Letters to the Editor

Vile diatribe
I am writing in response to the article by Chris Sellars in the April 15 edition (Worzel’s World: Entering occupied territory).
If you as editor of The Mangawhai Focus approved Mr Sellars’ article for publication in your paper, then my guess is that you will ignore this email. If that is the case, shame on you!

Most of those who read Mr Sellars’ article will do nothing. There was a time when I would have read an article like this and just thought it was the ravings of another redneck looney. Before the Christchurch terror attack, I would not have written this email to you, objecting to the publication of this kind of vile rant. After the attack I can no longer do nothing, because to do nothing is to allow this kind of thing to go unchallenged, and by default accept that it is ok. It is not ok.

In order to make it clearer what his message is, I have peeled away the layers of drivel in his article, and isolated the following statements he makes:
 ‘We’ (presumably pakeha – by the look of his photo?) are the enemy of immigrants from South East Asia and Islamic North Africa, and that collectively we are engaged in a war.

 ‘We’ are losing that war, these immigrants are an ‘occupying force’ of ‘foreign invaders’, and we ‘still refuse to acknowledge the occupation’.

 As a mono-lingual English speaker, he is offended by shop signs written in other languages.

 In the New Zealand that he regrets is no more, ‘it was expected that visitors would learn the ways of the host nation’.

 Immigrants from Thailand and Morocco now inhabit the ‘back yard sleep-outs of Mt Albert’.

 Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s statement that ‘they are us’ is a ‘trite assertion – they are not’.

 He liked living ‘in a society where alcohol is forbidden, where adulterers, homosexuals, prostitutes, and trans-genders are stoned to death… and where thieves have their right hands cut off.’

 Islam is his enemy.

 ‘We have allowed our country to be overtaken and… it is… the fault of treason and betrayal within our own ranks.’

 ‘What could not be taken by main force… has instead been conquered by stealth and ideological subversion both here and in a Britain that we once fought so hard to protect.’

 ‘They conquered with the lie that there is strength in diversity. This has never been true. There is much greater strength in unity and common values.’

 ‘Embracing change we… have given away an autonomy and sovereignty that was bought with the blood and sweat of our forefathers.’

Sadly, I am very aware that there are many New Zealanders who will agree with the above statements, but it is no longer right to leave them unchallenged.

The innocent men, women and children who were slaughtered were from the Muslim community. ‘We’ were not attacked. They have been the subject of attacks for years in New Zealand – just like this diatribe of Mr Sellars’.

The response of most New Zealanders to the terror attack has been grief and a sense of wanting to do something to try and help those who were attacked. In response to the attack Nigel Latta wrote: “It is truly heartwarming to see the thousands of flowers left at Mosques around the country, and all the people at vigils from grandmothers to gang members offering support and reassurance to Muslim families that this truly is their place. As Ruby Jones’ achingly simple and profoundly sad drawing says, ‘This is your home, and you should have been safe here’. That one sentence encapsulates everything that ever could be said about what has happened.”

Mr Sellars’ article goes against everything good that has happened since the attack and we need to challenge this kind of dangerous garbage, or the attack will happen again.

Bruce McLachlan
Ruakaka



Chris Sellars responds:
My editor doesn't necessarily 'approve' what I write, and I take full responsibility for it. I very much appreciate that The Focus publishes diverse views that it may not necessarily subscribe to.

Freedom of speech is another traditional aspect of Kiwi culture which appears to be also under attack. I uphold free speech as a basic foundation of a free country and a functional democracy and as such I support your right to label my article as a vile diatribe and myself as a red neck looney. However I don't think name calling improves the chances of your views being taken seriously.

The ratio of emails, text messages and face-to-face communication in support of the views expressed in my article versus those opposed currently stands at 19 to 2. You are the sole respondent who felt 'offended'. 

Your paraphrasing of my article is unnecessary. Most readers of my work possess sufficient comprehension skills to work out what I am saying for themselves.
A few clarifications. 

