- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Wiig, Anita and why Bob Clarkson should shut his stupid gob


When I was at University, the crush of my life was Anita McNaught. She was smart and sexy in that posh English rose, private school girl kind of way, just like Jackie Brown is. But I have to admit that I was taken aback recently to find out that Anita’s husband, the recently kidnapped and released cameraman Olaf Wiig, worked for Fox News. It was weird because lot’s of my lefty friends also privately questioned Anita with ‘someone who would work for Fox’? Even my more conservative friends wondered aloud at how that worked, the darling of the liberal media and princess of the working class, Anita McNaught with some European sounding Aryan God who worked for Satan’s official mouthpiece - Fox News.

Of course such thoughts were petty side salad brain snacking to the awful reality for those involved and the wider human concern shown was heartfelt and deep as was the threat to the future of journalism in the covering of the Palestinian conflict. Those things said, the fact that Olaf worked for Fox News still lingered in the spoiling kinda way a police raid on Christmas morning has on Christmas Dinner.

All these Seinfeldian concerns melted the moment I watched Olaf in his first Fox News interview. The man had already gone up in my evaluation of him when he announced on his release that he hoped his kidnapping would not stop other journalists from going to and reporting on the Palestinian occupation. I thought that was pretty bloody courageous of him, but more was to come. On his first major Fox News interview, Olaf and Steve Centanni recounted their experience. Olaf then starts on what will go down as one of the great moments in televised national face slapping I have ever been privileged to view.

Olaf explains that when they were first interrogated by their captors they accused Olaf of being an American. “Dude”, he said (he honestly said Dude), “I’m a New Zealander. New Zealand has a difficult relationship with America, we do not support them in their war with Iraq. We do not support them with their policies in Palestine”. The sharp intake of air from the Fox interviewer and Steve Centanni was like the sudden snap freezing of hospitality Eskimo style. But Olaf didn’t blink an eye, here is he pointing out, with some amount of glee, that he was not a target because as a New Zealander, we do not support and have never supported America and its mad adventures. He goes onto say that after a moment of discussion amongst themselves, their captors come back to Olaf and tell him that they have asked around about New Zealand, “New Zealand is fine, you do not kill Muslims” – the sheer balls required to front up on the most religiously pro Bush News Network and slap America’s face with the reality of their foreign policy made me ashamed I ever doubted Anita.

The fact that the kidnappers would release Olaf because he was a New Zealander follows a similar situation when Taliban leaders were asked whether NZ was a target for them prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban’s response was, “Where is New Zealand?”. It is a reminder that we are not seen as a target by the Muslim world, that our voice against America’s adventures and our support of the Palestinian cause has kept us immune from being lumped in ‘with the west’. Which brings me to big mouth Bob Clarkson. We are not a target for Muslim extremists, why the hell would you go out of your way to create ill feeling and stir up cultural anger over something as stupid as veils? Why would we even try and stir resentment when we are in such an important position, why not show both sides of the debate how we can live together by being an example of tolerant co-habitation rather than the race baiting thuggery of Clarkson’s knuckle-dragging rhetoric. This is not the voice of appeasement, it is one of realizing that we could have a unique position within the Muslim world and the West, and we need dialogue between people more now than ever before.

15 Comments:

At 1/9/06 12:14 am, Blogger karlos said...

Well said bomber.
I was glad when the two were released. It's credit to the Palestinians that no kidnap victim has been killed. Not that the kidnapping itself is acceptable or anything.

Yeh, Olaf made a good presentation. Unfortunately I don’t think many journalists will take his advice. Many have already vacated Gaza. May be it was all planned by the IDF?

I do wonder about the full face-covering veil. I mean, aren't there some circumstances where it not appropriate, like a bank?

When I was in Cairo last year, a couple of veiled women opened fire at the museum. Now, you don't need a veil to carry out such crimes, but being able to legitimately conceal your face in public can help. I keep thinking some small time crims will done a veil and go on a shop lifting spree. Or some pervert in the ladies room.

I’m ashamed to admit that I find it intimidating when I can’t see someone’s face.

I think Bob Clarkson is a racist ass, but the ability to cover one's face and identify in public is questionable isn't it? Not illegal though.

I understand the reasons they where veils, and to be honest, I don’t blame them. The way blokes eye up ladies these days. But I guess I’m just not used to it.
In my travels through the middle east, I found it’s a very small proportion of women that do where veils.

Your thoughts?

 
At 1/9/06 2:35 am, Anonymous Rangi said...

