equate all Catholics of Irish descent with the IRA I?ll have some words to share. They?ll be short, sharp and not fit for company, but that?s really?

Sadly he's been on our screens with "Would I lie to you" on TV3 for several months now.

I'm not clear on what his contractual situation is with TV3, but I assume any buying out of his contract would be occasion for a shitstorm.

Of course you are right, and the IRA – Catholics comparison is a useful illustration of people conflating political and religious motives and?

The Australian satarists would certainly be disappointed. These guys make fun of Paul Henry in some way nearly every week. (Link?

?it was worryingly off-brand for Ten, a network which has always prided itself on being inventive, original and never faltering in its clear focus on its younger audience. In contrast,?

The difficulty is separating the first part from the second part. It isn?t muslims that are a problem it?s extremists, it isn?t unions that are a problem it?s the?

Let's ask those clamouring for the return of 'wit' and 'commonsense' to NZ tv in the form of Mr Henry.

I was tremendously happy that we'd exported him to Australia and they were paying for us to not see him being a dick. We?

Maybe but in spite of his redneckery, he?s not a stupid man. Perhaps he?ll return, suitably chastened and rehabilitated.

I?m inclined to draw a distinction between the context of Paul?s and Cox?s utterances though, in that a state broadcaster has more incumbent?

+1 billion.

Not under our current laws. Publishing is a privilege that brings responsibilities.

There's not a word in that I'd agree with. Sorry.

Yes but the newspaper has the right to publish Cox's opinion – within reason. Cox's views are representative of a considerable number of people in my experience, so regardless of the inanity of those sentiments, perhaps their purveyors have the right?

exactly

any 'right' to speech is always balanced against other people's rights not to be harmed.

That's part of the balance I was referring to, but thank you for correcting about the print industry situation. Please read my 'publishing' as including broadcasting as well.

The argument about public vs privately owned doesn't fly in any case.

Why? You have exactly put your finger on it there. Seems to me you're saying that if racists are numerous enough, newspapers are obliged to print racist vilification*. Is that an unfair summary of your position?

* as opposed to leaving?

There are statutory privileges in terms of exclusions from some laws and access to places like courts.

Those used to be offset by media's responsibility to talk truth to power on behalf of ordinary citizens. That duty not being?

Libertarians seem to think we all simply must listen to their teen witterings. Not sure why that is.

Yes, and I have the right to condemn them for that. Again, the odd conflation of freedom of speech with freedom from criticism.

Newspapers are inherently selective. That's what the job of an editor is, ffs.

I hit myself in the face with my laptop after the iridology puff piece and the latest round of "oy noes, Auckland is being ruined by a super-slutty mega brothel"?

No, I didn't. The headline was more than enough. And I didn't want to ruin a morning made happy by somebody in the NZ media __finally__ noticing that New Zealand companies are getting caught exporting substandard infant formula to China. Far more?

Oh, I dunno. I'd recommend leaving an old brick next to your laptop for head banging purposes. Replacing that if you broke it would be much cheaper than replacing a laptop screen that suddenly?

They are schools where they teach salafist Islam and almost nothing else. They have successfully changed the culture within two generationsm, as Taseer notes in her very good essay.

Exactly. That is how public discourse should be conducted. Openly.

Seems to me you?re saying that if racists are numerous enough, newspapers are obliged to print racist vilification*

I'm not saying they are obliged to publish those views but?

Yes and you also pointed out that:

__?.. it is an opinion column and not a news?

For the umpteenth time, Scott, if this does get to the Press Council, they'll?

I did. It's a parody account, surely?

I just don't understand what you're saying. That no one should be able to make a press standards complaint to an organisation that invites press standards complaints?

So morality and acting in a greater good don't exist in your world? How sad.

That is, until they collapse under their own weight, as happened with the News of the World last year.

Heh, nice framing Russell. Returning to my initial observation, I was merely disagreeing with you that the Waikato Times should be compelled to?

Sure they do. I'm well intended. Aren't you? Question is; which of us is paving the devil's road?

I'm pretty comfortable saying it's you. I recognise the rhetorical trope of singling out a minority as an insidious menace bent on control of society, and that rhetoric not infrequently inspires violence against minorities. This is exactly the kind of crap that?

"overwhelmingly not members of groups that are usually targetted"

Except that nowhere did I say that.

I expressed the view that ?The Times should,?

That was a long time coming – two decades perhaps even more.

As a Jew, my interest in preserving your free speech rights to vilify my ethnic affiliation is balanced with my fear of a neo nazi eejit being pushed over the edge to put theory into practice.

Totally Stephen. In terms of locating the boundary that DeepRed mentions, I'd be interested?

I think you're over reacting. Personally I find America's (seemingly with the rest of the Western media in tow) systematic demonisation of Iran along with Netanyahu's breast beating to be far?

My bad. I should have said feel compelled rather than be compelled.

Yes, it wasn't so bad, it was only bigotry.

