Sigh – Jacinda wades into free speech debate – this will end badly

97
2837

Sigh…

NZ Election 2020: David Seymour fears for freedom of expression as Jacinda Ardern plans to beef up hate speech laws

ACT leader David Seymour fears for freedom of expression after Jacinda Ardern confirmed plans to beef up hate speech laws if Labour is re-elected to power.

Ardern was in Christchurch on Thursday to unveil a plaque at the Al Noor mosque, one of two Muslim places of worship targeted in the March 15 terrorist attack of 2019.

Ardern was asked at the site about progress on updated hate speech laws, after the Government fast-tracked a review of hate speech legislation in the wake of the terror attack, which was fuelled by anti-Muslim sentiment.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Following that review, the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights Commission presented Justice Minister Andrew Little with options, and in March he said they were “working their way through Cabinet”. 

But Little confirmed in June that Labour was still in talks with its Government partners about the options and said the legislation would probably have to wait until after the election, and it’s understood NZ First had some concerns. 

Ardern confirmed on Thursday that Labour is keen to progress with beefing up hate speech laws if it wins another term in Government. 

“We do have within our legislation in New Zealand provision that deal with hate speech, discrimination around people’s identities, but religion hasn’t been included in that. My view is that does need to change,” she said. 

“I just think in a modern New Zealand everyone would agree that no one should be discriminated against for their religion and so it makes sense that we add this to the other suite of things we say is just not OK to discriminate people over.”

Ardern said she couldn’t understand why there would be resistance from other political parties.  

“I don’t see why there should be, and so that’s probably a question for every political party, but that’s certainly our view and that’s the view that I’m putting forward.”

…remember when the Woke Identity Politics activists led their deplatforming purge against the visiting crypto-fascists and I said this will end badly and that the woke will inadvertently gift ACT a free speech momentum the Left will regret?

Yeah, well ACT is on 7% now once they doubled their MMP vote off the back of that free speech fiasco!

When the Wellington Woke banned a gender critical feminism conference from happening at Massey Uni, Seymour stepped in and held it at Parliament. He ended up protecting free speech while the woke tried to strangle it off!

The Left should champion free speech – not repress and deplatform it!

Jacinda feels that no one would have a problem with expanding hate speech laws to include religion – really?

I love mocking religion, if you believe in a magical invisible flying wizard, I get to mock that because it’s fucking stupid!!!

Would I breach the hate speech laws for mocking someone who believes in a magical invisible flying wizard?

Would Monty Python’s Life of Brian be banned?

Why can’t I hate religion? Why can’t I see it as a terribly regressive form of control over other people?

Can I criticise the fanatics at Gloriavale or is that going to be illegal?

See, I think that I’m already very tolerant of religion as it is.

I tolerate their crazy belief system that tells them they won’t catch Covid.

I tolerate Gloriavale.

I tolerate the fact they don’t pay tax.

I tolerate fucking Scientology and Mormonism.

Now I’m being asked to not only tolerate religion, but I also have to fear religion if I criticise it as well?

I mean, give me a cross here and I can be a fucking martyr!

Now, you can counter argue that it’s wrong to hate someone for their religion and that mocking or belittling religious people won’t inspire them to change, and I completely agree.

It would be boorish and mean to throw hate at a person for their religion, but are we really going to criminalise being an arsehole?

Is that the threshold we are being asked to agree to here?

Current hate speech law covers colour, race and ethnicity. Those are three things you can’t choose.

You choose religion.

You want to criminalise hate thrown at someones choice?

That seems like a recipe for bad law.

The problem with including religion in hate speech laws is that it won’t just be religion that is included, the woke won’t be able to help themselves and will demand other inclusions.

And we see the Prime Minister sliding into that territory by agreeing gender and sexual orientation will be included.

Will a misuse of a pronoun be hate speech?

Is that where we are going?

Will micro aggressions be a form of hate speech?

Is Labour 100% certain they want to start spending political capital on what the Wellington Twitteratti considers hate speech?

Including religion will be challenging enough, the never ending list of what triggers the woke will be fucking endless.

Mark my words again, this isn’t going to end well.

The only winner in this will be ACT.

 

Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice going into this pandemic and 2020 election – please donate here.

If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media.

 

97 COMMENTS

  1. What is hate speech towards religion.

    Will it be banning death threats against religious people? We already have that?

    Will jokes about catholics be banned? Will we no longer be able to criticize the homophobia and misogyny and vicious hate that exists in the holy books of every abrahamic religion?

    Will the hate speech legislation recognize that you can’t ban hate speech towards religion unless you ban all religions because they hate each other.

    I’ve got a bad feeling about this… Like I can see Tamaki and co being facists and hiding behind discrimination laws.

    • No, absolutely I do not want the government deciding what is hate speech. How many goddam boots do the woke have to lick before they figure out it is the state that is the enemy of the “people.” not fucking white “people,’ or cis fucking gender “people” or what the fuck ever!!! it is the fucken state you fucken idiots.

        • It was all over they said. Lauren Southern and Billy TK will bring about the demise of marginal groups that the woke so loving coddle. These are the things that I mock the woke for.