The problem is more that he's a bigotted fat cunt who has no respect for someone's free choice to wear what they like

 
At 1/9/06 7:36 am, Anonymous bomber said...

...
Grin - thank you rangi, Bob represents NZs past, I'd hate for him to be a serious part of our future.

Karlos, you make some excellent points - and you are right, we have decided - with all due respect to other cultures and religions - there are times that we as a secular democracy require people to be identifiable by their face. Now our Courts have already ruled on this and rightly so set the limits that state the woman HAS to show her face for identification purposes - so this as an issue is simply redundent and aimed at causing anger within the host culture which makes the minority culture feel watched and distrusted. Bob isn't adding to the debate, he is misleading it. I would bet that most of the people who agree with Bob wouldn't even be aware of the Court rulings that have already set the limits. Over and above that, Dude I don't care what people choose to wear - it's not my responsibility and it's not my freakin right to tell people what they can and can't wear.

 
At 1/9/06 8:10 am, Anonymous Awesome-Jim said...

You've had a lot of crushes in your life haven't you Bomber ;)

What ever happened to that red-head at video ezy?

 
At 1/9/06 9:29 am, Anonymous Justin said...

And yet Steve Centanni, despite your dearest hopes, wasn't sliced up like a Christmas ham by your Palestinian heroes. But I'm sure your logic's sound.

Still, you never answered your own question. How COULD darling Anita McNaught be married to someone who work's for "Satan's mouthpiece"? Does a smug remark confirming New Zealand's inaction/impotence on the world stage really make up for it?

 
At 1/9/06 9:30 am, Anonymous Dave said...

Southern raider over at Kiwiblog correctly pointed out that the dialogue would likely go someway along the following lines:

Starting point for negotiations:

Terrorists: We want you dead.

US: We want to live.

Negotiations begin:

US: We want to live.
How about if we offer to leave Iraq? Will you let us live then?

Terrorists: No. We wanted you dead long before you went into Iraq. Have you forgotten about the Iranian Embassy in 1979, the Beirut Lebanon Embassy (and the Marine Barracks) in 1983, Pan Am 103 in 1988, the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001, the Khobar Towers in 1996, the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000, and the Pentagon in 2001? You think this is only about Iraq?

U.S.: How about if, instead of stealing your oil, we pay you $70 a barrel for it?

Terrorists: No. You are already doing that.

US: What if we also give you billions of dollars?

Terrorist: No. You already do that, too.

US: What if we agree to live peacefully with you and let you run your own affairs, choose your own leaders, social rules, etc. You can kill political prisoners and non-Muslims. You can subjugate women, and we won't interfere.

Terorists: No. You already let us do those things

US: How about if we promise to send you help for any natural disasters or disease outbreaks? At no charge?

Terrorists: No. You already do that. Offer something new.

US: What about if we give you nuclear and missile technology.

Terrorists: No. You already did that.

US: You are tough negotiators. All right, what if we let you kill all our Republicans and Joe Lieberman. Then will you let us live?

Terrorists: No. We want you all dead.

US: Ok, what if we throw in Israel and all the Christians, too?

Terrorists: No. All the infidels must die.

US: All right, our final offer: what if we agree to convert to Islam. We'll make all our women cover themselves from head to foot and not let them drive or vote. Then can we live?

Terrorists: What about alcohol, pornography, abortion, nude dancing , free speech and capitalism?

US: We'll gladly give up capitalism, but we really need the other things.

Terrorists: That is not compromise. You are refusing to negotiate.

US: All right. We'll give up alcohol, pornography, abortion, and nude dancing and free speech too if we have to. Now will you let us live?

Terrorists: That's tempting, but it's not enough. You must die.

US: There must be something we can offer that you will accept in exchange for letting us live.

Terrorists: Our best offer is we want you all dead. We are, of course, willing to listen to your ideas. Islam is a religion of peace

 
At 1/9/06 10:41 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dave, isn't it obvious that radical Islam is a paper tiger which will never be capable of posing any real threat to the US or any Western country. When even Israel, a tiny country surrounded by people who want for them what you have posted above, is in no danger of being wiped out, then I don't think the US needs to worry.

 
At 1/9/06 10:44 am, Anonymous Gay said...

Hey Bomber ...just on that : radical island DOES pose a threat to the west - or the civilian populations of major cities in the west at least . And Israel relies totally on its mighty friend the USA for its existence ...without the USA, Israel is dust.

 
At 1/9/06 10:52 am, Anonymous Grant said...

