Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

68 Comments

  1. Not a surprise that so called “Young Labour” would choose to ban one of the strongest voices against the slaughter in Palestine. It pretty much proves they really are not anti-war, never were and don’t even know what it means to be.

    1. If you think Candice Owens is one of the “strongest voices against the slaughter in Palestine” I would question what media commentators you are following.

      1. Strong in terms of numbers, I’m guessing. She has a big following. Well done to her for going against the grain of the crowd she’s usually associated with.

        1. Strongest and biggest are different things – on the right, maybe strongest but as a whole, she’s hardly on a par with Norm Finklestein or Bassem Youssef

        2. Apples to oranges, but unfortunately for Norm, her reach is far greater than his and reach/numbers matter. When you speak out against the interests of the powerful, the censorship/cancellation/smear cards start coming into play and they will be used against you once you start gaining real traction. She, has the ability to influence significant numbers of people, which is fantastic from a stopping genocide point of view. She can’t educate or inform people to the level of Norm, on Israel/Palestine, few people can in fact, but she can influence. She is strong, she is big, and I am glad that she’s against the slaughter taking place in the Middle East. As Ralph Nader loves to point out – when interests align, embrace them.

          Tip to Young Labour, the powerful are not on your side, so stop playing their free speech busting, censorship/cancellation, division game.

  2. Yep, in order to protect their “core values”, they’ve just got to trample over them first, meaning their values are worthless, or to put it another way, this has nothing to do with ‘values’, this is all about their inability to counter opposing views, hence they want to play the censorship card. The future is not bright for Labour.

    Yes, we have become accustomed to cancel culture, but this is by design, this is not organic…the money behind our political puppets are driving this climate to increasingly stifle political debate between we, the people…

  3. Am I the only one who finds it ironic when people like Candace Owens who call for mass deportation of migrants whine and piss themselves when other countries ban them?

    1. The snowflakiest of snowflakes…I think self reflexion is not part of their or their followers make ups

  4. Heartily agree that Owens just talk. Who cares.
    That said, even if allegations of Russians under the bed are correct (not great, given Russiagate track records) the saddest thing is that people pretend the US is not the biggest influencer of mis and disinformation in the world. They don’t have to prove anything ever, just make headlines and never recant.
    It is the heart of the Empire of Lies.

  5. If you look at our universities, does this really surprise you? Welcome to our political overlords of the future where they we will after us and protect us from the bad people and their words.

  6. All young Labour members should have to have work experience in a Fish n Chip Shop. Then they wouldn’t make such comments.

    1. Please no…then they’ll embarass us at UN/harvard/Colbert..take ur pick

      1. Binders full of women They won’t embarrass us at the UN, it’s already a global issue instigated by the left, and Ardern advocated for global censorship of free speech to the UNO, referring to it as weapons of destruction or sumsuch Blairite jargonese.

  7. All they will have has achieved so far is to draw attention to this person (Candance Owen) including my own.

    From Wikipedia:

    Anti-black racism and Black Lives Matter
    Owens is known for her criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement,[5][75][76][77] and has described Black Lives Matter protesters as “a bunch of whiny toddlers, pretending to be oppressed for attention”.[78] Owens has argued that African Americans have a victim mentality, often referring to the Democratic Party as a “plantation”,[75][70] stating in 2020: “Black lives only matter to white liberals every four years—ahead of an election.”[79] She has also argued that the American Left likes “black people to be government-dependent”,[80] and that black people have been brainwashed to vote for Democrats.[4] Furthermore, Owens has argued that police brutality in the United States and instances of police killing black people are not sourced in racism, but typically occur when the officer feels his life is under threat,[75][78] adding a police officer is eighteen-and-a-half times more likely to die at the hands of a black person than vice versa.[24][70][69]

  8. Owens knows that appealing to White Right wing prejudice ignorance entitlement and power is easy in a majority White country.
    Winston Peters popularity for 50 years has also being based on being the
    Brown Uncle Tom in a White majority country. Seymour is doing the same.
    Licking White Right wing arse for a sell out Brown is a good earner.
    The Left wing has the much harder task of challenging and changing
    White Right wing prejudice ignorance entitlement and power.
    But it has been done before.
    Clinton did it Obama did it and hopefully Harris will do it too.
    Remember Savage did it, So did Kirk, so did Lange so did Clarke so did Ardern.
    The next Labour party will keep fighting for diversity and win in 2029.
    Try not to get caught up so much in the short term set backs.
    Three steps forward under the Left two steps back under the Right.
    Remember in 2029 all the odious right wing policies can be reversed.
    So we are winning the long term battle.
    We will never surrender.
    Keep the faith.

  9. What fun!

    The left that promotes “acceptance” cannot accept, of all things, a black woman coming here to talk. It’s the makings of a Monty Python script!

