Woooooaaaaaah. Campaigning for repeal is the obvious way to go, especially as this law seems so racist that no-one would actually enforce it these days, meaning that these provisions are unlikely to ever be brought before the HRRT in a discrimination challenge.
As in -panic, and 'Give in to the Dark Side Luke... it is your Density.'
Both the Philip article and the Guardian piece were worth reading, and it was interesting to see the model of success outlined in the latter – it bears some resemblance to New Zealand’s approach to education. The ABs as a model for national identity though? Not a very new idea, and I have no beef with rugby per se, but that only works if everyone in the nation is a dude. Good luck with that.
*Yes, I’ve heard of the Black Ferns, and note that neither they, nor any other women, were mentioned or interviewed in the Guardian article.
in the 80s and 90s…Metallica
I think you're showing your age. Even in the 90s there was this thing called 'listening to the back catalogue'. Well into the 90s I bewildered my 4th form science teacher by making the whole class listen to Master Of Puppets then fill out questions about their emotional state for our in-class science experiment competition. The methodological design was not rigorous. I didn't make it to the Science Fair.
What happens when a bogan turns out to be Chinese and then buys a house? True story.
Growing up in working class Roskill in the 80s and 90s, even the Samoan kids loved Gn’R, Zep and Metallica, so, you know. But we don’t count as the ‘bogan vote’, especially if we are feminists or are invested in our ethnic communities. Love of metal is not the criteria here for Trotter and others suddenly excited about this concept. It seems like a category error. I don’t know why people don’t just say ‘white working class’ instead of ‘bogan’. They obviously don’t want any other kind of bogan.
I thought your contribution earlier was really useful.
Also while we're on methods, although I didn't mention it in my original post last week, I thought Rob's triangulation exercise was quite weak.
I am so fucking pissed off. Rob says of me, Keith and CZ, “Their criticism was less about Labour’s intentions”?? Either Rob was lying or he didn’t bother reading my column (possible): because THAT WAS MY MAIN CRITICISM. Jesus, my blog didn’t even MENTION the effects of any racist backlash on the Chinese community.
Rob’s latest column is just barefaced partisan hackery. I know Russell reposted it to encourage generate debate, but I’m embarrassed that it might be seen as an endorsement of Rob’s independence. Russell, I think that perhaps for Speaker posts it’s a good idea to include a line about the author’s political party affiliations and employment.
Seriously, this is just blatant damage control for the Labour party. Rob*lies* about the debate, and is entirely focused on framing critics of the Labour party as CRAZY and IRRATIONAL while carefully singling out three Chinese critics for praise in order to avoid accusations of racism. He’s shitting on any non-Chinese person who supported us. Because obviously, if you’re not Chinese and say exactly the same things that me and Keith said, and openly supported our positions, you must be completely irrational.
Keith, this is what happens when we fight them on the stats instead of on the solidarity. It goes “Ah yes, much respect to the Chinese who are good at stats [ignores substance of everything the Chinese people were saying because they know nobody understands stats so you can say whatever you want about what the Chinese people were saying about the stats] everybody else is CRAZY.”
I'm sorry what? It's nice that someone in the Labour Party got the memo that it's a bad look to dismiss the views of NZ Chinese critics, but this is some Olympic-grade straw-man nonsense. Framing me, Keith and Chuang-Zeng Lee as the rationale math nerds and legit representatives of 'the Community' who 'engaged' with you online, while 'others' were crazy and unreasonable?
I’ve engaged with them online through the last week, addressing their concerns and presenting additional data to support Labour’s conclusions.
Which we didn't accept.
Their criticism was less about Labour’s intentions, and more about the impact of these revelations on ethnically Chinese New Zealanders.
Yeah, no. My criticism, and certainly Keith's underlying criticism, was MAINLY about Labour's intentions, given the obvious likely impact on ethnically Chinese New Zealanders, and the hoped-for impact/raid on the NZ First vote.
Other commentators, however, have demeaned themselves with cartoonish hyperbole.... self-appointed experts decided Labour had lost all its principles entirely, and instantly transformed itself into a pack of nihilist, racist, poll-driven Machiavellis.
Yeah, this pretty much represents my views at this point. But you know that you can't say that we are 'demeaning' ourselves by thinking this.
Those same activists decried those same Labour MPs in 2014 for being too PC, and too consumed with identity politics.
I don't know who these people are. Are they made up? The non-Chinese allies I have noticed over this particular issue are the activists who are consistently decried themselves for being 'PC'.
Sorry, please don't use me as some kind of human shield for this exercise in shoddy politics.
You don’t mean that the way it sounds, right?
Like a yellow star or something for the PRCs, that'd work; and silver ferns for 'local' Chinese; but when the line is blurred, make them do tests to make sure they *can't* speak Mandarin. Then put the locals into a special camp for their own safety.
Seriously, this is my teenage nightmare.
Feel free to have this discussion here, I'd just appreciate if you avoid directly implying that I personally owe the Labour Party anything as a member of the tribal left (which I am, but you know, I have this other tribe too that I don't have a choice about).