Thursday, 6 September 2007

Xenophobic simpletons befoul this country

Xenophobia, n. hatred or fear of foreigners. xenophobe, n. xenophobic, adj. [Greek xenos strange, stranger]
Two events in recent days demonstrate for me one reason this country is fast becoming a pathetically provincial authoritarian backwater.

The first is the knee-jerk xenophobia that has forced Dubai Aerospace to withdraw their $2.6 billion offer to purchase a controlling share in Auckland airport -- a story that appeared in the Herald opposite another story quite coincidentally pointing out that in order for New Zealand to grow it needs investment, and one that won't be lost on other investors who may have been considering venturing into this bigoted backwater.

You reactionary phobic fools who opposed those nasty foreigners doing business with us on the offchance we might catch diseases from them like the pursuit of wealth and the enjoyment of hard work will no doubt be happy with that outcome.

The second event that raised my bile is the primeval, almost antediluvian, foreigner-hatred exhibited by most of you in airily dismissing any notion or any argument that a human being might deserve a home here in New Zealand (in fact without even addressing the arguments), and instead insisting simply that he be sent back to the mullahs in Iran to be killed. The only words you have for someone like Ali Panah who wants to make a life and home here are "Fuck Off." Those of you expressing that view on this thread here disgust me.

You xenophobic bigots befoul the world and this country by being in it. You do not speak for me.


  1. Not one commenter expressed a xenophobic sentiment in that entire thread. Inhumane sentiments were expressed yet even the ones that supported your position thought it was ok to deny entry to the sick and that seems just as inhumane.

    Perhaps the problem for you is that the discussion became generalised rather than specific to the case. It reminds me of those discussions on dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. Sure it was a good idea and it ended the war earlier but you step closer to the abyss when you are willing to incinerate little Yoshiko and her mother a thousand times over to achieve your objectives. In principle it was good, in reality it was horrific. Humans are good at that. There's a latent Nazi in all of us and an astonishing ability to be blind to it.

  2. As usual Angloamerican avoids the point at issue. Oh well, deception is about all one can expect from the likes of him these days.

    Aside from spouting his usual banalities and cant about the Libertarian approach to the issue (about which he lacks specific knowledge let alone understanding, he didn't even know what Libertarians mean when they refer to an IOF- how bad is that!), he's gone off and changed the topic. It appears introducing red herrings and faulty analogy is about the sum total of his capacity. What a bum!

    Angloamerican, put aside your foolishness for just one moment (if you can). Just think hard on this. The central point is not whether someone was sick or not. It was whether any person has the right to tell you who you can invite onto your property, who you can employ, who you can trade with who you can work or associate with, who you can trade rights with. In Libertarian philosophy there is no such person or agency that has such a right or, rather, power; not unless there is an IOF involved.

    Now you should go hit the google and find Prof Hans Herman Hoppe and his commentary on the Libertarian approach to immigration. You will discover there a clear summary of the position. Who knows, you may even discover what IOF refers to in the context of Libertarianism, Objectivism or Capitalism.


  3. Actually I have been feeling out of sorts since PC's brutal criticism. It was wrong of me to make fun of things on a thread of really quite a serious nature.

    If I met Ali Panah I'm sure I would probably do all I could to help.

    I'll do as you suggest and do some reading and thinking.

  4. I have done a lot of hard thinking on the subject and have come to the conclusion that Peter is absolutely right on this matter. It’s none of my business if people want to sponsor Ali and Ali wants to work hard for a living in this country. To think it is, is collective thinking and collective thinking can indeed result in someone dying or being killed for nothing more than an infringement of a silly law. Sure, we can’t save everyone on the planet but we can save Ali. Who would walk away and let a man die or be killed when he could be cared for by those who want to and employed by those who value him? Those that befoul the Earth that’s who. That was me.

    I was angry when I first read this post but now I say thank you! Thanks Peter for saying what needed to be said and opening my eyes.

  5. Good on you angloamerican!


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.