Hate Speech Coalition Cans Canadian’s Crusade

102 comments on “Hate Speech Coalition Cans Canadian’s Crusade ”

• Comments are now closed

1. OctusSpherus 1

   25 July 2018 at 2:36 pm

   I’ve definitely seen more considered takes on this issue, but well done nevertheless.
2. McFlock 2

   25 July 2018 at 2:46 pm

   The timeframe was too tight to arrange their event? How fucking difficult is it to arrange accommodation and a venue for a couple of speakers? Did they need special hoists and fifty lighting cues?

   What a bunch of crap. I’ve literally seen well-attended events booked and advertised and well-attended with only a few days notice. TED talks, motivational speakers, stand-up comedians and suchlike have minimal logictical overheads.
   • Stuart Munro 2.1

     25 July 2018 at 2:56 pm

     Yeah but these are the Right. They spent nine years in government and the only thing we have to show for it is stuff they were gonna do but never got around to.
   • paul andersen 2.2

     25 July 2018 at 3:35 pm

     brash, being a man of the people(yeah right) could have let them use his lounge for a public meeting, williams could have picked them up from the airport in his people mover, and trotter and franks could have sprung for the lamingtons(no black ones). what a shower, trying to play the victim but just looking like phuckups. sad, no whats the word ,hilarious. now ,there will be a b*tchfight behind the scenes as to where the $90,000 has gone (never existed, mostly promised, by sad old buggers ). and who has control of whatever was actually raised.
     • McFlock 2.2.1

       25 July 2018 at 4:23 pm

       Hell, Trotter might still have a loudhailer from his left wing days that they could borrow.
       • dukeofurl 2.2.1.1

         25 July 2018 at 5:07 pm

         That would be great if Trotter replaced Southern for all those who bought tickets.

         They must , must be sold out to hear Trotter on Freedom of Expression…a history
3. Robert Guyton 3

   25 July 2018 at 2:47 pm

   Farrar’ll be spewing!
   • dukeofurl 3.1

     25 July 2018 at 3:26 pm

     hes only a ‘supporter’ not one of those behind free speech coalition RunoutofTime Coalition . After all he has to think of his business credibility.
4. Dennis Frank 4

   25 July 2018 at 2:56 pm

   I suspect the visit has just been postponed – their scheduling may have become problematic. The free speech issue will need to be tested in court eventually regardless, due to being too important to keep fudging. Meanwhile, the space we ought to watch is the empty one in which architects of hate speech legislation avoid their task of creating a suitable law…
   • ianmac 4.1

     25 July 2018 at 4:15 pm

     Tested in Court but later in the year, they said. Maybe.
     • Dennis Frank 4.1.1

       25 July 2018 at 4:51 pm

       Would be good. I’m a member of the Council for Civil Liberties so I did wonder if that group would engage the issue. Haven’t been contacted so not enough relevance I suspect. The issue would only go to court here if the Free Speech Coalition identifies relevance to our citizenry.

       I’m still feeling quite neutral personally. I was curious to see how the couple would try to establish common cause with kiwis. I’m still intrigued & hope they try again later on. I get why some here are intent on demonising them but haven’t seen evidence to ban them (not interested sufficiently to go looking for it either).

       “Is it likely that the court will decide that clause 5 applies and the council decision is justified as a reasonable limit on the Bill of Rights? Effectively, that would mean all those who have argued that the right of free speech is limited by social sanctions have their view supported by the court’s decision. Could the council legal team ask the court to throw out the case on the basis that our laws do not apply to citizens of foreign countries? If so, would the court automatically then refrain from judgment on the previous question?” Eight days since I put those questions on law prof Andrew Geddis’s blog but no response.
       • dukeofurl 4.1.1.1

         25 July 2018 at 5:18 pm

         Especially when Lauren Southern has so many times called for chaos at her venues .

         Your legal reasoning is all jumbled, the cause of action wasnt connected to Southern at all but two dudes who were ‘denied their right’ to hear her in a public forum. I understand even Logan Campbell Center at Epsom Showgrounds turned them away – but not certain of this.
         Trying to use a procedural booking of venues as a vehicle for court review of denial of rights of expression wasnt a robust method and likely to have the wheels fall off- as has happened
         • Dennis Frank 4.1.1.1.1

           25 July 2018 at 5:28 pm

           Yeah, that’s because the FSC case seemed jumbled & I’ve been trying to sort it out. If they take the case to court on behalf of those two dudes, fair enough. I’d like to see them identified in the media & hear their views. Not the Canadians. That’s the relevance I’ve been fishing for. I didn’t see any media report mention that the FSC were acting on behalf of two kiwis.
         • paul andersen 4.1.1.1.2

           25 July 2018 at 6:26 pm

           yes, they have been desperately trying to be the victims of nasty leftwingers, but as the nasty left has given them permission to enter the country and speak, . the wind has been taken out of there sails. you would think, that if they can be promised 90 grand for a court case, that they could have found a private venue and stumped up $89,500 for hireage and used the rest for hiring rent-a-nob, sorry mob, to help get tv time.
   • Carolyn_Nth 4.2

     25 July 2018 at 5:45 pm

     Well there are plenty of hate speech laws internationally to use as a guide:

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Hate_speech_laws_by_country
     • Dennis Frank 4.2.1

       25 July 2018 at 6:39 pm

       Yes and comparative analysis shows us some commonalities but not enough to generalise easily.

