Richard Prosser saga—once again NZ’s liberal speech police show their ugly heads

Today is a very sad day for New Zealand indeed; waking up and reading non-newsworthy headlines like the following make me shudder: ‘Richard Prosser apologises over Wogistan rant,’ ‘Prosser apologises to Muslims,’ ‘Collins slams Richard Prosser's anti-Islamic rant,’ ‘Richard Prosser's Anti-Muslim Tirade 'Stupid,’ 'Racist—Prosser slammed over Muslim comments,’ ‘Wogistan—Prosser crosses the line,’ ‘Let’s ban Richard Prosser and Islamophobes’…………………………..the list is endless.

First, a look at what Prosser said is called for:

"If you are a young male, aged between say about 19 and about 35, and you're a Muslim, or you look like a Muslim, or you come from a Muslim country, then you are not welcome to travel on any of the West's airlines"

 "I will not stand by while [his daughters'] rights and freedoms of other New Zealanders and Westerners are denigrated by a sorry pack of misogynist troglodytes from Wogistan."

So what has got all these liberals’ knickers in a twist; what did Prosser actually do; did he kill someone—no; did he rob a bank—no; did he rape someone—no; did he defraud someone of millions of dollars—no; did he hurt someone’s feelings? Yes.

Oh my God! He hurt someone’s feelings! Oh my God! That’s the end of the world! Oh my God………..

This nonsense really illustrates the dangerous level of liberal stupidity in this country. Have a listen to what John Key and his left-wing counterpart David Shearer had to say about it in the following video:

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-first-mp-labelled-extremist-own-leader-video-5340000

David Shearer:

“I find this offensive; I find it inappropriate for a parliament like ours. If those sorts of comments were made in the Middle East they would incite violence; we don’t want that here.”

John Key:

“Yeah, it’s an appalling thing to say; it’s stupid. It was premeditated; it was written as an opinion piece. It is clearly what NZ First thinks of other New Zealanders, but it is a bit buffoonish if you ask me.”

Along with New Zealand’s left-wing media, our two main leaders are absolutely despicable; they think they are doing good, but all they are doing is stifling free speech—the very lifeblood of democracy.

Shearer was the worst offender; he exposed his true gutlessness by saying: “If those sorts of comments were made in the Middle East they would incite violence; we don’t want that here.”

By doing this he has cowered to radical Islam and is telling New Zealanders to do the same—shocking.

Was Prosser’s wording tactless? Possibly. Was the meaning of what he said correct? Absolutely; any well-versed person on the subject knows this, but now thanks to Shearer and his cohorts the real threat of Islam is once again silenced—absolute cowards.

Not only did our liberal leaders get it wrong, the media took the remarks out of context according to Ian Wishart, Investigate Magazine’s editor, in a NZ Herald article this morning:

“Meanwhile, Investigate's editor Ian Wishart said he only "skimmed" over the article before it went to print.

"I perhaps should have read it more carefully," Mr Wishart told Morning Report.

"I probably would have gone back to him said, 'Do you really want to say this in that way?'

"The point that he was making ... that there is a valid argument to be made about the amount of wasted time and money in profiling people at the airport and taking aside grandmas and babies for security."

Mr Wishart criticised the media for not publishing the column in its entirety and the comments about not letting Muslims on Western airline flights were being taken out of context.

"It's a ridiculous remark but in the context of the column it's a tongue-in-cheek remark," he said.

Mr Wishart said the column raised important issues about the Muslim extremists entering New Zealand.”

In another article NZ Herald ridiculed Prosser with this:

“Prosser, 45, has previously made no apology for the strength of the controversial ideas he has been pushing for almost 10 years.

In 2011, he called for the burqa to be banned, while he also wanted bank tellers, dairy owners and taxi drivers to be armed.”

So according the Herald, Prosser’s ideas are controversial; however they failed to mention their beloved Paul Holmes also wanted to ban the burqa—was he controversial; did they question the following article written by him? No—funny that!

NZ Herald:

No place here for burqa

By Paul Holmes

To hell with the burqa. It has no place here. This is my considered opinion after giving the matter extensive thought. It really is an offensive piece of medieval kit that speaks of medievalism and religious extremism.

Actually, I use the word burqa loosely. Everyone does. The burqa is actually the entire - generally black - covering enshrouding the clothes a woman has underneath it.

And in fact, in the countries where Islam reigns, they tend to have stalled in their development several hundreds of years ago so the general cleanliness of their communities - and by that I mean the dust flying round and the rubbish people discard - and the burqa helps keeps your clothes cleaner for longer. This was my observation in Yemen.

But in this country the burqa seems to be an imprisonment of women. It just seems mad. You know it's about women having to hide themselves. It's nothing to do with Allah, either. It predates the Koran. It just suited the men who adopted the teachings of the Prophet to keep the woman subjugated. Read more