Green Party start their campaign to curtail free speech – the danger of Millennial micro aggression policing culture defining hate speech

49
29

Here comes the Green Stasi where free speech is white cis-male privilege and micro aggression lead directly to macro violence.

I think Millennials are so feral about policing micro aggressions for three reasons.

The first is that they are the first generation totally brought up by neoliberal values of selfishness above all else. Gen Xers were the first user pays generation but they had a class culture of challenging state power, Millennial’s were brought up believing only their special little selves mattered. The Individual uber allas. We can’t blame them for that self absorbed reality, they are a direct product of neoliberal cultural mythology where individual success is your birth right and economic failure a personal responsibility. It’s luck egalitarianism without the luck.

The second reason is that Millennials, for all their rage, can’t do a damned thing about the neoliberal economic hegemonic structure, can’t change climate change, can’t move out of perversely insecure working environments, can’t gain a foothold on the property ladder – the only thing they can challenge is how individuals interact directly with them and so every interaction they don’t like becomes subjectively raised to the level of war crime with all the hysteria that demands.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

The third reason of course is social media, where debate is shaped by outrage olympics and algorithmically fuelled by subjective rage.

Allowing this Millennial micro aggression policing culture to define hate speech is deeply dangerous because it could easily become horribly counter productive and actually help create the very fascism it is claiming to fight.

If a micro aggression is the brith place of sexist and racist violence, then killing the micro aggression is the obvious answer.

This was Susan Devoy’s response in the wake of the Christchurch atrocity on the Millennial Spin Off to Jacinda’s rallying call that this was not us …

“Do not write an op-ed today crying about how shocking [the Christchurch] murders were. Because you helped make it happen. You helped normalise hatred in our country. You helped those murderers feel that they were representing the thoughts of ordinary New Zealanders.”

…let those words drip onto your consciousness. As far as Devoy is concerned, all white people in the media are directly to blame for a foreign white supremacist agent provocateur’s terrorist violence.

That’s a lot of people who will need to go to re-education camps under Devoy.

Andrew Little’s ridiculous over reaction to a stupid and crassly racist pamphlet that was dropped into the woke neighbourhood of Pt Chev gives little in the way of comfort that adults will be directing this reclassification of hate speech.

 

From the above image, it looks like the Greens want to redefine hate speech to cover groups, like women, or trans, or refugees, or migrants.

How many times could you disagree with Lizzie Marvelly or Alison Mau before it becomes hate speech against women?

How many times could you disagree with Gholriz before it becomes hate speech against migrants?

How many times  am I allowed to ask these questions before simply asking the question is suddenly a hate crime?

This is the kind of middle class woke identity politics crap that only ends up alienating voters while feeding and empowering racists! Climate change is an existential threat to our species and they want to waste time on limiting free speech? No wonder the Greens are stalling in the polls.

Could you imagine the woke green activists roaming like morality police across social media policing these new free speech infringements? Do you really want the Wellington Twitteratti defining hate speech based on their subjective feelings?

Apart from this woke censorship enabling and feeding radicalisation, the real danger in allowing Millennial micro aggression policing culture to define hate speech is that is likely to go the other way.

We all think these new hate speech laws will protect the weak, but it rarely ever works out that way. If groups can be redefined as needing hate speech protection from the State, you can immediately see where this will go. Imagine Bob Jones taking someone through the hate speech process because they claimed he exhibited white male privilege.

Well known lefty Kenan Malik at the Guardian highlights the dangers of allowing identity politics to dominate the debate…

If identity politics is a force for good, how does white nationalism fit in? 

You turned the issue on its head,” someone said to me after I gave a talk on identity politics in Melbourne last week. “I’ve never thought of it that way round.” It always was on its head, I said to her. It’s just that we’ve never noticed.