        • Absolutely, let those nutters out let them preach their drivel.
          We all need a good a laugh from time to time.
          If you truly believe in free speech you will get off your arse and debate the fuckers.
          You will write blogs and opinion columns that denigrate and disgrace them and give sound reasons why you are doing so. It is healthier far far healthier than what the PM in her full Blairite drag is proposing. Insidious crap ! How dare she!!.She has no fucking right to tell us what to think!

  2. Will gotcha Gower include this in the next debate? And if so will Jacinda walk back those comments quicker than you can shout James Shaw?

  3. Yes – totally agree. Are we not grown up enough to ignore offensive crap and dish out decent arguments ourselves?
    When the right resumes power and exercises the legislation the misguided left introduced to shut down dissent it won’t be pretty. Be careful what you wish for.

  4. What do you expect Marytyn? Uber Woke Jacinda simple cannot use this word: NO! (we will not legislate on that!)
    A gift from heaven! Am I allowed to say heaven??

  5. This is a off the cuff comment. Did not listen to the financial debate down south in the Moneyed area of wealth, and workers exploitation, however some of my friends did, and saying the audience applauded lapped up Seymour!s court gesture waffle, that had no substance to the debate, just foolish playground taunting.

  6. “The Left should champion free speech – not repress and deplatform it!”

    The modern (woke) version of Left politics has little in common with traditional class left wing politics. Remember the days when the left was all about ‘workers and farmers’? Now it’s about arguing pronouns and taxing the working and lower middle class 90% of the population while the actual rich never get impacted. And those bloody farmers are the group the left seem to hate the most.

    It is absolutely no surprise ACT is doing so well after 3 years of this Govt, as ACT now better represent worker aspirations and the average NZ workers aversion to political correctness than Labour or Greens do. I’m almost certain to vote ACT for the first time.

    • Me too. Never thought the day would come, but for the past month or so I’ve been tossing up between voting Act or not voting at all. Today I made my mind up.

    • Ben Waimata: “It is absolutely no surprise ACT is doing so well after 3 years of this Govt, as ACT now better represent worker aspirations and the average NZ workers aversion to political correctness than Labour or Greens do. I’m almost certain to vote ACT for the first time.”

      I agree with you, and me too. To the startlement of my family: I’m an old lefty, voted that way all of my adult life. Labour got my vote at the 2017 election, and I was very pleased at the outcome. But Labour has turned out to be pants at the political process: couldn’t negotiate its way out of a paper bag. It hasn’t done what it promised, and I now realise that it never will. Ardern is just another Dear Leader – and a Blairite to boot.

      Now her promise to beef up that benighted hate speech law to include religion is the last bloody straw.

      Out with the lot of ’em!

      • Act want to smash the poor, and apart from the barbarity of that, it is plain bad in terms of social cohesion and community wellbeing.

        So, it’s ok to have families struggling beneath the poverty level as long as everyone has free speech ? Not really.

        • Snow White: “Act want to smash the poor….”

          That’s not the impression I’ve got from their policies. See Sam’s comment above.

          Let’s face it, the current government hasn’t done much for the poor in its term, despite its confident predictions at the last election. I no longer believe that they have the ability to bring about real improvements for the poorest.

    • Lol…this is NOT a political winner by St Jacinda of Labour ! ….St Jacinda will be interpreted as more blaming of New Zealanders for the Australian’s MASS MURDER!

      ….Devil Judith made more sense in that we already have enough laws…. New Zealanders do not need more Thought Police!

      New Zealand is a SECULAR EGALITARIAN SOCIETY….and we are traditionally ok with criticising religious bigotry, homophobia, misogyny , sexism, patriarchal tyranny and sexual abuse by the male clerics.

      (This is NOT hate speech!…it is human rights)

      I dont think I will vote Labour after all !

      • Red Buzzard: “New Zealand is a SECULAR EGALITARIAN SOCIETY….and we are traditionally ok with criticising religious bigotry, homophobia, misogyny , sexism, patriarchal tyranny and sexual abuse by the male clerics.”

        I agree. And our freedoms ought properly also to include criticising any aspect of our society, and the various cultures it comprises, with which we take issue. This story, for instance:

        https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/122880752/otago-uni-accused-of-being-deceptive-about-medical-school-admissions-policy

        The history in NZ of preferential entry to medical programmes goes back to 1972. And the concept has not succeeded in raising the numbers of Maori in the health workforce, over all that time.

        Affirmative action programmes are ineffective: Alistair Cook (the Letter from America guy) pointed this out many years ago. And he’s right.

        Such programmes fail because they focus on the wrong reasons for particular groups’ barriers to access or success in education.

  7. Like in the UK, only criticism of one religion will be classed as hate speech. That religion being Islam. You can say what you like about Christianity but say anything about Islam and the police will knock on your door. That is where this is heading. The Christchurch mosque attacks were evil personified but they should not be used to curtail our freedom of speech. As David Seymour says “free speech ends when you threaten violence”.

    • George 1963: “You can say what you like about Christianity but say anything about Islam and the police will knock on your door.”

      I very much fear that you’re right about this.

