PM 'comfortable' with Chris Bishop's Overt Racism

The National Party’s ongoing disregard for New Zealand’s multiculturalism has been laid bare once again, this time by another profoundly unbecoming display of prejudice. At the Aotearoa Music Awards, Chris Bishop, the leader of the house, was recorded on camera deriding Stan Walker’s performance of Māori Ki Te Ao as “a load of crap,” a blatant act of cultural contempt he cannot deny. Despite that obviously inappropriate outburst, the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has dismissed Bishop's overt racism, which underscores the National Party’s persistent disregard for New Zealand’s multicultural values.

When questioned by RNZ, Luxon callously dismissed the incident with a laugh, declaring himself “comfortable” with Bishop’s feeble apology. In my opinion, such levity in the face of undeniable bigotry reveals a leader bereft of moral fortitude, unfit to uphold the values of an inclusive Aotearoa, and therefore unfit to hold office.


Today, RNZ reported:

 

Luxon 'comfortable' with Chris Bishop's response after Aotearoa Music Awards 'rant'

Luxon told Morning Report he spoke to Bishop over the weekend about this and other issues but there was no need to step in.

"I didn't have to say anything really. He'd already come out publicly and said he could have kept his thoughts to himself and I'm quite comfortable with that.

"I just got his side of the story about what he said and it was exactly as reported. He corrected it well before I got to him ... he just acknowledged he should have kept his thoughts to himself.

"The bottom line is your listeners aren't losing a lot of sleep over what a politician sharing his opinion on some music was about."

Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour defended Bishop's behaviour and said people would make up their own minds about the remarks.

"Just because you become a senior minister, it doesn't mean you should stop having opinions and it might well be that, based on [what] Chris saw in that moment, he was correct. It may be that people will agree with him."

 

Bishop’s recorded remarks cannot be dismissed as a mere lapse in judgement. His attempt to deflect blame, claiming his scorn targeted “political” Toitū te Tiriti flags, is a transparent ploy to obscure the cultural disdain embedded in his words. Veteran musician Don McGlashan, who witnessed Bishop’s tirade firsthand, described it as an attack on the very essence of the event, a celebration of New Zealand’s diverse musical heritage which has lead to domestic and international success.

Luxon’s decision to laugh off this racist incident, rather than condemn it, is not only unbecoming of a Prime Minister but a damning indictment of his leadership. By failing to hold Bishop to account, Luxon signals tacit approval of behaviour that undermines the dignity of Māori and, by extension, the multicultural fabric of our nation. This sorry episode isn’t just an aberration either, but a part of a troubling pattern within the National Party and its coalition partners, which consistently undermines New Zealand’s multicultural ethos.

Chris Luxon’s rhetoric condemning so-called Māorification, a term invoked to disparage Māori cultural resurgence, has fuelled hostility toward Māori rights, framing their cultural expressions as a threat to national identity. This sentiment was starkly evident in the unprecedented suspension of Te Pāti Māori MPs, for performing a protest haka against the Treaty Principles Bill in November 2024. The haka, a profound expression of Māori identity, was deemed “intimidating” by a National-led Privileges Committee, resulting in unprecedented suspensions, the harshest penalties in New Zealand’s parliamentary history.

🔥 Here’s Stan Walker’s “load of crap” at the Aotearoa Music Awards - and the now very public reaction from embattled Leader of the House & Senior Cabinet Minister Chris Bishop, including his deeply embarrassing schooling from New Zealand music royalty, Don McGlashan… pic.twitter.com/oiXdWYt2ig

— Kelvin Morgan 🇳🇿 (@kelvin_morganNZ) May 31, 2025

The Prime Minister’s flippant response to Bishop’s recorded racism, laughing as though it were a trivial matter, betrays a profound lack of moral courage. A leader of integrity would have publicly censured Bishop, recognising that such behaviour from a senior minister is an affront to all New Zealanders who value unity and respect. Instead, Luxon’s mirth emboldens other politicians within his government to be ever more overtly racist.

New Zealand deserves a Prime Minister who confronts racism with resolve, not one who laughs at its exposure. Luxon’s failure to lead with principle in this moment will be remembered as another stain on his tenure, a testament to a government more concerned with political expediency than the values that bind our diverse nation together.

Is Mark Mitchell a racist?

The National Party’s Minister of Police, Corrections, and Ethnic Communities (irony alert) has stumbled into yet another racist quagmire, proving that when it comes to bigotry, the right wing’s playbook is as predictable as it is vile. This time, Mitchell’s office reposted an Instagram reel falsely claiming that Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s ancestors were Chinese and “yellow Vikings.” Yes, you read that right...a grotesque mash-up of anti-Māori and anti-Chinese racism that Mitchell’s team thought was a great share. His office issued a half-hearted apology after the backlash, but the damage was done.
 

On Tuesday, RNZ reported:

Police Minister's office apologises to Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke

Police Minister Mark Mitchell's office has apologised to Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke after reposting a reel on Instagram that falsely claimed the Te Pāti Māori MP’s ancestors came from China and "were yellow Vikings".

When contacted by 1News about the repost, a spokesperson for the Minister said it was "an honest mistake".

This isn’t just a one-off “whoopsie” from a bumbling minister. It’s a window into the National Party’s broader pattern of dog-whistle politics and systemic bias. Mitchell, a former cop turned private security contractor, has a history of policies and rhetoric that disproportionately target Māori. Take his 2023 clash with “They’re Our Whānau,” who protested National’s anti-gang laws. Their spokesperson, Matilda Kahotea, accused Mitchell of “arrogant” and “intimidating” conduct, claiming his anti-gang stance was a thinly veiled attack on Māori communities. Mitchell’s response? He doubled down, dismissing their concerns and labeling them a “gang hikoi.”

The National Party’s racism isn’t just Mitchell’s pet project...it’s a team effort. In 2023, during the election campaign. Māori leaders, including Naida Glavish, condemned the “unacceptable levels of racism” from right-wing candidates pushing to dismantle Māori-focused policies like the Māori Health Authority. National, while not fully endorsing ACT’s extremism, refused to rule out rolling back these initiatives. This is the same party that, under Mitchell’s watch, has championed “boot camps” for youth offenders, policies that disproportionately harm Māori youth.