I’ve been in Australia over the past week talking, among other things, about the politics of identity. The issue has, in the wake of the Christchurch mosque massacres, acquired new resonance. The gunman, who has been charged in a New Zealand court with 50 counts of murder, was Australian. It has led to much soul searching about white nationalism and its roots and about the role of mainstream media and politics in fuelling hatred.

There is, though, in Australia as elsewhere, a strange disjuncture in such discussions. There is a heated debate about identity politics, which focuses primarily on the left, and on whether it makes sense to adopt such politics. There is an equally heated, but separate, debate about white identity and white nationalism.

Rarely, though, have the two debates been linked or the relationship between the identity politics of the left and that of the right been explored at any great depth. Which is why when you do place the two debates within the same frame, it can feel to some as if the issue has been turned on its head.

One of the consequences of the bifurcated debate is historical amnesia about the origins of identity politics. Most people imagine that its roots are on the left. In fact, they lie on the reactionary right, in the counter-Enlightenment of the late 18th century. It wasn’t then called the politics of identity. It was called racism. It is, however, in the concept of race – the insistence that humans are divided into a number of essential groups, and that one’s group identity determines one’s moral and social place in the world – that we find the original politics of identity, out of which ideas of white superiority emerged.

Where reactionaries adopted an identitarian outlook, radicals challenged inequality and oppression in the name of universal rights. From anti-colonial struggles to the movements for women’s suffrage to the battles for gay rights, the great progressive movements that have shaped the modern world were a challenge to the politics of identity, to the claim that an individual’s race or gender or sexuality should define their rights, or their place in a social hierarchy.

Only after the Second World War did the relationship between left, right and identity change. In the wake of Nazism and the Holocaust, overt racism became less acceptable. The old politics of identity faded, but a new form emerged – identity politics as a weapon wielded not in the name of racism but to confront oppression and to challenge inequality.

Faced with a left often indifferent to their plight, black people, women, gay people and others transformed the political landscape by placing their own experiences of oppression at the heart of new social movements. But what began as struggles against oppression and for social change transformed over time into demands for cultural recognition by myriad social groups. The social movements of the 1960s gave way to the identity politics of the 21st century.

The nadir of this process came with the demand that white people, too, be culturally “recognised”. Over the past decade, in the face of populist hostility to immigration, especially Muslim immigration, many mainstream commentators began arguing that white people should be able to assert what the political scientist Eric Kaufmann has called their “racial self-interest”.

The identitarians of the far right seized on the opportunity to legitimise their once-toxic brand, reclaiming their original heritage. Racism became rebranded as white identity politics. And, having spent decades promoting the politics of identity, the left found itself paralysed in the face of this shift.

…it is very easy to see how this can quickly get out of hand and become ridiculous

On 23 February, Oluwole Ilesanmi, a Christian street preacher, was approached by two uniformed police officers outside an underground station in north London. Donned with an earpiece microphone and a bible, Ilesanmi had been proselytizing to people as they passed on the sidewalk. In a video of the exchange, which has since gone viral, one of the officers says that if he doesn’t stop what he’s doing and leave, he’ll be arrested. Ilesanmi quickly declares his intention to continue preaching, and—within seconds—the officer makes good on his promise: he’s stripped of his bible, handcuffed and dragged away. When questioned by a bystander filming the arrest, the officer reportedly said that Ilesanmi was being detained for Islamophobia. This, presumably, was a reference to his attempt, moments earlier, to convert a Muslim.

The arrest and subsequent release of a street preacher for a speech crime is not the only sign there’s something rotten in the state of England. Three weeks later, it was revealed that police had an open investigation into a UK journalist. The journalist in question, Caroline Farrow, is a columnist who writes from a Catholic perspective. Following an appearance on the TV show Good Morning Britain, where she paneled alongside transgender rights lobbyist Susie Green, Farrow took to Twitter to inform the world she was being investigated under the Malicious Communications Act. The transgression? In a series of tweets from October 2018, she’d allegedly misgendered Green’s adult child, who was born male but identifies as female. What is perhaps most disconcerting is the investigation not only constitutes an infringement on free expression, but on a free press. While the term is often overused, the adjective Orwellian comes to mind.

