How should New Zealand respond to the Christchurch Mosque Shootings? What should the Government do? A powerful consensus has formed behind the Prime Minister’s call for gun control. Subsequent initiatives may not, however, be so universally affirmed. Voices are already being raised in favour of restricting the public expression of “harmful” ideas. Clearly, the question of what does, and does not, constitute “harm” is bound to be hotly contested. The national unity forged out of shock, grief, compassion and solidarity, is unlikely to survive any attempt to aggressively limit free speech in New Zealand.
Already, the Leader of the Opposition, Simon Bridges, has indicated his intention to resist strongly any attempt to extend the limitations on citizens’ freedom of expression. This should give Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern serious pause. A straight Left/Right battle over “hate speech” would place her principal coalition partner, NZ First, in an impossible position. Already in a parlous situation, poll-wise, aligning itself with what its electoral base would almost certainly construe as weaponised political correctness would undoubtedly compromise still further NZ First’s chances of making it back to Parliament.
Not that the Prime Minister’s worries are located exclusively on the right. Already, she is reported to be casting anxious glances to her left. The radical wing of the Green Party is in the process of staking out an aggressively uncompromising position on hate speech. This has earned them much respect on Twitter, but it is unclear how favourably the hard-line stance of Marama Davidson and Golriz Ghahraman is being be received by the broader electorate. Labour will be keen to avoid the perception that they are being led into the ideological long grass by its “woke” allies.
The Labour Party’s other big concern should be the extent to which a free speech fight will be seized upon by the Far Right as a Hades-sent opportunity to get back in the game. Being seen to take a stand for the nation’s traditional political values will win their more respectable avatars all sorts of useful invitations to join the genuine defenders of liberty on a multitude of respectable media platforms.
As the theme-song from the TV series “The Wire” puts it: “You gotta keep the devil down in the hole”. Transforming the free speech issue into a vicious Left/Right knife-fight would be a particularly effective way of hauling the Devil all the way up to the surface.
A less divisive and potentially much more productive course of action would be to put this country’s already existing limitations of hate speech to the test. Section 61 of The Human Rights Act (1993) clearly prohibits: “matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons in or who may be coming to New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons.”
A more proactive Human Rights Commission, by allowing the courts to flesh out the purposes – as well as the limitations – of Section 61 of the Act, could establish with much more clarity what it is – and is not – permissible to communicate about race and identity in New Zealand.
More controversial, but in light of the Christchurch Mosque Shootings, almost certainly worth debating, would be a proposal to prohibit religious vilification. Any such measure would, however, need to be very tightly circumscribed in terms of its scope. Vilification must not, under any circumstances, be construed to mean that any particular system of religious belief can be rendered legally immune from all forms of criticism and/or challenge. Such legislation should restrict its application exclusively to statements and/or images communicated with the clear intention of inflicting emotional pain and humiliation on believers.
The key question posed to New Zealand by the awful events of Friday, 15 March 2019 is the degree to which it is possible to mount an effective defence against terrorist violence.
The proposition being advanced by Davidson, Ghahraman, and many others on the left, is that terrorist acts are the by-products of societies steeped in racism and xenophobia: that they constitute the merely the awful apex of a much larger pyramid of prejudice. By discouraging the expression of the milder prejudices embedded at the base of this grim pyramid, they argue, their transmission upwards to damaged individuals like the Christchurch shooter can be interrupted, and lives saved.
The problem with this argument is that the level of intervention in the lives of casual racists and xenophobes required to make such a regime effective would, almost certainly, engender considerably more resentment and hatred than it was intended to suppress. Not only would racism and xenophobia not disappear, but the promoters and enforcers of the state’s anti-racist and anti-xenophobic policies would find themselves added to the terrorists’ target list. It should not be forgotten that the Norwegian white supremacist terrorist, Anders Breivik, did not target Muslim immigrants directly, but the young Labour Party members he held responsible for promoting multiculturalism.
Perhaps the most difficult thing to accept about societies such as our own is that there is within them an irreducible quantum of malicious prejudice. No matter how much energy is devoted to persuading our fellow citizens to embrace their fellow citizens, there will always be some for whom the messages of love and respect are interpreted perversely as threats to themselves and their culture.
To stem the flow of reinforcing information to such individuals, we would not only have to censor the news media and shut down the Internet, but also close every library in the country. Anders Breivik and the Christchurch shooter drew their inspiration from the annals of Western history: from the Crusades and the expansion of the Ottoman Empire into southern and eastern Europe. History itself would have to be suppressed – along with huge chunks of the Western cultural canon. The game is simply not worth the candle.
What we can do, is use the legislation already on the statute books to curtail the expression of sentiments intended to inflict harm. New Zealanders can thus be made more clearly aware of the distinctions to be drawn between the fair and reasonable expression of political and religious opinion, and communication intended to achieve no higher purpose than gratuitous vilification and insult.