Bomber,

The idea that NZer's are "safe" from terrorist groups etc was backed up in a Radio NZ documentary last year which had interviews in Indonesia with Jemaah Islamiyah - who said NZ is not an enemy of JI simply because this govt does not support Bush in Iraq etc. They made it quite clear that JI will attack Australia because they are Bush's allies : thats what you do in a "war" (on terror) I suppose, you attack your enemy ( the US seems to be very surprised every time their enemy attacks in this particular war )

Anyway the bottom line is: NZ is not onside with Bush and Blair so is not regarded as an enemy by Al Qaeda et al. Lets hope it stays that way - Brash would have had us into Iraq boots and all ...and we could easily have had a bomb on the last bus to Mt Roskill by now.

cheers

 
At 1/9/06 1:49 pm, Anonymous RR said...

Odd that you should consider Olaf's doing a studio TV interview courageous, given he'd just spent 10 days in the hands of some fundy nutters. Surely that was the truly courageous bit. I'm wondering if they twigged that Centanni was gay? I'm sure i would've kept that quiet too. I've always fancied Anita too; she's always had that Hot Lesbian kinda look going on.

 
At 1/9/06 2:41 pm, Anonymous tj said...

Also Jemaah Islamiiya have threatened NZ before, not due to anything in the middle Eas, but because of our assistance in enabling the independence of Indonesia...So don't get too comfotable just yet, we are still the infidels...

 
At 1/9/06 2:53 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

rangi..you miss the point. these women are made to wear the burka by the males/their religeon and society...I find it hard to believe it is 'their free choice' that they wear such a restricting and impractical piece of cloth...
most lefty's on this site are always going on about rights : clarkson is merely having his say. everyone has that right.

 
At 1/9/06 3:37 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

did you have a crush on Anita the lesbian KINKY

 
At 2/9/06 1:13 pm, Blogger Brewerstroupe said...

In Kota Kinabalu there is a Mosque, a Christian Church and a Hindu Temple. All three share the same car park.

Here is a piece from:
http://www.caliphate.co.uk/caliphate/nonmuslims.htm

Historically, when the Caliphate was ruling Jerusalem, it protected the holiest Church in Christianity - The Church of the Holy Sepulchre . The keys to this church have been held for centuries by the Nusseibeh Muslim family who until today still open and close the doors on a daily basis.


Non-Muslims have an honourable status in the Caliphate. They are referred to as dhimmi (people of contract), which means they are equal citizens with the Muslims and enjoy the full rights of citizenship. Unlike in Britain they are not given derogatory names like “ethnic minorities” or “immigrants”, that implies they are 2nd class citizens and not really welcome. The Prophet Muhammad (saw) said: “Whoever harms a dhimmi has harmed me.”
He (saw) also said: “The one who kills a Mu'ahid (people with whom the State has treaties) without right he will not smell the fragrance of jannah (heaven) even if its smell was forty years travelling distance.” [Reported in the Hadith book Ahmed]
Imam Qarafi (Classical Islamic Scholar) summed up the responsibility of the Caliphate to the dhimmi when he said: “It is the responsibility of the Muslims to the People of the Dhimma to care for their weak, fulfil the needs of the poor, feed the hungry, provide clothes, address them politely, and even tolerate their harm even if it was from a neighbour, even though the Muslim would have an upper hand. The Muslims must also advise them sincerely on their affairs and protect them against anyone who tries to hurt them or their family, steal their wealth, or violates their rights.”

My travels in Islamic countries tends to confirm the above.

Until Israel began it's ethnic cleansing of Palestine, non muslims and Jews lived without persecution within Islam society. Not so in Europe.

I cannot believe that Southern Raider has ever spent time in an Islamic country or read anything apart from the deliberate demonisation of Islam that is spun by the Neo-con controlled media in the West.

Such ignorance is unbecoming in a New Zealander and deserves lampooning.

The burka is an anachronism that deserves to be thrown in the bin of history along with papal encyclicals on birth control, abortion, the fundy's attempts to outlaw the teaching of evolution and the Exclusive Brethren's denial of proven medical procedures to their dying children.

 
At 6/11/10 2:08 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The burka is an invention of a small minority of male Muslims to subjigate their women.
It is so easy to rubbish the US because we live in a free country and they won't blow our house up if we do. The sad thing is that while they may not admit it, if we ever got invaded most Kiwis would expect the US to come to our aid despite our ongoing criticism of them. I don't advocate not criticising them but I do think we get all whimpy when individuals bend over backwards to be nice to terrorists by talking about their rights ad nauseum.
Ian.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home