You would have thought after the colossal clusterfuck the free speech debate caused last year where the woke inadvertently empowered Don Brash and two crypto-fascists that they would be far more careful treading on fundamental rights within a democracy.

Apparently not.

Mark my words, unless cooler heads with sharper minds prevail,  this will explode in the face of the Left.

 

49 COMMENTS

  1. …’ Mark my words, unless cooler heads with sharper minds prevail, this will explode in the face of the Left’…

    Indeed, … it will come as a kick back against a perceived dictatorial stance , – of not just those pushing the Identity politics bandwagon , – but even on those of the Left which are more concerned with traditional issues such as wages, conditions, prices, fair taxation , housing etc…

    They will all be lumped in together and the right wing media will have a field day.

    I read an article on Stuff I think it was last night that mentioned Devoy. And so I read up on Devoy . Appointed by Judith Collins and there were several things that were controversial …

    And that caption you quoted of Devoy’s left one in no doubts who it was being addressed to,… as you have said ,… ‘the heteronormative patriarchy’. Or middle aged white males , in other words.

    Nice way to cause division and create more anger and kickback and to demolish and undercut such govt’s as the current coalition.

    And, with Judith Collins having appointed Devoy originally ,… may have been her real motivation for that write up.

    Far easier to cast slurs and make generalizations about a huge swathe of people than to take the longer , harder road and bring about change in a way that all are built up, isn’t it?…

    Identity politics is lazy divisive politics. Yet when the inverse is mentioned and the tables are turned on their heads, – there are no real answers,-such as is mentioned in the article by Kenan Malik .

    It is a nebulous black pit.

    • “As far as Devoy is concerned, all white people in the media are directly to blame for a foreign white supremacist agent provocateur’s terrorist violence.”

      Well, isn’t this what the Greens were saying at the Auckland Vigil for slain ChCh Muslims ? Did they not, obscenely and grotesquely, hijack it as a # Me Too political opportunity ?

      Was this an intentional white-bashing exercise or were Pakeha just collateral damage ?

      Was this an intentional signalling to the Muslim community that Pakeha are shits, just when that tragic group so very much needed everyone’s support?

      Did any Pakeha, like me, who have experienced mind-numbing violence and abuse, try to trivialise this horrendous crime against Islam by bewailing that bad things happened to them too ?

      If I criticise Marama Davidson for suggesting that white men delete themselves, am I being racist because Marama is brown, and sexist because she is a woman ?

      Was vastly experienced ex- District Court Judge Barry Lovegrove’s application to be Race Relations Commissioner rejected because he is a white man ?

      Why was Lovegrove told that he wasn’t on the short- list because, unbelievably, there was no short-list for that job ?

      Was Devoy shoulder-tapped for that job, and if so, why ?

      Is there anybody in the Greens as passionate about climate change as they seem to be about shutting other people up, and if not, why ?

      Are they so damn dumb that they do not realise that a multitude of words – nouns – adjectives can be used as hate speech if used in precisely the right/wrong way ?

      • “If I criticise Marama Davidson for suggesting that white men delete themselves, am I being racist because Marama is brown, and sexist because she is a woman ?”

        Who is suggesting that?

        “Did any Pakeha, like me, who have experienced mind-numbing violence and abuse,”

        What are you referring to?

        Its all a rant, but we’ve learned nothing from it because you haven’t told us your story

        The “male deketion” bit sounds like some sort if misogynistic, self-victimhood crap i might find on a white supremacist, Incel, or menz-rights group

      • I think it was a case of the #butME s – “I know you have suffered tragedy but what about ME and MY problems!!”

