Is there anything the left do not label racist?

The Dom Post reports:

Housing New Zealand is trying to stop people being bailed or paroled to state houses without its permission.

But critics label the move racist and say it will increase poverty while swelling prison inmate numbers.

My theory is peopel call things racist as a way of avoiding intelligent debate on an issue. It is a way of saying only bad racist people can want to do that.

A clause added into new tenancy contracts this month demands that written permission be gained for anyone bailed, paroled or put on home detention at a state house with the exception of those listed on the tenancy agreement and their partners.

So it is not about tenants themselves, or even their partners, but about whether the landlord should have a say in whether someone charged or convicted of a crime should be able to live there.

Housing Minister Phil Heatley said the clause was not about targeting law-breakers but avoiding problems including someone being sent to a state house who might put themselves or the community at risk.

Might stop paedophiles being paroled to a friend’s house near a school. Mind you that should not be up to Housing NZ to stop.

Council for Civil Liberties chairman Michael Bott said the measure was racist, as Maori and Pacific Islanders were the most heavily represented in the court and prison system.

By Bott’s logic increasing prison sentences is racist. Hell even having prisons is racist.

It was an “offensive presumption of guilt” as many on bail were not convicted, and the move would boost prison populations if low-risk inmates were held back from parole.

How many is many? 40%? 35%? 30%? 5%? And as far as I can see this is not about people being refused parole – just Housing NZ having to agree to them living in a state house – I suspect Housing NZ will not be giving blanket nos, but exercising discretion over which property is appropriate.