And then there’s the right’s bizarre obsession with hating young, successful women...especially those who challenge their worldview. Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, a rising star at 22, embodies everything the National Party's old guard fears: a fierce, articulate Māori woman and left-wing MP to be reckoned with. Mitchell’s attack on her heritage wasn’t just racist; it was a calculated jab at a young woman daring to succeed. Look at how they’ve treated other young female MPs like Chlöe Swarbrick...constantly undermining their credibility while propping up their own stale, pale, male candidates.

Mitchell’s latest gaffe, combined with National’s track record, paints a clear picture: this is a party comfortable leaning into racism when it suits their base. From dismissing systemic bias in policing (despite Police Commissioner Andrew Coster’s acknowledging it) to amplifying divisive rhetoric, Mitchell and National are playing a dangerous game. New Zealand deserves better than a government that vilifies its indigenous people and sneers at young women leading the charge for change. Mitchell’s apology might close this chapter, but the book on National’s bigotry is far from finished.

J.K. Rowling - Arsehole of the Week

In a world crying out for empathy, J.K. Rowling has once again proven she’s more interested in stoking division than building bridges. The once-beloved author of Harry Potter has cemented her place as this week’s Arsehole of the Week, a title earned through her relentless, tone-deaf crusade against transgender rights. While her books taught us about courage and standing up to bigotry, Rowling’s real-world actions betray those lessons, leaving a trail of disillusionment for her once numerous fans.

Let’s rewind. Rowling’s descent into transphobia began years ago, but her recent antics on X—where she’s doubled down on misgendering trans people and dismissing their lived realities—have plumbed new depths. In April 2025, she’s still at it, firing off posts that mock trans identities and frame their existence as a threat to women’s safety. Her rhetoric isn’t just harmful; it’s dangerously reductive, painting trans women as predators while ignoring the overwhelming evidence that they’re far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. Stats from New Zealand’s own Transgender Health Survey (2023) show trans individuals face disproportionate rates of assault and discrimination—43% reported physical or sexual violence in the past year—yet Rowling’s selective outrage conveniently sidesteps this.

Adding fuel to this fire, recent anti-trans rulings, like the UK’s High Court decision in March 2025 to uphold a ban on gender-affirming care for minors, have emboldened Rowling’s stance. This ruling, which dismissed evidence from global health bodies like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, has been weaponized by transphobes to justify exclusionary policies. Far from protecting anyone, it’s sparked a surge in hate, with X posts showing a 30% (per data from the Anti-Defamation League) spike in anti-trans slurs in the UK since the stupid verdict was handed down. Rowling’s refusal to condemn this hatred, while amplifying narratives that dehumanize trans people, makes her complicity clear. Equating trans inclusion with danger isn’t just wrong...it’s a deliberate choice to fan the flames of bigotry, ignoring the difficulties trans youth face, who now face even greater barriers to acceptance and care.

What’s galling is her platform. With millions of views, Rowling could champion inclusivity, yet she chooses to wield her money and influence like a bludgeon. Her defenders cry “free speech,” but this isn’t about her right to speak—it’s about her trying to feel superior by using a megaphone to vilify a marginalized group. The Harry Potter fandom, once a haven for misfits, now grapples with her legacy. Fans in Aotearoa, from Wellington’s cosplay meetups to Dunedin’s book clubs, have voiced their heartbreak on X, with hashtags like #TransRightsAreHumanRights trending in response to her divisive outbursts.

Rowling’s arguments lean on a tired brand of feminism that pits women’s rights against trans inclusion, as if the two can’t coexist. This zero-sum game ignores the work of Kiwi activists like Trans Liberation, who’ve shown that gender-affirming care and women’s safety aren’t mutually exclusive. Her refusal to engage with these nuances (or with the trans community directly) reveals a stubbornness that’s less about principle and more about ego. When challenged, she retreats into victimhood, claiming she’s “canceled,” while her books still rake in millions and her poisonous voice drowns out those she targets.

The irony? Rowling’s own stories celebrated outsiders—muggle-borns, werewolves, house-elves—yet she can’t extend that compassion to trans people. Her hypocrisy is a slap in the face to every kid who found solace in Hogwarts while grappling with their identity. Here in New Zealand, Rowling’s views feel like a relic of a less enlightened era, a throwback to a time before LGBTQ+ rights were recognized as human rights.

So, J.K. Rowling, take a bow as our Arsehole of the Week. Your words have consequences, and they’re not magical or even all that interesting. Instead, they’re cruel and bigoted. Maybe it’s time to reread your own books and remember what it means to fight for the marginalized, not against them.

David Seymour - Arsehole of the Week

There is no question that the ACT Party of New Zealand is a racist organisation. From calls to introduce a policy to ‘shoot the natives’ during Don Brash’s annual conference speech in 2011 to Rodney Hide openly stating that the party faithful hated Maori people and Jamie Whyte claiming Maori are somehow legally privileged, the common theme running through all of the far-right group’s politicking is one of racism!

Even now, in the 21st century no less, the current leader of the ACT Party has been dog-whistling for support by expressing similar bigoted views, racist views that have clearly hindered efforts to encourage Maori to get vaccinated against the deadly Covid-19 virus. 

On Monday, RNZ reported:

Māori vaccine equity scheme criticism blows back on Seymour

Seymour this morning released a written statement with an attached image displaying the priority access codes, which allow Māori and Pacific people to receive the vaccine at Whānau Ora locations without needing to book ahead.

"The virus doesn't discriminate on race, so neither should the rollout," the statement said. "Access to vaccination has been the same for people of all ethnic backgrounds. If fewer Māori are vaccinated it can't be a problem with access, but this move by the government insinuates that Māori have trouble making a booking."