Will a proactive Human Rights Commission, dedicated to enforcing Section 61 of the Human Rights Act, prevent another massacre? Sadly, no, it won’t. Will it make New Zealand a better country to live in? Yes, it will.
So, let’s do that.
It’s far better that unpleasant views are out there in the open for society as a whole to discuss and react to, to voice the reaction of the rest of society on a personal level where miscreants are known , and on a wider level in public discourse.
Censorship requires that politicians or enthusiasts be given the responsibility of deciding what the rest of us are qualified to evaluate. The concept that such people are somehow more qualified to make that judgement than the rest of an intelligent educated society is arrogant and wrong. Politicians are not selected for their higher intelligence or wisdom, They are selected for their choice of life’s endeavour. Some are wise, some are not . We have to have faith in our general integrity as a people. Otherwise democracy is impossible.
Good one Chris
D J S
“It’s far better that unpleasant views are out there in the open for society as a whole to discuss and react to, to voice the reaction of the rest of society on a personal level where miscreants are known , and on a wider level in public discourse.”
Is it?
I keep hearing/reading that. Thing is, it’s not us white folk that pay the price for the free speech to denigrate, dehumanise, and attack other New Zealanders who hold different religious beliefs or differing ethnicity.
It’s easy for us white folk to sit atop the moral righteousness of free speech. Easier still when others pay the price for our precious rights.
Ok, carry on. Don’t let me interrupt the worship of your rights.
They’r your rights too Samwise.
D J S
Samwise: “Thing is, it’s not us white folk that pay the price for the free speech to denigrate, dehumanise, and attack other New Zealanders who hold different religious beliefs or differing ethnicity.”
Speak for yourself.
This household qualifies as “white”, and it’s certainly affected us. Just remember that the concept of “ethnicity” isn’t exhausted by skin colour. As well as being NZ citizens, we all belong to one ethnic group or another. Often more than one.
Despite our experiences, I favour freedom of speech to the fullest extent possible. I don’t hold any truck with the concept of “hate speech”: as with “racism”, it seems to come down to “things I say that you don’t like”. Or vice versa.
“Speak for yourself.”
Just did.
Unlike many in the Muslim community who either couldn’t speak up, or weren’t heard when neo fascists threatened them with their free speech hate speech. They complained to authorities but no one took a blind bit of notice of them . Not till it was too late.
But that’s ok D’esterre, you sit comfortably in your white privileged world. I’m sure the next far right gunman will pass you by. You’re not the skin colour they’re wanting wipe out.
Enjoy your safe afternoon.
Samwise: “They complained to authorities but no one took a blind bit of notice of them . Not till it was too late.”
As we know full well, there’s no point in complaining; the authorities aren’t responsive to such issues.
“…you sit comfortably in your white privileged world.”
Privileged: ha! Being white (or whiteish) doesn’t entail privilege. As many of us know.
I think you missed the point here. White schmite: skin colour doesn’t exhaust ethnicity. I have said that we’ve been on the receiving end of some of this stuff. You don’t know our circumstances, and I sure as hell ain’t going to tell you. Leave it at that.
“Being white (or whiteish) doesn’t entail privilege. As many of us know”
No, D’esterre, “many of us” don’t know.
Pontificating on white people not being “privileged” is a denial of reality. It’s a denial of something we’re more than aware of, as the legal, financial, educational, health, etc, systems show. The incarceration rates and the accumulation of wealth clearly demonstrates where privilege lies.
You’re either woefully misinformed or in denial. Neither is an edifying prospect.
Hi Frank
Perhaps when all our feelings are not quite so raw in a few weeks it would be interesting to do a post on just what “White privilege” is, and whether anything can or should be done to address it. I am certainly “white” as far as I know having English, Scottish and French ancestry, and privileged in about every capacity I can think of. Family, Health ,Educational opportunity poorly utilised, modest success in life and having been able to basically live my life outside and done whatever I have chosen. And live in a little paradise .
Should I give it to someone else? Who? how do I decide? What do you do to assuage your guilt at being white and privileged ?
I actually think our society is doing quite a lot to address the imbalance within the bounds of neoliberalism. But neoliberalism is creating a much more dramatic devision of privilege that leaves out black and white and all shades of brown.
Now is probably not the time to examine this too closely.
Cheers
D J S
Or perhaps, David, you could simply take the time to read and digest what countless other blogposts here on TDB have explained in terms of how privileged whites ( especially white males) are in New Zealand.
I’m not going to repeat it all if you haven’t been paying attention.
Hi ya Frank.
Do you think NZ moving towards the Danish model of taxation and distribution would be the way of closing and eventually eliminating the privileged divide?
Appreciate your thoughts on it.
Hi Pedro. On the right side of the Daily Blog main page you will find my name as a linked-button. Click on that. That will take you to several umpteen blogposts I’ve written on the subject.
Feel free to read through and get an understand of what I propose.
It’d be fast than me having to cut and paste several hundred thousand words that’ve already been published.
