Q+A Review: How the Free Speech issue will turbocharge ACT


Chippy is up explaining the latest ‘gaps’ in the border protection services. Jack points out our voluntary system is a joke, Chippy shrugs it off with, ‘sure, but what are you gonna do”.

Our underfunded State doesn’t really have much more capacity than it’s currently using. Our casualised workforce with weak Unions propped up on voluntary systems is as good as it gets.

It’s embarrassing because it has made Chris Bishop briefly relevant but ultimately Kiwis will only punish Labour if a leak leads to a severe lockdown and it is seen as incompetence.  With 140 000 successfully processed and only a handful of slip ups, Labour are still the Gold standard.


The WHO are on pointing out that we are no where near dealing with the Pandemic. We are now at levels which are out of control globally and the vaccine roll out will be slow and will require annual doses.


TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

So the free speech debate is upon us and of course David Seymour is ready and waiting.

How on earth the Left have managed to end up being the anti-free speech party in all of this is a bewildering home goal because you always lose free speech debates.

‘the incitement of disharmony, based on an intent to stir up, maintain or normalise hatred, through threatening, abusive or insulting communications’.

What if I want to incite disharmony towards the rich?

The Police?


This can easily be used against anyone not just who we think it will be used against.

The problem here is that Blasphemy laws and gendered hate speech won’t prevent another white supremacy terror attack because that was an Intelligence failure, not a hate speech failure.

Symour’s cause will turbocharge ACT into double figures. Most of that will be by cannibalising National vote, but it’s also going to ruffle the middle intensely.

Most people are on social media, most people have seen woke lynch mobs hanging people for breaches of woke doctrine, most people self censor now and the backlash to that type of micro aggression policing is ripe for ACT to plunder.

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 – please donate here.

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


  1. There is no such thing as hate speech as there is no such thing as love speech.
    There is only free speech.

  2. 140,000 through MIQ. Some will be returning from a ‘short holiday’ Kiwis/permanent residents, and the rest I GUESS are ‘returning’ Kiwis from a ‘LONG O.E’.
    So what is the net increase in population? Half of the 140K?
    I ask because they will obvious put further pressure on the already inadequate housing stock. Not a complaint, just a figure that I’ve never seen mentioned anywhere and it seems a significant number to know, due to its unexpected effects on NZ.

  3. Yup! The latte Lite Mellinial Klub, Labour need to check themselves with their programme of social engineering.

    When the bubbleheads can’t or don’t accept other peoples opinions they dish out and yell the labels; “Hater”, “Abuse” “sexist” etc …at those who’re not in their bubble. Where did this fuckwittedness come from? Who’s fuck’n kids are these!?

    Identity politics is the gateway to an autonomous pseudo qazi dictatorial regime.

    Whinging whiney little bitches everywhere! Please stop, ffs!

    Act will probably reap that reward …

  4. If the American leaders of BLM were subject to these laws, wouldn’t they be strong candidates for arrest? These laws might backfire BIG TIME on Labour and the Greens.

    ACT might be their savior here? ACT is looking like the best of a bad bunch.

