Free speech champions?

Written By: - Date published: 9:14 am, August 2nd, 2018 - 303 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, colonialism, immigration, racism, the praiseworthy and the pitiful - Tags: ,

Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux are coming back to New Zealand to give a talk.  Such will be their commitment to free speech that entry to their event will be heavily regulated.  At the event those wanting to exercise their rights to free speech in a way that Lauren and Stefan do not approve will have those rights no doubt immediately curtailed.

Clearly there is a great deal of expectation about what may happen.  Television New Zealand is planning to give them air timeProtests are also planned.

Their basic proposition is an interesting one.  Their claim is that it is an important aspect of our freedom that they be allowed to say some pretty disgusting things about other cultures.

What can we expect Southern and Molyneux to say?

No doubt Southern will plan some sort of stunt similar to what she pulled at Lakemba in Sydney.  She wanted to visit a local mosque and insult the residents.  The local Police Officer was concerned that a breach of the peace may occur that he told her not to visit.

She decried the absence of British hotels in the suburb.  Peter Norway captures the stupidity of the claim well.

There is also a planned event where for large amounts of money people can listen to Southern’s and Molyneux’s rants.

Australian writer Simon Copeland did something very brave.  He went to Southern’s and Molyneux’s Australian event and live tweeted the occasion.  His twitter thread captures the insanity of what Southern and Molyneux were saying well.

So what can we expect them to say presuming that their event goes ahead?

I expect there will be a similar attack on Maori culture that there was on Aboriginal culture.  Western culture good, Maori culture bad sort of stuff.  No doubt they show their lack of understanding by saying that Maori culture needs to learn and grow.  They will mock Maori myths, claim that Western culture saved Maori, and minimise Maori grievances over breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Multiculturalism will be attacked.  It will be presented as some sort of attack on the right to freedom of speech and democracy.  We should just acknowledge the supremacy of the west and realise that other cultures are a threat.  Freedom of speech must be allowed to be used to stifle freedom to express your culture.

What Molyneux and Southern do not understand is how Maori culture is becoming increasingly integrated into New Zealand culture, and how it is so central to our sense of identity.

Like in this wedding scene.

No doubt in Southern and Molyneux’s world such events would not be tolerated.  Western culture only.

And if they visit for instance the Avondale Market on Sunday morning they will really freak out.  All these people from different cultures peacefully coexisting and getting on.  All sorts of different styles of food and clothing.  Different languages being spoken.  People of all sorts of backgrounds and skin shades coexisting happily.

This is why so many of us are so upset at Molyneux and Southern being given air time.  Their claims are stupid, motivated by greed and malice, dangerous, and a threat to our settling sense of multiculturalism.  Most of us want to improve our knowledge of and appreciation of different cultures because they add so much to our way of life.  There is nothing to be afraid of.

I accept that New Zealand has some significant issues to work through but I do believe that we are basically on the right track.  The last thing we need is a couple of fascists to attack what is a central tenet of our way of life.

303 comments on “Free speech champions?”

  1. Gosman 1

    I thought people were okay that free speech does not mean you can exercise this anywhere you want?

    • lprent 1.1

      Just a question of hypocrisy.

      Especially among the members of the Free Speech Coalition or whatever Jordan Williams happened to call the generic right wing hate speech body today

      The absolutist free speech doctrine which some in there expounded was that there shouldn’t be any constraints on free speech.

      Especially that the council taking notice of their obligations towards their constituents in not allowing their venues to be used for hate speech activities (and therefore becoming liable for those activities and anything else).

      However the same hypocritical dimwits are supporting the cause of their chosen free speech standard bearers to exclude any free speech in their chosen venue by the people that they don’t like.

      Jordan Williams should return the money that he has extorted from the dimwits because any case that he cares to bring will be joined with a case on exactly the same basis against the ability of the fascist promoter to exclude who they want from speaking in their venue.

      Hopefully both parties will lose and the council and promoter will win. Basically absolutist free speech people are just idiots who can’t think of downstream practical issues.

      • Dennis Frank 1.1.1

        The aphorism ‘When in Rome, do as the Romans do’ probably originated a couple of millennia back (earliest recorded usage was in the 1500s) and it serves to rationalise practical limits on free speech in any society. The interesting bit for us is not the extreme sectarian view of either side but where we draw the line in the middle. That’s why we need case law to evolve from the HRA.

        • lprent 1.1.1.1

          Human Rights Act? For the hate speech stuff?

          Very unlikely to apply for any case brought against the council. BORA (the NZ Bill of Rights Act) is what will be raised by the idiots convention.

          I can pretty well tell you exactly where it will wind up, because there is a hell of a lot of case law already available about this in NZ law.

          However BORA will carry little weight in a case about the council providing venues because the first thing that the absolutist Free Speech nutters would have to show is that there was a duty for the council to provide a venue, and there simply isn’t one. They do not have to provide a private venue for anyone who they think will cause them criminal or liability or security or even simple damage issues.

          Not providing a venue doesn’t constrain the freedom of expression in BORA. Obviously – because the aussie scumbag promoter found a venue, and in fact said that they had a number of offered choices.

          The HRA might apply to the greedy Canadian agitators getting out of NZ. Personally if I was in a racial groups that the canadian fascist fools decided needed denigrating for the benefit of their clicks, then I’d lay a complaint to the police under sections 61 and 131, and suggest that they need holding in the country in case they decide to flee the charges.

          In fact it’d be worth doing that in any case just as a matter of freedom of expression.

        • Janet 1.1.1.2

          Some one drew the line on the Herald article / video today ..
          I am in Indonesia right now.
          “This video is restricted from playing in your current geographical region.”
          Someones mind is not so wide open that their brains have fallen out .

  2. dukeofurl 2

    I dont understand what TVNZ sees in getting her on a prime time show.

    One the Murdoch papers journalists in Sydney called her ‘un-interviewable’
    ‘reporter Annabel Hennessy from Sydney’s Daily Telegraph said interviewing Southern was “a waste of my time”.
    “Just like there are some people who can’t be argued with, there are some who can’t be interviewed,” she wrote.
    “I spent 13 minutes interviewing Southern on the phone and it was a fruitless task, because her whole rhetoric is designed to create a reaction rather than examining individual issues.”

    • AsleepWhileWalking 2.1

      “..because her whole rhetoric is designed to create a reaction rather than examining individual issues.”

      I guess that’s what a dying TV industry needs.

    • Gosman 2.2

      I’m sorry but why should we take Annabel Hennesy’s view as somehow gospel on whether someone should be interviewed or not? Is she some sort of international interview expert that Media organisations across the Globe defer to in relation to determining the suitability of interview subjects?

      • dukeofurl 2.2.1

        It was a self evident truth. A media judgement if you will An experienced journalist just said she has shit for brains- after all the Vampire from Vancouver went down streets in Melbourne looking to film and harass people who should thought were anti-fa- based on what they wore. Its not like under all the fire and smoke she is some sort of actual ‘teller of truths’. Compare and contrast Peterson who actually can hold a thought and tell a narrative of ideas even if you dont agree with his conclusions.
        Southern is literally an empty vessel making a lot of noise. Go ahead Gosman pay your money for the ‘right to be heard’ and then feel you too wasted your time

        • Gosman 2.2.1.1

          It is not a self evident truth. It is merely the opinion of one Journalist.

          • dukeofurl 2.2.1.1.1

            She actually ‘wasted’ 20 min talking to her and you have spoken one on one for how long ?

            • Gosman 2.2.1.1.1.1

              Again, she is not the World expert on interview subjects. She is merely a single journalist expressing her opinion. Try to remember that.

    • JanM 2.3

      I guess that at least we will get to see the appalling stupidity that the great unwashed are prepared to pay money to listen to.

      • KJT 2.3.1

        The “great unwashed” in New Zealand, have more sense, than to be swayed by these people.

        It was us “Redneck Westies”, who voted in the first outwardly gay MP. Just saying!

        • JanM 2.3.1.1

          I was referring to the nouveau riche – not Westies ( taught in the west for years – always experienced positive cultural diversity). I’m sure Westies would have better things to do with their money! I remember Chris Carter – liked him

          • KJT 2.3.1.1.1

            I am getting a bit pissed with the “Academic left” at present. Who appear to think, that we are children who will be swayed by fascist demagogues.

            “Keep people like them away from the “white working class” in case we turn feral”. They forget, we are mates with the “Brown working class”.

            Note. It is workers who oppose dictatorship. Educated bureaucrats and business owners, put them in power.

            • solkta 2.3.1.1.1.1

              we are mates with the “Brown working class”

              Not all of you. There are plenty of working class white power types in Christchurch and the west side of Hamilton for example.

              • KJT

                Actually, a small minority overall.

                And. I doubt those guys are working!

                • solkta

                  I doubt those guys are working!

                  Why do you say that?

                  Are unemployed people not allowed in the working class these days?

                  • KJT

                    Racists, like other bigots, tend to be people with self esteem issues. I.e. Not very successful in their life.

                • JanM

                  I’m afraid there are deep seams of white racism running through all levels of society in both those places, and a few others. My experience with racism is it is embraced mostly by people who have inferiority issues of their own so try to find others to look down on.

              • Pat

                Curious you should mention ChCh’s reputation for its alleged ‘skinhead’ problem.
                I was pondering the other day how when growing up (in ChCh) it wasnt uncommon to come across a friends parent(s) who refused to own or even on occasion allow on their property anything Japanese or German made…sometimes for very understandable personal reasons but not always, either way it would have been an extremely ignorant, possibly ungrateful and certainly foolish person who would seek to suggest that their views were racist, prejudice or unwarranted.
                With the advent of punk in the late seventies and the increasing appearance of SS flashes and swastikas (half the time backwards) I strained my memory to recall how they were viewed by those who had faced real fascism and if my memory serves they were largely dismissed as a bad joke and the misappropriated symbolism had little to do with what they were about.