       “New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute “threatening, abusive, or insulting…matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons…on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons”. Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which “racial disharmony” creates liability.”

       Can’t recall any citation of relevant case law in any blog commentary of this issue so far. Lack of a specific definition of hate speech seems a flaw in the HRA. Leftists seem to use the lack to claim a breach of the law in advance of any evidence being presented by the Canadians in a venue here. Claiming that a crime has been committed on the basis of no evidence doesn’t normally work.

       Note that the section of the HRA quoted implies that parliament operates in breach of the legislation continuously. Media stories featuring MPs insulting each other, bringing opposing parties into contempt, are an unending stream. All we need is a court to use the definition of ethnic (a group with a common culture) to decide that political culture is included as part of culture. Having the Supreme Court decide that the term culture does not exclude political culture (so therefore parliament is continuously breaking the law) would be amusing.
5. Cynical Jester 5

   25 July 2018 at 3:14 pm

   They are bigots but Nazis? I think not.

   I’ve had many debates over this visit and one thing that really bugs me is liberals seem to now be defenders of religion.

   People who called for Southerns banning who I’ve spoken to say they would ban Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher because of their intolerance towards religion.

   They are also apparently nazis because people disagree with them. These people have nothing in common with Southern, so what worries me is that we are reaching a point where you can’t say anything bad about anything even hateful intolerant oppressive institutions like religion.

   You can speak all the hatred and intolerance you want in this country as long as you do it under the guise of religion

   I remember them coming into my public school in the 2000s and preaching homophobic rhetoric, destiny’s church still uses public schools as venues and if anyone doubts religion (all religion yes including bhuddists who are currently as we speak attempting a genocide in Myanmar) is hateful try growing up lgbt+ so if speaking out against Christianity,islam, and anyone with an imaginary friend is the new definition of facism then I’m a proud facist because I tell you what I’ve known many lgbt+ including a boyfriend who killed themselves because of religion.

   So in closing dear left,stop calling everyone you disagree with a nazi cos there are actual Nazis out there and the word will lose any meaning and secondly screw religion. Tax them and ban them from public places if you’re serious about fighting intolerance.
   • dukeofurl 5.1

     25 July 2018 at 3:19 pm

     Do the facists come back again with jackboots and swastikas – I dont think so.

     And talking of Hitler, he DID spend his time on multiple occasions in the 20s suing for libel and damages from anti nazi newspapers.
     So yes it is part of their methods against liberal democracy, and later in the 1930s they just smashed the offices of newspapers they once just sued.
   • One Two 5.2

     25 July 2018 at 3:38 pm

     Buddhists are certainly not involved in Myanmar genocide…

     Yes I am familiar with the events in that country…

     Agree with the core premise of your comment.
   • Cynical Jester 5.3

     25 July 2018 at 4:14 pm

     I didn’t even finish high school so I’m making a very dumb comment here obviously but it does worry me that people are starting to take a stance where you can’t criticize religion.

     I think Southerns involvement in blocking refugees should be enough to block her from NZ. I don’t care about her idiotic beliefs that’s enough for me… she has the right to speak but I have the right to tell her shes a phalice head.
6. dukeofurl 6

   25 July 2018 at 3:15 pm

   Even funnier the Chairman of Regional Facilities Auckland, and the one with direct oversight of large venues is Don MacKinnon
   • paul andersen 6.1

     25 July 2018 at 3:36 pm

     now, that is funny.
7. Sanctuary 7

   25 July 2018 at 3:18 pm

   Game, set and match to Goff.

   My biggest takeout of this whole issue has been the vox pops and the realisation that the more white, well off and high status you are – that is, the more freedom of speech and racism are abstract concepts to a privileged group who never suffer racism and whose voice is always heard – the more likely you are to be hardline supporters of “freedom of speech”.

   Brown people, minorities, gays – you know, the targets of these racist neo-fascists – were a lot less likely to be upset about them being banned.
   • Jenny 7.1

     25 July 2018 at 5:44 pm

     Monetarised Hate Speech Coalition.

     What if Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern can’t get into New Zealand or can’t get visas?

     We will continue anyway. We want a legal precedent that, except in cases of genuine ‘hate speech’ (such as calling for violence), the Mayor and Council should not be the arbiter of what views can and cannot be expressed on public property.

     https://freespeechcoalition.nz/

     Revise that.