  5. These language guidelines are so non specific they could mean anything, affecting and influencing all communications (private and public), not just the truly damaging. Am I missing something here, because even academic linguists have differing views and theories on language, while semantics and nuance can be so subtle as to be literally in the eye of the beholder. Is this the end of metaphor and satire? Did they solve the language problem, or are we perhaps expected to defer to some sort of government-approved statistical algorithm to approve our communications, before we hit ‘send’ on social media?
    Recently Grant Robertson told desperate renters during a housing crisis that the option to ‘go elsewhere’ to find accommodation is theirs if they were having trouble with landlords. This would surely fall under insulting use of language for some. Other government communications such as backtracking on policy, even if originally well intentioned, is surely misinformation as defined, that of releasing incomplete information. Though unintentional, do they get a strike and removal from the information space until they repent for communication sin (incidentally users are migrating from established social media providers to alternative platforms such as Telegram and Panquake. How will these networks be affected with changes to free speech)? Disinformation however, attempting to intentionally disseminate or manipulate the narrative using untruths to put them in a more favourable position, or damage another, is much more serious. Who gets to investigate this form of hate speech? Can the government investigate themselves or will Jacinda just go on a breakfast show to answer allegations and just say ‘No I don’t agree with that’? Will some blowhard bureaucrat embedded in the public service be anointed information tsar who rules over our free speech, much like the health sector has creepily invaded public and personal space? Is it then incumbent on real journalists, independent thinkers, bloggers and those that care about objective truth and factual reporting to hold those in power to account, even if it means using language, taking a position and offering opinion that may offend?
    It’s interesting also to see the word ‘maintain’ in the proposal, perhaps meaning implicit support for hate speech by not reacting or acting to ‘it’. The government is accustomed to this mindset, what with it’s business as usual inertia. Similarly using other parties such as the media to influence, direct or deflect issues is a common government tool, often nothing more than garden shed propaganda. Is this hate speech dressed up as soft reporting, chummy platitudes and soft interviews? Hate speech by omission? Is not properly holding the government to account a form of hate, against the ethics of journalism, truth and an informed public? Alternatively what about scaring people witless with nightly numbers of Covid deaths on the telly? Inciting fear? Or just more of ”do as I say, not as I do’?

    • Forgot to mention Rokfin and Substack as alternative platforms for the work of progressive emigres, creative dissidents and free thinkers

    • These language guidelines are so non specific they could mean anything, affecting and influencing all communications (private and public), not just the truly damaging.

      Exactly. Clear ‘incitement to violence’ eg, no problem.
      But “insulting” language?
      And, “disharmony”?
      As Jody says, they could mean anything.

      How would we continue to have free discussions on tdb if any comment that someone took offence at, that someone considered “insulting”, could result in a legal case being brought against the commenter and even, potentially, against site editors.

  6. The state always backs the ruling class establishment.

    History shows that hate speech laws will be used by the right to lock up the left, jews, intellectuals, homosexuals etc

    Oppressed groups who use the state to defend themselves are sleeping with the enemy and/or already embedded in the state and complicit with the oppression of others. Zionists, transcultists etc.

    Fortunately, the historically oppressed have never relied on the enemy state to defend them and will defend themselves on the streets, workplaces and barricades. Slaves, blacks, women, workers, homosexuals etc.

    And the revolutionary left will not be deterred by hate speech since its objective is to smash the state and its repressive forces and bourgeois legal system.

  7. Only the very most craven, greedy, soulless fools could consider act as a political effort worthy of a second look.
    act is, by and of itself, the last gasp of a secretive order of ancient Kiwi manipulators and exploiters and while they may, considering how breathtakingly fucking stupid many AO/NZ’er’s determinedly remain to be so, act might get a last dollar out of the death spasms of our beautiful AO/NZ before the act 2.0 deep state sell us off to the highest bidder looking for a bolt hole as the planet they and their kind have plundered to literal death finally dies completely under them.
    act can only be seen as an embarrassment born of our greed and gullibilities.
    Read this. There’s something in here for everyone and contains information that’s surprisingly prescient and on-topic.
    The Guardian.
    Ponder nice white ‘Hobson’s Pledge’ and the fascist racism of ACT while reading this?
    “Wilhelm Reich: the strange, prescient sexologist who sought to set us free.”
    “ …Reich thought hateful and cruel behaviours were a consequence of the unequal and deforming systems in which people were forced to live…”
    “…He spent that autumn in Denmark, poring over Mein Kampf and writing The Mass Psychology of Fascism, his landmark work of analysis of the Nazis’ appeal. In it, he explained how the patriarchal family acted as a unit of indoctrination, training people from childhood to submit to authority. The Nazis burned it on pyres, alongside all his other published work….”

    • Yeah but Labour and the Greens make Act look sane. People will have more opportunity under Act to exercise personal agency?

      Labour are all the bad bits of communism with none of the benefits. Greens just can’t get anything done and are off on a non-binary leadership tangent.

      Obviously National aren’t even a consideration and TOP’s leaders/funders are jumping ship before the boat has even been launched. If Act are so horrible.. where’s the evidence.. given me a real reason. Boomer has interviewed David many times and they both come off well.