What is the incarceration rate and educational achievement of Asian New Zealanders.
Ever tried just giving us the answers instead of asking rhetorical questions?
Frank Macskasy: ““many of us” don’t know.”
Well. I’m delighted for you if you’re privileged, as evidently you are.
However. I spent my entire career working in the low-decile neck of these woods.The poor in this country – both working and beneficiary – aren’t exclusively non-white. Why on earth would you think otherwise, as you evidently do?
Access to, and success in, education, has much more to do with class – defined in NZ largely by financial status – than skin colour.
Likewise access to healthcare, legal services and avoiding prison. Were it just a matter of skin colour, the sick, the underrepresented and the prisoners would be exclusively non-white. And clearly, that’s not so.
I’m well aware of what wealth stats are in NZ. But it be no means follows that all white people are wealthy: it would be ludicrous to suggest such a thing.
Remember that the iwi organisations now control a significant chunk of the economy, courtesy of astute management of assets acquired as part of the Treaty settlement process.
And of course there is all the money both made and brought into NZ by immigrants. Many of whom are non-white.
“Despite our experiences, I favour freedom of speech to the fullest extent possible. ”
Hmmmm, D’Esterre,didnt you a while ago tell Martyn or Frank they had no right to comment on events in the US, and criticise Trump, because that was only for Americans to do?? (Apologies if that wasnt you. But i seem to recall it cam from you.) You seemed fairly strident on that point
Mjolnir: “didnt you a while ago tell Martyn or Frank they had no right to comment on events in the US, and criticise Trump, because that was only for Americans to do??”
Er…I’m not getting your drift here. What on earth has this to do with suppression of free speech?
Frank, actually. He commented on Trump and US domestic affairs as if he has skin in the game. He doesn’t. I pointed it out. US domestic policy is the business of US citizens, not of us. We should keep our noses out of it. We’d take the same view, were the boot on the other foot and it were Americans sticking their noses into our domestic policy.
Righto, got it.
Unfettered free speech.
But not criticising Trump.
Any other “small print” we should be aware of?
(PS. Trump is still a dangerous ass. We as a nation should have nothing to do with a bigot who is close mates with the alt.right and the Zionist regime. That’s my free speech. Enjoy.)
Frank Macskasy:
Again. What? It looks as if you really have no idea about free speech. Pointing out that you fulminate about Trump as if he’s our president isn’t trampling on your free speech rights. Nor is suggesting that you butt out of the domestic policy of another country.
Name-calling – as you’ve just done here – isn’t free speech. If it were, we’d all be calling you names related to your ethnic background. And we don’t do that.
Hahaha! You do realise that all Americans are well-ensconced with the Israelis, right? It isn’t just Trump – sent by God as he may be. It’s the entire nation, including the body politic.
Now here’s my free speech: it was a really bad idea for Jacinda Ardern to wear a headscarf. And well-intentioned but wrongheaded (pardon the pun) for NZ women to be encouraged to do it. And – unsurprisingly – I have some support from Muslim women for my view. See these:
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111462185/my-issue-with-kiwis-being-encouraged-to-wear-headscarves-in-solidarity
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111473440/headscarves-movement-means-well-but-it-is-cheap-tokenism
I advise you to read both articles. Especially the second one.
This is a secular state: this is why our society manages to accommodate so many different belief systems with as little conflict as we now have. And it’s also why so many refugees come here. The PM ought not to be threatening that secular status by introducing religious symbols, no matter how well-intentioned her gesture was.
The hijab isn’t prescribed by the Qu’ran, millions of Muslim women worldwide don’t cover their heads. Including many here in NZ.
I take issue, too, with the Muslim call to prayer being broadcast in parliament. It is bad enough that we have a prayer to begin a sitting. Worse still that Muslim prayers are inserted there. This is a secular state: we need to be shot of all that religious stuff.
Not only was it a symbolic event that was appropriate, but it’s another way of showing our utter rejection of far-right extremism. It is a shame you can’t see past your own dogmatic views to understand that.
By learning and embracing the diversity of other cultures, we really do become stronger. Perhaps dwell on that, D’Esterre, rather than what you want to suit your own narrow view of society.
As for the rest of your comments, it’s insightful to see how you are so devoted to free speech – as long as it fits your narrative. The sad thing is that you unaware of what you’re saying.
Frank Macskasy: “it’s another way of showing our utter rejection of far-right extremism.”
That’s the problem. It isn’t. It would be a serious mistake to see far right extremism as purely non-Muslim. That’s very far from being the case.
Anyone who’s read even a part of this fellow’s “manifesto” cannot fail to have noticed the similarities between what he’s written and that coming from Islamist extremism. And that’s scarcely surprising, given that both come from the same wellspring: fear of the other, desire for a return to a mythical past, in which there was no mixing of races and people followed one religion. Islamist extremists desire to establish a world Caliphate, of course, hence the recent turmoil in the ME. Including the persecution of Christians, such that most have fled that part of the world. Those populations are very low now, compared with in the past. I can supply links, if you’re sceptical about this.