                Though very few would now still be alive I wonder if they were how they would view this whole affair?

                • KJT

                  My father, who grew up during WW2, had a huge arsenal of jokes which took the piss out of the Germans and Japanese, learnt from returned servicemen relatives.
                  Unlikely any of them would have taken skinhead wannabees, seriously.

            • JanM 2.3.1.1.1.2

              I don’t think it’s the’white working class’ that are at risk – it’s the newly upwardly mobile who are busy trying to find cats to kick

            • Bill 2.3.1.1.1.3

              The paternalism on display by self appointed gatekeepers is grating. I agree with you on that front.

              Not so sure about the assertion that it’s workers who oppose dictatorships and bureaucrats et al that empower them. Yes, there’s more than a smidgen of truth to the statement, but as to who “pushes the wheel”, it’s a bit more complex than that simple binary suggests.

              Robert Fisk did a very good article off the back of a paper by Umit Kurt on Armenia circa 1915. I think you’d find it to be a good read if you haven’t come across it already.

        • solkta 2.3.1.2

          I don’t think Southern is anti-gay. She has been very outspoken on gender however.

          • KJT 2.3.1.2.1

            Havn’t taken much notice of what that pair say.

            What i have heard, shows they are ignorant dickheads.

            However there is a depressing similarity to those, that oppose equal opportunity for any group.

            • Gosman 2.3.1.2.1.1

              To paraphrase – ‘I haven’t taken much notice of what they have stated but I think I know what it is they state.’

              Bravo for that piece of illogical thinking.

              • JanM

                The danger in attempting to ‘paraphrase’ what someone else says is that you will show yourself to be not too smart

    • Puckish Rogue 2.4

      Shes provocative, blonde and attractive, of course TVNZ want some of that

    • Kevin 2.5

      Clicks bro, Its all about the clicks. Clicks mean revenue.

  3. Bill 3

    This post confuses me.

    Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux are shitbrains – not champions of free speech. But shitbrains don’t get shut down just because someone or other reckons they are shitbrains. That’s what free speech is about.

    Creating platforms for shitbrains media sensations by getting all het up about their shitbrainedness is as predictable as it is stupid.

    Folks who got all high and mighty because a couple of unknowns were flying in to NZ to illustrate just how shitbrained they are, ought to give themselves a huge pat on the back for giving huge swathes NZ a heads-up to their presence and oodles of oxygen to their message. Well done!

    • Gosman 3.1

      Very good point Bill. But it seems people like to feel aggrieved and share their feelings.

    • Puckish Rogue 3.2

      They may, or may not be, shitbrains but yes i agree with this

    • xanthe 3.3

      thanks bill

    • Koreopono 3.4

      Bill, they’re not just shit brains, they’re dangerous shit brains backed by other shit brains to spread hate and cause animosity toward non white populations. They’re promoters of dangerous hate provoking diatribe that is harmful to vulnerable people and communities. Their kind of rhetoric is intolerable and should be challenged by anyone with any sense. Glad that MS wrote this excellent article.

      • Bill 3.4.1

        Whatever else they may be (besides shitbrains) they are not “free speech champions”. That was my point.

        As for “promotion” of them, and by extension their ideas, and by your argument, also a heightening of danger or harm, that has been done most wonderfully by people exercising righteous intolerance. That was my secondary point.

        I have not ever said I find their ideas palatable or acceptable, and if you want to show me where I’ve suggested the ideas they ascribe to should go unchallenged, then by all means, provide the link to where the suggestion was made.

        edit – not saying there aren’t any instances of this, but can you show any posts or sub-threads principally centred or focused on challenging their actual ideas/thoughts?

        • koreropono 3.4.1.1

          Bill I never said they were ‘free speech champions’.

          I disagree with your second paragraph and look at so called ‘righteous intolerance’ as a challenge to any ideas that cause harm to others.

          Do you suggest we just ignore them and their ideas and they’ll simply go away?

          Your last question is silly. You do realise that their kind of ideology has been challenged the world over, numerous times, over a number of years and that peoples affected by said ideas have faced persecution and considerable hardship and harm fighting those kind of ideas. Not to forget the violence that ensues from those ideas.

          Maybe we should agree to disagree.

          • Bill 3.4.1.1.1

            I think we’re more talking at cross purposes than disagreeing.

            But just taking the last bit of my previous comment – it’s not silly at all. Their ideas (broadly speaking) are racist and misogynistic. I outlined that in a post the other day and I don’t think it’s a controversial observation to have made.

            But where have the exchanges on misogyny been? Or the exchanges on racism? I’d suggest if there had been any on “ts” we’d know all about it from the resulting conflagration. (“ts” has a disastrous track record when it comes to those discussions)

            Anyway, I think it’s been far easier and awfully convenient for some people to avoid any difficult or awkward self reflection by conveniently throwing everything into a box marked “fascism” (and then working to rush off with their wee anti-fascist hard on), which, well if you care to think about it…. apparently two people with no institutional power worth mentioning, and who spout some misogynistic and racist stuff constitute a fascist threat? Meh – I think not.

            • Dennis Frank 3.4.1.1.1.1

              I’ve seen no actual evidence of racism or misogyny presented in the commentary here. I do agree with you re misrepresentation of fascism but think a deceit strategy is operating more broadly – even if tacitly. I’ve seen evidence that she’s anti-feminist, if that’s what you really meant.

              Check out Jim Mora’s conversation with the Sydney journo this afternoon. He went to their presentation. Saw no hate speech, just an unbalanced view of multiculturalism. I’m as sensitive to the threat of closet-fascism as anyone could be: it was 1970 when I realised my father & his father belonged in that category. As eldest of four sons, I was expected to tow the party line (so I proceeded to do the exact opposite). I empathise with those here who are paranoid, but see no valid basis for their paranoia.

            • koreropono 3.4.1.1.1.2

              Bill as I said we’ll need to agree to disagree on this one. We are talking at cross purposes. But I posit that the reason the ideas that those two shit brains spout are not flourishing in NZ at least (besides the few dedicated nutters) is because the ideas are challenged. Ignoring their kind of racist diatribe and their west is best (or white is right) mentality, is akin to allowing it to flourish.

  4. Grantoc 4

    You seem obsessed by these two Micky.

    The world moved on this week in all kinds of ways and Southern and Molyneux were forgotten in the process.

    You seem very fearful of them and their opinions and you overrate their impact should/when they speak in NZ. Are you worried that you would find it hard to argue against their point’s of view? Do you think their audiences will be so influenced by them that they will go forth and create mayhem?

    I trust New Zealanders to see their views for what they are, and to dismiss them. I think there impact will be non existent. They will come and they will go and the world will move on.

    I get the sense that you know this and your piece is a bit of desperate attempt to rake up the debate again to suit whatever your agenda is.

    • Ross 4.1

      I tend to agree. Where was Mickeys relentless outrage at Israel Folau’s comments about gays? And Folau visited here recently. A lone protestor greeted him. 🙂

      You can be homophobic (well, sort of) but if you criticise Muslims for being homophobic, thats beyond the pale!

      • mickysavage 4.1.1

        I posted something about Folau.

        I believe this story is relevant. There will no doubt be significant protests on Friday and things may get heavy.

        This is part of the culture wars that we are seeing throughout the world. I have a more negative view about the merits of these two than others.

        • Ross 4.1.1.1

          Well, yes, you did post something about Folau. But there have been numerous posts about these two. Im not sure they warrant such relentless attention.

          Things may get heavy? What does that mean? If protestors resort to violence I hope they are detained. It’ll be ironic if the only ones causing public disorder are those opposed to free speech.

          • mickysavage 4.1.1.1.1

            They are a symptom of a major political problem. Ignoring them is not really an option.

      • greywarshark 4.1.2

        But Ross they are talking about lots more than Muslims. Do you think you are ethnicphobic and identitycentric?

        It’s not all about just one thing, they want to spray their toxic talk over a wide range of things that are sensitive, personal, in many lives. Perhaps even yours.
        I hope you go and listen to them to make sure they are not including you as well.

        If you do could you make a list of the targets of their disdain, and pick out the most egregious parts of the speech. For instance do they say anything to match the leader of the Exclusive Brethren saying within the last year or so that an unhappy follower apparently thinking about suicide because his family was split between the Exclusives and general society, the ungodly, would be better to take rat poison than mix with the rest of us. Now that is hate speech. So perhaps you could use that as a measure of whether they go to that extreme, and state what is the closest.

  5. Paul Campbell 5

    I tweeted: If they were truly free speech activists they wouldn’t be hiding behind hundred dollar tickets, they would be standing a public square with ideas capable of persuading their hecklers

    And really that’s what it’s about, they and their ‘free speech coalition’ people are really demanding a safe space for nazis, subsidised by the government so that they can rake in the bucks. I don’t think there should be safe spaces for nazis, nor should we help fund their hate.

    My Dad was funded by the NZ govt to shoot at nazis all across North Africa, up thru Italy to Trieste, I suspect that’s probably still government policy.

    If they can’t stand in Aotea Square and handle the hecklers their ideas don’t make it in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ that the ‘free speech coalition’ expound.