     The Free Speech Coalition have decided to preserve their principal not their principle.
     • Paul Campbell 7.1.1

       25 July 2018 at 6:15 pm

       from what I read today the judge awarded costs against them, they’ll be paying Auckland’s costs, I wonder how much they will have left
       • Carolyn_Nth 7.1.1.1

         25 July 2018 at 6:40 pm

         The judgement posted today by the High Court: Applicants are the freeze Peach group. Respondents are Auckland Council.

         The applicants seek that the proceeding be set down for a further case management conference in approximately a month’s time, so that they can have further discussions with the respondents and/or refine the pleadings.
         …
         Given that the applicants have now abandoned their request for urgent interim
         orders, I vacate the fixture scheduled for Monday 30 July next.
         …
         The respondents are entitled to seek costs consequent on the abandonment of
         the hearing scheduled for Monday next. Any memoranda seeking costs are to be filed and served within 10 working days of the date of this minute. Any memorandum in response is to be filed and served within a further 10 working days.
         …
         The substantive application for judicial review is adjourned for call in the judicial review list on Thursday 6 September 2018 at 9am.
         • Jenny 7.1.1.1.1

           26 July 2018 at 7:15 am

           What do you think Carolyn?

           In your opinion, should the respondents seek costs?
8. AsleepWhileWalking 8

   25 July 2018 at 3:20 pm

   Mehbes the timeframe issue translates to legal advice suggesting thus case is not going anywhere. Its not like they can’t be found on YT.

   So do they return the donations? I reckon it should go to a virtually identical cause (apart from color of the victim) https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/legal-fund-for-renae-maihi
   • Carolyn_Nth 8.1

     25 July 2018 at 6:42 pm

     Yep. this is much more a case testing freedom of expression for Kiwis, than that of the Canadian propagandists, dog whistlers and provocateurs.
9. Ross 9

   25 July 2018 at 3:22 pm

   The coalition of old white men

   Oh dear. We get it you hate old white men. Ain’t free speech grand!! No doubt the irony will be lost on you. 🙂
   • ianmac 9.1

     25 July 2018 at 4:17 pm

     Oi. I am an old white man but I am one of the good guys. My wife says so.
10. Chris T 10

    25 July 2018 at 3:30 pm

    What a load of bollocks

    Trotter right wing?

    Saying people with views you don’t agree with shouldn’t be banned makes someone a nazi?

    Lol
    • dukeofurl 10.1

      25 July 2018 at 3:52 pm

      She doesnt want to ‘say her views’ , she actually wants to have a riot.

      As she has said “I want chaos”
      ‘CONTROVERSIAL right wing YouTube star Lauren Southern has warned Australians that she will cause “chaos” when she touches down in the country next month..’

      Undercover video on Melbourne streets backfires for alt-right provocateur Lauren Southern
      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12092445
      • Dennis Frank 10.1.1

        25 July 2018 at 4:29 pm

        A pitch to get more anarchists to attend. Old white control freaks are so tedious. If she said “I want order” the audience would be full of them & too boring. Chaos is sexy to younger folk.
        • dukeofurl 10.1.1.1

          25 July 2018 at 4:33 pm

          Thats the difference – chaos isnt free speech
          • Dennis Frank 10.1.1.1.1

            25 July 2018 at 4:58 pm

            Most people think chaos enables anyone to do anything: no limits on free speech. So why do you think that?
            • dukeofurl 10.1.1.1.1.1

              25 July 2018 at 6:33 pm

              In her case Southern had nothing to say – it was all out of the Agit-prop playbook with speeches as performance art.
          • OctusSpherus 10.1.1.1.2

            25 July 2018 at 6:45 pm

            “…chaos in a good way…” – so upsetting established beliefs and orthodoxies. Which I think CAN be a good thing to do.
      • Chris T 10.1.2

        25 July 2018 at 5:29 pm

        And how does that make people who don’t want them banned Nazis…..?

        Actually how does it even make her a Nazi?
11. Anne 11

    25 July 2018 at 4:51 pm

    The Free Speech Coalition said on Wednesday time had run out for arrangements to be made for the pair.

    “Everything would have to happen in such a tight timeframe, it’s just not going to be possible,” said spokesperson Jordan Williams.

    Oh dear, Jordan Williams – of Dirty Politics fame. That was a recipe for disaster for starters. Reality dawned and they knew there would be far more people outside the venue than inside.
12. Grantoc 12

    25 July 2018 at 4:53 pm

    Te Reo Putaki

    Your diatribe is a great example of hate speech in action. But I guess the irony of your rant is lost on you.
    • Anne 12.1

      25 July 2018 at 5:01 pm

      So common sense and reality is hate speech now is it? Time and again, right wingers demonstrate they can’t cope with the truth.
      • Grantoc 12.1.1

        25 July 2018 at 7:40 pm

        The problem is Anne, there ain’t no common sense and reality, let alone truth there

        Except that its just a hard left rant by a left wing bigot, who, himself, is a threat to free speech if he gets his way.
      • Ross 12.1.2

        26 July 2018 at 7:45 am

        So common sense and reality is hate speech now is it?

