Congratulations to Jacinta Lal

Who just won the Wellington region of the Miss IndiaNZ Beauty Contest.

Like most New Zealanders I am appalled by the outright racism directed at her. By some Indians, who booed her for not “looking Indian enough”. For my money you guys don’t look kiwi enough when you behave like this. Planes go both ways daily. Establish your racial purity homeland somewhere lese thanks.

I of course look forward to the race releations concilliator condeming this overt bigotry and an applogy from the Indian ambasador.


12 Responses to Congratulations to Jacinta Lal

  1. james says:

    the people who showed their prejudiced against jacinda are just as bad as Paul Henry. racism in all forms should be stamped out.

    the fact that Jacinda won shows that most Indians just like most kiwis understand the difference between right and wrong and look beyond ‘skin deap’.

    if you bothered to read the full article you will see that most indians are just as disappointed of the haters.

    please dont turn this in to an ‘us vs them’ or ‘who’s more racist’ issue. the underlying issue is prejudice and how to educate people about it. racism exists everywhere – doesnt make it right

    hope she goes on to win the overall contest

  2. Oswald Bastable says:

    You couldn’t make stuff like this up!

  3. Murray says:

    James I did bother to read the fucking article and if you had bothered to be aware of the fucking world around around you would be fucking aware that one man being a dick on TV has led to our fucking nation being branded fucking racist by Indian national fucking TV and has led to our fucking nation making a fucking applogy to India for doing what Indians have being doing for fucking year.

    If you think its fucking ok because it was a minority then you are fucking delusional and everyone who watching the fucking footage could clearly hear the booing for what was fucking more than one fucking asshole.

    You fucking opinion is race baised and fucking shit.

    Have a nice fucking day.

    As an aside my family came to New Zealand from India during the mutiny so Indian racism isn;t an entirely new subject for us. But you go ahead and blame the white man for that one too. This bullshit isn;t flying with kiwis any more.

  4. Hannah says:

    good grief Murray, I had to reconstruct sentences in order to understand your points. Swearing is all well and good, but when it gets to the point where the original message is obliterated, it could be just a wee bit over the top.

    As for the argument that this beauty contest is as bad as Paul Henry, I completely agree apart from one little point. Paul Henry is a presenter on National television and is paid by the government (and therefore us) for saying what he says.

    The Indians who held this contest are not paid by their government as far as I can tell (correct me if I am wrong) nor were the negative and racist comments about Miss India stated by one of their national television presenters. That be the difference.

    I hope you have a very nice day šŸ™‚


  5. Murray says:

    Hannah you kind of got the point I was making to James.

    It was a brutal assault of irony which i have every confidence was lost on him. as was the overt racism being displayed by a sizable group as aopposed to a stupid none race based statment by an idividual.

    Now the issue is racism and here’s your problem. Henry made fun of the womans name. He said absolutly nothing about race at all, not a dman thing. Everyone else jumped on him on THEIR assumptions it was race based which tells you more about them than it does about Henry.

    An issue of your he is paid by the government line is dangerous in that TVNZ has political independance from the government control. Conceptual your thinking is wrong in that he is specifically a government employee and must toe the party line. TVNZ is actually required to operate ina competative environment and the sacking of Henry would have been a biiger commercial fail than his resignation.

    The serveys show that over 60% of people did not consider his comments racist – I am one of them – and 80% of people think NZ was wrong to applogise to India for his comments. I’m in that group too.

    Several leading Indian journalists aggree and described Indians as being among the most racist peopel in the world and made the point that people in India make fun of her name all the time.

    As for the peopel that ran the competition by all accounts they did a very good job and it was a good event. Where they fall down though is attempting to minimise what happened and even deny it. the agressive reaction of an element of the crowd was clearly audible and saying only 2% of people took the trouble to send abuisive emails or texts is not really a good explaination.

    If its your contention that people who are not government employees are not accoutable for overt racism I disagree.

    Consider the points I’ve made and also that I have actually taken the time to review the pertinent information, particulalry the Indian TV “debate”, in which their presented displayed all the skills of a TVNZ presenter i.e. none. Sometimes you have to defend peopel you don;t like on a principle. My priciple is you don’t get to hold a lynching because someone said somethign you don’t agree with or don’t like. Racism, assumign it existed is not a capital offence, in fact being racist in itself is not illegal. You seem to be arguing that one form of racism is acceptable and another isn’t based on who is paying them and I would describe that is a nonefunctioning position.