      So I’ll get in quick with the following, while I still can. I noted today that the PM was again wearing a headscarf at the mosque. I’m appalled that she’d do this, given its symbolism. A female PM, of all people: and a PM of this country of all countries! No, it isn’t showing respect: what the hell is she thinking?

      • D’Esterre, I think you may be imposing your views on the whole of your Islam here, and it’s a multi- branched, multi-ethnic tree. Many Muslim women are comfortable with covering their heads, it is part of their culture.

        Talk to them. An Indonesian Muslim post- grad student told me that her mother never wore it until her husband died, then did, because it was the custom in their social milieu. Most of us will go along with the status quo as good manners – it’s not so long since it was considered disrespectful for Catholic women to enter a church bare headed.

        The hugging may be a different. I have no idea what Muslim countries may consider being hugged by politicians a cultural norm, but NZ Muslims have responded to it okay, although I personally, don’t fancy being hugged by any politician.

        • Applewood: “I think you may be imposing your views on the whole of your Islam here, and it’s a multi- branched, multi-ethnic tree. Many Muslim women are comfortable with covering their heads, it is part of their culture.”

          I repeat: the hijab isn’t a symbol of Islam. It isn’t prescribed by the Qu’ran and isn’t worn by millions of Muslim women worldwide, including many here in NZ. It’s actually a symbol of the repression and control of women. Ardern claims to be a feminist: what on earth was she thinking?

          This is a secular state: this is how 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. Let’s be supporting that secularism, not working to undermine it.

          “Talk to them. An Indonesian Muslim post- grad student told me that her mother never wore it until her husband died, then did, because it was the custom in their social milieu.”

          As I noted below, I have. It may well be a custom in other parts of the world: it isn’t here. There have been Muslims living in NZ since the 19th century, yet even the hijab was almost never seen until the early years of the 21st century. And it’s an introduced custom that we need here like we need toothache. Muslim women who live here do not need to wear that sort of restrictive clobber.

          “Most of us will go along with the status quo as good manners – it’s not so long since it was considered disrespectful for Catholic women to enter a church bare headed.”

          Good manners is a very poor reason for persisting with this particular status quo. I well remember the Catholic church of my youth: forced into reform, as I recall, though I’d decamped by then. I think that sort of reform was chased along by Humanae Vitae.

          I remain surprised that women who claim to be feminists of one kind or another would tolerate any of this sort of malarkey in our society. Rights for women – and the stopping of oppressive practices – have been hard-won battles in NZ. Nobody ought to be putting them at risk by descending into wokery.

        • Snow White: “…I suggest that you talk to Muslim women about wearing the hijab before judging PM Ardern for doing so.”

          I have. I have a copy of the Qu’ran, have read it. Much of it is quite similar to the Bible: unsurprising, given the Abrahamic underpinnings of both.

          The hijab isn’t a symbol of Islam. It isn’t prescribed by the Qu’ran and isn’t worn by millions of Muslim women worldwide. It’s actually a symbol of the repression and control of women. Ardern claims to be a feminist: what on earth was she thinking?

          Note the following links, which appeared in Stuff last year. The woke Left ought to have taken notice of both of them, but they were too busy congratulating themselves on their liberalism – or too busy screaming at pakeha and blaming us for all the ills of the world – to be aware of them, it seems.

          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 have and have read the Koran too, and do know a bit about the world’s religions. Have and have had Muslim friends and colleagues.They are easy to get on with.

            A head veil is still worn in church in some Catholic countries. When the Trump women and ladies in the British royal family visited the Pope in Rome, they covered their heads. It’s what one does, good manners. Assorted persons have lambasted Ardern’s mosque head gear – their choice – her choice – but I think it’s all overblown.

            The wholesome Duchess of Cambridge donned Muslim gear visiting
            Pakistan- nothing wrong with that either. I’ve not heard anyone criticising her for it.

            Most of us travelling do try not to offend the locals, and if outsiders come here, historically, we were good. In the context of the mosque massacres, Ardern’s head gear might have offended parochial Kiwis, but even if it was a sign of humility, that’s ok by me too. She was representing the whole country that day, and we were humbled by those evil deeds, even though they were not our fault.

            I was surprised by the squeals of outrage – disproportionate.

            • Snow White: “A head veil is still worn in church in some Catholic countries.”

              I don’t care what people do in other countries. Nor do I give a good goddamn what sundry royals, aristocrats and pollies of the female persuasion do in other countries.

              This is NZ: as a society, we manage as well as we do because this is a modern, representative democracy. The battle for women’s rights here has been hard-won. Let’s not be putting those gains at risk by allowing symbols of oppression to sneak in across the border.

              In my view, tolerance of religions (and of practices within those religions) which crimp women’s rights, is just plain dumb. We don’t tolerate female genital mutilation, do we?

              “Ardern’s head gear might have offended parochial Kiwis, but even if it was a sign of humility, that’s ok by me too. She was representing the whole country that day…”

              I reiterate: this is NZ, not some Muslim country elsewhere in the world. Putting on a headscarf isn’t how a PM of this country ought to represent us. Suppose it had been a male PM? Bill English, eg. Would he have been expected to wear the sort of clothing worn by Muslim men? I doubt it.