“By learning and embracing the diversity of other cultures, we really do become stronger.”
Says who? Where do you think all this extremism has come from? It’s originated in societies which are very diverse. Obviously, the extremists disagree with you.
Remember that humans are groupish: bias against difference and in favour of people who are like us, is part of the human condition. No amount of lecturing will make any difference to that.
“….it’s insightful to see how you are so devoted to free speech – as long as it fits your narrative.”
Have you actually read anything I and others have written? Some of us disagree with some of what you say: I’ve made arguments to counter some of your claims. Is it the fact that we counter-argue which annoys you? We’re allowed to have a different perspective, you know: that’s what free speech is all about.
So, you oppose diversity in societies? The opposite to diversity is mono-culturalism.
Is that what you’re advocating?
“Where do you think all this extremism has come from? It’s originated in societies which are very diverse. Obviously, the extremists disagree with you.”
What does that mean? Do you oppose a multicultural society or support it? Do you oppose immigration from non Anglo saxon societies or suppott it?
You’re arguing heaps without telling us what you *do* believe in
Frank said: ““By learning and embracing the diversity of other cultures, we really do become stronger.”
Actually I believe that to be truer than you rwalise D’esterre. Our strength does come from our diversity and thats been proven since March 15
Its a shame you haven’t opened your very narrow gaze to the real nature of Aotearoas spirit. I feel sorry for you
[Comment declined for publication. Racist content. – Scarletmod]
Scarletmod: “Comment declined for publication. Racist content.”
If the comment in question was about Islam, a priori it could not be what people on this site characterise as “racist”. Islam is a religion, not an ethnic group.
I’d add that, on this site, some fairly egregious comments were made about Chinese people (including NZ residents, if I remember rightly), in the context of the Huawei frou-frou some time back. Those comments weren’t declined for publication, or I wouldn’t have seen them.
It seems to me that moderation ought to follow a consistent policy in this regard.
David Stone: “We have to have faith in our general integrity as a people. Otherwise democracy is impossible.”
I agree with this. And with the rest of your comment.
I agree with much of what Chris Trotter’s written here.
However. I’m not a fan of the so-called hate speech provisions in the Human Rights Act. Wasn’t it Peter Dunne who opposed that? With good reason, in my view. I can’t recall a case being brought to court. Imagine if that started happening: some poor, otherwise inoffensive, individual being dragged through the legal system and obliged to shell out for a lawyer, possibly on the basis of having said something that somebody else doesn’t like. Think of all the unintended consequences of that.
Ditto religious vilification: a rabbit hole down which we definitely do not want to go.
Humans are a groupish species: prejudice against the other, and bias in favour of people who are like us, is part of the human condition. The best we can do as a society is to restrain the worst manifestations of it.
We cannot control what people think. Or say, even, except in some circumstances. Nor should anyone be suggesting that. The best thing we as a society can do is to have a legal structure which constrains what people do. As far as I can tell, that’s what we now have.
Well said David!
Certainly Davidson & Ghahraman don’t own the truth. If anything I think they’re part of the problem.
Internationally what do we have here? One attack by a possible right winger who might be just plain crazy, and thousands by Muslim extremists. You may chose to call them right wingers too, because radical Islam has been a bedfellow of the Nazis from the 1920’s onward.
The lesson for the Left is to chose their friends more carefully
Andrew, you are repugnant. Your views are repugnant.
But as an apologist for the far right white supremacists, you’re pretty damned good.
One man who knew what he was doing, he was not crazy.
“Certainly Davidson & Ghahraman don’t own the truth. If anything I think they’re part of the problem.”
Piss off Andrew
Theyre calling out racism and intolerance. Are you ok with rejecting white supremacy or have we touched a bit of a hidden raw nerve there?
When people like you attack those calling out racism then that tells us something about *YOU* not them
Some people may have dissenting views that are the inconvenient truth, so they should still be allowed to express their opinions and so, and not be shut up by the power of the mob. We had the worst of the power of the mob in the medieval days, leading to so called witches being burnt, and we had similar things in the former so called ‘Islamic State’, where people where nailed onto crosses and had their limbs and heads chopped off.
There can be tyranny by the majority, but as long as the law is not broken, going by reasonable judgment, then dissent must be allowed.
Marc: “There can be tyranny by the majority, but as long as the law is not broken, going by reasonable judgment, then dissent must be allowed.”
Yup. You’ve summed it up.
Only a person who truly loves people can develop such malice towards certain people, and when it comes to the Left, some supporters really hate certain members and / or certain policy. Hate speech can be an argument, and if you can’t prove me wrong in an argument then you get cucked into oblivion and it just feeds my ego.
So I’ll play devils advocate and say that hate speech can be argued from ages 4-6 and that you can argue with a child once they’re capable of communicating and that it’s not immoral if society does not deem it immoral, obviously playing devils advocate here.