        And yes, it is a gateway to the far right: piss people off enough and they’ll be more susceptible to the gateway voices who are “saying what I feel too”. Jordan Peterson would just be another Canadian university lecturer if not to micro policing. May I
        suggest Contrapoint

      • Devoy was importing shoes from South American factories where child and slave labour exploitation had been proved to happen through her discount slave-goods distribution arm of Wonder Walkers (aka Women Walkers). Devoy knew where her wholesale goods were coming from but never the less pretended her business was an exercise in feminism.

        • How could she ? As a woman whose age can be measured in more decades than in any Sth American rosary, and having given birth to and raised my own children, I cannot begin to understand any woman who would exploit children in this way.

          But NZ doesn’t exactly lead the world in how we treat our children. How easily we have lost the legacy of Sir Truby King – but I do believe that in Jacinda Ardern we now have a PM who knows that every child counts, whether ours, or other people’s.

          • Quite right there, Applewood.

            Maybe Devoy was shoulder tapped with the knowledge that she was already morally and ethically compromised through her business dealings?

          • Applewood: “How could she ?”

            In my view, Devoy’s pre-appointment history justifies my characterising her as a hypocrite, and not just regarding the issue raised above.

            https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12069905

            in the above article, Jarrod Gilbert pointed up her shortcomings:

            ” In 2012, Devoy wrote in a column that Waitangi Day was ruined by what she called political “shenanigans”; meaning Maori protests. On another occasion Devoy said she was “disconcerted” by the burqa and that Muslim women should accept that they be disrobed so they could be identified.

            These are perfectly acceptable issues to raise and discuss, but none would have been on her CV as she applied for the Race Relations Commissioner’s position. Whatever way I look at it, in any field of moderately qualified people, it’s hard to see Devoy as a standout candidate.”

            It’s hard to disagree with Gilbert; I note that, at least in respect of Maori activism and the covering-up of Muslim women, she apparently had a road-to-Damascus conversion once she took up the appointment, morphing into a zealot on both issues.

            “As far as Devoy is concerned, all white people in the media are directly to blame for a foreign white supremacist agent provocateur’s terrorist violence.”

            She’s among the many who – as I pointed out in another comment – really need to get a grip. Public reaction since the shootings says that the idea of widespread hatred toward Muslims on the part of Pakeha and non-Muslims is just nonsense. I’m greatly heartened by that reaction; everyone else should be, too.

            Devoy is just plain wrong to call out “white” media. If anything, the opposite is true: coverage of Maori and Muslim issues is extensive. That coverage seems to me to veer toward the uncritical more than ought to be the case.

            Over the past few years, I’ve often rolled my eyes at Devoy’s simplistic pronouncements on what she claimed was “racism”. I suspect that she suffered from the “if you’ve got a hammer, everything looks like a nail” syndrome. It’s unhelpful in any environment, but especially right now.

            • “Over the past few years, I’ve often rolled my eyes at Devoy’s simplistic pronouncements on what she claimed was “racism”. ”

              But, but, didnt you state somewhere that individuals cant be racist, only governments???

              Ok, you’re a privileged white person who gets defensive when your challenged

              We get that

              Theres no other way to explain your constant defence of white supremacists and denial of racism. In fact youre very vocal about it

              • Mjolnir: “But, but, didnt you state somewhere that individuals cant be racist, only governments???”

                Yes indeed. And that’s the point I was making anent Devoy. Did you not read my comment? What I actually wrote, that is, as opposed to what you evidently want to believe I wrote.

                “Theres no other way to explain your constant defence of white supremacists and denial of racism.”

                Aha! The have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet assertion. That suggests you’re fresh out of substantive arguments. How about you read and respond to what people write, rather than to your own interpretation.

                You clearly are among the many who really need to get a grip. Public reaction to the ChCh tragedy is eloquent evidence that the so-called white privileged, and non-Muslims generally, don’t in fact hate Muslims.

                You don’t need to angst about restrictions on free speech: it’s completely unnecessary. We’re ok here in NZ. Activists such as Marama Davidson are misguided.