        My common sense might be your hate speech and vice versa. Louisa Wall went to court because two cartoons so outraged her. The rest of us probably thought meh, they’re not great cartoons, and left it at that. But a politician of the Left wanted to ban the cartoonist…or something.

        “We [protect speech critical of religion not] because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech.” ~ Barack Obama
        • Anne 12.1.2.1

          26 July 2018 at 9:42 am

          I don’t disagree with a word you have printed Ross.

          Grantoc was claiming Te Reo Putaki’s post was hate speech. There was nothing in it that could be designated hate speech.

          Criticism presented in a truthful manner is not hate speech.
          • Brutus Iscariot 12.1.2.1.1

            26 July 2018 at 4:31 pm

            He pejoratively singled out the race and age of a group of people.

            Conjure up a scenario where an agitator says something about “little brown boys” causing crime or similar, then see if you’d be happy.
            • McFlock 12.1.2.1.1.1

              26 July 2018 at 4:37 pm

              Yes. Let us remove all context in a desperate ploy for equivalence. That is sure to work. /sarc
              • Brutus Iscariot …

                26 July 2018 at 4:48 pm

                Your appeal to context basically amounts to “i can say it, but you can’t”, Hardly makes for an enforceable or universal principle.
                • McFlock …

                  26 July 2018 at 5:05 pm

                  Your refusal to acknowledge context is pretty funny.

                  It actually more comes down to “the victim can call the perpetrator ‘weak’ and not look like a piece of shit, but the perpetrator calling the victim ‘weak’ makes the perpetrator look like even more of a piece of shit than they did before”.

                  Eating human flesh is understandable in extreme survival situations – people tend to not be judged too harshly for doing so.
                  Walking down the street eating someone’s arm, on the other hand (lolz), tends to draw the interest of the constabulary.

                  Context really is quite important.
          • Grantoc 12.1.2.1.2

            26 July 2018 at 4:53 pm

            I disagree with you Anne

            Te Reo Putaki’s reference to “old white men” now being able to buy “nazi memorabilia” sounds to me to be pretty extreme – and would probably fit any working definition of hate speech.

            Further Its blatantly untrue to imply that the “old white men” being referred to here are nazis. If you can prove otherwise produce the evidence.

            I imagine that if Te Reo Putaki was referred to as a nazi or a facist, you, he, and your fellow travelers would be apoplectic with rage, and claim that that he was the victim of hate speech.

            Frankly I don’t care that much about what TRP said – it just seemed to me to be arrant nonsense, in which any reasonable argument he was trying to put forward got lost in the rant.
13. veutoviper 13

    25 July 2018 at 5:09 pm

    Its a But But day.

    This But is that RNZ news is reporting that Pellowes, the Australian organiser of the Southern/Molyneux travelling circus is now saying that he is still looking for a private venue in Auckland and that Southern and Molyneux will still be coming to NZ, if even as just tourists.

    This article is about 45 mins old but RNZ is still reporting the above on the 5pm news on RNZ National/Checkpoint.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/362611/free-speech-coalition-withdraws-urgent-legal-action-over-goff-s-southern-molyneux-decision
14. Jenny 14

    25 July 2018 at 5:45 pm

    Monetarised Hate Speech Coalition.

    What if Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern can’t get into New Zealand or can’t get visas?

    We will continue anyway. We want a legal precedent that, except in cases of genuine ‘hate speech’ (such as calling for violence), the Mayor and Council should not be the arbiter of what views can and cannot be expressed on public property.

    https://freespeechcoalition.nz/

    Revise that.

    The Free Speech Coalition have decided to preserve their principal not their principle.
15. Carolyn_Nth 15

    25 July 2018 at 5:49 pm

    Villainesse says free speech laws are designed to protect privilege – i.e. those who can afford to go to court.

    She says uch laws focus on individual rights, and don’t protect oppressed groups from the impact of hate speech.
16. Dennis Frank 16

    25 July 2018 at 7:19 pm

    The Thug Veto thing seems juvenile, but consider this part of the FSC press release:
    “The Council Response concedes:
    1. Mayor Goff did not make the decision;
    2. He had no right to intervene or make the decision;
    3. Regional Facilities Auckland made the decision;
    4. RFA would not have acted on the Mayor’s instructions if he had given them;
    5. He did not influence the decision-makers;
    6. RFA do not and will not discriminate among users on grounds of political preference or concern about causing offence;
    7. The decision was instead based on security concerns;
    8. Ultimately it was due to fear of what protesters could do;

    So Goff was merely posturing. Pretending he was responsible for the decision in order to demonstrate fake leadership.