Society has different values obviously between Nazis and Jews. What I’m saying is if society didn’t view hate speech with such a negative stigma could society believe that that is immoral. Thing is that no one needs research to know that arguing with a kid about hate speech is stupid, it’s that no one needs research to prove that it’s immoral. Hate speech isn’t a debate about science it’s s subjective debate about morals. The argument being that children arguing about hate speech simply likes the action and chaos of it.
Believing in human rights means rational people can argue with each other and in this case there’s positive wellbeing when the action is enjoyable and not if there’s no negative stigma in society because people normally tell children that they’re abused and people even tell children they’re actually born in the wrong body and adults will influence children into thinking it’s correct to think you’re born in the wrong body because usually people are telling them that’s a form of abuse. And adults will say to children you can’t have gender reassignment surgery until there bodies can handle it. So until a child’s physical body can handle hate speech there is a distinct harm of well being. In terms of arguing with children. You can, because they should have a right of reply when some one questions there body image or they disagree with abusive statements at what ever arbitrary age that is instead of making it a legal problem. Legality isn’t what determines morals because it used to be legal to kill Jews.
It’s not even a debate it’s like people come to view the woke social justice worriers as specimens to see where they are intellectually. No one is prepared for that un-ironic shit. The thing is there’s no way to really disprove a pro hate speech argument. Even if statistics was brought up there’s still no way of disproving the moral argument because it’s just the stigma. And this is me questioning whether or not some one could disprove me arguing with a kid about hate speech.
So let’s flip it. The flip side of my argument then would be the age at which humans can communicate with children would be set at 25 because the brain isn’t fully formed / functioning until you’re 25 and so by default you’d experience more maximum wellbeing decisions until you’re fully developed as a maximum human being. It’s the same as trying to tattoo a child, you shouldn’t be able to tattoo a child until 25, shouldn’t be able to fuck until 25, you shouldn’t be able to do anything until there’s no repercussions until the age of 25 and you’re fully developed and able to comprehend everything around you.
So we are saying that people can be physically developed but not mentally developed trait wise. I mean if we are going to structure society then we should structure it by averages I’d go for full development at 16 but full mental development at 25. So if we are going to start finning people and jailing them for hate speech then I’d argue that the age limit should be set at 25.
I was so very impressed with the caring, warm, sensitive ‘inclusive’ call by the gentle character of Efeso Collins today on the TV one morning panel.
Efeso is exactly the type of leader we desperately need to heal us all in today’s divided secular bitter broken society.
Sadly the presentation by the much more ‘abrasive character of Mary Lambie was sadly an injury to our feelings of hope that this tragedy will bring us together in the wonderful manner that Efeso wants “in a totally inclusive warm caring manner as we are desperately hoping all our community issues may also be resolved.
It is a must watch to see the special tenderness expressed by this extraordinary man Efeso Collins that should be a senior MP in this current Labour government who has expressed the same will to add Labour as a, Quote; “gentle, kind, caring, inclusive government”.
This was a special moment that came from the TV one morning report after 8 am during the discussion panel on the Christchurch memorial happening today one week after the killings.
Perhaps mediaworks, the Herald, and various radio stations can also look at the media “personalities” they have working for them, with their articles and broadcasts full of intolerance and anger. That’d be a good start. Their click-bait stories are designed to attract an audience, but they also validate all sorts of political phobic attitudes.
Can we have a ‘hate test’ at the border, every migrant and visitor has to think women, transgender and every race is equal before being allowed to live here permanently and visit here, or is it only aimed at the domestic population because they are easy targets from politicians to whine about?
Can we also have psychological tests before someone gets to live in NZ? And we throw them out if they lie?
Or is that xenophobic and against racist rights?
If government policy bothered to put as much effort into stopping racist and criminal people coming to NZ to live instead of worrying about pathetic so called breaches and micro aggressions that the woke and MSM get worked up about on a weekly rant or witch hunt of some tiny domestic infraction of someones perceived THEIR rights.
The mass murderer who came here to stop immigration, presumably did not see the irony that he was actually a migrant themselves. That is the level of permanent visitor entitlement people have new to living here, fanned by our own politicians and media.
Our government and MSM is full of vitriol against NZer’s born here while also giving the green light to new visitors and migrants behaviour entitled to do what ever they like including criminal acts. And our government policy enables that to happen like giving this guy a gun license without even bothering to visit his house or find our more about his life and not investigating the ‘fruit loop’.
Government talk fest is easy, actually doing hard stuff like stopping real racists and criminals coming here with government policy is too much like hard work than going after some small breach of speech of someone irrelevant like Don Brash that gets full media attention and middle NZ, hardly listen to him anyway.
The woke obsess over the small stuff while giant canyons are forming aka our first ever 50+ massacre here which clearly if our government, border, security services and so forth could have had a bit more interest in who and why people are coming here and are they a safety threat to others living here, including as the mass murder showed, other migrant groups.