    • Ross 5.1

      You, sir, win the Godwin award. I thought it might have taken a little longer. 🙂

      • Paul Campbell 5.1.1

        Godwin’s explicitly said that his law doesn’t apply when actual nazis are involved

        • Chris T 5.1.1.1

          Lol

          Perhaps some proof to back up your OTT comparison would be helpful

        • greywarshark 5.1.1.2

          I like your statement Paul C and appeal to authority. Very adroit.

          Interesting how the soft-minded can’t bear to think about the horrors of Nazism which possibly marked the start of the decline of the modern society.
          The end of Enlightenment perhaps? It certainly can’t be forgotten, and has left us with disturbed Jews who certainly won’t, can’t forget. We must remember them.

          So taunting anyone who brings up Godwinism is trying to detract from it. We can’t afford to forget the happening and the process that led up to it, and understand how easy it is to infest minds with all the 7 deadly sins and direct them like ray guns at chosen targets. Rwanda, the Catholic influence?
          Cambodia. Chile…… No-one is exempt from the corruption of going OTT into No-Man’s Land.

  6. KJT 6

    They must be loving all the free publicity they are getting, from those that oppose them.

    Remember the shitstorm when Germaine Greer said “fuck”.

  7. Dennis Frank 7

    “New Zealand has some significant issues to work through but I do believe that we are basically on the right track.” I agree. Scare-mongering, however, doesn’t work.

    No need to fear. Reasonable folk are more likely to be angered by advance censorship than by poorly-articulated sectarian views. They prefer to hear both sides of issues and make up their own mind. That’s how we generate a balanced public discourse.

    • solkta 7.1

      But you must agree with at least some of Southern’s ideas about women given your comment earlier today that teachers:

      finally waited until a young woman with a new baby is running the country. Attack now! Easy target…

      Southern agrees:

      Women are not going to be as great being CEOs that’s just not what we are psychologically developed to be great at.

      https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/victoria-police-charge-lauren-southern/news-story/9986324084f649beaa9cc568e51523e0

      • Dennis Frank 7.1.1

        I believe women should have equal opportunity to be CEOs. Her point that their gender renders them less suitable than males does seem sexist, but I would judge it on the basis of a considerable amount of performance evidence in that role by a statistically-significant number of contenders. Which is an elaborate way of saying that I’ll be dead before such a basis shows up.

        As for the reason the nurses & primary teachers waited till now to strike, I note that nobody here has ventured any explanation other than mine! Did they target this govt at such a bad time for Jacinda deliberately? Maybe not. Perhaps just remarkably inept political judgement.

        • solkta 7.1.1.1

          As for the reason the nurses & primary teachers waited till now to strike, I note that nobody here has ventured any explanation other than mine!

          Fuck, Anne replied directly to you:

          Are you serious DF @ 3, or are you just being a little bit naughty and provocative? I hope it is the latter.

          The teachers have chosen to strike for exactly the same reason as the nurses. They have reached the end of their tether. After nearly ten years being pushed and shoved around by National… having unnecessary extra ‘measuring devices’ forced on them which only made their job of actually teaching children ten times harder… being treated like second class citizens by an ignorant National-led government and subsequently now having extreme difficulty attracting the right young people to teaching… they have understandably had more than enough.

          However, I hope they recognise the fact they can’t get everything immediately because there is not a bottomless pit of gold in the Govt’s coffers.

          As did Psych nurse:

          The Primary sector have ridden on the coat tails of secondary teachers for years since gaining a parity agreement. This is the first time they have been first cab of the ramp with negotiations, secondary have always taken the industrial action, interestingly the reverse does not apply.

          The fact that that you would even consider the explanation you gave reveals your misogyny.

          • Dennis Frank 7.1.1.1.1

            Anne’s reply failed to address my point: the reason for the timing. That’s why I ignored it. Trying to change the subject is the oldest trick in the book. Only those who are trying to evade the point use it. Why are the unionists trying to destabilise the government?

            And calling people names just makes you seem juvenile. If you aren’t even capable of elementary courtesy, I’ll ignore you.

            • solkta 7.1.1.1.1.1

              I didn’t call you names i said that on the evidence it appears that you are misogynistic. There is no other credible explanation.

              • Dennis Frank

                Okay, it’s just that when I was at college in the sixties I got irritated with other guys treating women as second-class citizens, so I made a habit of treating them as normal humans to provide a positive alternative. That stance was actually quite pioneering in those days before women’s lib. The women I had long-term relationships with were all feminists. So I have no idea why you saw me as being mysogynist!

                • solkta

                  As i said, it was this:

                  finally waited until a young woman with a new baby is running the country. Attack now! Easy target…

                  • Dennis Frank

                    So you don’t want to try & explain why they chose to launch their attack now?? You can’t think of an innocent explanation for their behaviour? Yet you don’t want to admit that?

                    Even given that internecine warfare between leftists has been part of western political culture more than a century, it still looks bad. Would be better if they tried this: “Jacinda is not our target – it was the Minister of Finance who discriminated against us in his budget. He’s our target.”

                    • solkta

                      No the reasons seem obvious.

                      When have teachers said that Ardern is their “target”?

                    • Dennis Frank

                      When unionists strike, they target the government. It’s what strike means: someone strikes at whatever they target.

                    • solkta

                      YES, but you decided to make it about a young woman with a new baby.

                    • Dennis Frank

                      That’s because she’s PM!

                    • solkta

                      YES, and you think that because she is a young woman with a new baby that will somehow be to the benefit of the teachers. Other than agreeing with Southern that women are not going to be as great being CEOs that’s just not what we are psychologically developed to be great at i can’t see what your point could be.

                    • Dennis Frank

                      Hey, I’m not telling you what you think, so why are you trying to tell me what I think? Doing so is irrational. Nobody knows what anyone else thinks unless that person tells them. And it’s not what I think.

                      And I’ve already told you that I don’t agree with her because there’s no evidence to use as basis for the decision.

                • Cinny

                  Geez dennis do you need a medal or something? You seem so proud of yourself.

            • dukeofurl 7.1.1.1.1.2

              You mean this
              https://www.education.govt.nz/school/running-a-school/employing-and-managing-staff/collective-agreements/secondary-teachers-collective-agreement/
              Secondary Teachers’ Collective Agreement 2015-2018

              and yet late last year …
              “A background paper for PPTA delegates says the top of the basic pay scale needs to jump by 14.5 per cent, from $75,949 to $86,967, to restore top teachers to the same relativity of 81 per cent above the median income of all wage and salary earners that they achieved after their last big pay rise in 2001-02.

              Whoah …thats a long way back …so did they asked for that and were rebuffed in 2015 ?

              NO. They just got a $40 mill p.a agreement as Hekia Parata stamped her foot
              https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11929440

        • JanM 7.1.1.2

          It would be a little strange, would it not, if women didn’t have more challenges to face as CEOs given that they are operating in a male-dominated society. It isn’t a good reason to discourage it, though – it’s the only way a sexist society will eventually be brought to its knees

          • KJT 7.1.1.2.1

            I think anyone who is not a sociopath, would struggle with the current requirements of a CEO’s job.

        • Tricledrown 7.1.1.3

          Denise misrepresenting again the last govt bullied and undermined women
          This govt is giving women a fair go.
          National just paid lipservice!
          Fobbed bullied lied about govt finances but found enough for election bribes

    • Tricledrown 7.2

      Dennis the menace everyone knows what these toe wrags are about we New Zealanders don’t want a repeat dose of Facism no matter how watered down it is.
      Enablers like you are what lead to the rise of fascism.

      • Dennis Frank 7.2.1

        How young are you?? I had to grow up surrounded by that shit. Takes me a fraction of a second to spot it happening. Those Canadians are wimps compared to the real thing.

        • Tricledrown 7.2.1.1

          They are Enablers Hitler started with only a few.
          You are their watered down version by giving them any credence.
          Our grave yards are full of people who stood up to them when it was to late.

          • Dennis Frank 7.2.1.1.1

            Okay, I get where you’re coming from. I’m familiar with that enabler leading-edge effect, but I’m not giving them credence (as you put it). I haven’t seen anything that they’ve said that I agree with (yet). I’m just into being fair & open-minded with people. Everyone has a right to be heard.

            • lprent 7.2.1.1.1.1

              They could have done what is happening in Aotea square right now, peaceably. Greens coleader executing her freedom of expression.

              It is a public space. But I guess ghese Canadian leeches are somewhat greedy and want suckers to pay.

              But freedom of expression doesn’t mean that councils or anyone else have to provide a venue for offensive morons after clickbait.

        • solkta 7.2.1.2

          How old are you? Did you grow up in the 1930s?

          • Dennis Frank 7.2.1.2.1

            No (I’m almost 69). I was referring to the mind-set that was in the cultural ambience here during the fifties & sixties. Are you familiar with what happened during the ’51 waterfront strike? Tip of the iceberg. The under-water part being the bulk of the whole (analogous to closet-fascism).

            Last year or the year before on this site I reminded readers of what happened in ’69, when the Herald reported on its front page the call from Holyoake’s police minister for the RSA to organise a gang of thugs to go down Queen St & beat the PYM up when they did their next march. A real fascist government would have ordered the police to do that. The right in this country prefers to operate behind a facade of democracy. Just like the left.

  8. greywarshark 8

    Good summary micky savage in your heading. Famous for being famous and saying ;what everyone’s thinking’. Not.

    What everyone who doesn’t think is saying. There should be a filter on some people’s mouths like there is on my electric kettle, solids, physical deposits that have coalesced out of dissolved minerals in the water are screened out.

    • veutoviper 8.1

      Grey, do you realise that the young woman in a white t-shirt saying “It’s okay to be white” who you praised on Daily Review last night is Lauren Southern, one of the two being discussed here and on earlier posts? That seemed somewhat at odds to what you are now saying here – ie “Famous for being famous and saying ;what everyone’s thinking’. Not.” etc.