              The dead in ChCh, and the survivors, deserved respect. The PM didn’t need to wear a headscarf to show respect.

              • The world lauded Ardern for what she did that day, and not just the Muslim world.

                The image of the PM with her head covered was beamed onto the side of buildings; globally, people looked at what she did and thought it okay.

                Some may want to interpret it otherwise – up to them.

              • The rest of the world thought what the PM did that day, was pretty ok. The image was beamed around the world.

                But if you -and the Dom-Post – oh no oh no – think differently – go for it.

            • Snow White: “The wholesome Duchess of Cambridge donned Muslim gear visiting
              Pakistan….”

              If Muslim – or Muslim-majority – countries require this of Western women, we in NZ are perfectly within our rights to require Muslim visitors, residents and citizens to dress according to the prevailing customs in this country. Good manners are reciprocal, after all.

              Apropos the topic, though only tangentially, have a look at what’s happening to Christians in Egypt. Not reported at all in the media here. Well, fancy that….

              https://mobile.twitter.com/CoptSolidarity?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

              Over the last century or so, Christians have been systematically persecuted out of much of the ME, such that populations are now very low in those countries. This’ll be one of the reasons why Lebanese Christians came here in the early years of the 20c. I went to school with the descendants of those early migrants.

              • With regard to the persecution of Christians in the ME, an unnamed British diplomat said that Iraqi Christians had only themselves to blame for moving there and trying to convert everyone.

                I appears that he was ignorant of the fact that Christians have lived in the ME since the time of Christ. These
                British diplomats apparently don’t realise this.

                They know Christ lived and died in Palestine, but somehow they never made the connection. Bizarre, I know: it’s not unreasonable to expect Oxbridge-educated British men to have a grasp of the history of Christianity. But it seems not.

    • You are not the only one to observe the lack of the word ‘’Islam” in Martin’s piece. This is because there is already a self-censoring – perhaps now unconscious – attitude to the critique of this, perhaps the worst of the three obnoxious Abrahamic religions, in its underlying intolerances (all sweetness and light when only represented by a tiny minority in a population but threatening and dangerous when the dominant or only religion in a country). A move to towards an increased crack-down on hate speech (is what I have said already this?) is understandable in the light of the appalling Christchurch massacre but critiquing or questioning religious belief is not the same as attacking its individual adherents. Pandering is almost as bad as self-censorship – Jacinda’s headscarf-wearing turned my stomach as well and I am rather over her “empathy” and “understanding”. It is becoming as tiresome as Tony Bliar’s ear-to-ear grin or his (cynical) super-earnest face. I’d rather she got on with some truly transformative policies, but I don’t have any faith that this is going to happen.

  8. Martyn don’t be disingenuous. Of course you’ll be allowed to criticize Gloriavale, but you won’t be allowed to criticize Islam or Muslims – that’s hate speech.

    We can do something about this. Talk to your local Labour candidate as soon as you can, and tell them you will not vote for them if they vote for hate speech legislation. I will certainly do this.

    Labour must be persuaded to drop this legislation before the election. If they push ahead with their plan, there is no good outcome for us:

    Outcome 1: Labour wins, and we are saddled with dangerous legislation that will make only certain opinions acceptable, and will enable weaponisation of offence-taking.

    Outcome 2: ACT campaigns hard on free speech and successfully paints Labour and the Greens as totalitarian/communist, and attract enough votes to combine with National in edging out Labour. An ACT-National govt will usher in a new era of privatizations and austerity, the likes of which haven’t been seen since Thatcher’s Britain.

    Those of you who still think the sun shines out of Jacinda’s posterior, please reflect on what her words today say about her political judgement, her hierarchy of values, and her understanding of civics. And talk to your local Labour candidate about this, tomorrow.

  9. PM has seemed slightly off her game this week. A less than convincing debate performance and now opening this can of worms. She is usually more assured and measured.

    • maybe this wasn’t scripted for her. yep, that’ll be it. remember, she’s only acknowledged as a good communicator. not a good manager or decision maker.

        • Shona: “or thinker or reader of history or a possessor of a firmly held philosophy of any kind.
          A true Blairite.”

          And it seems that you’re right. Regrettably for all of us.

        • case in point…Ihumatao. Terrible terrible management. She has no idea what she’s done there…but hey…she got the Facebook likes.

          • Herman Shovel Ready: “Ihumatao. Terrible terrible management. She has no idea what she’s done there…”

            Agreed. A catastrophic misstep on her part: evidence (if it were needed) that she’s come to believe her own publicity.

            Surely an advisor with specialist knowledge could have forewarned her about the disastrous consequences of her blundering in?

            I’m incredulous that a PM would do something of this sort.

  10. Winston for Prime Minister…Winston is the only hope Left…(now Jacinda has lost her marbles)

    ….maybe NZF and the Maori Party can form a coalition

  11. “I love mocking religion, if you believe in a magical invisible flying wizard, I get to mock that because it’s fucking stupid!!!”

    Martyn, the only way to prevent the government from earnestly (and humourlessly) pursuing this ridiculous extension to hate speech laws is to mock the concept. Mercilessly. And at every opportunity. Make fun of the whole idea and laugh at every pollie who advocates for it. That includes Dear Leader.