Obviously David Seymour is entirely wrong! Not everyone has the same access to vaccination centres, particularly Maori who often live in more remote areas. This makes travelling to be vaccinated more difficult and is likely the main reason we’re seeing lower vaccination rates amongst indigenous populations in Aotearoa.

Another issue is that Maori are often mistreated by the health system, which has created a large amount of distrust. You only have to look at the Bay of Plenty DHB’s offensive pamphlet likening the virus to Maori and their wrongful request of passports from Pasifika people before they’re allowed the vaccine to see that racism is alive and well within our health institutions.

However, the virus does discriminate. The New Zealand Medical Journal has found that after controlling for age and underlying conditions Māori and Pacific people have 2.5x and 3.06x higher odds of being hospitalised for contracting Covid-19 than other ethnicities.

Researchers estimated risk of death for Māori from Covid-19 was at least 50 percent higher than European New Zealanders and infection rates are also significantly higher while vaccination rates have languished.

So you can see why certain sectors of our community should be prioritised. In fact making sure there’s a high uptake of vaccines amongst Maori is one of the best ways to ensure the Covid-19 elimination strategy is a success. But despite this best practice, the ACT Party is again playing the race-baiting card, which has effectively inhibited many Maori from accessing the vaccine.

Yesterday, RNZ reported:

Vaccination clinics prioritising Māori 'swamped by Pākehā’

The national strategy of vaccinating against Covid-19 through general and mass events is not working for Māori, with even clinics that prioritise Māori and Pasifika being "swamped" by Pākehā, a Covid-19 researcher says.

Earlier this week, Act Party leader David Seymour tweeted out a vaccine code reserved for Māori, encouraging his supporters to use the code themselves.

The code was sent by Māori health provider Te Whānau o Waipareira via confidential email to its clients as part of a push to lift Māori vaccination rates that are less than two thirds of the non-Māori rate.

Te Whānau o Waipareira CEO John Tamihere said Seymour was trying to sabotage attempts to make the rollout more equitable. He said his clinics had vaccinated five times as many Pākehā as Māori and Pasifika.

Independent writer, researcher and advisor Rāwiri Taonui, who focuses on Covid-19 in Māori communities, said the story was similar around the country and different strategies were now needed to turn around low vaccine uptake by Māori.

Combine this latest display of racism with Seymour’s previous acceptance of donations from White Supremacist backers and his dishonest claims about white privilege being taught in New Zealand primary schools, and it’s easy to see that the ACT Party is still wearing the same old racist stripes. In fact it’s the same out-dated party that has been proactively inhibiting Maori progress since its first inception in 1993.

However the main reason David Seymour wins this weeks much anticipated Arsehole Award is that he failed to say anything about the Government prioritising vaccines for the elderly, who are also a high-risk demographic that could be disproportionately affected by Covid-19. This blatant contradiction clearly shows that the ACT Party’s objection to Maori being prioritised for vaccination is entirely racially motivated, making ACT New Zealand under the leadership of David Seymour still a terribly racist and divisive party that is undeserving of public support.

Calling all transphobes

You would likely get a bad case of RSI if you tried to document everything that’s currently going wrong with the National Party. Not only do they seem intent on making fools of themselves just to get media attention, they’re also making a mockery of Parliament to ensure the public is focused on them instead of the things that actually matter.

An example of this occurred yesterday when National’s caucus decided to vote against legislation that would criminalise conversion therapy. Despite a number of National MPs previously saying that they supported such a law, the blue “team” weren’t even allowed a conscience vote on the matter and had to block vote to oppose the bill going to select committee.

In fact during the subsequent debate the National Party looked as foolish as Bomber Bradbury does going on about parents being jailed for five years if they try to pray the gay away.

Yesterday, Newshub reported:

National MPs defend vote against conversion therapy Bill, despite saying they support a ban

Labour MP David Parker says he held out hope National would support a Bill that would ban conversion therapy right up until Thursday's vote.

National was the only party to vote against Justice Minister Kris Faafoi's Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill, which easily passed with support from ACT, the Greens, the Māori Party and Labour, which holds an absolute majority on its own. 

Earlier this year National leader Judith Collins said the party didn't hold a position on conversion therapy, the pseudoscientific practice of changing or suppressing a person's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. Former leader Simon Bridges said in February he was concerned banning it would be an attack on free speech and "cancel culture".

How exactly is a bill that's designed to protect young vulnerable people an attack on free speech? Likewise, how exactly is a law that's designed to safeguard young and mentally impaired people some sort of cancel culture? It seems Bridges is just saying whatever topical words that pop into his head…mainly because National would appear prejudiced and out-dated if they were to provide their actual reasons for opposing this worthwhile legislation.

 

After Collins looked it up on Google, she came out against it - and the rest of the party fell into line. 

Bridges told The AM Show on Friday they're all for a ban, but won't vote for the current Bill for one reason.

"We support the intent fully, we wish we could get behind it. We have one major concern and by the way Kris Faafoi, the guy behind it, can't and won't explain it at any level. I've looked through the law really closely and it comes down to this - the Bill will criminalise, as it's written, good parents for being parents. 

So it’s a rerun of the propaganda surrounding the anti-smacking legislation, which despite a considerable amount of noise from the deluded right wing hasn’t been criminalising good parents at all. In fact it’s been saving lives, which is what the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill is designed to do as well.

Bridges claiming that the bill will criminalise good parents just goes to show what a complete idiot he is. The legislation specifically states that it’s an offence to perform a conversion practice on someone aged 18 or less or those who lack the mental capacity to make decisions about their own health and wellbeing. It will also be an offence to perform a conversion practice on an individual that causes serious harm. 

Obviously good parents allow their children to self-identify. Similarly, a good parent wouldn't use conversion therapy to cause their child serious harm, so they won't be prosecuted.

Bridges says puberty blockers pose risks parents might not be aware of. 

"The experience offshore - if you take the UK, what the courts over there are now saying are these medical treatments are innovative and experimental and there are long-term risks and consequences. We want a parental exemption, and if we get that actually we will be fully on board."