    And the RFA, the council group who decided not to allow their facilities to be used by the Canadians, acted out of fear. We could call this the Fear of Sue Bradford stance. Establishing that protestors are a sufficient basis to be a threat to security allows any event using their venues to be cancelled if a protestor threatens the venue. An email saying “I’m gonna show up, huff & puff & blow your house down” would suffice.
    • SPC 16.1

      25 July 2018 at 7:36 pm

      Police are also banning (where alcohol is involved) events by impositon of regulations, even moving to block licensing to bowling clubs in Wellington.

      And police will provide free security to some events, such as venues hosting promotion of weapons and security technologies.
    • Carolyn_Nth 16.2

      25 July 2018 at 7:48 pm

      Did Phil Goff ever say he was responsible for the event being cancelled? or was it some media reporting that conveyed that?

      RNZ on 6th July:

      headline: “Far-right pair banned from speaking at Auckland Council venues – Phil Goff”

      Some extracts from the article:

      A public talk by two controversial Canadians accused of hate speech has been cancelled after Auckland’s mayor Phil Goff banned them from all council venues.
      …
      However, Auckland Mayor Phil Goff tweeted that venues should not be used to stir up ethnic or religious tensions and that Ms Southern and Mr Molyneux would not be speaking at any council venues.

      This is followed by a copy of a tweet from Goff that doesn’t say he had banned the pair:

      Phil Goff
      ✔
      @phil_goff

      .@AklCouncil venues shouldn’t be used to stir up ethnic or religious tensions. Views that divide rather than unite are repugnant and I have made my views on this very clear. Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux will not be speaking at any Council venues.
      2:13 PM – Jul 6, 2018

      This is followed by a copy of Auckland Live’s tweet saying why the pair had been banned.

      On the same day, Newshub reported:

      An ‘alt right’ speaking event planned to be held in Auckland has been cancelled by the venue operators.

      That comes as Mayor Phil Goff sent a clear message that the pair are not welcome at Auckland Council venues.

      “I just think we’ve got no obligation at all – in a city that’s multicultural, inclusive, embraces people of all faiths and ethnicities – to provide a venue for hate speech by people that want to abuse and insult others, either their faith or their ethnicity,” Mr Goff told Newshub.

      “These individuals who want to incite hatred against others are, in my view, not welcome here,” he said.

      But, I don’t really think this Canadian pair and their promoters care that much about free speech. They are propagandists, and thrive on being banned – they can then get publicity from it, and stir up their followers by claiming victim status.

      I think it’s a mistake to take them too much at face value. Goff just played into their hands by giving them a chance to claim victimhood, and get publicity.

      Free speech is only one aspect of participation in a democracy. It usually refers to freedom from government censorship. What this pair want is a platform, and mainstream media attention. Many others don’t get so much attention for their views.

      Freedom of speech usually also includes the right to be heard. But that is not distributed equally.

      Renai Maihi has not had anywhere near as much attention for being sued by Bob Jones for calling him a racist. And Jones has always had more of a public platform for his views than Maihi is getting. Meanwhile, the FSC seem to have little interest in making this a test case.
      • Dennis Frank 16.2.1

        25 July 2018 at 8:32 pm

        Goff’s okay with me. Back when he was in the PYM with shoulder-length hair I recall thinking “hmm, hedging his bets”. Mine was a good six inches longer at the time. When he was a Rogernome I thought, “hmm, running with the hares, then hunting with the hounds, he knows how to be a shapeshifter”.

        But I did see him being interviewed about the decision, coming on as if he produced that result even if he never actually claimed he did. I’m saying he deliberately chose to create that impression in the public mind. Understandable that the media reported their perception accordingly (rather than investigate the reality).
        • Pat 16.2.1.1

          25 July 2018 at 8:35 pm

          so a lifetime professional politician…hardly a recommendation
          • Dennis Frank 16.2.1.1.1

            25 July 2018 at 9:02 pm

            Ah, but to those who believe in democracy he’s the perfect product of the system, isn’t he? And not even as slippery as Clinton or Obama…
            • Pat 16.2.1.1.1.1

              25 July 2018 at 9:15 pm

              in a word…no
17. WILD KATIPO 17

    25 July 2018 at 7:31 pm

    Well apart from anything said here or elsewhere ,… have you seen the vid on you tube when she was in Australia?

    Aside from being a complete empty headed egotist shes also a self parody of stupidity.

    Have you seen it?

    Quite a stupid woman.

    Seriously !
    • Pat 17.1

      25 July 2018 at 8:09 pm

      so no threat then?
      • WILD KATIPO 17.1.1

        25 July 2018 at 8:40 pm

        Depending how you look at it.

        Personally if I had my way we wouldn’t have shit stirrers here. We have banned a lot of people from business people to leaders of the Hell’s Angels. And my thought is that perhaps our right to say NO is OUR freedom of speech.

