Banning of manifesto a step too far – Free Speech Coalition

By
The Daily Blog
-
3
4


The Free Speech Coalition says the Censor’s banning of the Christchurch terrorist attacker’s manifesto is wrong, unconstitutional, and counterproductive.

“This is a completely improper use of the censorship powers,” says Coalition Spokesman and constitutional lawyer, Stephen Franks, responding to media reports of the banning.

“Most New Zealanders will have no interest in reading the rants of an evil person. But there is a major debate going on right now on the causes of extremism. Kiwis should not be wrapped in cotton wool with their news and information censored.”

“New Zealanders need to be able to understand the nature of evil and how it expresses itself.”

“Our society has surmounted many more terrible threats than this by allowing each citizen to engage, hear, read, and reject evil for themselves. It is completely alien to our history and our strength of a self-ruling citizenry to be told that only those in power may know and tell us what they want us to think an evil person has written.”

“For the same reason we don’t ban Mein Kampf, the manifesto should not be driven underground.”

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

3 COMMENTS

  1. Let commonsense prevail.
    The Manifesto has been seen before, used by another MK Ultra Manchurian candidate. Time for the Powers that be to step away and allow NZers to think for themselves and to stop the forced feeding.

  3. Dos free speech extend to this?

    Police are defending their decision not to charge a man who, three days after the terror attacks, stood outside a Palmerston North mosque wearing a swastika.

    Police are defending their decision not to charge a man who, three days after the terror attacks, stood outside a Palmerston North mosque wearing a swastika.

    Initially, police said they did not have the right to ask him what he was doing and they would be taking no further action.

    Subsequently, they said his details had been entered into the police intelligence system.

    The man stood outside the Manawatū Islamic Centre, wearing a red singlet with a large black swastika on the front, on Monday, just three days after 50 people were shot dead at two mosques in Christchurch.

    “The man was approached by police,” a police spokesperson told RNZ.

    “He was advised to move on and told that obviously what he was wearing at the time, considering what’s happened on Friday, was inappropriate and yeah, basically suggesting that he moved on – he complied and that was it.”

    ref: https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/385310/no-charges-for-man-wearing-swastika-outside-mosque

    The person was asked to “move on”.

    Was that a violation of his right to “free speech”?

    I’d be curious what the “Coalition” has to say on this point.

Comments are closed.