Clearly parents shouldn't be allowed to use drugs to try and change a persons sexual orientation against their will. Similarly, if a person has decided to use medication to help their body change, then parents shouldn't be allowed to interfere simply because they don't agree with their child's new identity. An exemption here is therefore unwarranted.

Of course deluded parents are often the ones who believe they can convince their children not to self-identify. By wanting an exemption here, the National Party is in effect saying the science is wrong and that people can simply choose not to be gay if their parents are homophobic enough to resort to interfering in a young persons decisions about their own body.

The naysayers to this legislation are relying on the general public having little understanding of what conversion therapy is, or a working understanding of what the new law will mean in practice. They’re also claiming that the Attorney General, Human Rights Commission, Review Tribunal and the Courts of New Zealand will act outside of their remit to facilitate the prosecution of people who don’t deserve it.

National's lack of faith in these institutions is well-documented. However it’s Judith Collins’ association with a number of bigoted dogmatists that should be ringing people’s alarm bells.

Not only did Crusher recently come out in support of antagonist Rachel Stewart when the well-known TERF lost her guns and licence because she’d threatened to kill someone...National’s current leader also utilises the services of Ani O'Brien who is a member of a group ironically calling themselves Speak Up For Women. This hatful organisation often conducts vicious online attacks against transgender people because they oppose gender self-identification.

It would therefore be fair to conclude that National has voted against this legislation not only to placate their puritanical supporters and gain public attention, but also because their leader is trying to score Brownie points with her TERF buddies. God forbid that Crusher actually believes what SUFW stands for, because that should preclude her from ever making any legislative decisions within our halls of power, particularly when we’re talking about legal decisions concerning some of the most vulnerable and persecuted people within our communities. 

Racist party wants to ban Maori word

When John Key decided to have a referendum to change our nations flag, which cost the taxpayer well in excess of $26 million, it was widely criticised as a complete waste of money, not only by the left, but also by patriots right across New Zealand.

You would therefore hope that the National Party would have learnt a valuable lesson from that debacle and consequently not propose any further silly changes that don’t align with public sentiment.

However it appears that National, under the terribly misguided leadership of Judith Collins, hasn’t learnt a damn thing.

Today, Newsroom reported:

National MP floats ban on public sector using ‘Aotearoa’

National MP Stuart Smith has found himself advocating a crackdown on public sector use of te reo in a war on a phantom name change, Marc Daalder writes

Analysis: New Zealand's sleek black passports could undergo a revamp to remove the prominent placement of the word 'Aotearoa' - if National Party MP Stuart Smith had his way.

The proposal to prohibit government departments from using 'Aotearoa' in any context is the latest development in Smith's bizarre attack on changing the name of New Zealand to Aotearoa or Aotearoa New Zealand. This is a war against a phantom enemy, however, as the Government says it has no plans to formally change the name of the country, and the use of Aotearoa by the public sector long predates the Labour government.

This is perhaps the dumbest proposal ever to be made by the National Party, which is really saying something when you consider that the blue “team” recently advocated for higher unemployment just to keep wages low.

This deferral to a Trumpian "some people are saying" excuse was repeated by National Party Leader Judith Collins.

"If you look at most of the government agencies, they're now changing it. The Prime Minister changes the way she talks about - you barely ever hear her talk about New Zealand these days," she said.

"I think it is becoming [an official change], that's what people are saying."

You can kind of understand why Crusher might feel the need to compete for the racist vote, being that Act Party leader David Seymour is now a more preferred Prime Minister than she is, even amongst National Party supporters.

Even so, proposing a costly referendum to ban the word Aotearoa is incredibly ignorant, especially when you consider the numerous benefits New Zealand attains from using Te reo Māori. This isn't just an advantage in terms of our own identity as a South Pacific nation, it's also a boon on the world stage as something that sets us apart because of its uniqueness.

When asked about Smith's proposal on Tuesday, ACT Party Leader David Seymour - who now enjoys more personal support among prospective National voters than Collins herself - hit the nail on the head.

"Look, I just think, ultimately, Stuart Smith needs to focus on bigger issues," he said.

Seymour better be careful. He wouldn’t want to ruffle the feathers of his racist supporters again. Many of them couldn't handle the Act Party leader even mentioning the word Aotearoa when the far right party ran a thoughtless "Make Aotearoa Great Again" campaign just before Waitangi Day. In fact Seymour's white supremacist supporters completely spat the dummy about it.

Kiwis are tired of being shut down. #demandthedebate Judith Collins has backed a call for a referendum on whether New Zealand should be called Aotearoa - despite using the term herself while in Government. https://t.co/14CA9xRQF9

— Judith Collins (@JudithCollinsMP) August 3, 2021

What we don’t need in Aotearoa New Zealand however is another competition between Act and National to see whose the most bigoted, which would again be an unwise attempt to normalise racism within our political discourse.

Because not only is it damaging to our own psyche as a highly diverse and multicultural nation, it would also damage our international reputation as well…and that’s not something any Kiwi, no matter what their skin colour, should be supporting.

Piers Morgan - Arsehole of the Week

If you're lucky, you wouldn't have heard of a guy called Piers Morgan. He’s a self-absorbed and opinionated hack from England who’s made a career out of making offensive remarks, which he more often than not targets at younger woman of colour.

Morgan, who is well past his prime as a political commentator, has a general theme to his personal attacks, and that is to denigrate any outspoken or successful leaders of popular transformative movements in order to try and close them down.

In fact this is a common trope by active racists all around the world, who attempt to side-track the public discourse by essentially cock-blocking the conversation with their targeted insults or controversial reckons.

Of course one of the most proficient users of this divisive tactic is Piers Morgan, who once again displayed his inherent bigotry yesterday by criticising a star United States athlete called Simone Biles, who withdrew from the women's gymnastics team final at the Tokyo Olympics for mental health reasons.

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

Piers Morgan criticises Simone Biles' decision to quit final

Outspoken British commentator Piers Morgan has weighed in on US star athlete Simone Biles' decision to quit the women's team gymnastics final in Tokyo.

