Winston Peters 'invita un licenziamento' con l'attacco al deputato di origine cinese, dice Helen Clark

New Zealand's Foreign Minister Winston Peters faced mounting pressure after controversial remarks made during parliamentary debate, including calling a Green Party member "retarded" and urging a Chinese-born MP to "go back to your own country." The comments sparked widespread condemnation, with former Prime Minister Helen Clark warning that such behavior could jeopardize New Zealand's critical relationship with China, its largest trade partner. Peters made the remarks during a heated exchange in Parliament on Wednesday, addressing Green Party co-leader Lawrence Xu-Nan. He accused Xu-Nan of lying and suggested he return to China, where, according to Peters, such falsehoods are common. The comments drew immediate backlash, with critics arguing that the language used was offensive and inappropriate for a senior political figure. China reportedly raised concerns with New Zealand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, emphasizing the need for mutual respect in diplomatic relations. Dianne Pelvin, an intellectual disability advocate, described the impact of Peters' use of the term "retarded" as deeply hurtful. She shared her personal experience of having an intellectual disability and the lasting effects of being labeled with derogatory terms during her childhood. Pelvin emphasized that such language is not merely disrespectful but dehumanizing, reinforcing harmful stereotypes about individuals with disabilities. She urged Peters to reconsider his choice of words, stating that they discredited people with intellectual disabilities and undermined efforts to promote inclusivity. The controversy surrounding Peters' remarks extended beyond the issue of disability. Former Prime Minister Helen Clark highlighted the broader implications of his comments, particularly regarding New Zealand's relationship with China. She argued that Peters' words risked alienating migrant communities and damaging diplomatic ties. Clark warned that the remarks could lead to questions about whether migrants would ever truly feel welcome in New Zealand. Additionally, she pointed out the potential difficulties for the Foreign Minister in managing relations with a major economic partner, suggesting that Peters' actions might hinder effective diplomacy. Former National Party leader Don Brash echoed similar sentiments, stating that Peters' comments represented a serious blow to New Zealand's relationship with China. While acknowledging the risks associated with removing Peters from his position, Brash suggested that the Prime Minister might consider sacking him as Foreign Minister to demonstrate commitment to maintaining positive international relations. However, he also noted the complexities involved, given the proximity to an election and the potential for increased political instability. In response to the criticisms, the Chinese Foreign Ministry expressed its stance on the matter, emphasizing that parliamentary debates are internal affairs of New Zealand. Despite noting the concerns raised about Peters' remarks, the ministry reiterated its respect for the development paths chosen by different nations and called for actions that foster friendly bilateral relations. This response underscored the importance of avoiding issues related to another country in domestic political discussions. As the situation unfolds, the focus remains on the repercussions of Peters' statements and their impact on both domestic and international fronts. The coming days will likely reveal whether these remarks will influence policy decisions or prompt further action within the government. The ongoing dialogue highlights the delicate balance required in navigating sensitive topics while ensuring that all voices are heard and respected.