      • Applewood: “Well, isn’t this what the Greens were saying at the Auckland Vigil for slain ChCh Muslims ? Did they not, obscenely and grotesquely, hijack it as a # Me Too political opportunity ?”

        I wasn’t there, but if reportage is accurate, that’s what they did.

        https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12215680

        “Was this an intentional white-bashing exercise or were Pakeha just collateral damage ?”

        Having read the report, I’d guess that it was intentional. They took aim at Pakeha, and said things that, had it been Pakeha doing it to Maori, would have landed said Pakeha before (at the very least) a Human Rights tribunal. If not the courts.

        And they thought that they could get away with it because of the context. Some of what was said was nonsense: for instance:

        ” Sharon Hawke, of Ngāti Whātua Orakei, said hatred existed in New Zealand.

        “White hatred is its foundation.”

        She spoke of atrocities committed against Māori throughout New Zealand’s history, including at Parihaka, and even Okahu Bay in Auckland in the 1950s, where the Auckland Council burned down her hapū’s village.”

        Atrocities relate to the large-scale loss of human life; there was no atrocity at Parihaka (I know that story very well), nor was there at Okahu Bay in the 50s. Neither story reflects well on governing authorities; but atrocity? Nope.

        People – especially activists and the woke Left – need to get a grip, for chrissakes! The reaction of NZ citizens to the awful events in Christchurch says that white hatred is a furphy: certainly with regard to hatred by whites. Hatred OF whites, however: now that’s a different matter.

        All of us ought to be pleased and relieved that the reaction nationwide was as it was; it says to me that most of us recognise that we’re in this together, and that we’re pointed more or less in the right direction.

  2. As a past green Party Member in 2002 I am not surprised the Green Party have tried to suppress free speech as that was the reason we left the Green Party in 2002 simply because they tried then to suppress our voices then.

    They are just beliderent and will not tolerate others views at all.

    They are less interested now about protecting all us humans living in our environment today, than they were in 2002 as well.

    So we don’t miss them at all, Goodbye Green Party..

    • “As a past green Party Member in 2002 I am not surprised the Green Party have tried to suppress free speech”

      Cleangreen, have you actually read what they are suggesting? Have a look at the green infographic above

  3. They will be lucky to scrape in next election. I’ll never vote for them again, of that they can be sure.

  4. Bullshit to this fear mongering

    The Greens are doing their damndest to eliminate the scummiest hate speech , not every day discourse

    “This is the kind of middle class woke identity politics crap that only ends up alienating voters –”

    No, this is the privileged white middle class not prepared to take steps to curtail hare speech which denigrates and dehumanises LGBT, women, and people if colour

    It apparently is not a concern of white heterosexual middle class folk so its not an *issue*

    Sweet jesus, we talked the talk and made bold noises after the15 March terrorist attack. Butvwhen it comes to actually doing something that inconveniences us? Forget it, minorities. Aint no way we’re giving up our privileged free speech sacred cow

    The Left is gutless. Thats why Trump and his ilk are so popular

      • No Martyn, it is my position that unfettered speech has consequences

        You above all others should know that

        As does Matt Blomfield, etc

        • I am convinced that this renewed vigor for censoring what people can say is to do with the Mueller report not well enough covering up for the fact that Hillary Clinton stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders and gifting the presidency to The Trump and woke lefties not being able to handle the truth about it.

          • As long as we – the left – are busy fighting about words we are NOT fighting what’s important – like inequality. Thing really hard about who REALLY helps.

    • Mjolnir: “The Greens are doing their damndest to eliminate the scummiest hate speech….”

      Which is…..? What Marama Davidson said, for instance? Or Sharon Hawke, perhaps?