Biles made the decision just minutes into the event, later telling reporters that she had been battling mental health issues and "fighting all those demons".

"It's just me in my head," she said. "I have to focus on my mental health and not jeopardise my health and wellbeing.

"We have to protect our body and our mind.

Which is exactly what a top athlete should do to ensure they can continue to perform at their best and excel in their chosen sport. Morgan using the same old ploy to get attention by criticising a young coloured woman just goes to show what a dinosaur he actually is, particularly when it comes to modern training techniques for athletes at the top of their game.

Are ‘mental health issues’ now the go-to excuse for any poor performance in elite sport? What a joke.
Just admit you did badly, made mistakes, and will strive to do better next time.
Kids need strong role models not this nonsense.

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) July 27, 2021

Obviously Simone Biles is doing exactly the right thing and being a good role model for her fans and fellow athletes alike, who shouldn’t be pressured into ignoring their mental health by grey-haired idiots like Piers Morgan. He assuredly is an out-dated egotist who should be ignored wherever possible.

Morgan doubled down, and blamed social media.

"Athletes are now deemed more courageous, inspiring & heroic if they lose or quit then if they win or tough it out, which is ridiculous," he fumed.

"I blame Twitter's virtue-signallers for fuelling this culture of celebrating weakness. The real world doesn't think like that."

Some took him to task for criticising Biles' decision to walk away given the public tantrum that saw him quit British TV show Good Morning Britain earlier this year.

But Morgan batted away critics with a sarcastic response.

Piers Morgan is clearly a bonafide fuckwit! He’s also a complete snowflake when it comes to being confronted for his numerous flaws…and just like most narcissists cannot handle even the slightest amount of criticism in return.

Hello pot, meet kettle. 🙄 pic.twitter.com/zRuvvbNg7s

— Amy Freeman-Britton (@chilpark) July 27, 2021

Sadly for Piers Morgan, this prestigious Arsehole Award is the closest he'll ever get to an Olympic medal. He may therefore like to reflect on his prize and just how much of a political pariah he’s become. Because without some much needed self-awareness, the world may never get a mental health break from the contemptuous old fool known as Piers Morgan, until the day he dies.

Hannah Tamaki can’t dance

I must say that it’s at loggerheads with the inclusive and free society we want to create in New Zealand that one of our largest media outlets, MediaWorks, would promote Hannah Tamaki and allow her to perform on their show, Dancing With The Stars.

Hannah Tamaki and her husband Brian are after all well-known bigoted evangelists who gained international media attention when they launched a hateful "They are not us" anti-Muslim campaign just after the Christchurch mosque massacre.

Brian and Hannah Tamaki - Cult leaders

There was always going to be a huge public outcry against her appearance, which was of course a not so subtle acceptance of the intolerance the Tamaki’s stand for.

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

Destiny Church's Hannah Tamaki axed from Dancing with the Stars 

Destiny Church's Hannah Tamaki will not appear on reality show Dancing with the Stars, MediaWorks has confirmed. 

"Our announcement for this year's Dancing with the Stars cast is scheduled for the end of March, however we are taking the unusual step to confirm Hannah Tamaki will not be part of that lineup," a MediaWorks spokesperson said. 

"It was originally planned for Hannah to take part in the show. We now recognise this was a mistake and we apologise. 

"We have seen a very strong reaction, some of which has been extreme and concerning and MediaWorks does not condone bullying. We would be failing in our duty of care to everyone if we continued as planned.

All the comments in my feeds have been entirely justified…so I’m really not sure why MediaWorks is blaming their decision to axe Hannah on bullying! Clearly people speaking out against a cult leader being normalised isn’t bullying!

You can bet your bottom dollar that the Tamaki’s would have used the platform and Hannah’s increased profile to further their religious and political goals. They would have surreptitiously used the increased attention to promote and peddle more hate speech against minorities in the hope of attracting support for their deluded causes.

There’s no question that cutting the blatant homophobe, Hannah Tamaki, from Dancing With The Stars was the right thing to do. Hopefully this is the start of other news outlets also deplatforming similar hate speech merchants as well, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

About those biased Oscar Nominations

There’s been a lot written about the 2020 Oscar Nominations and their apparent lack of diversity. It’s true, there are in fact no women nominated for the Best Director and very few nominees of colour across the board. But is this a result of a biased process or a symptom of a sickness pervading many aspects of the Hollywood movie industry?

Of course this all blew up a few years ago, with the upshot being that the Oscars would work towards a more inclusive ceremony. But you apparently can’t teach an old dog new tricks. Numerous prominent people have criticised the selection process and those involved have felt compelled to defend their decisions.

On Wednesday, Stephen King tweeted:

...I would never consider diversity in matters of art. Only quality. It seems to me that to do otherwise would be wrong.

— Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020

Yesterday, The NZ Herald reported:

Stephen King criticized for comments on diversity 

Admirers of King, an outspoken liberal, were disheartened by his comments. Author Roxane Gay tweeted that "as a fan, this is painful to read. 

"It implies that diversity and quality cannot be synonymous," Gay wrote. "They are not separate things. Quality is everywhere but most industries only believe in quality from one demographic. And now, here you are." 

Director Ava DuVernay tweeted: "When you wake up, meditate, stretch, reach for your phone to check on the world and see a tweet from someone you admire that is so backward and ignorant you want to go back to bed."

So are the Oscars really to blame for a lack of diversity?

You only have to look at movies like Once Upon A Time In Hollywood to realise that their selection process is complicit in promoting association over substance. The shock value of Quentin Tarantino’s offering is prominent in this retelling of the Manson murders. However the chalk and cheese fictional take on historical events, although mostly well shot, adds very little to the art form with a stellar cast really being this films only redeeming feature.

It should be noted that Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is the first Tarantino movie to not utilise the “services” of sexual predator/producer Harvey Weinstein. Tarantino even seems to contradict the perverse nature of Hollywood with a scene where a stunt double, played by Brad Pitt, doesn’t take advantage of an apparently underage girl, played by 26-year-old Margaret Qualley. It’s almost as if Tarantino is trying to absolve himself from years of guilt by association.

