Unstoppable Minister McKee
Unstoppable Minister McKee
Are there any standards for coalition ministers?
All smiles, I know what it takes to fool this town
I'll do it 'til the sun goes down
And all through the nighttime
Oh, yeah
Oh, yeah, I'll tell you what you wanna hear
Leave my sunglasses on while I shed a tear
It's never the right time
Yeah, yeah
Song by Sia
Last night there was a segment on One News when they referred to Nicole McKee, the Gun Lobbyist turned Minister, as having, shock horror, put the interests of gun clubs above all else, bypassing the standard checks and balances along the way. Well duh.
It is a worrying sign that One News, who seem to be running an editorial stance only slightly less right than NZME these days, uses a phrase like “Gun Lobbyist turned Minister” without even blinking. Like, when the heck did that happen? When did we become a South Pacific hub of corruption - and more to the point, where are my bananas? Some Republic this is.
But it wasn’t the blatant misuse of power with a gun lobbyist being given a blank cheque by Christopher Luxon, as surely as if we’d been annexed by the NRA, that caught my attention.
In between the Minister explaining that she’ll do whatever the hell she wants as the chosen messiah of her people, the bang bang enthusiasts, and we should be grateful that she’ll ask our views when she comes to make really big changes, there was worse.
I know, hard to believe.
Oh, and if you’re getting excited about being able to make submissions on the really big, high-calibre changes - don’t. I’m sure any such correspondence will be placed in a large box titled “Document Destruction Bin”, doused in petrol and set ablaze via a single shot from a far-off sniper rifle wielded by none other than the Minister herself.
Watching the article, I thought it was completely outrageous. Ministers should be held to some sort of standard. Then I remembered that was never going to happen because, as we all know, ministers from ACT and NZF are untouchable, beyond scrutiny. Plus, there was the groundhog feeling; good grief - another newsletter about Jones, or Costello, or McKee being dodgy as all hell and running around serving the interests of small groups of vested interests at the public’s expense? Surely not.
So, I zoned out a bit in terms of watching without any consideration of writing about it. I imagine it’s quite annoying for my wife when I am doing that—rewinding to write down quotes or pausing to look something up. Then, at the end of the piece, something caught my attention.
I was already feeling pretty disgusted that McKee, who’s all about removing the post-March 15 gun laws, would visit a Mosque when she clearly has no interest in anything they have to say. Was she there simply to rub their faces in it?
Then it got worse.
McKee was asked why she had chosen not to wear the headscarf that’s typically worn in such a setting. An action demonstrating respect. It’s hard to imagine anyone having an issue with doing that, much less a Minister of the Crown.
Sadly in the wake of Jacinda Ardern wearing such a scarf, as she comforted people in the aftermath of that tragedy, there have been people, and I don’t think it’s overstating things to say these are the worst people, who chose to mock Ardern for showing that small act of respect at a time when there was an absence of all that was good and human.
McKee said this when she was asked about her decision not to wear a head scarf while visiting the Al-Noor mosque: “I’m not going to do that. I am who I am. This is how you get me.”
But you don’t live your life like that, not as an adult, certainly not as a senior government official. Do you? You show respect for others, especially if you’re visiting their place of worship. It’s simply good manners.
No one is asking you to change what you’re wearing when you go to the shops, or the beach, or out shooting guns at whatever you’re so obsessed with firing those at. We’re talking about observing the practices of a place so as not to offend those you are visiting. Pretty much Being a Human Being 101.
On Facebook, people commented on my post using words like Disrespectful, not my NZ, Arrogance, not fit for purpose, shameful, and dog whistling.
Juliet said, “Absolutely atrocious! Beyond any redemption in the public's eyes, surely? As if being a gun-toting, revolting waste of space in general as a human being wasn’t bad enough before this!” Which sounds harsh but is, in fact, quite mild for Juliet.
Julie was one of a number to made the comparison of ‘when in Rome’ or of visiting a marae, “Absolutely disgusting, huge disrespect! She shouldn't have been allowed to enter! I wonder if she follows Marae protocol or not because 'she is who she is' - she's a disgrace is what she is. It was like she was giving the Muslim community the middle finger!”
Renee said, “Given what we now know about her, are we surprised? Imagine all the Jacinda haters cheering her on - ugh!”
Meanwhile, over on Twitter… it turns out Renee was right:
Starting off at the lower end, Nigel Stokes was concerned about Freedom, presumably that to offend—you know, that building block of our society. “Nicole McKee isn’t a Muslim, and covering her hair isn’t her culture or belief. Welcome to New Zealand. Enjoy some freedom,” he said.
Prosper asked, “Keen on subjugating women, are you?” which was a little personal, but as it happens, it is not the case. Alan Wilkinson said, “You grovel, we don't. Get a spine.”
There were, of course, references to you know who, like this one:
That was from an account followed by Simeon Brown, Ben Thomas, Maureen Pugh, Simon Bridges, Erica Stanford, Steven Joyce, Mark Mitchell, Jordan Williams, Scott Simpson, Paula Bennett, and inevitably Chris Penk, who also follows some of the other commenters above.