    Especially Dear Leader, in my view.

    If Labour gets back into power – which, unfortunately, looks likely – its MPs will not be keen on making tits of themselves by pursuing this in the face of sustained ridicule. Even Dear Leader – who appears to have had an irony bypass, as the saying goes – will eventually see that it’s a colossal vote loser.

    • No. The only way to prevent this is to tell your local Labour candidate you will NOT vote for him/her unless Jacinda publicly announces the death of this piece of legislation BEFORE the election. I’ve also arranged an interview with my local TOP candidate, so sound out that party’s position.

    • Mocking others’ views is lazy thinking and bullying.

      Everyone has the right to hold their own views, even sometimes quite absurd views – and what an even more boring little country we would be without them.

      On the one hand people are advocating for free speech, and on the other hand saying let’s shut others up by
      mocking them. Seems to me that that’s a bit of an oxymoron.

      Intelligent critique and analysis are much more constructive than the mindless mocking of baying masses, and by participating in the latter, once more, fools may be being manipulated. School pupils wouldn’t get away with addressing issues in this way when there are less primitive ways of addressing issues – except perhaps in the circus arena – or in the camp of Judith Collins.

      • Snow White: “Mocking others’ views is lazy thinking and bullying.”

        Not necessarily. I’m all for presenting countervailing arguments, but one isn’t going to have a serious debate with, for instance, a flat-earther, is one?

        Many of us – me included – feel the same way about people who claim to communicate with the dead, or see ghosts. Theists in general, really. In truth, there cannot be any real contest of ideas in those cases.

        Regarding the PM’s desire to beef up hate speech proscriptions to include religion: mocking, lampooning, ridicule is voters’ best defence against the further crimping of our freedom of speech which would result. I assume that the PM means well, but this is a disastrously wrongheaded approach.

        At the risk of going Godwin, remember David Low, who got right up Hitler’s nose with his cartoons, which mercilessly mocked fascism and Hitler himself. If I remember correctly, Low earned himself a place on Hitler’s I’m-going-to-deal-with-you-when-we-invade-England list.

        “Everyone has the right to hold their own views….”

        And the rest of us have the right to poke the borax at such views: that’s what free speech is all about.

        • Sorry, D’Esterre, but you’re being a bit of a sophist here. Mocking and making fun of others’ sincerely held beliefs, is something I find abhorrent. Most things can be discussed – and I say this as a long ago Otago University debating champion…

          One doesn’t have to run around tilting at windmills, and in fact just walking away may sometimes be the smartest option when faced with scrappers spoiling for a fight.

          The best debate I ever had was post-prandial one summer’s evening until 2 am, on, “ Nothing is more absolute than the absolute.” Entirely without rancour, the other guy had done philosophy, it was a night I still treasure.

          There is a difference between people who put themselves in the position to be criticised, like politicians and media nutters, and the ordinary bloke whose life may be under-pinned and dependant upon something stupid to others, and as long as they don’t cause harm to others, then we may perhaps owe them a duty of care.

          Hate speech legislation is a different can of maggots altogether, and politicians are the last persons I would want defining it, especially when so many have their own agendas; Ardern may want to revisit her options here, and outcomes – I’ll be telling Grant Robertson that if I see him.

          • Snow White: “Mocking and making fun of others’ sincerely held beliefs, is something I find abhorrent.”

            If you wish to be kind to theists and other flat earth types, knock yourself out.

            In the context of this post, it’s the government we’re talking about. It’s Ardern earnestly proposing some damfool extension to what is already a piece of damfool legislation.

            She’s made herself a legitimate target for mockery and ridicule. And any other public figures who support her are also fair game.

            As far as I know, there have been no prosecutions under the existing law. And I should just think not. I’m yet to see a definition of hate speech which couldn’t be glossed as “things you say that I don’t like” And vice versa.

            Adding religion – in particular Islam, of course – will make things much worse. No law can control what we say and think to and about one another. And it’s ludicrous and pointless, having laws of this sort.

  12. Seymour will love this and push ACT above 10 percent, and Judith will pick up more votes also. Jacinda has shown yet again, the PC nutters are still in charge within Labour.

  13. Freedom of Religion, I want that. To have such a freedom implies rights.

    Jacinda seems to want vauge rules, rather than freedoms and liberties for people.

    Rights have inherent responsibilities. Jacinda seems to want the State to shoulder all responsibility and replace freedoms with rules.

    At least that seems to be her mindset at times. Her world view is underwhelming.

  14. Well here’s hoping that you’re right, Herman. If this is what the pollsters are telling Ardern that New Zealanders want, then we’re all in trouble. Hopefully it’s just the Helen Clark controllery coming through – but – I wouldn’t mind if she and that creepy Key buttoned up more too…

      • Herman – I did actually think it was the Helen Clark Syndrome coming through – I never voted Labour when Clark led it, and regarded her as emasculating the LP – as offensive as Shipley, and the pair of them profoundly irritating. Still are.

        In theory, there is nothing wrong with PM Ardern’s politics of kindness, but her friends and foes alike are wrong in identifying Ardern as running the country – she is there to represent the wishes of the people, that’s us, and all of us. I may not vote at all now.