Actors Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt with Director Quentin Tarantino

The all white mostly male dominated cast works through their lines professionally and generally carries this movie, but at times even they seem annoyed with the script. Perhaps it’s the often unending and unrealistic dialogue or numerous retakes that make it slightly clunky, but there’s no question that 10 nominations is excessive for a movie that's simply going through the motions and appears to be signalling Tarantino’s retirement.

We must therefore conclude that the Oscars selection process is somewhat biased towards movies that are produced by, and mainly employ, white males. It should also be noted that Hollywood appears to have run out of stories to tell. They’re now relying on remaking movies selected from a past that was also dominated by white males.

In recognition of this, Kyle Buchanan for the New York Times writes:

The homogeneous group of gatekeepers that came before us still affects so much of what we consider worthy of canonization.

I couldn’t have put it better myself. However there is a flip side to the argument that nominations must be diversified simply to provide an appearance of equality.

Many of those arguing for increased inclusiveness are in praise of a movie called Hustlers, starring the seemingly ageless Jennifer Lopez. This is where Stephen King is right to say he selects on quality and not diversity. Overly reliant on sex appeal, Hustlers tediously goes over the same old ground twice and culminates in a lacklustre montage that confirms the directors derivative skill-set. Despite its obvious flaws, Hustlers was somewhat of a box office success, leading many to question why the B grade movie wasn't selected.

Here is a pretty generic tweet about the issue by writer E. Alex Jung:

i genuinely think not nominating j lo is rooted in racism and sexism about the kinds of performances the oscars deem worthy of praise doNOT @ me

— E. Alex Jung (@e_alexjung) January 13, 2020

It's amazing just how many commentators argue that a movie about striptease artists drugging businessmen to empty their bank accounts is somehow worthy of an award.

Hustlers basically tells a story we’ve all seen before but in an unimpressive way. To promote such a forgetful film simply because it stars females of varying ethnicities will do little if anything to increase equality within the film industry.

Likewise, gender role reversal in movies doesn’t really work if it’s simply being done to promote inclusivity instead of providing any real increase to a movies artistic value.

The problem of sexism and racism in Hollywood goes far deeper than just the Oscars. These issues are entrenched in the way movies are made but can mainly be attributed to screenplay selection by big name producers and film studios predominated by men.

The Oscars are just the last cab off the rank when it comes to a lack of diversity within filmmaking. Unfortunately a testosterone driven industry will always try to tell stories it identifies with and until the old-school male movie moguls are culled from their positions of power, nothing will ever really change.

Whale Oil is bad for your political health

We should all know by now, and especially after Dirty Politics lifted the lid, that the blog site Whale Oil Beef Hooked is a poisonous cesspool of rumormongering and outright lies. But there’s one underlining stench that pervades the right wings attack blog… a hatred of woman.

Cameron Slater's misogyny is legendary, and stems from him seeking attention but not getting it. He, like most other sexists believe that it’s OK to denigrate a woman’s body and make false claims about their abilities, false claims that are often designed to damage a persons credibility.

Clearly the practice of bigotry isn’t very appealing to most people. It’s even less appealing when candidates standing for office practice it. But there’s one thing that needs to be highlighted… politicians are clearly putting their careers at risk by reading and repeating Whale Oil prejudices.

Yesterday, The Opportunities Party’s leader tweeted:

Sure but it's pathetic isn't it?All that matters is policy.Jacinda should be required to show she's more than lipstick on a pig.Will she be?

— Gareth Morgan (@garethmorgannz) August 20, 2017

Today, Gareth Morgan stupidly followed up with:

Policy matters pic.twitter.com/mlQr9KcAlW

— Gareth Morgan (@garethmorgannz) August 20, 2017

Like Morgan’s 'only whores' tweet, his latest sexist insult has received a lot of criticism. But it’s worthwhile keeping in mind that his juvenile mentality isn’t exclusive to the TOP party.

In July, Act party leader David Seymour tweeted:

H/T The Spinoff

The clear implication was that Jacinda Ardern is inexperienced because she’s a woman. That puts Seymour in the dirty laundry basket with all the other sexist idiots who’ve attempted to promote their bigotry through politics.

Seymour obviously realised this wasn't a good look, and has deleted his sexist tweet in the hope that the Internet will simply forget that the Act party is one of the most bigoted in New Zealand’s short political history.

The sexist and racist bile from Cameron Slater being regurgitated all over the Internet isn’t worth a damn thing, especially to a politician trying to promote their policies. The attention received isn’t going to result in votes, because the New Zealand public is intelligent enough to spot sexist idiots like Morgan and Seymour from a mile away.

Take note politicians, reading Whale Oil is bad for your political health. You only need to look at Act and TOP’s recent polling to see that repeating such prejudices does your party no favours at all.

Thicke Parody - Defined lines

Chase those racists out of town

Not that I want to breath life into a "political" party that's obviously been started for racist ideals, but The Pakeha Party needs a little bit more attention, if only to refute their defunct beliefs.

As far as I can tell The Pakeha Party wants to further ostracize an already downtrodden people, because they think that Maori are living a life of privilege. They believe Maori are gaining too many "things" and that Maori-only policies are unfair. This is reminiscent of the now defunct Act party, whose catch phrase of 'one law for all' was a veiled attempt at hiding their separatist agenda.

Likewise, The Pakeha Party's platform is flawed and ignores a couple of huge elephants in the room, one being that Maori are obviously not living a life of privilege. In fact Maori are over represented in nearly every negative statistic you can think of, from higher unemployment to lower life expectancy and higher rates of suicide. Most of these negative statistics are related to poverty, which is unfortunately getting worse in New Zealand especially within Maori communities. Therefore the argument that Maori are somehow privileged is completely wrong!