      Daily Review 01/08/2018

      I am assuming you didn’t know that was her, and what she was actually referring to in the message on her t-shirt. LOL.

      (That photo was taken in Brisbane a few weeks ago when Southern and Molyneux first arrived in Australia for their tour there.)

  9. tsmithfield 9

    Maajid Nawaz says pretty much the same stuff about multiculturalism as Southern et al.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz

    And he is a reformed jihadist who spent time in prison, but now focuses on challenging and moderating extremist views.

    Here he challenges a Muslim who holds very traditional Islamic views. Undoubtably offending her.

    So, do people here disapprove of Maajid Nawaz? And if not, why do they disapprove of Southern et al, who preach a similar message?

  10. Blazer 10

    Haven’t they had their ‘5 minutes’ already!

  11. AB 11

    Always amuses me how those most virulent in support of western culture know so little of it. Stick her on a desert island for 3 years and get her to read Montaigne, Shakespeare and Wittgenstein. That should shut her up and give us some peace.

  12. marty mars 12

    Māori and any thinkers will laugh at these two monetizing clowns. Heard it before by equally demented stupid pale people. Fuck off racist scum is about the best that I can say – I wish I could be there to spit on these bastards.

    • Puckish Rogue 12.1

      What is it with the spitting, protest legally sure but why go with the spitting?

    • Gosman 12.2

      Are you a spokesperson for all Maori then?

      • marty mars 12.2.1

        Another fatberg come to clog the drain of discussion.

        • Gosman 12.2.1.1

          The discussion about the fact you want to go and spit on people you disagree with. Yeah I can see why that discussion needs to be taken seriously /sarc.

          • marty mars 12.2.1.1.1

            If you read the original comment you will see a lot of content across a range of sub areas. Whatsit didn’t like the spit line and diverted to talk about that rather than the rest of what I wrote. You now come in with your pathetic and thick question which you, once again, already know the answer to. You can’t be taken seriously – you’re a clown.

            • Puckish Rogue 12.2.1.1.1.1

              I’m geniunely interested in why, it seems, that some on the left seem to resort to such a low, dirty, cowardly act

              i mean spitting, I’d rather have someone throw a punch at me then spit because spitting is what little kids do

              • marty mars

                Youre a clown too.

                • JanM

                  Sadly, you’ve given the ‘clowns’ an opportunity to derail the conversation. Perhaps you should ignore til they get over themselves

                  • marty mars

                    Okay.

                  • Puckish Rogue

                    I’m asking a genuine question and I’ve yet to receive answer

                    • Kevin

                      Screen shotted this comment. Will keep for posterity. Probably worth money some day…

                    • Puckish Rogue

                      I wouldn’t hold your breath if you’re expecting an answer

                    • Doogs

                      Well, here’s an answer – of sorts PR.

                      Ask a genuine question (you didn’t) and you might stand a chance of getting a genuine answer.

                      When you lace your ‘question’ with political loading such as “some on the left”, then you are obviating the necessity for an answer by blowing away the genuineness of your request.

                      Rephrase the question in an open way and I could answer it for you. The problem for people who are so bound up in their hatred of any left wing viewpoint is that thy have to use jabs and barbs at every turn. Spitting is a vulgar and hateful response to anything, no matter how vulgar and hateful that thing might be. I suppose Nazi guards and ISIS reactionaries don’t spit. Yeah, right!

                    • Puckish Rogue

                      “Spitting is a vulgar and hateful response to anything, no matter how vulgar and hateful that thing might be.”

                      Agreed, as I said before I’d rather someone throw a punch at me then spit

                    • McFlock

                      What, righties never spit?

                      Hell, in the UK punk era, spitting on bands was a substitute for applause. Costello mentioned it in an interview.

                      One observation I will make is that bodily functions are a bit like swearing – what one person regards as disgusting, another will barely notice. Me, I always hated cleaning up shit, back in hospo times. Vomit wasn’t so bad for me, but with other staff it was the reverse – they’d be sympathetic pukers.

                      But also, spit is an expression of disgust that comes from a visceral reaction to that emotion. I can’t really think of any other – swearing or flipping the bird are considered or conditioned acts, whereas spit is a natural response to the bad taste in your mouth.

              • Gosman

                I’ve noticed Marty has become more cantankerous with age. His initial interactions online with people 9 years or so ago were far more open and rational. Now he just resorts to spewing his desire for unpleasant actions against those he disagrees with and to hell with anyone’s opinions. He may as well have a signature “Get off my lawn!”

                • marty mars

                  Lol you on their other hand haven’t changed or grown one iota you’re still the dim, puffed up, cowboy hat wearing rwnjs that we all laughed at years ago.

  13. veutoviper 13

    Re the location etc of the venue for their ‘event’ tomorrow night, they have not yet announced this but ticket holders are supposed to be told 24 hours ahead of time.

    As I mentioned on OM 31 July, one of the Australian online ticket sellers (tickettailor) is showing the location as Auckland 1010 – with a map of the NZ Postal Code 1010 area. https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-31-07-2018/#comment-1508328

    https://www.tickettailor.com/events/axiomaticevents/184382/#

    Axiomatic, the main promoter/ticket seller online, is still leaving it at Auckland and no mention of postal code area.

    However, both sites, while still listing Early Admission tickets, no longer show a price (was NZD129) nor enable purchase of these tickets. There is no mention of these being sold out as there was for some types of tickets for the Australian venues this close to the respective events.

    So I wonder if the Auckland venue is very strict re early admission etc. which may give some indication of where it is.

    The General Admission tickets still on sale at NZD99 say that admission is from 7.30pm – only half an hour pre the start time of 8pm. (There is also no earlier showing of Southern’s Farmlands video as there was at the Australian venues at 6pm.)

    As well as the General Admission tickets, there are VIP Meet and Greet tickets at NZD299 whereby 40 ticket holders get to meet Southern and Molyneux for an hour before the show; and NZD749 tickets for dinner with them earlier. None of the three ticket types say they are sold out or numbers are now limited etc.

  14. David Mac 14

    If we embraced Southern’s view that multiculturalism is a failed experiment….After so many generations here I’m not sure Ireland would have my family back.

    I did find her views more palatable during her documentary Farmlands, a full length movie about the farm murders in South Africa. I found it hard not to feel compassion for the man describing watching his Grandmother’s eyes being plucked out with table forks and then ‘pricked’ to death.

    I agree with Mickey re: NZ is a crappy target for Stephen and Lauren’s form. So many of our family trees feature brown and white loved ones.

    • Kevin 14.1

      “I did find her views more palatable during her documentary Farmlands, a full length movie about the farm murders in South Africa. I found it hard not to feel compassion for the man describing watching his Grandmother’s eyes being plucked out with table forks and then ‘pricked’ to death.”

      I’m sure Stephen Biko’s family felt the same way.

      Whilst I in no way condone the action from either side, there is clearly a few centuries of hatred and resentment against the whites finding an outlet.

  15. don’t agree with them but good to see they have this freedom still.

    • David Mac 15.1

      Same, I won’t be shouting nor sitting with them but they’re welcome to order their own beer and form their little club in the corner.

  16. Micky Savage
    “I accept that New Zealand has some significant issues to work through but I do believe that we are basically on the right track. The last thing we need is a couple of fascists to attack what is a central tenet of our way of life.”

    the irony is…… that comment could have been spoken by the Sturmabteilung itself in the lead-up to WW II. The brown shirts decided what was acceptable to society and responded by shutting down those they opposed. Remember the Degenerate Art Exhibition? If not you should.

    • Puckish Rogue 16.1

      Yes but thats different

      • .. its the same thing

        • Puckish Rogue 16.1.1.1

          Its different because Micky doesn’t like what shes saying

          • Doogs 16.1.1.1.1

            There’s no basis for that jibe PR. It’s just a nasty little red herring. You’re at it again! FFS put your comments on some kind of logical footing, can’t you?

        • In Vino 16.1.1.2

          Paul, Godwin should be done correctly. The Brown Shirts were essential to Hitler’s gaining power in 1933, but they were disbanded in 1934 after the Night of the Long Knives. That was over 5 years away from WW2. So the Brown Shirts were hardly very relevant to the lead-up to WW2.
          We want quality Godwin, please.

  17. bwaghorn 17

    A bare arsed warrior should great them at the airport if they can’t maintain eye contact as the pick up the leaf put them on the next flight out of here.

  18. David Mac 18

    This Godwin joker needs taking outside and shooting, wish he’d never introduced his law. If these 2 were Nazis their utube meanderings would have 12 hits, they’re dickheads, just like the dickhead at the pub. The “It’s their own bloody fault” wankers.

    Fortunately, in our country as Mickey says, they’re a dying breed, too many of their daughters came home with brown fiances.

    • solkta 18.1

      They believe that white people are more intelligent than other ‘races’ and that white culture is superior and needs protecting from multiculturalism and therefore that ‘races’ should live separately. Sound like Nazis to me.

      • Dennis Frank 18.1.1

        If this is actually true (and not just the personal view held by some leftists) then they will say so in interview situations here, won’t they? Then we will have the evidence to decide that they really are racist. So far, TVNZ’s Sunday programme seems the likely place for them to provide that evidence. If the journalists on the show are sufficiently competent to ask the right questions.

        • Chris T 18.1.1.1

          It is the bloke

          If you Google his Rubin interview he has been looking at IQ results all soldiers take in the army and making brood generalisations.