        Would quite like a choice on the ballot paper for those of us wanting to register the fact that we regard none of the candidates as good enough. If Ardern is toadying up to the UN, that’s not good enough either. Also thought her alleged secret visit to Meghan Markle in London an error of judgment – and what a colossal waste of one of the world’s great cities.

  15. This is sheer hubris from the PM, and it is likely to backfire big time if it’s raised in the TV debates. As others have noted, it’s a cynical attempt to ringfence militant Islam from rational critique.
    Rightly fearful of medieval theocracy I have no choice but to vote Act.
    It’s time to put to bed the notion of PM as a pillar of “kindness”. She is a virtue-signalling Blairite who weaponises wokeness to control the masses.

    • Gosman and Andrew Supporter. Wonderful thank you. They are all mad, aren’t they. If Judith cares so much about albatrosses, why give them common little names like Bob ? Why not Godfrey, or Hercules or Thor ?

      It was a stormy night phone call. Somewhere, lodged in the brain of Judith May could have been a connection between the National Party, and it’s albatross. It was late. The time when persons of certain ilk may be prone to see racism seeping in like the fog in San Francisco Bay, and start wailing about deleting white men or the ethnicity of the great white albatross, and Judith got the connection confused like Post Office telephone operators did in Oamaru in 1950 – another Maori name. Gosh. Timaru. Pahiatua. Waikato. Waimate. Dipton ?

      If all Maori place names were changed to Bob, and all big birds called Bob, would peace descend upon the face of the burning melting planet which we call Earth ? Should that be called Bob too ? We need to prioritise.
      Perhaps a Commission of Inquiry – nice little pay packets for ex-MP’s having another crack at fouling things up.

      • The point Gosman and Andrew supporters appear to be making, was more that Judith on the Newstalk recording of the call, sounded remarkably like the real </B Judith Collins. They've obviously heard the recording and the same rumours in Wellington as have been heard here in Auckland – namely that Judith is allegedly Judith Collins on a late-night rant against Maori albatross names. I've listened to the recording and it seems to sound like Judith Collins.

        If it were Judith Collins and Newstalk ZB phone records could prove it, then it's bye bye Judith and welcome in the 4th National Party Leader this year. Simon. Todd. Judith…… Gerry?

        But, Gosman and Andrew are obviously rabid ACT supporters and they see the potential chaos, that if Judith (Bob supporter) and anti-Maori-albatross-namer, moves from rumour, to fact, for Judith Collins, her tenure as PM is over.

        Crushing Collins would be mana from heaven for ACT and New Zealand First, who would become the only viable opposition parties, or at least the only viable leaders of the coalition of the Right.

        The SpinOff or Newshub or New Zealand First should request the phone number of Judith, the Albatross caller with an OIA before the election so it can be proven. God knows how badly National went after Winston about his Superannuation overpayment before last election. SpinOff and Newshub found out National Party Board member Roger Bridge aka Merv's phone number very quickly when he rang NewstalkZB about Nuwanthie Samarakone.

        Surely, by finding out the caller's number and real name, we can keep nutters like ACT, Shane Jones's New Zealand First from holding the balance of power. Please clear up once and for all that Judith of Bob-the-Maori-Albatross, is, or is not, Judith Collins.

  16. My understanding was that the UK hate speech laws came about because of the far right agitating for a holy war against Islam in the UK and abroad. They were introduced, not by a left wing govt, but by a Conservative one. Cause and effect? Maybe we are looking at the mundane rather than the big picture? We are already told what to think through our upbringing, education, social groupings, laws, peer groups with a little independent thought thrown in to the mix. The problem at hand is the Islam is not a race. It is a belief. Therein lies the problem with legislation. Anyone asked the Jews what they think about hate speech? Considering what happened in the 30’s and 40’s, is there a lesson here we should learn? Will allowing the status quo lead us on a path to more violence? Will joining the free speech advocates enable the haters and perhaps, encourage them? In my opinion, we need to tread carefully before joining the haters defending their right to hate. I look at free speech and hate speech as two different animals. ACT’s ambition is to close the Human Rights commission for fucks sake. What next? The scribblings on this site smack of ‘poor me, I won’t be able to dehumanise anyone at this rate’.

    • …and, look what’s happening in the grand ol’ u.s of tragic america.

      That. …is where unfettered hate speech lands.

      Anyone’s welcome to go there and stay there, any time at all. “Free” speechers, or actual hate speechers

      • Kheala: “That. …is where unfettered hate speech lands.”

        That’s not what ails the US, you know. There’s been periodic turmoil and upheaval in US society for all of my longish life. And before I was born, of course.

    • Sixfootfour. We’ve never ever been a big picture country. We’re built not on the assumed privilege of English colonisers, but on the damaged genes of Scots/Irish immigrants, psychically crippled – for all their laudable qualities – well before the Brits set foot here. It can take a few generations for such handicaps to be worked through.