I think that's a bit rich coming from someone who finds asking a newspaper to uphold their own editorial standards a dangerous step on the slippery slope to censorship.

But Russell labelled the original as "idle bigotry". Perhaps instead it was rather more threatening – not idling, but revving up, eagerly awaiting a green?

the spotty teen's worst fear..

Isn't such an error a fundamental underpinning of all bigotry?

How would they know?

The columnist has written an opinion piece on the attempted?

doesn't that rely on distinguishing it from more broadly being Muslim?

Silence breeds ignorance

Totally agree. So does uninformed tosh being held up as knowledge by authoritative sources that many rely on. Fortunately there's a rather large sweet spot in between.

To my mind bigotry is the active expression of hatred or intolerance of others.

Take this story written by a kiwi?

There aren't words.

A disingenuous summary. The murder is the hook for a serious of increasingly dubious claims about Muslims as a group, culminating in a claim that Muslims attempt to take over Western societies from within?

Or to put it succinctly, guilt by association. When Anders Breivik's culpability?

Sort of.

Islam is a fundamentalist religion. What the prophet says is fundamentally correct. The prophet laid down a lot of sayings about how society should function so Islam has a very political function built in. And a lot?

This is not a claim without controversy. At heart, the term "fundamentalism" came into being in reference to Christians. It's a lot less meaningful when applied elsewhere.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/opinion/columnists/michael-cox/7931654/We-should-listen-to-Malala-about-Muslim-influence

Fail.

Well gosh, I mean, if he?s quoted someone he should be taken seriously.

If it is inherently wrong (as you seem to suggest) to have a debate about political Islam,

How?d you get there?

Angus: I could make the same?

Or, as in this instance, the New Zealand Press Council.

It's civics, bro.

It's also how a non-trivial number of religious folks (even Muslims, Angus) live in a non-theocratic civil society. Some of my co-religionists really need to get a grip on that then take a vow of silence — but I guess that's one of the less desirable consequences?

Scots is a fundamentalist fashion culture. What the Bard wore is fundamentally correct. The Bard laid down a lot of sayings about how pants should not be warn so Scots has a very fashion-conscious function built in. And a lot of what the Bard wore was fresh.

Fortunately?

The Christians new testement is written word of people who are not prophets of G*d. The Muslim koran is the prophetic word of G*d. One is a known interpretation and?

I personally know muslims who would laugh hysterically at this argument.

You are failing to realise that the vast majority of people who are muslim are just ordinary people?

True. And in theocratic societies different rules appply.

I don?t have a tone sheriff badge around here, but I think over a billion Muslims who exist in a complex webs of theological,?

Oh, please. Cox has made up his word-length with a Garth George-style copy-paste of one "enemy within" tract by an extremist nutbar who?

Among its many claims: that the ?international gay movement? seeks ?the lowering of the age of consent for sex with children, especially boys, and the normalisation of paedophilia?.

Where do you propose we?

You know the country with the largest Muslim population is in ASIA, right?

I contend that some Arabian princes should spend less time worrying about where to spend their next $100billion and a little more about the welfare of their subjects well-being.

Yeah, man,?

If you can find a Muslim cleric who does that I'll buy him a beer.

You are failing to realise that the vast majority of people who are muslim are just ordinary people who live ordinary happy lives and?

The contention was that Muslims by their very nature are dangerous and will destroy our societies from within if they are allowed to breed.

Do you believe the latter?

That is not dehumanising, we all do that.

NZ supports an American occupation that drops hellfire missile after hellfire missile on the tribal areas. We do so because America is big and powerful and we want its favour.?

And without visiting the Swat Valley to investigate! Top work. Now explain to me again why the editor of the Waikato Times wouldn't know this.

The problem with fundamentalists be it in relation to religious belief, monetary policy or economics is that in seeking a return to the basic?

Other than for example intervening to change tax rates to favour the wealthy; to direct payouts be made to investors in South Canterbury Finance beyond those covered by the guarantee scheme; to dismantle ECan when it?

Because it probably doesn't come up much in general conversation. Because when Islamic countries make the news it is mostly for arresting couples for kissing, commuting the death sentences of women convicted of witchcraft, stopping?

I think it's important to differentiate here between Sunni Muslims, who stone the sheep to death with balls of hardened cheese, and Shia Muslims, who ignite the beasts after applying a gasoline enema. Some consider the latter to?

I think going for a ride is probably worthwhile at this point.

You're correct – my criticism of the current lot is more that in relation to available options they did not do much good and much?

I'm always impressed by someone who can see this in themselves on the fly. I can sit here and see it in others, but the other week I found myself 10 posts?

Yes, because we are blessed in the West with a prevailingly liberal culture which tolerates dissenting views – such as those expressed by neo-crusaderist-civilizationists. ;)

Scott makes a good point in response to those of you who were wanting Michael Cox to be dealt with by the Ministry of Truth.

Is there a better way of counteracting hate speech than this? And it's from a Christian group, too.