David Ruck - founder of The Pakeha Party

This brings us to the next issue...policies that specifically target Maori. The question people need to ask themselves is whether they think that restitution should be made for past injustices? If the answer is no, then that answer is either based on ignorance or prejudice.

History shows us that Maori were severely persecuted by white colonizers, with the injustices that occurred still having adverse effects that in my opinion need to be rectified through legislation. You don't steal a people's land and then reimburse them 5% of its value without there being consequences.

The only way to remedy the problem is to have targeted policy that helps Maori work towards parity, and to that end political parties that are focused on achieving such goals are advantageous. Only through targeted policy will we see a reduction in the negative statistics that are a very real reality for the majority of Maori people. Only then will we see true equality in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Bob Jones fruit loop

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

When I was young, every household in state house Lower Hutt had vegetable gardens and quite a number had chicken-runs. It left its mark, thus even today my household grows most of our vegetables and fruit and has chickens, albeit I have the indulgence of two gardeners. Nevertheless, I'm told that household vegetable gardens are now uncommon.

Most mornings I have crisp stewed pears with muesli, these provided free from nature and preserved from my garden. Pear trees are cheap, hardy and prolific. The crop from one would cover most families for a year. In fact, I have hundreds of fruit trees but cannot find takers for free fruit, so this year I bought a juicer, had the lot put through and frozen and now drink our home-grown fruit juice year round.

More deluded waffling from a senile old fool! Fruit trees on average take 5 years to mature to the point where they produce fruit, or ten to produce enough for a family, which means there's a long delay between spending around $40 per fruit tree and payback.

There's also the fact that most poor people don't own their own homes, which means they would be spending money on beautifying someone else's property...a property they will likely not be residing in when the fruit is ready.

Given all of this, I wonder how much the alleged hardship sufferers are doing to help themselves, particularly the lowest-income category for whose children we must now provide breakfast. It's a certainty we will soon hear of the need to provide them lunch and, like it or not, Al Nisbet's cartoon was spot on. Even on the minimum wage and after rent, electricity etc, no one cannot afford to feed their children and let's not have a barrage of "mocking from on high" abuse. These people live in luxury compared with my childhood, but we never went without food.

Typical tory bullshit from a rich prick who thinks that because he now owns an orchard and can afford to employ two gardeners, he can lecture the poor about their opportunities to grow their own food.

Bob Jones might have come from humble beginnings, but he certainly didn't make all his money legitimately. That means his blathering about poor people being able to afford enough food is entirely feckless! Not everybody has the opportunity to do crime and get away with it like Bob did to make their wealth...not everybody has grown up in a time of full employment either.

In my opinion, the sooner the Herald gets rid of this old racist prick the better.

Devoy train crash

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Seventy-six per cent of responses gathered by TV3's The Vote on Wednesday night agreed with the proposition that New Zealand was racist.

The result prompted newly appointed Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy to say New Zealanders should feel "ashamed that they perceive themselves as a racist country".

"It's staggering. I think it just highlights the issues we are facing."

What on earth is Susan Devoy on about? Clearly people shouldn't feel ashamed for correctly perceiving the entrenched and widespread racism that plagues New Zealand... Instead, the racists should feel ashamed for causing that perception.

Devoy's statement was entirely inadequate when it's clearly not the perception of racism that's the problem; it's the racism itself.

This really gets to the crux of the matter, in that the Human Rights Commission more often than not determines cases of racial discrimination in favour of the racists. It's not enough for a perception of racism to exist for the commission to act, even if that perception is based on reality. It's also not enough to show that there has been unfair treatment that can only be explained by racial discrimination. There has to be hard irrefutable evidence of discrimination based on racism, and even then the commission often fails to uphold its mandate.

The way the Human Rights Commission determines whether racial discrimination has occurred is in my opinion flawed, and this is allowing racism to flourish like a toxic weed. Take for example the number of complaints that were recently upheld by the commission concerning media releases, only three since 2007.

Now put that in contrast with the almost weekly racially discriminatory releases from some of our main media outlets, and it's pretty easy to see why 76% of respondents believe New Zealand is a racist country. The commission entirely fails to act to curb that entrenched and widespread promotion of racism through our mainstream media.

Being that having racism so often published will justify in the bigots mind their discriminatory ways, the Human Rights Commission should be far more proactive in trying to reduce the promotion and dissemination of racist attitudes that infect our media outlets.

Couple these unaddressed issues with Susan Devoy's latest woeful public appearance described as a "train crash in slow motion" and it's pretty obvious that the Human Rights Commission won't help to reduce racism with Devoy at the helm, which is perhaps why she was appointed in the first place.

At first I thought Judith Collins making the unqualified Devoy head of the HRC was judged too harshly, and she should be given time to rise to the challenge. She has now proven herself beyond all doubt to be entirely incompetent... She should resign.

Bruce Wilson - Asshole of the Week

Today, Stuff reported:

A suggestion by a Palmerston North city councillor that Maori women be sterilised to stop them smoking in front of their children has outraged councillors and Maori health advocates.

Councillor Bruce Wilson was speaking at the community wellbeing committee this week about a proposed smokefree policy covering the central city around and including The Square.

He said if the aim was to stop adults role-modelling smoking behaviour, and given 41 per cent of Maori women smoked, perhaps they should be sterilised.

What a prejudiced dickhead! However what makes this incident much much worse is that the city mayor, Jono Naylor, isn't going to reprimand the racist idiot, saying that a simple apology at the next council meeting for such a despicable statement is going to be adequate.

While Naylors' claim that the "council's standing orders did not provide a course for disciplinary action" is technically correct, it gives the wrong impression that his hands are totally tied, when that's simply not the case.

Councils are governed by the Local Government Act 2002 (PDF), which requires a Code of Conduct. Palmerston North's Code of Conduct (PDF) gives the Chief Executive the ability to hire, dismiss, instruct or censure any employee, including elected officials. A good place to start would be to dismiss Wilson for discriminatory comments to show that the council doesn't accept racism.