The government policy has failed to notice, let alone stop from getting in, people increasingly new to the country apprehended for crimes after being granted residency after 2 – 5 years or in the case of the OZ murderer have permanent right to live here no questions asked of their criminal intentions.
The test should be the existing law of the land. If people have views, customs and practices that may compromise or even breach the law, then they have to be asked questions, and may have to prove that they are fit and equipped to share this land and society with the people that live here already. If they are not, they should be asked to stay away or leave.
The term “Free Speech” is not a useful description when examining expression of opinion and its consequence.
The black and white , all or nothing categorisation of opinion and its validity, is often used to justify ideas expressed without any regard to setting or their effect.
The “Free speech ” term tends to be used very selectively as an emotive persuasive ploy.
A better description of exchange of opinion is needed with some regards included as to is effect and relevance.
What part of the phrase “Free speech” is it that you don’t understand?
Often there is a heavy cost involved, and ignored by the speaker.
You can figure that one out I hope.
Jake, the bit where 50 people were murdered
Hope that helps
[Comment declined for publication. Conspiracy material not appropriate. – Scarletmod]
Not really sure what Mr Trotter is on about here–more “Green bashing”?
It has been heartening to see people that circulated the Mosque shooter’s live video held to account, and the neo nazi insulation installer charged similarly, the “camo boys” need their cages rattled on a regular basis by the authorities, not ignored by them.
Ordinary people need to stop tolerating intolerance in their daily lives, where ever it presents, it is as simple as that.
“PC gone mad” is usually the distress call of the thwarted bigot!
When authorities try to limit information of any description coming to the people they are usually trying to hide something.
What gives them the right?
Went to Briebart for the first time ever – looked at the comments sections then went and had a shower! Hate speech is not free speech. As a disabled woman I encounter hate speech when I am demeaned, dismissed and objectified. Chris as a white, middle class male you are not the object of hate speech just the target. I can tell you hate speech does not require much from speech to action. When someone tells a person to go back to their home country and spits on them, how far is that from physical violence? They scream and spit because our police like you believe hate speech falls within the remit of free speech. When someone in a Nazi t shirt stands outside a mosque 2 days after a mass shooting that’s OK according to the police. Intimidation and hate speech are the baby steps for slaughter – you can stop it or let it go but if you let hate speak its truth then you shouldn’t be surprised when people are slaughtered.
Lucy you should not really use the word “white”. That is racist is it not?
And do not worry about Breitbart. It is controlled opposition.
In the end Breitbart is on the side of your lot…the Left.
No Jake using the term WHITE supremicist isnt racist. Its the truth.
If it looks like a turd, stinks like a turd, then yeah its white supremicist shit
New Zealand is very naive especially with the Asian Immigration and the associated Crime & Drug Problems that have come with Asian Immigration.
The article heading has got it wrong. The devil has already escaped out of the hole and is roaming freely.
Only a nation of one blood can stand because that is where unity comes from, not the exhortations of politicians and ruthless, freedom limiting laws.
New Zealand has elected to its highest office a woman of the strongest socialist leanings and this can only end in tragedy, as it already has done.
Tarrant was “the canary in the cage”. Try to learn from it.
Whitcoulls just took Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life off it’s shelves. At the same time NZ grants a visa to an Islamic preacher who advocates that adulterous women be stoned to death
What’s wrong with this picture?
Appeal to orthodoxy is just retarded because Whitcoull management made a commercial decision. That’s got nothing to do with immigration. Unless a credible threat can be proven like visa fraud criminal intenet then you’re just being out of it.
Indeed, Sam.
Ironic isn’t it. When the Left complains that the MSM is biased, the usual response from the Right is to go set up a newspaper or TV broadcaster ourselves.
Well, the same rule applies to the Right. If they don’t like Whitcoull’s decision, they can set up a book chain themselves.
Isn’t that the rules of capitalism they set up for the rest of us?
Damn right they did.
Shoe. Other foot.
I’m not actually complaining about Whitcoulls decision. I bought my copy of 12 Rules from Oslo Airport thoughit was also available as No 1 Bestseller last time I was in Dubai airport
The issue is that this story is going viral in global mainstream media, as is the ludicrous headscarf virtue signalling, making NZ a laughing stock at a time when we should all be mourning and griefing for a terrible loss of life
“The issue is that this story is going viral in global mainstream media, as is the ludicrous headscarf virtue signalling, making NZ a laughing stock”
Firstly, Andy, it is deeply cynical for you to refer to the wearing of headscarves in the manner you did.
When you went to your Church were you “virtue signalling”?
People show their empathy in different ways.
Secondly, far from being a “laughing stock” (where would you get that idea from?!?!), the world is looking on with considerable admiration as we deal with this tragedy in our own Kiwi way.
This is the “kiwi way of life” and sometimes we don’t realise that there are good things about us.
We just need to translate our love into the wider way we live our lives and our society
Yeah Frank. That the Government can a achieve its super majority of greater than 75% support for its gun reforms says to me that unicorns can happen.