          Not sure why Southern is touring with him to be fair

      • Chris T 18.1.2

        Perhaps you could provide a link or a quote of Southern ever saying this

      • David Mac 18.1.3

        Yeah, I hear you, I think Stephen might be a bit more out on that limb than Lauren. But Nazi? Adolph Hitler and gassing millions of Jews?

        I think the primary difference is Hitler wanted to make radical changes, right down to fiddling with our DNA, create the perfect human. These two don’t want radical change, they want radical ‘leave it as it is.’

        For me, the Nazi thing is pulling a bow so long I can’t.

        • solkta 18.1.3.1

          You don’t have to have a policy of gas chambers to be a Nazi. This wasn’t Nazi policy until well into the war.

          • Gosman 18.1.3.1.1

            What do you need to be a Nazi then?

            • solkta 18.1.3.1.1.1

              Believe that white people are more intelligent than other ‘races’ and that white culture is superior and needs protecting from multiculturalism and therefore that ‘races’ should live separately.

              • Gosman

                No that is just Racist. Not every racist is a Nazi but every Nazi is essentially a Racist. You need to check your definitions out.

                Also I don’t believe Lauren Southern has stated she supports the things you erroneously classify as being Nazi.

                • arkie

                  How do YOU classify being Nazi?

                  • McFlock

                    lol

                    She must be fine if we need to define exactly where the “Nazi” line is in order to determine her level of danger to society. And lets just forget the double-act she’s part of, gotta remove all context so we can pretend she isn’t dogwhistling.

                    Nope, everything’s fine, there is no fascism in NZ /sarc

              • tsmithfield

                Solkta: “Believe that white people are more intelligent than other ‘races’ and that white culture is superior and needs protecting from multiculturalism and therefore that ‘races’ should live separately.”

                I don’t believe Southern has made any comment about white races being superior in intelligence.

                Evidence (highly debatable) of a relationship between race and IQ places Europeans only third on the list, not first, so is no evidence for white supremacy.

                eg: http://aristocratsofthesoul.com/average-iq-by-race-and-ethnicity/

                Also, (in nearly all of her youtube content), argues against mutlculturalism which she specifically defines as racial separation. In fact she argues for racial integration, not separation, which she views as the cause of many societal problems.

                So by your own argument you have demonstrated that she is not a Nazi.

                • Gosman

                  Interestingly she probably shares ideas similar to many Maori people who wish to promote their own culture. The difference being is Southern wishes to promote “Western” culture as something that people should aspire to. It is far more inclusive than Maori fighting to protect and promote their own culture as well as I believe she wants everyone to adopt it not just a few.

                • solkta

                  It was Molyneux re the IQ thing but it is in their promotional video for their tour as aired by TVNZ. I have linked to this before but i have to go now..

            • Doogs 18.1.3.1.1.2

              Red herring crap Gosman. Get on Wikipedia and inform yourself!

          • David Mac 18.1.3.1.2

            I have no problem with you considering them Nazi Sol but I don’t feel that way. I think our nation’s discussion around immigration is well served by mouthy extremists out on the fringes.

            I want to hear what everyone has to say and then form my view. I was curious, I watched 10? utube clips, I’m pleased I did. I think I’d feel like a hoax if I’d never absorbed their message before deciding how I feel about them.

      • Ross 18.1.4

        Urban Dictionary refers to a Nazi as “Someone who has an opinion that is different than my own”. So you could be right!

        https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=nazi&amp=true

  19. indiana 19

    Is there a Hecklers veto law in NZ? Or something similar…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto

  20. David Mac 20

    One documentary maker could go into Sweden and create a film that leaves us thinking that there is a woman being raped by an immigrant in every Stockholm alley. Another could make a film that leaves us amazed at the efficient integration of new Swedes.

    I think the healthy approach is to see both films and hope for a third documentary that aims for where we know the truth lies, somewhere inbetween the extreme views.

    • joe90 20.1

      Thing is, Southern ventured into racist, whites-only enclaves, called them whites-only refugee camps and made a movie that can be summed up as apartheid has ended, our economic hegemony is done, and we’re as angry AF.

  21. arkie 21

    If you’re are interested in why these speakers are fascist, ContraPoints covers the contemporary nazi movement in this video whilst also being entertaining. These speakers represent the thin part of the wedge.

    The common ideas identified by ContraPoints are:
    1. People of European heritage are or ought to constitute a biological, cultural, and political unity known as ‘the white race’ or dog-whistled as ‘Western culture’
    2. Jews are masterminding the destruction of the white race through multi-culturalism and non-white immigration, (this is referred to as white genocide, ethnic replacement etc.)
    3. The only way to save the white race is to establish a ‘white homeland’ or ‘ethnostate,’ from which non-whites and degenerates must be purged

    • Gosman 21.1

      Then Southern certainly doesn’t qualify based on points 2 and 3.

    • tsmithfield 21.2

      Except by your own definitions above, Southern is definitely not a fascist.

      She argues against multiculturalism (cultures setting up their own enclaves and not integrating). And instead argues for integration of cultures, as her response to an Asian-only ad for flatmates:

      “Southern responded by saying Asians living in Australia should ‘do business with everyone instead of having an extremely tribalistic in group preference that segregates them from the rest of the population.”

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5994401/Right-wing-YouTube-star-Lauren-Southern-tweets-Asian-housemate-ad-slam-multiculturalism.html

      Integration is the polar opposite of fascism.

      If she were a fascist she would be arguing that Asians should only be dealing amongst themselves and being segregated from white people.

      • Puckish Rogue 21.2.1

        Lets be honest here, most of the people that don’t want her speaking haven’t actually viewed her youtube channel and are either just regurgitating 2nd, or third, hand news or have just viewed some provocative clips usually taken out of context

        • tsmithfield 21.2.1.1

          Exactly. From what I have seen she has most issue with communities that are made up of fundamentalist Islamists who often would be happy to see gays thrown of the roof, or thieves having their hands cut off.

          In some ways she is taking this stance because the left isn’t when they should be standing up in protection of minority groups often targeted by radical Islam.

          e.g. Maajib Nawz challenging radical Islamists on these points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=empw0N2wxIg

          • Puckish Rogue 21.2.1.1.1

            I really don’t get how it is that the LGTB and feminist groups and all seem to be fully accepting and defending of Islam when the very doctrine they’re defending want to see them, literally, dead

            • tsmithfield 21.2.1.1.1.1

              Exactly. The extreme aspects of Islam actually match up quite well with the definitions of fascism pointed out here.

              • Dennis Frank

                I’ve seen the section of the Koran quoted where the prophet commands his followers to kill unbelievers. I’ve never seen any Islamist in our media disagreeing with this command. Leftists who advocate tolerance of Islam ought to accept personal responsibility for the consequences of their moral relativism. Call a spade a spade. If they are truly opposed to hate speech, their hypocrisy lies in their failure to condemn that command.

                • arkie

                  Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

                  (Matthew 10:34)

                  Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

                  (Matthew 12:30)

                  But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.

                  (Luke 19:27)

                  • Dennis Frank

                    Moral equivalence? I agree re the first text, often puzzled me. All that editorial work deselecting dodgy bits from the original gospels that went on for centuries, and they left it in? Eventually the popes would find it useful for crusade recruiting.

                    As for the third text, there’s this: http://theheraldofgrace.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-mis-interpretation-of-luke-1927.html

                  • Gosman

                    Historical context as well. Jesus was never a political leader. Indeed he stated explicitly his kingdom was not of this World. Mohammed was the opposite. Both he AND his immediate followers spread the ideology forcefully and suppressing other views are part and parcel of the faith.

            • lprent 21.2.1.1.1.2

              You mean like the extremist Christians do? God knows I have seen more than enough of those dingbats postulating here.

              Say, lets just kill the fundamentalist Christians and clean out the local gene pool.

              You are an idiot..

              • Puckish Rogue

                Maybe you can help me out and tell me which of these countries are christian?

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty_for_homosexuality

                Interestingly I don’t see many christian countries in the list of worst countries for women

                http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/international/Ten-Worst-Countries-for-Women.html

                I do see a lot of western, christian countries in the list for best though

                but hey hur, hur, hur fundamentalist christians ammi right

                • arkie

                  Ten Worst Countries to be a Women
                  Afghanistan
                  Democratic Republic of Congo
                  Iraq
                  Nepal
                  Sudan
                  Guatemala
                  Mali
                  Pakistan
                  Saudi Arabia
                  Somalia”

                  The common element of these countries seems to be poverty and civil unrest, not a religion.

                  But hey let’s justify islamophobia amirite

                  • tsmithfield

                    Perhaps the religion is the third explanatory variable for treatment of women and the poverty in these countries.

                    Honestly, the beliefs of radical Islam are stuck in the dark ages and equivalent to the Spanish Inquisitions.

                    Rather than Southern, listen to the likes of Maajib Nawaz who is a moderate Muslim and also deeply critical of these aspects of Islam.

                    • McFlock

                      Yeah. Not like radical christianity, which totally accepts science and in no way legitimises men beating their wives and children. Thank goodness for western civilisation /sarc

                    • joe90

                      And the fine upstanding folk who decided a gay man should be executed because he shouldn’t be able to spend his life with men in prison, aren’t stuck in the dark ages?

                      That said, the circumstances of his case — more specifically, his sentencing — ought to concern anyone who believes in equal justice under the law. It seems that, in deciding what sentence to impose — death or life without parole — jurors worried that, as a gay man, Rhines might enjoy prison. They thought condemning him to that all-male environment would be like the old folk tale about Br’er Rabbit tricking Br’er Fox into throwing him into the briar patch where he wanted to be all along.

