Noooooooooooooo! Labour buy Freedom of Speech fight for election & ACT will be 4%





What the hell just happened?

Winston is now so weak on 3% he has lost his handbrake powers and is only clinging onto blocking resolution at Ihumatao and Little has used this weakening of Peters to progress what urgently needed progressive reform?



Of all the things we needed, handing a Freedom of Speech debate to the political Right is NOT FUCKING ONE OF THEM!

TDB Recommends

Jesus Wept Andrew!

Nothing is going to make swinging voters recoil in horror quite like thinking the pious micro-aggression policing woke activists they see in their social media feed could be judge, jury and executioner of their free speech.

Our woke activist base won’t be able to help themselves in a consensual orgy of polyamorous virtue signalling to openly brag about what they would consider hate speech and their woke definitions of what is a difference of opinion and what is an executionable  war crime will scare the bejesus out of middle NZ.

We just handed ACT all the ammunition they could possibly want with this stupid bloody decision. They could get 4% on this.

I fear now the only way to stop a National-ACT Government is a sustained campaign to get Labour, Green and NZ First voters in Epsom to all vote for Paul Goldsmith and stop ACT from having an electorate seat to coat tail in on.


National voters are so establishment they can’t help but tick Goldsmith as if 2 ticks for National was actually fused into their DNA along with their private education privileges.

If Epsom Labour, Green and NZ First voters (who know individually their candidates won’t win) all threw their electorate vote to Goldsmith, he could accidentally win blocking ACTs entrance into Parliament altogether.

I’m suggesting an Epsom strategy because deciding to have a discussion about stripping back free speech under the guise of religious freedoms is a strategically bewildering blunder that just gave ACT enormous traction.

I can almost see the ACT Party advert on social media now, “First Jacinda came for your guns, now she is coming for your free speech”.

This decision to make free speech an election issue will end really, really, really badly.


  1. Think someone forgot Nation has had a solid 4 in front of there polling result for better than 10 years while Labour has had there 4 for 2yrs.

    Having debating skills is fine for straight up one on one but when it’s 1 vs 2 or 1 vs 3 then you really need the intellectual dominance that can convince the public that life changing ligislation is the way to go so hopefully you can nock out the weak opposition partner with the first salvo, then move quickly onto the big player and hope the other weaklings recoil with fear and run away.

  2. NZ not only like Israel has one of the highest immigration levels in the world per capita to change the demographics for political reasons and subjugate the local Palestinians already there… but now another similarity with NZ, sounds like they also rubber stamp the obsession with importing in workers who have no real jobs and allowing many individuals to profit off the practice in China and in Israel….

    “There are in Israel today 23,000 legal Chinese migrant workers. Only 10,000 of them have steady work. So who profits from bringing 13,000 unemployed Chinese to Israel? First of all, the so-called handlers, who receive thousands of dollars from each Chinese worker, even if he doesn’t put in a single day’s work. Secondly, the contractors, who conceal hundreds of millions of dollars in income at the expense of the Chinese workers fictitiously registered with them. Thirdly, the “grabbers,” who pick them up every morning at the intersections because they are ready to do any work for next to nothing. Every Chinese worker here has mortgaged his life in China in order to reach Israel and he has no way of getting back. Still they are thrown out of cars on the way from the airport. This is the way the Minister of Labor and Social Welfare, Shlomo Benizri, fights unemployment. (This is the first article in series on the subject.)

      • Instead of addressing the fact that China is flooding the global workforce with underplayed second class citizens we have to walk you through freespeech.

        • Bloody hell, Sam! This has nothing whatever to do with free speech, as well you know.

          More like sticking-to-the-point-of-the-blogpost speech. What China may or may not be doing isn’t relevant to the topic about which Martyn has written.

          It looks as if SaveNZ has posted this comment on the wrong comment thread by mistake. Easy enough to do.

          But here you come charging in, trying to gloss it as a free speech issue. It ain’t. Give it up….

  3. Winstone isn’t just using Ihumatao we now have ‘desperate to stay relevant shameless jones’ saying gangs need a separate justice system. If we can do this then we can give Maori our own separate justice system and I ain’t talking about those Marae courts. I am talking about our own justice system by Maori for Maori and use the billions of dollars we have been ripped of having received our puny TOW settlements. Shameless jones is stealing pull the benefits justice policy. Shameless jones know his party is knee deep in the poo and so is the national party. Now if JL Ross goes down and it appears highly likely he will. And when and if he does, he needs to take national down with him given they have thrown him to the wolves. Lastly is this the sort of people we want to run our country and is this the sort of party that will act in the best interest of all NZers? My answer is a big fat, nah!

  4. The majority of comments on this are bizarre and seemingly have little (pardon the pun) to do with the topic. This is what I think is the left’s problem on this. They really don’t care about protecting fundamental rights such as free speech and get caught up in other wacky conspiratorial ideas. This provides space for the right and is why the left tend to implode while in power.

  5. At least what you call the left aren’t currently involved with the SFO political donations saga gosman. Also my comments relate to the 3% poling of NZ First mentioned in the article and what they are trying to do about it. In my view they (NZFirst) need to take some heat off and what better way to do it than what shameless jones is doing. He is trying to divert attention away from the donations scandal. And then we have soimon who is doing a colonel schultz act, I know nut -ting , I hear nut – ting , I see nut- ting. Yeah right!

      • In these context her “comments relate to the 3% poling of NZ First mentioned in the article and what they are trying to do about it.”

        Pretty straight forward really.