Nicely put, Sam.
A very good and timely post, Mr Trotter.
The truth is that New Zealand now faces the greatest challenge and threat to free speech that it has ever faced in modern day history.
There is NO doubt about it, following the many appeals and comments by various politicians, including our Prime Minister and her other ministers, and a fair few within government.
The Greens stand out, namely Marama Davidson and Golriz Ghahraman.
It is one thing to enforce the law with all the power that is allowed to do so, it is also one thing to change the law to ban more guns and ammunition, that were used, and that are capable of killing and injuring innocent human beings, citizens and residents and visitors of this land.
It is quite another thing to go and start a virtual ‘crusade’ (apologies for using that term in this context, but should I) against the use of certain words, language, of expressions of dissent, opposition and disagreement, as they could be interpreted most widely as being directed against certain groups of people in this society.
When there are demands to not ‘stigmatise’ immigrants, then this has a chilling effect, thus leading to every critical word against more immigration and thus created population growth being interpreted as being potentially discriminatory or ‘racist’.
It will stifle any discussion of the worth, benefits or else of immigration.
When there are now calls for greater powers of GCSB, SIS and Police to chase after certain commenters on online forums, possibly going beyond of what the law allows now, to find out any potential threat or risk factor in any person behind this, this will lead to public debate being stifled, as people will feel, they cannot say or write anything anymore.
The difference must be made between, is an expression of opinion, an action of an person, really hateful and potential to harm others, in a significant manner, or is it simply powerful, frank expression of dislike and dissent, not even meeting present day human rights legislation breaches, or what else?
We are having a situation where a moral righteousness, PC dominated brigade of lobby groups and individuals want to rewrite society, history and more, so to create a new multi faith, multicultural and neutered society, where it is not even allowed to say anything negative about the bible, Quoran, other ‘scriptures’ and so forth, as it could be interpreted as hate speech or whatsoever.
I hope that soon we will settle after a period of justified grief and shock, and expression of sympathies, and return to more less subjective, yes more objective thinking and expressions and actions, otherwise we will have a modern day PC led dictatorship that allows almost no expression of any significant criticism any more.
I would not want to live in a New Zealand where women feel compelled to wear head scarfs and where men will not dare say something critical, albeit it is objective and based of truths about whatever religion and people that may practice it.
I quote from the above post:
“Perhaps the most difficult thing to accept about societies such as our own is that there is within them an irreducible quantum of malicious prejudice. No matter how much energy is devoted to persuading our fellow citizens to embrace their fellow citizens, there will always be some for whom the messages of love and respect are interpreted perversely as threats to themselves and their culture.
To stem the flow of reinforcing information to such individuals, we would not only have to censor the news media and shut down the Internet, but also close every library in the country. Anders Breivik and the Christchurch shooter drew their inspiration from the annals of Western history: from the Crusades and the expansion of the Ottoman Empire into southern and eastern Europe. History itself would have to be suppressed – along with huge chunks of the Western cultural canon. The game is simply not worth the candle.”
Truly very well said or written, I agree, free speech is now facing its greatest threat in modern day New Zealand. We have to be mindful and careful.
For those who value freedom of thought and speech above all else and who have grown weary of the constantly repeated but logically flawed threads of the last week.
YouTube/Michael Norton/”my apology to Stefan Molynux…”
This is what true intelligence and character looks like.
Pretty much agree with the sentiment Chris. The left are in an unworkable position, just unsure if they’re able to see it. We laugh at the evangelicals of the 80s, the books and albums burners, the thought police. Now the left screech without any sense of irony. It’s just that their thirst for power seems to be insatiable, that’s the worry. They have become exactly what they detest.
Off White;
“It’s just that their thirst for power seems to be insatiable, that’s the worry.
They have become exactly what they detest.”
Yes. Most concerning and what you may be alluding to below.
Most of us have been lead to believe / indoctrinated, that Authoritarianism
and Fascism comes from the right. Including myself.
In fact it comes from the left.!!
Hitler, Social Democratic. Mussolini, Socialist background. Mao, Communist
and of course Lennin / Stalin that the Founders of the Fabian Society greatly admired.
For those that do not know, the Fabian Society set up the Labour Party and Union Movements to control the lower classes “for their own good” by the Oligarchs closely associated with Rothschild and Rockefeller.
Goals were to set up “by increment and stealth” a One World Government, hence their original motto “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.”
https://fabiansociety.wordpress.com/ A must read in full.
Most Labour Prime Ministers in our Commonwealth have been Fabian Society members.
One of the best people to explain this is https://www.dineshdsouza.com/ with
his major films ‘Obama’s America,’ ‘Hillary’s America’ and most recent
‘Death of a Nation’ (2018)
http://www.dineshdsouza.com/videos/
It is the Democrats that have set the racial divide, were the major slave owners,
set up the KKK and passed laws to give blacks jail terms 3x more than whites
(Clintons) which Trump has just thrown out with his recent Law Reforms.