    Don’t they realise that banning is just a form of advertising? The example being those two Canadians: I’d never heard of them until the left made a fuss. All their product is a click away on the internet.

    LO@

  10. She is antisemitic (which is probably why Ben Shapiro let her go from the Daily Wire) and not shy is giving off very big ol hint to it, and I mean BIG! Free speech and all but – on a really serious note – do we really want holocaust denying, slavery apologists coming over & giving a gathering place for others’ dark sides to get a pat on the back & make new friends? Do we want this? Australia has banned her – what high road do we take to let her in, really?

    1. There is a difference between not wanting to hear her and letting her visit so others can hear her. While I would not agree with her the idea behind free speech is that those we don’t agree with have free speech also otherwise we will not be allowed to share our views if those opposing us have control. Go to North Korea if you only want one side of any discussion.

  11. Excellent article Martyn
    Everyone is entitled to be young and stupid once but this has significant political consequences.

  12. I don’t think we can ban her for what she might say, but if she actually says anything that amounts to incitement, then hit her with a ton of bricks.

    And remember, over-enthusiastic liberals might sometimes want to ban people they don’t like, but fascists like Owens will (if they have power), lock up, torture and kill people they don’t like. This is not a case of ‘both sides do it” – there is a massive asymmetry of evil here and everyone had better bloody realise it soon.

  13. I resent anyone telling me I am not allowed the opportunity to protest against Candeath Owens.

    1. Richard Richard Richard. There’s nothing to stop you protesting about anything. Make a sandwich board or placard about it and pace the street. My Aunt Violet gives money to people like that and it’s not like you’re saying The End is Nigh, or Vote Purple.

        1. Richard Christie Unless you’re 7 feet tall she mightn’t notice you. Do it my way and you could get onto the news, and then she might. Sufficiently hyped-up you could also score a cuddle from Coster, with, of course, your consent.

          1. Enough of us outside her venues and she’ll notice.
            You are obviously severely challenged if you think she’s notice a sandwich board in a provincial centre.

          2. Of course she wouldn’t notice a sandwich board, but my Aunt Violet, and lots of people would, and the media would notice it and kaput, you’re making news.

    2. Protest peacefully outside the meeting by all means. Go inside and challenge Ms Owen’s opinions from the floor according to the norms of civil debate, following the rules of the Chairperson. But don’t try to shout her down, disrupt the meeting, or exercise the thug’s veto in any other way. Otherwise, you might as well join Young Labour in trying to get her banned .

  14. Candace Owens is a deeply problematic figure who could be argued to be discrediting many of the positive and true positions she has argued for by supporting bizarre conspiracy theories about the shape of the earth and the participation of certain parties in the French Revolution. But noone serious should support banning her from visiting- those views she promotes like ‘murdering hundreds of thousands of Palestinian children is bad’ and ‘Americans would be better off if they had domestic control of their own foreign policy’ are self-evidently true, and the more cranky claims she has made should be challenged.

  15. Defending Candace Owens rights etc to go round making extravagant emotional claims and stirring up people who are hurting because of our ordinary politics, is like trying to stamp out bush fires that should never have been allowed to get started. FFS is a short way of expressing disillusionment. It can also stand for fucking free speech. Restrained Free Speech would be good but reading the emotional language of many of these demagogues, it seems they just want to stir the witches brew. And not just on halloween.

    1. What you perceive to be extravagant emotional claims others may perceive to be a rational statement. It’s all subjective.

      Thus, it’s not that people are defending Candace Owens rights per se, it’s the right for free speech for all.

  16. Time now, wake up, our Pike River, knowin. John boy, his shame, how we going. Pike River, kiwi, open eyes.

  17. Owens was once an incisive right-wing voice, very sharp. I enjoyed video clips of her eviscerating democrats. But something happened to her, and she has turned into a fundamentalist fruitloop. This is not a reason to ban her.
    And the Young Labour princeling needs to know I do not require protection, especially from a whey-faced boy barely off his mother’s breast.

    1. I disagree John R Turning into a dangerous fruit loop has meant that she has absorbed a potent overdose of the current mind-bending kool-aid. And there are many very vulnerable to the hysteria that produces.

      It is like the need to close down on cannabis that has been bred to be super potent.
      We should be able to obtain it legally at the optimum level I think, But there will always be the ones who want to spike it somehow so it becomes a danger to the individual and society. Look at Candy as being a sugar shot too far.

    2. She’s a dangerous anti-vaxxer and her rabid rhetoric undoubtedly cost some people their lives.

      1. Richard, do you support free speech?

        Do you support adults having the right to make their own decisions when it comes to medical treatment?

        If not, you’re potentially more dangerous than her

  18. The challenge for Young Labour is to produce some people as articulate as Owens. Calling for the cancellation of Owens is their failure to meet her challenge.

Comments are closed.