    • With the PM not saying or doing anything she is very much implying Winstons dodgy donations are acceptable to her. That is damaging her brand significantly and it’s only her brand that differentiates Labour from National, in all other regards they are pretty much the same.

      But then what does the secret coalition agreement say. With all that’s going on it’s not a big stretch to think it includes a clause along the lines of ‘JA can be called the PM but Winston is really the one calling the shots’

  6. Your are 100% right.

    When I hear this I just think what is wrong with these people are they being deliberately advised by dirty politics to throw their election chances by putting more woke speak on the agenda?

    Helen’s election was foiled by an energy efficient light bulb.

    The woke are actually more hated from most people than the right wingers because they are more open about removing free speech than the right!

    Animal Farm is a classic book, maybe COL should buy a copy.

    Likewise Kafka’s ‘The trial’…

  7. You’re right about everything in this article, except for one thing: If you think anything will stop Seymour from taking Epsom, you’re dreaming. The data you provide above show him on 43% in the 2017 election. Seymour has doubled his party’s support since then, both through his shepherding of the end-of-life-choice bill through to what is likely to be a successful referendum, and through being the only member of the current parliament to consistently and unequivocally stand up for free speech. That says to me that he will top 50% in Epsom this year, making anything the other parties can concoct irrelevant. Neither do I believe the canard that Seymour is dependent on a tea party with National for the people of Epsom to support him. Six years ago that may have been true. It isn’t now. Seymour has proved himself as a local MP and as a party leader, having restored ACT to its libertarian roots after disastrous forays into grey conservatism under Brash, and most especially, the odious Banks.

    Besides, you might actually be slightly – but critically – wrong about something else. Seymour’s championing of the very issue that Little seems hell-bent on betting the election on might actually give ACT 5% and not just 4%. If that happens, Ardern will certainly be the first PM since Rowling to lead a first-term government to defeat.

    • Michael Johnston: “Seymour’s championing of the very issue that Little seems hell-bent on betting the election on might actually give ACT 5% and not just 4%.”

      I agree with you on this. I also agree with the rest of your comment. I find it difficult to believe that Labour could be so cloth-eared about this hate speech furphy. But Little’s being given his head: it’s a move that I suspect Labour will come to regret.

  8. Jacinda, smart enough to not get sucked in by Garner on the cannabis vote which would have made that the issue, now falls for the free speech issue.

  9. I know this is a difficult subject, but I find it utterlhy reprehensible that anyone is prepared to accept the sort of gobshite that is the stuff of extremism and murder and incites people to turn the words into actions. Even if it takes us a long time to sort it, I think we need to do just that.
    There are some sentiments that are just plain downright unacceptable, and 1984 and Animal Farm have nothing to do with it.

    • Rae: “….I find it utterlhy reprehensible that anyone is prepared to accept the sort of gobshite that is the stuff of extremism and murder and incites people to turn the words into actions.”

      You mention the stuff of extremism and incitement, presumably to murder: what sort of thing have you seen or heard? I do pay attention to what’s going on in politics, but for the life of me, I cannot recall seeing anything particularly exceptionable, anywhere at all.

      I haven’t seen the definition of hate speech that Little plans to use in his proposed legislation. And I’m yet to hear a definition that couldn’t be glossed as “things you say that I don’t like”. Or vice versa.

      On this and other blog sites, for instance, I’ve seen some pretty robust opinions expressed. I’ve expressed a few myself. But surely that’s just people exercising their freedom of speech rights?

      I’m guessing that every person who’s posted here and elsewhere, is as concerned as I am, that the proposed definition will turn out to mean what I said above. And we’re all worried that ordinary people like us will be visited by the police, or be dragged before the courts, simply for saying what we think. And somebody else has been hurt or offended by it.

      Small wonder that commenters here are venting about how completely dumb the Labour party is, letting Little run this stuff just before an election.

  10. If they do enact such changes, I suspect this will result in Labour’s speeches during the election/campaign: “We gave you human rights” etc etc, to portray themselves as do-gooders to the electorate and further exploit the Christchurch/terror theme… “… but there’s more to do” – basically a way to claim they’ve done something for extremely marginalised groups, without e.g. improving benefit levels, fixing the housing crisis – both of which would be a death knell to their popularity with New Zealand’s wealthy, and “mum & dad rentier” populations. In other words, get the majority of wealthy New Zealanders thinking they’re a compassionate government making the world a better place – one of Jacinda’s main selling points – even if it is entirely fiction.

  11. Insight on RNZ had a very good profile of hate speech… But overall you are correct this would be a rallying call for the libertarian right to recruit the talkback constituency.

  12. One aspect of hate speech makes me particularly nervous. Currently, those who challenge the rights of,men to call themselves women, are accused of hate speech by many of those who defend trans people as an oppressed minority. There has been an enormous move towards people identifying as trans in recent years. It has become more socially acceptable to be trans than gay in many documented cases. The movement has become a powerful lobby to government imposing trans rights over the rights of women and girls in female only spaces such as lavatories, women’s prisons etc. The empirical facts of physical make-up are suppressed (overturned in the case of men who claim to have a “female penis”) in order for social accommodation of the trans cause. In Oxford recently the police accused a person of “hate speech” when they used a dictionary definition of the word “woman”.

    Little’s proposal will be welcomed by the women Green MPs who are pushing for self identification of ‘gender’ to become law. They confuse ‘gender’ which is an identity we learn, with ‘sex’ which is based on biology – the body we are born with, versus the behaviours and appearance expected of men and women in different societies.

    I will post this comment before I lose it, and come back when I find the reference for an excellent article on the growth of the trans movement by a journalist working for The Economist.

Comments are closed.