 I am not the enemy of any person, nationality or culture. I am the enemy of Islam as an ideology and a religion and I am also opposed to government’s immigration policy in place over the previous decade or so.
 By 'we' I meant citizens born and bred in Aotearoa New Zealand.

 I have Maori and Lebanese heritage amongst others. Presumption is often incorrect. Your presumption certainly is.

 I never said or implied that I liked 'living under aspects of Islamic Law’, merely that I have done so and can, that I have 'no problem with some selected aspects'’.

 At no point in the article did I reference Christchurch or any event that occurred there.

 You say 'They have been the subject of attacks for years in New Zealand'. Do you mean Muslims or Thais or Morrocans? If you subscribe to the ‘They are us' slogan does that mean us? 

I endeavoured to pose an alternative point of view to the populist politically correct mainstream media narrative. I now know that many share this view, yet I am also aware that many are afraid to express such views. In the interests of balance and informed debate I support the right of anyone to express a point of view, even 'red neck looneys'. 

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to respond. I am sure your views are important to the editorial staff of The Focus who, I expect, will conduct a review of procedures.


Sunday Night
(A poem)
It’s Sunday night in Mangawhai Heads and almost all the visitors from Auckland have gone home and are heading to their beds. It’s getting quieter again along our coastal stretch, you can almost hear the lucky fish sighing with relief as the last of the super sized SUV 300hp fizz boat beauties rattles off back down the dark road.

Of course the stretches of silence are getting smaller and smaller, as it’s becoming plainer to see, that there is more here too, more than just markets and chocolate and beaches, more than just wine and sand and sunshine, they are beginning to find out what we know, that there is peace here also if you can make the jump. Some of them can, and we all watch nervously as the bulk seem to wait, hesitate, perhaps until 'here' has edged slightly further onto their map and so there's no chance of falling off.

I suspect once it does the quiet will all go then to, but not all of the peace, because hey, it’s Mangawhai and there is still some magical puzzle pieces that cannot be brought or sold.

It’s progress too my friends. You can run from it but not hide, or maybe you can and if you do please let me know.

But either way it’s Sunday night again, stop, listen, go outside and take a moment, enjoy the quiet as it closes in once more, for tonight dear Mangawhai friends, all the goodness, and the peace, is ours once again to enjoy.

JT Wilson
Mangawhai


Occupied territory
I write in response to Chris Sellars’ article "Entering occupied territory" (Mangawhai Focus, April 15). Chris describes his disquiet at the visible presence of non-English speaking immigrants in Mount Albert, “shop signs indecipherable to me, a mono-lingual English speaker”. He describes them as "occupying forces" and names Islam as his enemy, asserting that we have allowed our country to be “conquered by stealth and ideological subversion”. He invokes our Anzac heritage in defence of the "autonomy and sovereignty that was bought with the blood and sweat of our forefathers", suggesting that what he saw in Mount Albert was a betrayal of their sacrifice.

The wars which we commemorate on Anzac Day were not struggles against religion. Rather, they were struggles against racial superiority, militarism, fanatic nationalism and expansionism. These are the same "darker forces of politics, conquest and power" that Chris describes in his article. 

One of the lessons of Christchurch is that we must always be vigilant against claims of racial or religious superiority over another people, lest we become complicit in the suffering which they impose upon their victims. All religions, not just Islam, are vulnerable to exploitation by political forces in pursuit of power over another people. For example, Christianity in defence of the invasion of Iraq, Judaism in defence of the oppression of the Palestinians, and Buddhism in defence of the persecution of the Rohingyas in Myanmar.

The fruit of victory in World War II was the creation of the United Nations and the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an eloquent statement of our New Zealand values. It embodies principles against which we can measure and judge the actions and statements of individuals and nations. It has been translated into over 500 languages. It is a short document and can be read at www.un.org.

Philip Khouri
Waipu