        But that’s just my opinion.

        Perhaps if it was someone who had a swastika tattooed into their foreheads and was the leader of an organization known to foment violent social unrest it wouldn’t have been an issue banning them.

        But here is Southern , all manicured up complete with hair straightening to present a pleasing sight to the public. She was chosen by her backers anyone can see that.

        But she is stupid. Quite bat stupid. In a very dipshit kind of way.

        And she is only a threat if we allow her to. IE: If we give unwarranted attention to her diatribe. There could of been an academic debate , sure,.. but why should we let these outsiders upset our way of life? This is not Canada or the USA. It is New Zealand.
        • Pat 17.1.1.1

          25 July 2018 at 8:43 pm

          if we stopped people from speaking in public because they were stupid at least half of parliament would have to stay stumm
          • WILD KATIPO 17.1.1.1.1

            25 July 2018 at 8:52 pm

            No but at least we have control over them on local issues. Southerns are an import. One that (indirectly ) also backs up in certain areas the 5 eyes agreement on particular foreign policy’s issues that don’t really pertain to us.

            We do not want her stupidity coming here and stirring up what could become a dangerous precedent with social unrest.
            • Pat 17.1.1.1.1.1

              25 July 2018 at 9:00 pm

              somebody obviously does
        • Brutus Iscariot 17.1.1.2

          26 July 2018 at 4:42 pm

          You’re wrong on at least one count.

          Southern/Molyneux don’t have “backers”, at least in the sense that you’re implying. The global moneyed conspiracy, if there is such a thing, is firmly on the neoliberal side, where global open borders and “free trade” coalesce to form opportunities for maximum profit (and maximum exploitation). “Blood and soil” nationalism of any form, is an inconvenient impediment to the flow of capital and profit.

          Like it or not, Southern/Molyneux and the alt-right are an organic movement, and those who equate them with a nefarious elite pulling the strings, are taking their analysis from a different time and a different world. The left/right dichotomy of 50 years ago is breaking down, and there’s a new axis that is more relevant now – localist vs globalists.
          • corodale 17.1.1.2.1

            26 July 2018 at 5:06 pm

            Develop organically, correct. But once existing they are a funding option for geo-political interests, who generally hedge with support on both sides.

            Globalists/Localist important, agreed. Us socialists are pushed globalist by this hate-speech debate. So desperate to avoid the words “national” and “socialist” being shortened to the reduncent insult of nazi, that we offer support to the dangerously totalitarian but inter-national concept of The UN, which is only local to New York, (and perhaps Rome 😉
18. peterlepaysan 18

    25 July 2018 at 9:25 pm

    Nobody stopped them from speaking.

    It was always about where they could it.

    I am surprised that Brash, Trotter and various media denizens did not offer alternative sites.

    Sigh. It is always easier to yell from the sidelines and get someone else to engage and arrange a venue rather than get off their posteriors and do something for themselves.
    Sorry if that sounds like “intellectual bashing” but there seems to be some rather precious egos involved here, parading themselves, yet again.
    • Pat 18.1

      25 July 2018 at 9:34 pm

      As its turned out no one has stopped them from speaking…not that there wernt plenty trying…as to”Brash,Trotter and various” theyve made quite plain their issue wasnt specific but principle so it understandable they wouldnt involve themselves in the organisation of this particular event…intellectual or not.
    • Ad 18.2

      25 July 2018 at 9:54 pm

      If anyone believed strongly in free speech they would have let them simply do it in Albert Park. That’s what they did in the late 1960s with Tim Shadbolt and his acolyte PYMs, who talked all sorts of crap about Mao.

      Instead anyone with any authority went running around looking for excuses to stop them. Even the very idea of contesting ideas was too hard to consider in plain sight.
19. Ad 19

    25 July 2018 at 9:49 pm

    Just look back at Labour’s history and consider how many of its initial leaders were foreigners who came to New Zealand and made militant speeches.

    – Michael Joseph Savage was rabble-rousing only a year after he arrived from Australia.

    – Plenty of unpopular Marxists came in before WW1 and caused trouble around the mines. Whether we agree with them or not, they were foreign extremists.

    – Harry Holland, straight out of jail and off the boat into causing serious activism in Waihi, talking tough and smacking heads

    – In fact all the early radical ideas that formed the Labour party’s ideals from the Socialist Party and the Independent Labour League were from revolutionary demagogues importing foreign radical ideas

    – And you don’t get a more filthy Labour foreigner socialist than Peter Fraser (and went on to be our very best Prime Minister).

    The government of the day was plenty pissed at all of them when they started, but didn’t stop them from speaking. If the the same “principle” of stopping these speakers were applied to the founders of the Labour Party, the Labour Party would not exist.

