[Content warning: contains links to and quotes from violent and anti-Muslim hate speech.]
David Farrar has some … interesting ideas about how to tighten up immigration policy in the wake of the Sydney “siege”.
I think countries such as Australia, and NZ, need to have much more stringent immigration criteria – I don’t mean banning people on the basis of their religion, but asking prospective migrants a detailed set of questions to ascertain if they hold extreme views, and would be happy living in a secular country.
When pushed on exactly how this process would work:
His ideas are obviously silly flamebait designed to feed the residents of his “cleaned up” comments section who enjoy saying things like “I hope that when they shoot the hostage takers they bury them wrapped in a pig skin and fill the hole in with dead dogs and pig shit” and literally threatening to shoot people who downvote their comments.
But he does highlight some interesting aspects of the “values” discussion.
People love to talk about values, left and right. It’s a call to a shared set of ideals which we’re assured are What Built Our Great Community. It’s a signal to display our solidarity against whatever external forces or threats the person talking about them is trying to warn us about.
It’s also a bit of a load of crap.
Take a look at one of the so-called values which David Farrar assures us “95%” of New Zealanders would ascribe to:
The progressive response is an instinctive “lolwut?” followed by joking (wishing) we could apply that “get in line or go home” approach to people we’re stuck with, like Colin Craig or Bob McCoskrie. A more academic response might note that:
… or critique the idea of getting extremists to tick a box saying “I promise I am not an extremist” only works in towns called Christmas.
But I suggest that we take David Farrar at his word and acknowledge that he has a tiny point: the vast majority of people probably would say “yes, I agree men and women should be equal under the law”.
Case closed, right? Voila, values.
Except it’s really, really vague, and that’s the whole point of this kind of values talk. It’s actually totally meaningless; like Bella Swan, it’s an empty vessel for the readers and viewers to pour their own assumptions into.
Anyone will agree with a bland proposition like that. It’s what comes after that divides us.
“I agree men and women should be equal under the law – that’s why we must stop women’s scholarships to university!”
“I agree men and women should be equal under the law – so we should cut funding to women’s organisations like Rape Crisis!”
“I agree men and women should be equal under the law – but we have to remember men and women are very different!”
And there are people out there who honestly do believe that they support “equality” between men and women. It’s just the kind of equality which involves keeping up the sexist traditions of the past which rob women of any real power or agency.
The key thing is this: talk of “values” is the domain of religious zealots and warmongers. The pretence that us “normal” people (white, English-speaking, heterosexual cis men) are united in a “normal” worldview (capitalist, individual, xenophobic) is pushed by the powerful to reinforce their power. In the wake of events like Sydney it’s used to push even more draconian, illiberal laws which only generate more conflict.
David Farrar can dress it up as a reasonable, moderate, proportionate response as much as he likes, but look to his commenters: there’s the true face of “Kiwi values”.
Stephanie Rodgers 
Thanks for taking the time to create this. Well said.