MEDIA WATCH: Hosking’s anti-free speech attack as hypocritical as Green Party sudden free speech support


The stench of hypocrisy is unbelievable.

Here is the Grand Troll of the Right denouncing  Chelsea Manning…

Mike Hosking: Chelsea Manning is a crook, keep her out of NZ
Chelsea Manning is a crook, and the National Party are right to be wanting her banned.

…yet barely a month ago here he is screaming about the death of free speech because two Crypto-fascsists couldn’t use a council owned venue to peddle psuedo-scientific bigotry and because tired old racist dinosaur Don Brash was banned from speaking…

Mike Hosking: What happened to free speech in this country?
The left is against free speech which is a very large step, and dangerously so, away from being against opposing views.

…but this hypocrisy isn’t limited to the Right, bewilderingly and without any hint of audacity is Golriz Ghahraman defending Manning’s free speech, while denying the free speech she doesn’t like…

…Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right. Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

TDB Recommends

What the Woke Left didn’t comprehend in their algorithmic fuelled social media outrage over Southern & Molyneux  was how easy it is for the Right to turn that anti-free speech platform against us when we speak truth to power.

The hypocrisy of the Woke Left is as disgusting as the Feral Right.

“It’s only free speech when we agree with what you are saying”, isn’t of any value to anyone.

Watching the Woke Left & Feral Right contort themselves into impossible positions over free speech when they both held polar opposite stances barely a month ago would be hilarious if it weren’t so fundamental to us as a democracy.

A plague on both their fucking houses!



  1. Yes – one of the costs of living in a free society with free speech is occasionally hearing things you don’t like or disagree with.

  2. So who’s this feral right? Hosking, Woodhouse? Crickets compared to the vitriol from the left. Straw man argument Martyn. I think Hosking is probably talking about the conviction not the content, but whatever. Ghahraman, digging holes for a living, oh yeah or prosecuting genocidaires.

    • I think Hosking is probably talking about the conviction not the content, but whatever. Ghahraman, digging holes for a living, oh yeah or prosecuting genocidaires.

      So you believe in free speech, ‘Off White’ – but not the right to a fair trial with legal representation? Is that what you’re telling us?

      So what if Ms Ghahraman was a defence lawyer for alleged war criminals? Are you advocating that alleged war criminals be executed without a fair trial and legal representation?

      I thought you “Righties” were big for Law and Order? Well, don’t forget the “Law” bit in that slogan.

      • Yes I believe in free speech.
        No I’m not in the least bit vexed over Manning.
        Yes I believe in fair trials with legal representation.
        Yes Hosking is entitled to an opinion.
        Yes Golriz defended war criminals.

  3. Agreed that the greens are showing discrimination in selective free speech here.

    Either it is ‘total indescriminate free speech’ – or it is not ‘free speech’ Green Party.

    I left the green Party in 2002 when they told us not to ‘represent the ‘Green party’ in our policy discussions in the press; – and that was the beginning of ‘their method of control iover us’ – all they hoped for then but it backfired.

  4. Manning is a hero to a lot of us, as a Wikileaks source prepared to risk imprisonment as a whistle-blower, the exact reason anyone from government fears him, her whatever.
    When your government criminalizes sources of information against its narrative then you have a criminal government, many times in recent past the former government used its spy agency’s against NZ citizens to repress information they did not want released because it cast them in a cold criminal light, Jornos and dissidents both.
    This is the real scandal of our times, that and following the orders of foreign powers to toe the neo lib line regardless of the cost to our national interests.

  5. Wonderful … the more enlightened left using the term “woke left” term in the same way the right use the term “politically correct”.

    The free speech debate does identify two areas where some of those on both the left and the right would censor free speech.

    Ironically both would place their concerns under the term “public safety and or public security”, but for quite different reasons.

    One has the ambition for hate speech law (and would find allies in religious groups who would censor negative comment about their faiths) and the other for censoring exposure of what might be termed “deep state” activity – calling this some sort of security crime (basically those who know of the conspiracy being imprisoned if they leak information to the public about it).

    In some ways it is surprising a lawyer in the human rights field would be unaware of the necessary balance between activism on behalf of minorites to protect their equal status as citizens (loosely their human rights) and all that entails and the protection of citizens civil liberties (property rights, freedom from search and seizure, right to justice/dure process and free speech etc).

    But then she represents a party that provides advocacy for a range of minority causes. And against often vehement majoritarian animous, so they place a high value on the public safety of minorites from the “incited” mob. It’s understandable. Not right but understandable. Labour, if they went along with it, would have less excuse.

    It does speak to a lack of balls in Green male leadership. There is no holding of the line of defence of the best of the values of the civilisation, this too is part of a sustainable society.

Comments are closed.