                      So they gave him death.

                      https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article213672629.html

                    • tsmithfield

                      McFlock “Yeah. Not like radical christianity, which totally accepts science and in no way legitimises men beating their wives and children. Thank goodness for western civilisation /sarc”

                      So, what is your argument here?

                      Are you trying to say that because some extreme aspects of Christianity have extreme views as well, (though not as extreme as cutting off hands or throwing gays of roofs) then extreme aspects of Islam is OK?

                      That is a fallacy that falls to the maxim that “two wrongs don’t make a right”.

                      Why not come out and say that this sort of nonsense is bad what ever religion it is found in?

                    • Puckish Rogue

                      At least the Christians had the good sense to reboot the bible and add a new testament thats a lot better

                    • McFlock

                      My point was that there’s a lot of talk about the extremists who call themselves followers of Islam but very little about the extremists who call themselves followers of Christianity.

                      And that is irrational, given where we are in the world. Maybe we should be talking more about the different churches in NZ that have hidden paedophiles than we talk about a tiny theoretically-possible fraction of the <50k Muslims in NZ.

                    • Gosman

                      This idea that it is only extremists that give Islam a bad name is nonsense. Muhammed was an extremist under this definition. Unfirtunately he is the most revered human for ANY Muslim.

                  • Puckish Rogue

                    Phobia

                    an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.

                    Its not irrational to be worried about certain aspect of Islam, especially Sharia law

                    • arkie

                      Are you a Muslim?

                      If not, then it is irrational to worry about a religious law that doesn’t apply to you.

                    • Puckish Rogue

                      I’m sure some people thought that in the UK or Australia a few years back

                      https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16522447

                      ‘The use of Sharia, or Islamic religious law, is growing in Britain, with thousands of Muslims using it to settle disputes each year, but women’s groups and some others are objecting.’

                      https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/rita-panahi/sharia-law-in-australia/news-story/2c577803e592a77d8962dff5594357b7

                      But that wouldn’t begin to happen in NZ would it

                      https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington/103985607/porirua-citys-muslim-community-float-womenonly-swimming-sessions

                      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11859265

                      A Muslim father is upset he isn’t allowed to watch a daughter compete at an Islamic women’s netball tournament.

                      But organisers say it’s important for the girls to have a “secure environment” to play sport.

                      The father, who wished to remain anonymous, has a daughter playing in today’s Muslim women’s netball tournament at Zayed College For Girls in Auckland.

                    • tsmithfield

                      McFlock: “My point was that there’s a lot of talk about the extremists who call themselves followers of Islam but very little about the extremists who call themselves followers of Christianity.

                      And that is irrational, given where we are in the world. Maybe we should be talking more about the different churches in NZ that have hidden paedophiles than we talk about a tiny theoretically-possible fraction of the <50k Muslims in NZ."

                      Absolutely no problems with criticising extreme Christianity. In fact most Christians would also criticise the extreme, loopy versions of Christianity.

                      However, in Islam, there is a large percentage of Muslims who are supportive of terrorism for instance, in at least some circumstances.

                      For instance 35% in France (19% rarely, 10% sometimes, 6% often):

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism

                      That is just attitudes towards, terrorism, not Sharia law which I imagine would have stronger support.

                      So, it is a significant problem.

                    • McFlock

                      Where’s the comparable data for other people’s opinions?

                    • tsmithfield

                      “Where’s the comparable data for other people’s opinions?”

                      You’re trying to turn two wrongs into a right again.

                      I don’t have figures for other religions of that’s what you mean because I don’t know other religions that are pro-terrorism.

                      But it isn’t relevant to the question anyway. The fact is that 35% of Muslims in a Western country being in support to some degree of terrorism is a problem, no matter what other groups may think.

                    • McFlock

                      No, I’m not saying two wrongs make a right.

                      The fact is that 35% of the entire population might have a similar response, in which case Islamic extremism is no more of a problem than any other extremism, as the winds of international politics swing from side to side. And people focusing on one group of extremists as opposed to others is the epitome of an irrational response.

                    • tsmithfield

                      McFlock: “The fact is that 35% of the entire population might have a similar response, in which case Islamic extremism is no more of a problem than any other extremism, as the winds of international politics swing from side to side. And people focusing on one group of extremists as opposed to others is the epitome of an irrational response.”

                      You aren’t seriously suggesting that 35% of the non-Muslim French population might support Islamic terrorism are you?

                      I think most researchers would assume it goes without saying that such support would be virtually non-existent.

                      But I do remember an item on ZB quite a few months back after a terrorist attack in Briton where it was found that a similar percentage of Muslims supported terrorism to some degree compared to a fraction of a percent of non-Muslims.

                      The worry is that even though only a small percentage of Muslims actually commit terrorism, tacit support in the wider community provides a fertile ground for more extreme actions.

                    • McFlock

                      Islamic terrorism? Nah.

                      But a whole bunch of Le Pen’s supporters might regard attacks on civilians as “justifiable” for their cause.

                      From your link:

                      A Gallup poll published in 2011, “suggests that one’s religious identity and level of devotion have little to do with one’s views about targeting civilians.”[27] The results of the survey suggested that “human development and governance – not piety or culture” were the strongest factors in explaining the public’s view of violence toward civilians.[27] In a Gallup World Poll in 2011, residents of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states were less likely to justify the targeting and killing of civilians than residents of non-OIC states:[27]

                      So maybe the irrational response is to worry about “Islamic extremism” more than, say, mens rights activists or whatever in NZ.

                    • tsmithfield

                      “But a whole bunch of Le Pen’s supporters might regard attacks on civilians as “justifiable” for their cause.”

                      But the proof is in the pudding that there are very few, if any reported cases of terrorism from Le Pen supporters.

                      And “human development and piety” is to some degree a product of culture. So, trying to separate these concepts is an error.

                    • McFlock

                      But the proof is in the pudding that there are very few, if any reported cases of terrorism from Le Pen supporters.

                      Now put some confidence intervals around the number of known Islamic terrorists as a proportion of the population and see if the lower bound approaches zero.

                      And “human development and piety” is to some degree a product of culture. So, trying to separate these concepts is an error.

                      The quote was ““human development and governance – not piety or culture” were the strongest factors in explaining the public’s view of violence toward civilians”.

                      Read it carefully and try again.

                    • Gosman

                      Sharia law applies to everybody who lives in an Islamic country

                    • McFlock

                      Because US laws on abortion and sex education only apply to the religious fringe?

                    • Tricledrown

                      Puckish Rogue so Christians don’t have fundamentalists extremists.
                      Your in a very exclusive Brethren if you think that way.

              • tsmithfield

                “Say, lets just kill the fundamentalist Christians and clean out the local gene pool.”

                And you are putting words in my mouth.

                Extremism is a bad thing which ever way it is looked at. I would think the same about Gloriaville, other than that they don’t propose chopping off hands or pushing gays off roofs as far as I know.

                • Tricledrown

                  GLORIAvale they fiddle children and suppress women’s rights bully their congregation
                  Into submission.
                  One young child died recently in their care.
                  The National govt seem to encourage these nut jobs.
                  Bishop Brian Tamaki got $220,000 of the govt his followers are running to pay day loan sharks so he and his wife can live in extreme wealth.
                  The National Party did a Deal with the Exclusive Brethren for a $million worth of political bribery!

          • lprent 21.2.1.1.2

            I had a look at her stuff and also the stories about it.

            As far as I can see she is a stupid narcissistic fame addict doing this stuff for kicks and cash.

            I have no idea what her views are because she appears to be like Cameron Slater. About as sincere in most of her lines as the numbers of hits she gets in her advertising revenue.

            Sure, there may be something real under there. But basically it is hard to see past the simpleminded greed. She just appears to be doing stunts for cash.

            What irritates me if the Free Speech idiots here insisting that the free speech is an absolute right – which it is not an never has been.

            They are the real problem.

            • tsmithfield 21.2.1.1.2.1

              “As far as I can see she is a stupid narcissistic fame addict doing this stuff for kicks and cash.”

              If that were justification for banning free speech then their wouldn’t be any music from the likes of Miley Cyrus!!

            • SPC 21.2.1.1.2.2

              What should be done about the “real problem”, how do we silence the free speech idiots?

              Is it re-education, is it by making it clear in law that free speech is no longer a value our civilisation respects? Or is it rounding people up, banning those groups promoting this concept and shutting down outlets providing free speech platforms?

              • tsmithfield

                You don’t need to silence them. Make sure you are well educated in their perspective, and the counter arguments. Then debate the issues with them.

                You will find plenty of examples of people doing just that. Southern seems to be fair in putting those discussions online along with the stuff that favours her.

                e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MYjY9yddy0

                People need to respond in a rational way, otherwise people who froth at the mouth rather than respond rationally are portrayed as unhinged and unreasonable.

                • McFlock

                  Life is too short to debate with fascists and their co-billed clicksturbaters

                • SPC

                  The Canadian is just someone being provocative to get attention.

                  Reminds one of the bible, a lot of outrageous stuff – real fake news if you like, why? To get attention. All cults, and social media sites led by celebrities are like cults, do this

                  Some guy claims to have met god, can give you a name for god to prove this, and then claims to be god’s chosen prophet to a nation of people – and he has a law code for them (and those who do not follow him are like a golden calf to be slaughtered and the Canaanites are next).

                  And their god is capable of killing all of humanity (bar a few favourites) , so other people should be afraid of their god.

                  (Mohammed ripped him off bigly).

                  Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

                  (Matthew 10:34)

                  But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.