      You rightfully distinguish between the purposes of free speech. Where the intent of any speech is to deliberately damage or inflict harm, just as ends in themselves, I suggest that it is bad speech. I’m pretty sure that some of this is already covered under Criminal Law, and doubtless other answers are available in Torts. Best if we don’t have to arrive at such solutions to people behaving in hateful fashion, but nor do I think it possible to legislate against haters per se; like most extremists, they are flawed, damaged or stupid – or fiendishly manipulative. Worst, perhaps, are the messianic who confuse themselves with gods.

    • ACT’s ambition is to close the Human Rights commission

      I did not know that. Yes, he calls the role of the HR Commissioner, “an unnecessary, overpaid, taxpayer-funded job.”

      “Apart from sporadically telling New Zealanders what to think, say, and do, there appears to be little point to the role of the Human Rights Commissioner.” Act Would Abolish Role of HRC

    • ACT wants to boot out Paul Hunt and can the HRC? Sounds like a good reason to vote ACT. Oh hold on, I’ve just remembered their economic policies – their real agenda is a deal-breaker for me.

      As the Crimes Act already deals with those who would incite people to harm others (or to harm themselves), why do we need “Hate Speech” legislation? What is “hate speech”?

      Imagine someone shares a meme about Arabs shagging camels, or a joke to the effect that Islam is not a religion of peace (like John Cleese’s “a piece over here, a piece over there”), and it goes viral. Or someone claims on social media that the prophet was a paedophile. And imagine the new day a hijab-wearing woman appears on the news, stating that said meme or statement is not only deeply offensive, but intended to incite hatred of Muslims. Will the person who posted the offending material be charged with hate speech?

      As for “ask the Jews”, don’t you think there would be a lot of individual variation in the responses of Jewish persons to questions about “hate speech”? Or do you think Noam Chomksy, Ben Shapiro, Naomi Wolf, Ruth Key, Stephen Fry, Elon Musk and Benjamin Netanyahu would all hold the same views?

    • Will joining the free speech advocates enable the haters and perhaps, encourage them?

      Look at is happening now in the US.

      we need to tread carefully before joining the haters defending their right to hate.

      Very, very, very carefully!!

    • Sixfootfour: “I look at free speech and hate speech as two different animals.”

      Ok. Give us all a definition of what constitutes hate speech (as opposed to free speech). I’ve yet to hear one that couldn’t be glossed as “things you say that I don’t like” or vice versa.

      “ACT’s ambition is to close the Human Rights commission for fucks sake.”

      This would be a good move, in my view. It doesn’t appear to do anything pointful: just eats up a lot of taxpayer dollars.

      “The scribblings on this site smack of ‘poor me, I won’t be able to dehumanise anyone at this rate’.”

      It seems that, like many commenters on this site, you don’t understand what constitutes free speech. Here’s a definition:

      “The right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.”

      Such opinions may well deeply offend you and/or others. It makes no difference: that’s free speech for you.

  17. 1.)hate = feel intense dislike for
    2.) hate speech = speech expressing intense dislike for
    3.) Ban hate speech = Ban speech expressing intense dislike for

    Fact:
    1.) all kids feel intense dislike and express it (….unless emotionally and intellectually stunted)
    2.) most adults feel intense dislike and express it (….unless emotionally and intellectually stunted)

    Most freedom fighters for social change feel intense dislike and express it… most animals also feel intense dislike and express it

    Fact is we can also love and care ….and often hate can easily turn into love and care and respect …it is how we learn and how we prevent violence

    So what are we trying to do here with this Ban ón hate speech ?…create an authoritarian fascist state /religion run by robots and thought police?

    What SHOULD be banned is physical harm and killing! ( and it already is under New Zealand law)

    My guess is that those who can not and/or feel powerless to express intense dislike, are the ones who are maladjusted ….and who do end up physically harming and killing.

  18. “ACT is on 7% now once they doubled their MMP vote off the back of that free speech fiasco”
    That will mostly be rats fleeing the sinking Gnat ship – free speech don’t enter into it. The fascists were welcome to come, they didn’t deserve a platform though, it was in fact a very sound move. The lack of vigilance that let Billy TK and JLR’s foreign funded freakshow through may yet do real damage however – and if they don’t it won’t be for want of trying.

  19. Does anybody believe that ACT really truly is the champion of free speech?
    Well I say bollocks.
    ACT is doing what its name suggests – ACTING.
    ACT’s idea of free speech is not standing up for what you or I or the majority of people on this blog want to say.
    ACT’s real priority to stand up for those who want to sock it to the left and to anyone who is not a rich urbanite yuppie.
    If you think otherwise you are deluded.
    But unfortunately it seems that a lot of people are deluded.

  20. Herman Shovel Ready September 24, 2020 at 10:57 pm
    maybe this wasn’t scripted for her. yep, that’ll be it. remember, she’s only acknowledged as a good communicator. not a good manager or decision maker.

    NZ PM Jacinda Ardern, a World Leader:

    The Most Effective Leader on the Planet, The Atlantic, 19 April 2020

    A Masterclass in Leadership, NYT 20 April 2020

    The Leader We Need, MSN April 2020

    What Jacinda Ardern can teach us about the Art of Leadership, ACC Global, June 2019

    Jacinda Ardern and How Great Leaders Manage a Crisis, CEO Today, June 2020

    There are thousands more, from all around the world.

