Has there ever been an MP so widely condemned? David Garrett may be the only one to have come close for managing to build a complete consensus of vilification upon himself. The backlash against Richard Prosser's bizarre statements on race and religion has been so incredibly strong that there is a sense of MPs actually revelling in their condemnation, seizing the chance to prove how progressive and anti-racist they are. This is an argument I make in my blogpost, Richard Prosser's role in making mainstream politicians look progressive. I also point out how much more muted politicians were in response to the Government's new refugee policy aligning New Zealand with Australia's reactionary asylum system - i.e. a current policy that actually has an effect.
For the opposite view, see Morgan Godfery's blogpost, Richard Prosser and white privilege, in which he argues that Prosser's statements are being excused as 'just one man's opinions'. Godfery argues that this indicates how 'white privilege' reigns supreme in New Zealand because white men are allowed to say what Maori would be vilified for.
There seems plenty of evidence, however, that Prosser hasn't gotten away with his xenophobic and bigoted statements at all. After all, those bastions of 'white privilege' and the Establishment - the newspaper editorials - are powerfully condemning of Prosser - see, for example, the Press' Prosser not needed, the Dominion Post's Terrorists borne from intolerance, the ODT's Ignorant and prejudiced and the Southland Times' Prosser is a nasty prat. What's more, even voters in Prosser's 'own electorate' of provincial Waimakariri are appalled- such as '72-year old shopper Maureen Paterson' who is reported by Kurt Bayer as exclaiming: 'He's a w*****, and he should know better' - see: Prosser's electorate unimpressed by 'Wogistan'. As Tahu Potiki points out today: 'Note that not one person has come to his rescue. His comments are so clearly inappropriate that he has not found even one ally' - see: Prosser offensive and 'ridiculously flawed'.
So what does the strength of this backlash say about New Zealand politics and society in 2013? Perhaps it's a useful barometer of New Zealand race relations - even better than Waitangi Day - and an indication of the strength of our 'intolerance of intolerance'. The backlash might also suggest just how quickly attitudes are changing. It was only a decade ago that the Helen Clark Labour Government was locking up the Muslim refugee, Ahmed Zaoui, and treating him in a manner in which Prosser might well approve. This is an argument put very strongly by Paul Buchanan in an excellent blogpost, With stereotypes, timing is everything. He says that Zaoui's 'arrival was met with official alarm and a chorus of exactly the sort of xenophobic invective that Prosser has voiced', and that 'Back then Islamophobia ran rampant and it was fine if not fashionable to Muslim-bash, which the Clark government did adroitly and with aplomb'. Buchanan says that Prosser's biggest mistake is his timing: 'Had he made his remarks ten years ago he would have fared far better in the court of public and political opinion'.
You don't have to look too far from Prosser to find evidence of this. Russell Brown relates his experience with Winston Peters a decade ago and quotes from a speech Peters gave to Kaitaia Grey Power in 2005: 'In New Zealand the Muslim community has been quick to show us their more moderate face, but there is a militant underbelly here as well. These two groups, the moderate and militant, fit hand and glove' - see: The Wogistan form book. So, as Matthew Hooton says in a (pay-walled) NBR article today, 'you can imagine poor old Mr Prosser, he must have said "boy what have I done wrong, I'm just doing what the leader does"' - see: Rod Vaughan's Winston Peters to be kingmaker again.