      “…..this is the privileged white middle class not prepared to take steps to curtail hare speech which denigrates and dehumanises LGBT, women, and people if colour”

      Given your nom de guerre, I’m guessing that you’re also one of what you refer to as “privileged white middle class”. So: what steps are they that you yourself are not prepared to take? And could you give us instances of this hate speech to which you allude?

      “…we talked the talk and made bold noises after the15 March terrorist attack…”

      Speak for yourself. Many of us preferred to wait until we knew what had actually happened, before making rash statements about free speech/hate speech.

      Now we know. There was one perpetrator; he’s Australian, not a NZer. He was radicalised overseas and online: not here. Information to date says that nothing anybody said or wrote here had anything at all to do with spurring him to commit his crimes. He chose ChCh because it’s easy to get around and out of, and he could thereby aim to kill more people than he could have in, for instance, Dunedin. Or Wellington. Evidence to date says it was just luck that he was caught so speedily; had that not been the case, it’s likely more people would have died.

      “Forget it, minorities. Aint no way we’re giving up our privileged free speech sacred cow”

      I don’t doubt that will please said minorities. Marama Davidson would otherwise have her style well and truly cramped; as would people such as Sharon Hawke. And Susan Devoy.

        • Mjolnir: “People seem fascinated by my username”

          Fascinated is a bit of a stretch; however, given its provenance, it’s a reasonable assumption that a user of it wouldn’t be one of the brown brothers. Such symbolism would be utterly foreign to them, I’d have thought.

          A fair guess, therefore, that you’re one of the “privileged white middle class” which you accuse of not taking steps to curtail hate speech. And I have asked you to give instances, both of such steps and of hate speech.

  5. Kind of depressing really eh?
    Labour still half-wedded to the neoliberal and full to the brim with what we used to call Chardonnay socialists, and the Greens hitching themselves to various ideologies far less important to the GREEN (and what’s worse, often under the guise of humanitarian examples on god’s Earth they show fuckall understanding of)
    It’s fast becoming that there are better places to live in the 3rd World – places that retirees, the working poor, and young, currently unemployed would be better off in.

  6. Some well thought out words there Martyn.
    Put another way, as neoliberalisation and globalisation cause breakdown of a previously functional society, insecure humans, as a tribal evolved species , seek to cling to their “tribe” in a world that increasingly makes less sense.
    When that tribal behaviour meets the echo chamber of social media algorithms, extreme views are magnified further. Far left woke or far right race hate, same base issues.

  7. 100% on point Martyn.

    The Greens have lost their collective minds and don’t seem to realise they’re being sucked into a bullshit narrative sowed by the elite to create a new dichotomy. If the Greens continue down this road they’re electoral history. Sad to say it but that might be for the best (for society in general).

    An entire generation stuck in a feedback loop of offense and outrage intent on silencing any opinion they don’t like is deeply troubling.

    • Iain McLean: many thanks: those YouTube clips are great! Scary….but great. I’ve passed them on to a family member for their delectation.

      Anybody here who hasn’t yet watched them: I recommend them.

  8. Totally agree with this post.

    More freedom of speech is being taken away.

    Also some of the Greens seem to be guilty of negative abuse against age or colour and ‘delete yourself’ talk… using their power as MP’s to do it.

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/03/minister-for-women-julie-anne-genter-stands-by-old-white-men-comments.html

    https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/9pxtos/green_coleader_marama_davidson_tells_people_to/

    I have noticed a prevalence of negatives about race not just on so called minorities but “white” people (what ever that means as it’s like saying Asian where entire continents of people it might refer to and put under the same umbrella with completely different nationalities, beliefs and identities)…

    All ensuring neoliberalism continues while the plebs divide over identity while not understanding power is being removed from the masses under their noses.

    • The situation being that the Greens appear white-man-sensitive, then perhaps our beleaguered Kiwi males can borrow from Apartheid Sth Africa’s Honorary White Man Policy, and apply to become Honorary Indians.