    • Kheala: “There are thousands more, from all around the world.”

      Cite away. People are entitled, both to their point of view, and to express it. That’s free speech for you.

      And those of us who disagree are entitled, both to our point of view, and to express it. That’s free speech, etc…

  21. The inherent racism and hate speech against Maori by Judith in her call to NewstalkZB, will be an albatross around her neck for the rest of her career. The inherent hate speech of Mike Hosking on the same radio station is hate the other tribe speech – Defund Mike NOT Newstalk ZB

    Hate speech cannot be a binary ‘Hobson’s Choice’, until you are a part of a tribe, or a church, or a gender, or mental issues tribe, a tribe, or a political party in the cross-hairs of hate speech, or hate actions.

    David Seymour is a numpty, is free speech. This is my opinion.
    David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Referendum is a shit piece of legislation. This is my opinion.
    David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Referendum is a shit piece of legislation. “Kill yourself first David and show us what to do!” This is hate speech because it threatens the life of someone, for the beliefs he or she has.

    I have the right to my opinion. I don’t have the right to threaten the lives, or incite someone to threaten lives, or carry out threats.

    Hate speech threatening Judith Collins, or Jacinda Ardern or David Seymour or any of the Hopeful Christians at Gloriavale with harm, threatens their lives, or their families is hate speech because it threatens their lives. We have the right to disagree with their politics, their party, their colleagues.

    Is Judith saying on Newstalk ZB radio that albatross chicks should be called Bob and not be called Atawhai?
    Is it racist? Probably.
    Is it hate speech? Probably.

    But, if it is Judith Collins saying on radio that albatross chicks should be called Bob and not be called Atawhai?
    Is it racist? Erm…
    Is it hate speech? Um…
    But she’s the leader of a political party.
    But she’s married to a Chinese man, so she can’t be racist. Can she?

    The hate speech that Charlotte Dawson suffered in 2014 and prior, took her own life is an example of internet hate speech, with deadly and tragic consequences:

    National Party MP Tau Henare tweeted she had been “hounded and taunted on social media” and he was “so angry to hear of her death”.
    TV3 host John Campbell tweeted “so very sad”.
    The 47-year-old – who became a television star on both sides of the Tasman – had a highly public battle with depression.
    She was treated in August 2012 following a suicide attempt. She also struggled on social media where trolls viciously attacked her on both Facebook and Twitter.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/9752980/Charlotte-Dawson-found-dead

    Hate speech legislation will have its issues there is no doubt, but so is being given political or moral absolutes and be asked to choose sides.

    It’s like George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’, political Commandments “Four legs good, two legs bad!”.

    I’ve had some really good four-legged friends, AND some good two-legged friends. I even had a one-legged friend called Stumpy. I used to singalong to Jake the Peg, until Rolf Harris jumped into one of the two-legged tribes. Orwell was a Brit, who grew up in colonial India, fought in the Spanish Civil War. His most memorable line of prose in ‘1984’, revolved around dictators who seek power for its own brutal sake.

    “Power is tearing human minds together and putting them together again in shapes of your own choosing”

    Our minds and humanity are being torn apart by dictators to ‘choose this tribe’, or ‘choose that tribe’. Believe what the dictator says, hate what the opposition say. Watch this doctored video on Facebook that distorts truth and entrenches fear and hatred of the other tribe. There is an axis of evil again in the world, who seek to turn white against black, turn red against blue, turn truth and decency and respect into lies and hatred and loathing.

    God knows what Orwell would have thought, and written about Twitter, and Trump and thirteen and a half-second sound bites. “I’ve done more for the blacks in America than any other President in the history of Presidents. Probably even better than Abraham Lincoln.”

    Some would consider this hate speech. Some would think this is ‘slightly off!”. Some would think it is a pearl of wisdom passed from a very stable genius.

    Kindness can’t be legislated, but we might expect our leaders to expect it in a civil nation.
    Getting rid of hate speech is aspirational at best, and we might expect it in a civil nation.
    But, it’s not a David versus Goliath “free-speech” face-off.

    Let’s have some middle ground dialogue between the absolutes of kindness and hate. The aim is to create a dialogue that could have saved Charlotte Dawson, or may have have saved the lives 51 Islamic brothers and sisters in Christchurch. It may have even have saved John Lennon.

    Remember kindness and hate. Four legs good, two legs bad.
    Those currently in power have the task of creating a ‘civil union’ and a dialogue between love and hate.
    However, hate, fear, division and power are powerful enemies
    ‘You may say I’m a dreamer.’
    Imagine.

  22. You choose religion.

    That is where I disagree with you. For some of us, it’s as if our faith, our ‘religion’, chooses us. And once it does, there is no choice. It is a deeply personal thing, which no-one else should interfere with, nor ridicule, belittle or denigrate. It should always be met with respect.

    …Which is quite different from discussing or debating different religious beliefs.

  23. To me, taunting someone for their Faith, for their most deeply held spiritual beliefs, is as unkind as taunting them for loving an aged parent, an errant sibling, a lost child, or a life partner who may not fit the mould.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.