    • You can guarantee that “religious freedom” will trump “hate speech”. So of course Islam will be exempt (especially since the impetus for this was the Christchurch massacre) from the new law. This is just Labour virtue signalling and will likely backfire spectacularly… or will get doubled down on to drag us even closer to Orwell’s 1984.

      • The atomisation of pluralism… it can only get so diverse (and contradictory) before there is no centre (cannot hold) and society begins to unravel (at a faster pace)… imagine the resources that are going to be required to police it in multiple languages across multiple platforms…

  8. Interesting what has happened in the UK. Anyone heard of Harry Miller? Ex cop engaging in the trans self gender id debate. He posted someone else’s poem about trans which was pretty tasteless, on Twitter. Next thing the police visit his work place and although he was not accused of a crime, he was lodged on a police website that logged “hate events”. Prospective employers could access this information and Harry was sent a report headed “crime report”, even though he had committed no crime.

    He took the Humberside Police to court and won

  9. Fox News has brought down America to its Augustus moment, all the language of the rule of the people , none of the reality. We must respond to modern media like we responded to the printing presses. With discernment. Shouting fire in a theatre is a good guide. Better the actual over-view of the people, which is intimated by the word democracy. Makes you laugh.

  10. So I turn on Q+A in search of deep and insightful commentary about the proposed hate speech laws. The basic gist of it was that Seemore, Jack and those 2 panellist possess insufficient skills, insight, knowledge or understanding about what speech is. And at the end neither could convince with a solid argument. Whether it be sport, work, fsmily, friends, enemies or just driving a car. Why would free speech be important to this society. So what is free speech and why do people like Chris Trotter gaurd it Jealously? So let’s try and answer some of these questions so at least people can be on one page about it.

    Well, obviously free speech is a type of large calibre AK47 *ahem.*

    Okay… The truth is free speech is a combination of complex legal ownership and collective popular belief. In boring legalese it’s basically the official version of something who somebody owns the rights to.

    As an example Jan Logie wants pregnant woman be replaced with pregnant people and wants this type of speech enforced by the state even though it shouldn’t be. Even if you are trans femal to male the correct moral and legal term for these people is literally woman. That’s what they are. Woman. So there’s another legal definition of why speech should not be enforced by the state.

    The other and more subtle part of this example is the collective belief of popular opinion. In terms of free speech it is what the public believe to be true with in the realms of the society we live in. So if that’s free speech then what is hate speech?

    A nice simple example of hate speech would be the twitter that takes aspects of society and uses it for the bases of new laws and some of them are really fucking obscure. So I think we can agree that speech does have power and certain people have more power than others. Now designing laws to control powerful forms of speech and then directing those laws at people’s who’s power barley rises above $20 million in assets and $250 thousand in annual income is really fucking obscure.

    So if someone wants to take the accepted side of social norms they will tempt police to call and discuss why those opinions are harmful because hate speech isn’t the same as free speech because if I own a piece of land then I have free speech over that peice of land you don’t. That is hopefully obvious that the way crimalising hate speech targets absolutely the wrong people because the definitions are to broad they includ people who aren’t very powerful at all.

    • ” So I turn on Q+A in search of deep and insightful commentary ”

      That was your first mistake.

      The corporate media don’t do insightful or non biased reporting or provide anyone to comment that isn’t just another windbag loving the public exposure for ten or so minutes.

    • News-Hub-Nation panelists are pretty thick to say the least. Jack is adequate, yet he allows these panelists?

      News-Hub-Nation is garbage these days. Checkpoint has gone to the dogs and Q+A is an eye roll. ThreeNow, TV3, NewsHub.. whatever they’re called, they need to get a working login system and website in general.

      Tragic that NZ on Air funds shows only viewable on Chrome Browser. To be honest I don’t even know if it works on Chrome browsers. I haven’t watched TV in years either. NZ or Air could use some diversity of platform/online-content-producers. Also, why fund 100% Boomer mediums. Seems pretty undemocratic and against their charter!

      NZ on Air seem intent to radicalize mentally ill people whom then propagate their ignorant opinions on Facebook and I’m guessing Twitter. Then the mentally ill members of the media regurgitate social media as news.. like a human centipede really.