    And yet the great majority of the left I see commenting on this site refuse to hold the the principle applying to their own movement. Speech is only valuable when it’s objectionable: that value of speech is worth protecting not when you like it, but when you don’t. We should have had the same courage to hear objectionable speech now that the Reform/United/proto-National government showed to Labour activists then.
    • WILD KATIPO 19.1

      25 July 2018 at 10:13 pm

      Yes but the examples you gave above all had one thing in common : they all saw an eventual better future for working people and improved Health and Safety , wages and conditions.

      In no way whatsoever could you compare that with political shitstirrers who obliquely encourage tacit racism by encouraging that in foreign country’s that are not so directly tied up with the wars in the Middle East as the UK, USA and by close proximity even Canada ( also a large nation in the 5 eyes agreement).

      We do not have radicalism in this country where people die from suicide bombings and the like because partly, – we are relatively isolated , our presence in the Middle East is limited, and we have a more inclusive society where divisiveness is not encouraged.

      Why do so many from the 5 eyes partner nations seek NZ as a bolt hole?

      Because of the preceding paragraphs very reasons.

      So WHY WOULD WE want someone coming over here from another country , another hemisphere even , – and stirring up their bullshit here?

      Do we have no say? Of course we do.

      And our free speech was to disapprove of what they were trying to achieve here in our country..

      And for very sound reasons as events overseas have proven.
    • adam 19.2

      25 July 2018 at 10:33 pm

      Well said Ad.

      Many of those activist you mentioned were locked up for speaking out as well.

      Harry, Peter and Michael all took blows in the head and/or body by the farm boys who came to town as cops in the general strike.

      Funny how many on the left conveniently forgotten history to score some cheap points – or feel good that they somehow stopped fascism.

      Tell you what folks, when you been stab by a skinhead, you come tell me what it like to fight fascism. Or been in a house that been firebombed by neo-fascists. Or had to have weapons on hand daily to defend a squat against neo-nazi scum and their police supporter. Come back to me.

      Because at the moment, I just think your all just a bunch of armchair bullies who wouldn’t know a real brownshit, nor would you do anything about them, if you really had to.

      It’s been a sad couple of weeks.
      • WILD KATIPO 19.2.1

        25 July 2018 at 10:53 pm

        Well no it wasn’t well said at all.

        For the points I outlined. One had a positive reason for activism citing Savage , Holland and the like , – and which became law in NZ.

        Southern by contrast , was wanting to incite in a very negative sort of way and inflame a social situation that is in no way comparable to the USA and NZ.

        As for the rest about Nazism , Fascists and Brownshirts, – fair cop.

        But those same armchair ‘ leftists’ you criticize haven’t had to put a brick in a sock and take it to a rally precisely because of the values – and laws – we have in this country.

        Which begs the question- should we really be encouraging what could develop into a potentially dangerous situation where people get hurt all because of an imported radical ? , – a radical whose message bears little in common with the reality’s of NZ society ? And don’t worry – plenty of people took a long baton in the head during the 1981 Springbok Tour. So the spirit of those early pioneers for social equity and justice still live on today.
        • adam 19.2.1.1

          26 July 2018 at 2:14 am

          The road to shutting down debat is a road pathed with good intentions.

          I found your argument weak. Laws, you get that nazis had laws, they believed in the rule of law , judges, trials even, the whole shabang right.

          That nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Franco’s Spain all relied on their unwavering belief that they we masters of the true values and righteous. That they were the bearers of that tradition and nothing should or could question them. Especially communist, socialist , anarchist and the like.

          But what the hell right, victory for the left and all that.

          Like I said it’s been a sickening couple of weeks.

          Someone wake me when the real fascist wave arrives, and I’ll show you how to fight them properly.

          I’m done, people should stop and think why they think them acting like an authoritarian thug, makes them any better than the authoritarian thugs the say they oppose.
          • WILD KATIPO 19.2.1.1.1

            26 July 2018 at 3:40 am

            I think you might be over dramatizing the situation.

            And, we do not need in this country to be fighting anybody. This is not the 1930’s, and we are not experiencing a Europe overrun by far right street thugs after the first world war.

            In fact , this country has never been given to ideological extremes that led to butchery and extra judicial executions on the grounds of religion, creed or race. Though it could be said the last time we participated under the auspices of the British Empire regards mass genocide was in the NZ land wars.

            I would far rather discourage those who want to foment trouble here which can lead to people being harmed by simply denying them the opportunity to do so , rather than in having retrospective regrets after the fact.

            There are those already charged with domestic security including the Police, GSCB and the SIS. And although all three body’s have received bad press lately they are still charged with appraising individuals of interest. And the potential impact they may have on the peace.