  6. Hannah says:

    No, although I can see your how you would get that from my post,

    My contention was, was that Paul Henry was essentially representing all of NZ to the rest of the world, since he is govt. employed. The hecklers at Ms IndiaNZ were not, and were therefore not representing all of India to NZ.

    Of course, racist statements are equally bad no matter who says them. But the consequences may be more severe depending upon position of the person.

    Also, agree that Paul Henry’s comments on name was not racist, they were merely in poor taste and rather school-boyish. However, the Governer General comment was IMHO, and some of his comments about talking to Indian employees at a petrol station possibly were (he mocked the accent) although I do have sympathy with him, he really should have known better.

    Also, just because one has a RIGHT to say something, does not mean one should, especially if one is representing one’s country!

  7. james says:

    what mutiny are you talking about?

    plus it appears that you have missed out on the core issue of my reply which is that all people around the world are equal and should be treated that way. just because you feel a bit offended by the whole Paul Henry issue, you dont need to take it out on all the Indian community.

  8. Old Fat Sailor says:

    Sepoy Mutiny yes?

  9. Murray says:

    Also known as the Indian Mutiny OFS. Something most people get when you marry the words Indian and mutiny together.

    Your “point” james was to assume I had not read the article and was of substandard intelligence. You are demonsterably wrong on both counts. You also assumed you should be abusive in your tone which I mocked without mercy.

    You now assume having been shot to shit that you are entitled to continue on and recive serious consideration. You are incorect.

    Hannah Henry is not in anyway a representative of New Zealand or the New Zealand government. He is an employee of a state funded television station. By your rationale TV3 would be slipped off the leash and TVNZ would have to put verything in front of a minister for political approval.

    Also every single member of the public service would be a representative of the government and New Zealand. You assumption is the result of 9 years of Helen clark conditioning people to think that the government has both the power and the right to infiltrate peoples lives and control them at every level.

    Having seen communisim, I’m not a fan. People should free to screw up.

    You might like to consider that 80% believe it was wrong to applogise to India for actions. They can’t all be knuckle dragging racists.

  10. Joy says:

    Just for historical accuracy, it was the Indian Rebellion of 1857, also know as the Sepoy Rebellion or the Sepoy Mutiny.

    Now back to your regular programming.

  11. Hannah says:

    Labour conditioning? šŸ˜›

    Now, I did not say that I agreed that it is a good thing that this disparity exists between privately and publicly owned enterprises; merely that disparity does. The Government and state owned organizations HAVE to be PC because the powers that be say so.(The powers that be having been for the last 9 years, Labour. Who I despise, for the record.)

    Also, Paul Henry does represent NZ to some people. They may be right, they may be wrong. But the fact is that they see it that way and therefore NZers are judged unfairly.

    Stating that it is, and agreeing that what is, is a good thing, are two separate things.

    Also, 80% of people? Would that be from a TV or Internet poll? If so, I don’t trust things like that. Too easy to be manipulated, too many biased variables.


    I believe in free speech, I believe that we should not be accountable to the government for what we say, and I also believe that we have a responsibility to use that right of free speech wisely. But that it is OUR responsibility.

    I identify with the Kiwi Party IF I MUST identify with the political parties that be. I have never been, am not and never ever will be a supporter of Labour. šŸ˜€

  12. Murray says:

    Joy as a decesndant of a participant of the winning side we get to call it what ever we like.

    Also the large Indian community here know it by the same name. Its also the name used in the half dozen books i have on the subject.

    Sepoy gives a false impression about the participants and tars all Sepoys as rebels. In fact many of the Sepoy regiments remained loyal. Also a number of minor leaders used it as an attmept to gain power with their own tribal forces.

    In all British campaigns there was an ingrained habit of naming them based on the race of the opposition. Zulu Wars, Siekh Wars, Maori Wars etc. If you use the name “Maori Wars” in the New Zealand army you can expect to be charged and rightly so. It is an innaccurate name as Maori fought on both sides and it had the character of a civil war. the correct name is the New Zealand Land Wars or the New Zealand Wars.

    That the British stick to their ignorance based naming system does not legitimise it. It does however perpetuate a flase impression of a race war much played on by bleeding heart lefties and professional victims.

    The lesson hath been revived.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: