- Date published:
7:59 am, July 17th, 2018 - 138 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, Deep stuff, democracy under attack, Left, Media, phil goff, Politics, the praiseworthy and the pitiful - Tags: lauren southern, stefan molyneux
The free speech coalition’s desire to get the High Court to insist on the perfect system of the freedom of expression, where ideas can escape and soar and come into contact with other ideas and then be subject to civilised battle which will ensure that only the best and most meritorious of ideas will succeed, has struck a potential snag. A rather major snag.
The problem could be that the decision to prevent Auckland from being exposed to Lauren Southern’s ideas may have been motivated by bureaucratic rather than political considerations.
From Todd Niall at Stuff:
The Free Speech Coalition says it wants to “clarify” the role of Auckland Mayor Phil Goff in the banning of two controversial speakers from a council venue, before it launches legal action.
The coalition was formed days after the booking by Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux was cancelled, and has raised $90,000 to seek a judicial review.
Members of the group have publicly questioned the right of the mayor to make a politically-based decision.
The group is now seeking clarity, after Goff told TVNZ’s Q and A programme, his comments had followed the advice of the council agency that had already taken the move to cancel the pair’s booking at the Bruce Mason Centre next month.
“Today the group’s lawyers are writing to the council to clarify the mayor’s conflicting statements to media about whose decision it was to ban the speakers, and the reasons for the ban,” the coalition said in a statement.
I have no idea what was the timing of the matter or who actually made the decision. The lawyers can sort this out. But this could cause a rather large problem for the Free Speech protagonists. An officer wanting to prevent damage to a public building is entirely different to the Mayor deciding to stop people using the facility, even if they are fascists.
Meanwhile there continues to be an intense debate on the left amongst those who think that the right to freedom of speech should be sacrosanct and those who thinks that punching a fascist can occasionally be justified.
Sure the contest of ideas is important. But it appears that Southern and Molyneux were not that interested in there being an open informed debate when you consider the terms on which they expected you to agree before letting you into listen to them.
And dang it but this leftie thinks that we should not have to allow publicly provided facilities to be used for the propagation of monetised hate speech with strict entry requirements. Especially if they have in the past deliberately picked fights with muslims and acted to disrupt the efforts of others to save refugees from drowning.