The council could discipline Wilson for his blatant bigotry in other ways as well if they wanted... The fact that they aren't going to bother indicates that racism is widespread within the Palmerston North City Council... How else to explain the claims by other councillors that the bigot was just joking when he clearly wasn't? What an asshole!

Rodney Hide - Asshole of the Week

On Saturday, 3 News reported:

As the party faithful arrived at the modern day utopia, they were greeted with a rousing speech from former leader Rodney Hide, who attacked the media.

"The media won't know what you're talking about,” he says. “They think you have horns, hate the poor, hate Maori, hate the unions – well, that's true.”

So Act is going to target voters who are overtly bigoted like them, thinking that will get their dying party above the 5% threshold... What a bunch of idiots!

There's a fine line to tread here with most bigots preferring not to openly declare their racism... With Hide openly admitting that the Act party will discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour many supporters will turn off the Act party, because the majority won't be overtly racist.

That makes Hide politically stupid and clearly displays the reasons why the Act party only polled 0.1% in the 3 News-Reid Research poll. Thankfully the racist idiots look unlikely to be back in parliament after the next election.

Really Hide should be commended on his exceptional work to undermine the Act party, but for now he wins this week's Asshole Award... Hide is truly an asshole of the highest order.

Meet the Young Nats same as the old Nats

Yesterday, the Young Nats finally let rip with some highly self-important criticism of Nationals arch enemy, Winston Peters:

“Richard Prosser has attacked a sector of the community; and shamelessly defended this bitter and nasty attack – and Winston Peters is doing nothing about it” says Young Nats President, Sean Topham.

Richard Prosser took no responsibility for this attack; instead hiding behind a weasely-worded press release issued by Winston Peters, which had no apology.

But perhaps the most conceited bit is when Topham writes:

“The racist record Winston Peters and NZ First have racked up since their party’s formation is a pitiful contribution to politics and must stop.”

In my opinion, it's rather hypocritical of the Young Nats to be screaming blue murder about racism when their track record on the issue has been particularly reprehensible.

Young Nats member does Nazi salute 2012

Where was Sean Topham's apology for Young Nat member's showing their support for fascism and white power during their annual ball, and then uploading their racist photos to the internet for the world to see?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Richard Prosser - Asshole of the Week

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Comments on Muslims by New Zealand First MP Richard Prosser have sparked online outrage and have been slammed as racist by a Muslim leader.

In a column for Investigate Magazine, the Waimakariri list MP suggested young Muslims shouldn't be allowed to travel on Western airlines because 'most terrorists are Muslims".

Oh dear! Not only is Richard Prosser clearly a complete bigot, his claim that most terrorists are Muslims is entirely incorrect.

Such stupid claims have been disproven by research conducted by the Duke University and the University of North Carolina.

Collating FBI data also shows Muslim extremists undertook only 6% of terrorist attacks on US soil from 1980 to 2005, so clearly the idiot Prosser has no basis in reality for his claims.

He accepted that most Muslims are not terrorists, but it's "equally undeniable" that "most terrorists are Muslims".

"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," he wrote.

If the New Zealand government started discriminating against people in the way Prosser wants, they would be breaching the Human Rights Act 1993 (PDF).

In his article, Mr Prosser also said: "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."

The 9/11 hijackers were Muslims, as were the London "tube bombers", Mr Prosser said, along with the Taleban and al-Qaida.

"There is a pattern here, I promise you," he wrote. "These are angry, young Muslim men who hate the West and want to destroy it.

"They attack us, and our institutions and infrastructures, and our way of life, and our values and beliefs and precepts, because we are not like them, and for no other reason."

One minutes googling can disprove such ignorance, so why in this day and age of technological advancement could Prosser still be so damn deluded?

Although he's distanced himself as an MP from his repugnant article, Prosser is still responsible as a representative for what he writes.

Prosser therefore has no place within parliament and Winston Peters should sack him forthwith. If NZ First allows Prosser to remain, they're condoning his defunct beliefs, and that's something no reasonable political party should be doing.

Garth McVicar - Asshole of the Week

Today, Stuff reported:

Crime will rise if gay couples are allowed to marry, says the head of the country's victim lobby group.

Sensible Sentencing Trust leader Garth McVicar has submitted to Parliament that changing the law to allow same-sex marriage will be yet another erosion of basic morals and values in society which have led to an escalation of child abuse, domestic violence, and an ever-increasing prison population.

"The marriage amendment bill will not benefit society at all and will ultimately have detremetal (sic) effect on crime at all levels," the submission read.

So letting gay couples marry, which in most cases will increase the couples love for each other, is going to be bad for society? WTF! It's likely that the opposite will occur, with the long overdue law change ensuring that gay people are more accepted within "normal" society.

Criminologist Dr James Oleson, from Auckland University, an expert in deviance, said he was not familiar with any research that would suggest homosexuals would be responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.

For McVicar's argument to be plausible, he said, it would have to be proved that allowing homosexuals to marry degraded morality, and that this produced more crime. "But I'm not sure that's true." The more common drivers of crime were economic issues, alcohol, drugs, education and employment and family dysfunction, Oleson said.

In my opinion, the law change would strengthen communities and therefore reduce crime. It's only through a less prejudiced society that we can hope to reduce discrimination, which would also reduce the likelihood of crime occurring.

McVicar did not respond to requests for comment.

So not only is McVicar obviously a cowardly homophobe, he's also a bigot as well, with the deluded old fool often expressing racist sentiments that just goes to show he's an asshole of the first order.

Let's hope that the media gives McVicar and his Insensible Sentencing Trust even less attention during 2013.

John Key's gay pink top

Earlier this month, Stuff reported:

Prime Minister John Key made controversial comments about a "gay red top" the same day as reportedly calling footballer David Beckham "thick".

Key reportedly said Beckham was a nice man but also ''as thick as bat s***'' during a talk with a group of high school students in Dunedin on Friday. He today refused to deny making the comment - but said he had been misheard.

Key flirted with controversy again that day on the Farming Show radio programme when he slagged off host Jamie Mackay for wearing red.

Is there something Key isn't telling us?