                  (Luke 19:27)

                  “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

                  (John 3:36)

                  Christianity of course brought the whole idea of threat of being killed on earth by the god another step further along – to not having life after death (except in some hell) unless one is of the cult concerned.

                  Given we allow freedom of faith, freedom to criticise faith seems very fair. It’s no more hate speech than religion is hate speech of unbelievers. How one makes that debate rational and reasonable is a thing …

                • Sacha

                  Oh how Adolf loved a debate, especially about who deserved to live.

            • Pat 21.2.1.1.2.3

              I watched her Farmlands ‘doco’ and immediately thought of Mike Hosking…not the content (although I could see him presenting such) but rather the lack of depth of the investigation and the ‘reckons’…but is a lack of journalistic ability cause for anything more than a choice to dismiss?

            • Gosman 21.2.1.1.2.4

              Why are they a “problem”? What problem exactly are they creating?

              • arkie

                People like you who try to restrict the definition fascism to being a card-carrying member of the National Socialist party of Germany during the years 1939-1945.

                • Gosman

                  I have never restricted the definition of Fascism to being a card-carrying member of the National Socialist party of Germany during the years 1939-1945.

                  • arkie

                    Here you dispute whether soldiers fighting in the Wehrmacht were nazis:

                    There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech

                    Here in this very thread you tell others they have erroneously defined Nazism:

                    Free speech champions?

                    This is obfuscating for fascism. Much like our Canadian friends. Feel free to provide me with your re-definitions.

                  • Gosman

                    Ummm being as fascist does not make you a Nazi

                    • McFlock

                      In the same way as a middle-aged male might be relieved that the person he shagged last night has an ID that says their 16th birthday was two days ago so he’s not technically a paedophile. When one runs that close to the line, do the semantics really matter outside of a courtroom?

                    • Tricledrown

                      Gossipboy trying to sanitize fascism

  22. Adrian Thornton 22

    Free Speech for the Dumb…

  23. Sabine 23

    ahhh, the fearful white minority and its fear of losing status and standing. No longer the first in the pecking order by color of skin alone. Poor things. Poor poor things.

    no sadder group of people can currently be found.

  24. SPC 24

    “Southern and Molyneux are coming to New Zealand to exercise their freedom of speech by

    insulting diverse cultures and attacking multiculturalism.”

    And others do so, to

    promote taking in more refugees
    promote a global market economy and open immigration
    critique capitalism, fiat banking, the free market and inequality
    promote creationism and end time judgment of the people of the earth
    say that religion devides us and atheism is the answer
    promote drug reform
    attack drug liberalisation
    promote environmental action
    attack global warming science credibility

    To silence anyone, is to declare an end of history finding of a perfect truth that no one can question.

  25. Ross 25

    Meanwhile they’ve spoken in Australia and the sky hasn’t fallen in.

    Everyone likes to think they’re speaking truth to power nowadays. Lauren and her audience believe their voices have been marginalised by a left-wing political and media establishment that prioritises what “isn’t offensive” over what’s “true”.

    To automatically dismiss this online movement as an epidemic-level revival of racism seems careless and overly simplistic. Lauren and Stefan are echoing the concerns of potentially millions of Australians. Censoring them from democratic debate could be devastating.

    Feminism, Islam and multiculturalism aren’t beyond criticism. Most polls suggest that the majority of women don’t even identify as feminists. Are we not allowed to question why? Or is that yet another topic that’s off limits?

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/opinion/luke-kinsella-why-we-shouldnt-care-what-lauren-southern-has-to-say/

  26. Sabine 26

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_New_Zealand#Freedom_of_speech

    Freedom of speech
    The right to freedom of speech is not explicitly protected by common law in New Zealand but is encompassed in a wide range of doctrines aimed at protecting free speech.[13] An independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combine to ensure freedom of speech and of the press.[14] In particular, freedom of expression is preserved in section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) which states that:

    “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form”.

    This provision reflects the more detailed one in Article 19 of the ICCPR. The significance of this right and its importance to democracy has been emphasised by the New Zealand courts. It has been described as the primary right without which the rule of law cannot effectively operate.[15] The right is not only the cornerstone of democracy; it also guarantees the self-fulfilment of its members by advancing knowledge and revealing truth.[16] As such, the right has been given a wide interpretation. The Court of Appeal has said that section 14 is “as wide as human thought and imagination”.[17] Freedom of expression embraces free speech, a free press, transmission and receipt of ideas and information, freedom of expression in art, and the right to silence.[18] The right to freedom of expression also extends to the right to seek access to official records. This is provided for in the Official Information Act 1982.

    Limitations
    There are limitations on this right, as with all other rights contained in BORA.

    It would not be in society’s interests to allow freedom of expression to become a licence irresponsibly to ignore or discount other rights and freedoms.[19]

    Under article 19(3) ICCPR, freedom of expression can be limited in order to:

    respect the rights and reputations of others; and
    protect national security, public order, or public health and morals.
    Jurisprudence under BORA closely follows these grounds.[20] Freedom of expression is restricted only so far as is necessary to protect a countervailing right or interest.[21] The Court of Appeal has held that the restriction on free speech must be proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved; the restriction must be rationally connected to the objective; and the restriction must impair the right to freedom to the least possible amount.[22] The right to freedom of expression may also be limited by societal values which are not in BORA, such as the right to privacy and the right to reputation.

    Hate speech is prohibited in New Zealand under the Human Rights Act 1993 under sections 61 and 131. These sections give effect to article 20 ICCPR. These sections and their predecessors have rarely been used.[23] They require the consent of the Attorney-General to prosecute. Incitement to racial disharmony has been a criminal offence since the enactment of the Race Relations Act 1971. Complaints about racial disharmony often concern statements made publicly about Maori-Pakeha relations and immigration, and comments made by politicians or other public figures regarding minority communities.[23]

    Blasphemous libel is a crime in New Zealand under the Crimes Act 1961. ”

    honestly what is there to say but stupid white people who are too shit brained, lazy, and entitled to actually be able to compete in a world with 8 billion people of whom pretty much most would be better equipped to survive then these two white bullshitters.

  27. Cinny 27

    There’s freedom of speech, then there’s talking shit to gain attention.

    Don’t matter if someone is white, green, black, purple, red, brown whatever, anyone can talk shit.

    This time it’s a very young attention seeking blonde… claiming freedom of speech, while talking shite for money. We call that an ‘attention whore’ around these parts.

    • SPC 27.1

      A male reaction to feminists as “attention seeking whores” is why many women do not want to identified as one, but rather a female who while, still equal, is more agreeable (accepting of any male need to be seen as unchallenged).

      • Cinny 27.1.1

        no, no, SPC…. you misunderstand me. She’s an attention whore; she charges people to pay them attention… ie her $$$$ dinner tickets.

        There’s a wonderful little story via Tyrion Lanaster in Game of Thrones… wonder if I can find it… kind of describes where I’m coming from re the above.

        • SPC 27.1.1.1

          Just noting that your language is the same as that used to criticise feminists.

          She is, of course, not a “feminist” – because being one would reduce the clicks to her site from men (championing the white race and their “nations” culture … traditionally under male leadership …).

          Massaging the egos of the insecure white race man – if she were sincere she would be off the net and outbreeding the immigrant Moslems …

          • Cinny 27.1.1.1.1

            I’m a white female feminist, that loves the masculinity of men. Just for the record.

            Totally agree with you that southern is massaging the egos of the insecure white men. Did a bit of research last night, checked out some of her clips…. on one clip she is waving around a big sign saying “there is no rape culture in the west”. That did my head in big time.

        • Gosman 27.1.1.2

          What does it matter if she is? You can choose not to give her YOUR attention. Just let people have that same right.

    • Gosman 27.2

      And so what?

    • Ross 27.3

      Cinny

      Some might describe your comment as hate speech and call you a Nazi but I would defend to the death your right to speak. Isnt free speech great!

      • Cinny 27.3.1

        Voltaire!

        Side note… loved the extremes of fashion during the late baroque and rococo eras. Don’t know much about Voltaire, might have do to some reading.

  28. David Mac 28

    I’ve been doing some Googling about top utubers and the sort of dosh these vloggers are churning.

    Holy Guacamole, these cats are making up to 1.5 million a year before they start counting their endorsement dosh. They’re the new Johnny Carsons. For essentially doing what Draco does but in front of a camera.

    I need me some of that action, now where are those mouthy black men?

  29. David Mac 29

    I guess a cool aspect of the rise of utube is that we the people get to choose who we want to be Jay Leno rather than network chiefs, sample audiences and casting couches.

  30. Sacha 30

    Interesting to see which New Zealanders feel compelled to ape America’s deep racial insecurity.

    • David Mac 30.1

      Yeah, especially when you consider how much more closely our circumstances relate to the Cherokee and Sioux than the Black Panthers and Dr Martin.

  31. newsense 31

    P.R. company getting good miles here.
    These guys are super losers. Should just ignore them.

    • Gosman 31.1

      Which is what the objectors to them SHOULD have tried at the start.

    • corodale 31.2

      These wee wispes will someday lose their baggage down the back of the train-station, and rise the next day with a whole new look on life. Take no heed of the young travellers.

  32. corodale 32

    239 comments! Well, bugger me days. Haven’t you guys got hydroponics or something to attend to. If the ratio of cannabolids (THC:CBD) is right then a little herb shouldn’t be making you paranoid,

  33. OctusSpherus 33

    “No ideology above scrutiny; no people below dignity.” – Maajid Nawaz.