In fact one of TPTB’s major strategies is ‘Divide and Conquer’ and Carrol Quigley’s book “Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time by
Carroll Quigley is the ultimate insider admission of a secret global elite that
has impacted nearly every modern historical event.”
You can read it, uncensored, on line:
https://tragedyandhope.com/
Controlling all ideologies from communism through to Capitalism.
In other words, FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE.
These guys are in ‘full panic mode’ as they realize that their end goal is
slowly slipping away.
Cheers.
“Slip sliding away, slip sliding away
You know the nearer your destination, the more you slip slidingaway”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNt5FnMK2sM
Excellent Chris, with such insight again.
still, any comments asking questions about Islam, are NOT published, this is an Islam friendly site now, not objective, I fear.
[Marc, that depends on what is being “asked”. We will not fuel Islamophobia. – Scarletmod]
” Down in the hole…”
I’ve just been watching ‘The Wire’. It’s about drugs, cops, crooks and incarceration.
Season two hears Tom Waits growl out the title tune and I hear, through my jaundiced ear, the phrase ‘ down in the hole’.
I’m drunk btw so bear with darlings, bear with.
The things is, right? Look to history…
But do not look to the Sparrow.
I have a joke.
An older fellow was concerned about his, and his female human’s sex life so he went to his old and conservative Dr for advice.
“Dr” he asked. “Dr, my wife and myself? We’re experiencing the doldrums in the bedroom if you get my drift. We’ve been together for many years and, well, ‘things’ ? They’re just not the same. If you know what I mean”.
The wise old Dr leaned back in his chair and pondered the conundrum for a moment then spoke.
“ Look out that window there? See them sparrows? Look at them? Don’t they seem happy? They just let nature take it’s course, and you should too. Up there, shagging on that spouting, not a care in the world. “
A week later, the gentleman returned. His arm in a sling.
The Dr, somewhat concerned, asked why the broken arm?
The fellow replied ; “ Well, I took your advice. But me and my wife? We fell off the roof”.
Ba Ha anyone?
It’s vital. Critically, supremely vital, that we must never, ever take life too seriously.
The name calling (implied) on this post is depressing. It is the resort of the desperate with no argument.
The presumptioness (and arrogance) of applying characteristics to posters is exactly what people like the mosque does. It justifies actions with no reasone logic.
Frank Macskasy: “So, you oppose diversity in societies? The opposite to diversity is mono-culturalism.”
And here we go again. This is the have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet question. I stated a fact: we humans are a groupish species, preferring to live with people who are like us, sharing our language, cultural mores and so on. It has nothing to do with what I think; you can see it in action all around you. It is what it is.
It doesn’t follow that there won’t be interaction, intermarriage and so on; there is always fluidity at the boundaries, so to speak.
You have “form” for doing something similar with regard to Trump (not our president, remember). Anyone who expresses scepticism about your fulminations is accused of being a “Trump supporter”. Historian Pete has called you out on this, as have I. Others too, if I remember rightly.
Please don’t do it again, regarding the ChCh shootings; this is far too awful an event for it to be cheapened by tactics of that sort.
“Anyone who expresses scepticism about your fulminations is accused of being a “Trump supporter”. Historian Pete has called you out on this, as have I. Others too, if I remember rightly.
Please don’t do it again…”
Well, all I can say, D’esterre, is thank goodness you’re a “free speech advocate”.
“Well, all I can say, D’esterre, is thank goodness you’re a “free speech advocate”.”
Heh, Frank! Gotta have the last word, eh?
Who had the last word there, D’estrrre?
MJOLNIR: “What does that mean? Do you oppose a multicultural society or support it? Do you oppose immigration from non Anglo saxon societies or suppott it?”
See my response to Frank. Do you not understand? What I think doesn’t matter; I merely point out what’s actually happening. So: as did Frank, you ask the loaded question: the have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet? type of question. And then, evidently having made up your mind that you know what I think, you go on to say this:
“Its a shame you haven’t opened your very narrow gaze to the real nature of Aotearoas spirit. I feel sorry for you”
Isn’t this site supposed to be the repository of debate? It seems that you – and Frank – want to hear only your own one-dimensional perspectives repeated to you. If that’s so, this site isn’t about debate: it’s an echo chamber.
“Isn’t this site supposed to be the repository of debate? It seems that you – and Frank – want to hear only your own one-dimensional perspectives ”
The same could equally said of you D’esterre. You’re hostile to any other viewpoint that questions or challenges your own. You don’t seem to want to read any views except your own
Tellingting another commentator ” not to do it again” in regards to expressing his opinion is hypocritical considering you bleat on about the sanctity of free speech
Fuck your hypocrisy
Oh and telling Frank he had to have the last word? I guess the irony is lost on you, *YOU* had to have the last word!!!
Now feel free to jump in telling me how nasty and unreasonable everyone is to you! Boo hoo hoo
Comments are closed.