      These people and members of the media should be in an institution, not having their ravings amplified. It’s very dangerous and actually cruel to exploit/perpetuate their suffering.

      I know to speaking in these terms is unfamiliar, but there is truth in what I’m saying.

      • Caught in the middle are an increasingly exasperated public who unceasingly question the integrity of the 4th estate and government. Its kind of unnerving knowing that journalists who focus on the story and journalistic integrity are one corporate merger away from being fired.

  11. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Woke are beginning to show their true authoritarian colours. For the indoctrinated woke millennial, freedom of thought and free speech are dangerous explosives that lead to Fascism.

    Never mind that actual fascism is the melding of corporate and state power crushing the individual under its jackboot.

  12. My take of the whole interview and panel discussion is that Seymour was pulled up on some of his more outlandish statements, including comparisons to the UK, which was followed by the normal ‘mea culpa’ from Dave when he is found to be talking shit (see cloth shopping bags will kill NZers). Shame he never got to finish his sentence about the human rights commission being ‘too left’ so that he could repeat his call for it’s abolition. Free speech indeed! Ben Thomas’s take that the proposed legislation was overblown and that the free speech argument amounted to nothing more than state intervention in ‘a twitter argument’ obviously caused a great deal of discomfort to the other panelist, and, in my view, cost Ben a lot of his credibility to make a reasoned argument. I have alot of sympathy for each side of the argument. I also remember the on line and msm ‘chatter’ about Muslims prior to the Christchurch massacre. David Farrar had to do a deep clean of his site and introduce moderation after the event as some of the commentary was over the line. Well worth a look at the comments section (pre moderation) on the day and day after of the massacre at Kiwiblog (if it is still available to view) as an example of hate. Quite eye opening. I also had an unfortunate meeting with a man who reckoned that the woman and girls killed were ‘saved’ from a fate worse than death (not the first or last time I have heard this rhetoric). That charming fellow (and his ilk) do have a right to their opinions but I found this opinion deeply disturbing and had trouble sleeping for a few days afterwards. So still on the fence I’m afraid. It also appears the as (most) blogsites now do moderation before posting, that free speech has it’s limits although not so much pre massacre?

    • Pre mod was unplaced long before 2018. I remember because I use to say half these bitch as comments was trash.

  13. Act gets in the the news for all the big issues. When they are the dominant party in the next government with National will the thing affecting most people on a daily basis be free speech or schooling?

    Their policy: “Provide every child with a Student Education Account. A child will receive $250,000 of taxpayer-funded education over their life, but parents have little choice in how it’s spent. ACT will empower parents by placing this money in a Student Education Account. Parents will be able to use it at any registered educational institution that will accept their child’s enrolment, public or private.”

    No worries with school zoning I guess. A school, teachers, will choose which pupils they want to fill their quota. Take kids who have high needs suck away their fund or the ‘easy to handle, manage and teach’ ones?

    • Oh, forgot. “Reduce the number of back office bureaucrats at the Ministry of Education by 50 per cent, saving $240 million a year. We will put this money back into frontline education.”

      So a bureaucracy will be set up to administer the Student Education Accounts. Or is that contracted out to, eg. the famous Novopay? How many ‘students’ early childhood to tertiary? 1.5 million?

      • I’m not that worried about ACT. The more press they get the more extreme they sound. Simple questions unanswered by ACT:
        Are they in favour of a higher gun availability to the public or not?
        Where is the report into sexual assault levelled by Young ACT deputy leader?
        What did Brooke mean when she said that the elderly must make a sacrifice for the good of all NZers?
        Is ACT still in favour of the HRC being abolished?
        Will Seymour commit to being leader of his party as he is quoted as saying he would give it all away if he came across ‘true love’?
        Who would be the new leader? Brooke?
        If National pull their funding and patronship from Epsom, can ACT get over the line electorally?
        Can ACT even be taken seriously if their motto is ‘smaller govt…vote for us’.?
        Any more news on the collusion between Kiwiblog, The National Party, The Taxpayers Union and ACT reported recently? Why not? ACT reply to allegations was ‘no comment’.
        One day a reporter will look at parallels between the Trump GOP and ACT and be astonished. In the meantime, out with the popcorn.

Comments are closed.