      I suggest Indians, as they are non- controversial and generally well liked in NZ, are very hard workers, family centred, not given to political extremes – well not here anyway – and even the men – I hope this is not sexist – have amazing culinary skills – and they respect age.

      One younger male Pakeha mentioned to me last week that they’re currently feeling a pressured group, and rather than delete themselves, or crawl under the board room table, everyone could just transition into something else, become metaphysical hybrids – or vote differently.

      • Applewood: “I suggest Indians, as they………..are very hard workers, family centred, not given to political extremes – well not here anyway – …….. and they respect age.”

        Nice one! Could we say the same about Chinese? I took out the culinary skills bit, on account of I’m not sure about that aspect.

        “One younger male Pakeha mentioned to me last week that they’re currently feeling a pressured group….”

        I’m appalled by Marama Davidson’s egregious rant about white males. Feeling pressured is probably the least of it: others of whom I’m aware are blazingly angry about it. And with justification: if Davidson were setting out to spur political opposition, she’s going exactly the right way about it.

        • “One younger male Pakeha mentioned to me last week that they’re currently feeling a pressured group….”

          You havent told us WHY that young male pakeha felt like a “pressured group”

          That would be a salient part if whatever point you were trying to make

          • Mjolnir: “You havent told us WHY that young male pakeha felt like a “pressured group””

            Now you’re being disingenuous: you know perfectly well why. Applewood pointed this out already.

            Really, this is a bit desperate on your part: it smacks of a response for the sake of it, rather than because you have something pointful to contribute.

  9. 100% Martyn

    I’ve been horrified at the knee-jerk move to censorship and authoritarianism. It took only one incident and peoples true colours were shown.

    So maybe our much vaunted liberal culture is only skin deep?

    It’s also been rude the way the cops and the politicians have used the emotionalism of the time to ram through poorly considered firearms legislation. Regardless of whether you’re pro or anti gun, you can bet the regulations will be a mess – full of gaps and contradictions.

  10. “Millennial micro aggression ”

    I dont think a white male, radicalised online thriogh various white supremacist hate groups, who went on to gun down 50 people, could be labelled as “micro aggression “

    • You have consistently shown that you are saddled with white guilt , implying/ lumping a people of one race all together with the ChCh shooter.

      That’s why people react to whatever you say negatively. You have shown yourself simply to be an ‘ inverse racist’.

      • And you appear to be in denial or an apologist that the Christchurch is a white supremacist

        As for people reacting negatively to what I have to say, I’m not here for populist BS

        “Inverse racism”? Is that a catchphrase for racism denial? Someone is feeling called out WK

        Perhaps people will think outside their comfort zones instead of nodding vacantly at what they hear in this echo chamber

        • Maybe what Katipo describes as inverse racism is not that at all. My observation is that a lack of pride in ones own culture and the expression of overt apologies to other cultures for perceived injustices can be construed as inverse racism.

          • Youre assuming one has no pride in ones own culture because we dont share white supremacist, racist, islamophobic views??

            Ok I’ll go with that

            You dont have to have pride in your own culture (in NZ, once upon a time, “kulchure ” was rugby , racing and beer) at the expense of others

            If you think otherwise, the problem lies with you, not others

    • Mjolnir: “I dont think a white male, radicalised online thriogh various white supremacist hate groups, who went on to gun down 50 people, could be labelled as “micro aggression “”

      Oh no: that characterisation is aimed at folk such as your good self. Along with other Green party zealots.

    • Ruru: “nuanced thought about balancing the rights to free speech with the right of groups to feel safe is possible.”

      Indeed. I hope, however, that Paul Spoonley’s voice doesn’t have too much influence on legal developments. Or that of the Chief Human Rights Commissioner (Paul Hunt, I think).

      I’m an old lefty: always voted for such left-wing parties as we have here. Never in my worst nightmares did I think that I’d be agreeing with the likes of David Seymour, Simon Bridges (!) and David Farrar. Jeez….

Comments are closed.