Judith quite rightly said, “There are dress codes to enter most big religious buildings in the world. If she ignored the Vatican dress code, she'd be denied entry. Shameful behaviour but not unexpected from this bunch.”
Susan pointed out, “In Barcelona, I wasn't allowed into the Cathedral because my knees in long shorts were showing. In other churches, they handed out scarves to cover your shoulders if you exposed too much. No different.”
When we were travelling, Fi and I had to borrow clothing items to enter historical or religious sites; you certainly don’t mind doing it, even if you look a bit silly.
I should hasten to add that we’re not the sort of people who would rock up somewhere in completely inappropriate clothing. We weren’t turning up in bikinis and budgie smugglers as I’ve seen some uncouth travellers do in places where it was jarring. What flies on the Gold Coast doesn’t go in Egypt, although sometimes you get it wrong with the best of intentions.
We once walked around Coptic Cairo, a fascinating place, as cliched as it is - like going back to the Middle Ages. There weren’t any other tourists there; we’d travelled by local commuter train - that’s another story that I’m sure I’ve told before. In any case, we’re walking around Coptic Cairo, and people start hissing aggressively at my wife, who isn’t my wife yet - but they don’t need to know that; I don’t think it would’ve helped. We realised it was her clothing. The bare arms, note, not bare shoulders.
Apparently, the unrestricted view of female biceps was a bit much, so we bid a hasty retreat lest we find out what happens to women who reveal a little too much above the elbow—or is it the wrist?
I shouldn’t speak lightly of it; the point is it’s their tradition, and the imposition of my own values or fashion choices should not be a thing, not as a visitor. You don’t do that, do you? You adjust what you wear and how you behave based on a situation. If your mate is getting married in a church, and you’re not a believer, you still dress appropriately. You don’t show up in a t-shirt with a picture of the pope smoking a joint. Do you?
Sometimes, we might get it wrong inadvertently, but generally, people will put you right with a minimum of hissing. The point is that whether it’s your culture or not, something you know about or something you need a bit of guidance in, you make the bloody effort.
Surely that applies even more so for a Minister of the Crown. Not that I think parliamentarians are special particularly, but it is a continuation of the same theme. You expect people to behave in a certain way in a given context. Being a government minister should tend to suggest that you put aside whatever petty views you have personally and act like an adult. You say things and behave in a way that someone in that role ought to act.
Like putting on a headscarf at a mosque. Even if there had been no March 15, it would still have been the right thing to do.
Is McKee playing to the bigots who don’t want to see respect shown to our Muslim brothers and sisters, or is she simply ignorant? Sadly, I suspect she simply isn’t very smart; she acts like a one-issue weirdo on social media who lacks the maturity to see beyond her own point.
Or the graciousness to show some decency as she spits in the face of the community at that mosque, and every decent New Zealander whose heart broke with the actions of that awful day, by rolling back the gun restrictions.
If you didn’t see the clip but would like to, you can watch it below. I thought reporter Thomas Mead did an excellent job.
I don’t want to end there. McKee is quite stoppable, and at some point in the future, no doubt driven by polls that suggest Kiwis are fed up with this sort of nonsense from the likes of McKee, Jones, and Costello, Luxon will discover it is in his interests to develop a backbone and show some leadership—some mana.
Is this why he got into government, to have his team running around doing things like passing gun laws without the usual oversight and insulting people?
As I said, I don’t want to end it there because there’s someone who has more empathy and decency in her little finger than McKee, whom I want to mention. Many of you will have seen her post last night…
I remember when Marama came to parliament—oh boy, she was feisty. She stared the Nats in the face and said, “I see you looking at me like that, and I look right back at you.” Visceral anger at the way people were being treated.
She was a hell of a fighter, and I was a little unsure about her becoming a leader. Truth is, at the time, I’d hoped Julie Anne Genter would become co-leader.
But Marama has developed from a protester to become a well-spoken, mature, and very serious leader. I suspect many people who are not Green supporters will have been impressed by her performances in the debates leading up to last year’s election.
I’m not a religious man, but if I were, I’d be praying for a full recovery for Marama. I think she has unfinished business. Co-deputy PM has a nice ring to it—even if Seymour and Peters couldn’t stomach it. But whatever she chooses to do, I really wish her and her family well.
Final words, good words, to Te Pati Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi, who commented on Marama’s post, “Kia kaha e te tuahine. Yours is the fight, ours are the prayers”.
If you’d like to read more from Nick’s Kōrero, please subscribe. Paid subscriptions are how I earn my living, and it means an awful lot to me that readers support this writing. Today’s edition is free, so you’re most welcome to share it. 🙂
The utterly incredible Sia - Unstoppable.
We can blame Luxon, the National Party for all of this. It seems the coalition agreement gave ACT and NZF the unfettered authority to do whatever they wanted to, due process be damned. Every time a question is raised about, um, "What about consultation? What about expert advice? What about being decent friggin human beings?" The answer, across the government, is "It is in line with the coalition agreement". Luxon did this. For power. Ignorant git.
What a contrast - Marama and McKee - hard to believe that they are the same species. The sneaky use of Cabinet to change some of the gun rules is soooo NRA, wonder if she gets money from them or just does it for love (of guns). Given her total lack of respect should she start accompanying Luxon on his junkets?