    I remember Southern from her early days in the skeptic/atheist community. She didn’t seem as strident then as she does now. I understand some of what she’s trying to say, but think she’s departed tactically from the maxim above. I suspect because there’s little money or infamy in a more considered and sanguine approach.

    Molyneux, as far as I remember, has always been a kook.

  34. tsmithfield 34

    I have been a bit provocative on this subject up until now. But here is where I agree and disagree with Southern.

    Firstly, I think she has a point about multiculturalism in so much as that means cultural enclaves within a society where those enclaves have cultural norms conflict with the laws and expectations of wider society. There is plenty of evidence that these enclaves tend to be in poorer areas, and can be the source of considerable tension where there is a conflict between rules and expectations of the wider society.

    Secondly, I do support the view that it is better for cultures to integrate into the wider society. However, I think where Southern goes astray is that she seems to point the finger at the cultures themselves as being at fault for not integrating. I think this is unfair to those cultures. Southern doesn’t seem to provide answers to the problem, other than reducing immigration, which may be necessary in areas such as Europe and Britain which are overwhelmed with the influx of immigrants.

    Thirdly, I think that if integration is seen as desirable, then there is equal responsibility on wider society to create conditions where integration is a desirable option for those minority cultures. For instance, by welcoming members of those cultures into wider society and other social support for them, and encouraging the positive aspects of their culture.

    • Sacha 34.1

      Who decides which aspects of another culture are ‘positive’?

    • McFlock 34.2

      Context-free, what irks me about the comments of hers that I’ve seen is that she looks on social change as a bad thing – she demands “assimilation”, not just integration. Immigration changes the immigrants and the society into which they enter, IMO both for the better. I grew up in a largely vanilla environment. It just reinforced social conformity, and was stagnant. I fucking love diversity – it enriches the social experience.

      I agree with your third point, but not the last clause lol. It’s not for us to judge the positive and negative aspects of someone else’s culture. As long as they don’t break the law, what’s the problem? But we could do so much more for our entire community if, for example, we used current refugee support services as a benchmark for wider social support.

      But in context of people with whom she’s happy to share the stage on her $$$ tour, I think viewing her statements as anything less than soft-soaping fascism is dangerously foolish.

  35. Doogs 35

    Well Micky, you have stirred up a hornet’s nest of debate, much of it useful and on point. But many have missed your message.

    “Why are they a “problem”? What problem exactly are they creating?”
    Asked by Gosman, and typifies the bullish reluctance of some to delve a little further into the wider implications of the real threat that Southern and Molyneux present.

    Let me explain as I see it for those who have never heard of YouTube, Wikipedia, the OED and other excellent sources of information. It may also help others who have cranial short circuits and who fail to (or refuse to) join the dots on issues like this.

    1. S & M (good name for them, eh?) have some highly conservative and ultra right wing views about what is happening in the world. They see things which they don’t like, or which challenge their comfort zones and they see that as an opportunity to raise their own profiles/stir some shit/make some money.

    2. They are both articulate, intelligent (to a degree) and Alpha types which enables them to be self promotional while hiding behind a powerful and destructive set of beliefs that challenges the good world order. Meanwhile their whole raison d’être is to raise their profile in order to make lots of money.

    3. They make some YouTube clips, do some public speaking and they come to the notice of some powerful monied business types who really do believe the message S & M are selling. So these guys sponsor them. They now have backers and can go wherever and do what ever they want. The real badass lot are the backers who want to change things so that they maintain their hold on power and money – the 1%ers!

    4. In order to to spread the message unchallenged they wave the “Free Speech” banner and say that to stop them is a breach of human rights. See where it’s going?

    5. Their target audience is the pakeha malcontents who spend about 4 minutes every week reading and thinking about politics. These are the types who elected Trump. These are the ones who resent any change to their happy little white privilege. These are ones who covertly believe that white people are more intelligent than other races. These are the idiots who are ready to receive S & M’s message because it looks like an answer to their prayers.

    That is why we need to keep them away. That is why they are so dangerous.
    Their message is seductively simple and easy to digest.
    World issues are complex. They require informed thought, and these white, privileged, shallow existers are incapable of that.

    • mickysavage 35.1

      Thanks Doogs. I deliberately avoided ending with a strong conclusion. I just wanted to point out what an anathema to our society this pair are.

    • Gosman 35.2

      To paraphrase your last point – World issues are complex and are best left to people who have the capability to grasp them.

      How do you know if some is able to grasp the complexities of World issues?

      Am I able to grasp such complexities or will my views be equally diminished by the people who get to determine this?

      • Doogs 35.2.1

        Look, I’m quite sure you are an intelligent and well-informed person Gosman, and that you spend more than 4 minutes in any given week pondering the complexities of world order, but I note from your comments that you find it more fun being the one behind the door tripping people up as they come through.

        It is said that Southern is uninterviewable, and it is not the opinion of just one journalist that this is so. Apparently she answers no questions but just throws out challenges one after the other and simply hi-jacks the process. I see a certain similarity in your responses to others’ comments. Instead of answering, agreeing, disagreeing or rebutting you throw down a statement of your own or a challenge only tangentially relevant to the topic. Much like a judder bar on the road.

        I would find you much more interesting if you tackled what people said and offered a rebuttal to their argument. In my summation about how S & M operate I laid out my thinking and all I got back from you were 2 up front questions – once again, only relevant at a skew angle to the topic. I shall answer them . . .

        “How do you know if some is able to grasp the complexities of World issues?”
        By talking to them, or reading their statements.

        “Am I able to grasp such complexities or will my views be equally diminished by the people who get to determine this?”
        To the first part – probably. To the second part – God only knows.

  36. Dennis Frank 36

    Interesting academic take on free speech here (http://briefingpapers.co.nz/the-moriori-myth-and-why-its-still-with-us/): “tempting as this myth seems to be to people like Don Brash, they should stop using it, and not only because Kim Hill will burn you. Just because it’s wrong. This is not an appeal against free speech. It is an appeal to use free speech that is true, instead of free speech that isn’t.” Such resistance to the postmodern tide! Truth addicts, don’t give up yet.

    “One last thing. Many Māori histories speak of a people before their arrival in Aotearoa, who were variously conquered, absorbed by marriage, or in some cases simply remained, and have descendents alive today. I have no wish to trample on these traditions, but I do have a dear wish to deprive my fellow Pākehā of a racist narrative that has no Pākehā evidence behind it.”

    So she thinks that pakeha repeating Maori oral histories are automatically racist. She also thinks those histories don’t matter because they lack pakeha evidential validation, apparently. That seems racist! Anyway, yet another leftist trying to limit the free speech of a rightist they don’t like.

    • solkta 36.1

      If you use your google you will be able to find the bullshit propaganda videos to which she is referring.

  37. bwaghorn 37

    The venue has cancelled the show

  38. Tricledrown 38

    Gossipman trying to sanitize fascism

  39. R.P Mcmurphy 39

    southern and molyneux want to normalise overt racism and see things like open carry and killing black people for using swimming pools with white people and any sort of nonsense that they can get away with . really despicable people.

  40. Dennis Frank 40

    “Free speech champions?” Did they make any such claim? I haven’t noticed the media reporting that they did. That label fits the FSC.

    Scare-mongering about fascism only works when you aren’t crying wolf. There needs to be an evidential basis for it. Fair-minded kiwis will look at such claims, notice no evidence has been provided, and dismiss it as yet more leftist drivel. Aotearoa needs a leftist political culture that is based on reality. Reality is what we share. We don’t share delusions. We avoid them.

  41. Dennis Frank 41

    And another thing. The biculturalists in our midst have not yet conceded that multiculturalism is our reality. It remains the most irritating aspect of the way the Greens are mishandling political culture. The Treaty made us bicultural on a political basis, but globalisation has changed that by adding a deeper complexity. S&M are clearly out of touch – they’re ignorant of how things are here culturally – but plenty of people here who should know better remain equally clueless. It’s not just those two who can’t see the big picture.

  42. Raptor 42

    “Our” sense of multiculturalism is really YOUR sense of multiculturalism.

    We are not a multicultural society. We are a society of settlers, descendants of brave and pioneering people who travailed perilous oceans to settle on a set of wild and uncivilised islands half way across the planet. This, as well as our significant Maori minority population, constitutes our national identity.

    Your fantasies of some utopian multi-racial society comprising people who fall somewhere on the coffee-coloured spectrum is a figment of your imagination.

    The significant influx of various third-world peoples we have experienced over the last 30 years is the result of a deliberate policy change in immigration imposed by force on New Zealand from above. No New Zealander was ever given the chance to vote on our demographic trajectory; instead, we are expected to gleefully embrace our impending demographic displacement and the prospect of our grandchildren growing up foreigners in the third-world slum their own country has become.

    Your cute “multiculturalism” word is code for a despicable policy of population replacement, shoehorned onto New Zealand by traitorous politicians in defiance of our democratic principles.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New Zealand bans military style semi-automatics and assault rifles
    Military style semi-automatics and assault rifles banned under stronger gun laws Immediate action to prevent stock-piling Military style semi-automatics and assault rifles will be banned in New Zealand under stronger new gun laws announced today, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says. ...
    4 hours ago
  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    2 weeks ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Blasphemous libel law repealed
    The archaic blasphemous libel offence will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill today, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Coalition Government lassos livestock rustling
    New rules to crack down on livestock rustling will come into force following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Medieval law axed
    The ‘year and a day rule’ rule will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Further steps to combat tax evasion
    Further steps to combat tax evasion Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has announced New Zealand is expanding its global ability to combat tax evasion by joining forces with authorities in 30 countries and jurisdictions. Cabinet has agreed to add another ...
    3 weeks ago