            As such there is no need at all for you to have to ‘show anybody how to fight anybody else properly’. And that’s one of the great things about living in a relatively peaceful country , – another great thing is we do not have to accept those who would wish to upset that peace. And that is our freedom of speech to say no to that also.
            • corodale 19.2.1.1.1.1

              26 July 2018 at 6:23 am

              All good bro, (friends of D Brash will always be tools in divide-n-conquer…)
              only a few catches with austerity and our historic connections, from 5-eyes to Turkey.

              It’s important to note; under NZ law, the only way RBNZ can fund Treasury, to avoid austerity, is with fascist power from the Finance Minister, under a declaration of National Emergancy. (Please, correct if that’s wrong, but FIRE economy…)

              Turkey have recently re-structured their secret NATO army (just blood obviously). You know, that secret army network that sunk our RainbowWarrior, and endless other shit, probably including destablisation in Ukraine (unless that was a Mossad/Bolshevik collaberation), and logically including the Charlie Hebdo stunt (21sCenturWir altNews covered this) to directly smear against Islam.

              If they stir up more shit in Turkey (for the Balkanisation with Kurdistan etc) then Turkish President would be forced to declare an Islamic Constitution, to re-unit with Iran, Syria, probably even Saudi and others. This would trigger astronomical money into anti-fascist and politically-correct propaganda in MSM.

              I’ve personally lost a job last year in Germany, for simply not agreeing with anti-Trump hate-speech, and this sort of shit would be all-on in every-corner-of-the-world.

              But fully agreeing with your common sense post above. I would say, NZ can continue to show international leadership, by simply keeping calm and maintaining peace between the tools and puppets. The independant and Pacific foreign policy is well on track.
20. North 20

    25 July 2018 at 10:28 pm

    “Time actually ran out for Southern and Molyneux about 73 years ago in a besieged Berlin bunker but never mind.”

    Like your styles there TRP. However, contrary to your rhetorical “but never mind”……Oh yes I do mind ! I mind that rich, privileged, supercilious, hubristic white males feel competent to give lessons to every other bastard about fine principles as though they alone have a mortgage on mature discernment. Especially that fetid old racist dinosaur Brash of Kiwi/Iwi fame.

    Fuck Off Faux Champions of Freedom ! And while I’m here FO also to the Trumpettes making The Standard bloody near unreadable sadly.
21. corodale 21

    26 July 2018 at 2:44 am

    Is this really a victory for the peace movement? Or just a victory in the dangerous game of divide-n-conquer?

    Anti-fascism is turning to racism and creating tension in German sport. A Turkish-German player has quit the national team, with hard criticism of the German Football Association and a racist German culture.

    With increases in both German military spending and weapons export, plus recent examples of censorship regarding Turkish nationalism, it is fair to say that the rise of political-correctness is not without it’s threat to world peace.
    • Gabby 21.1

      26 July 2018 at 10:42 am

      That’s the one who cosied up to secret NATO army boss Erdygurdy isn’t it corry? Showing awesome solidarity with the country he was representing wasn’t it.
22. tsmithfield 22

    26 July 2018 at 6:52 am

    Here is what I think will happen.

    There has been a huge amount of public interest generated due to this controversy. The media will seek to milk that interest by having prime-time interviews with Southern as has been the case in Australia. Thus, she will get much more of a platform than she ever would have had if she had just been ignored.

    BTW, I agree to some extent on her views of how we treat multiculturalism in Western culture.

    I believe that those coming to NZ should be allowed to live their lives as they like so long as they understand they must conform to basic values that underpin our society such as women’s rights, respect for other minority groups, and understanding that their beliefs might be criticised, and that is OK.

    Where hate speech laws have been implimented that restrict the rights of others to be critical of minority cultures not conforming to basic principles , then there have been significant problems such as the sex abuse scandals in Rotherham and Telford in the UK where authorities were afraid to act due to being perceived as racists.

    https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201804091063289247-uk-muslim-grooming-gangs/

    Our own HRC is leading us down a similar path so we all should be concerned.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12063987
    • marty mars 22.1

      26 July 2018 at 7:34 am

      alt right rubbish.
      • tsmithfield 22.1.1

        26 July 2018 at 8:20 am

        Typical lefty labeling rather than engaging in debate.

        So, what part of my post do you disagree with?

        Do you disagree that immigrants should be expected to conform to basic societal values such as respect for women, respect for other minority groups, and understanding that their beliefs might be criticised?
        • marty mars 22.1.1.1

          26 July 2018 at 8:28 am

          yeah lets work as a team and do it my way – is not the way I think it should work.
          • tsmithfield 22.1.1.1.1

            26 July 2018 at 9:07 am

            So, how should it work?
        • Robert Guyton 22.1.1.2

          26 July 2018 at 9:10 am

          Smithfield
          Do you have the complete list of “basic societal values” that you require immigrants under your model to conform with? Please publish it so we can see what your values are. Also, please explain who and how the compliance to those values will be assessed and enforced. Thanks
          • tsmithfield 22.1.1.2.1

            26 July 2018 at 9:19 am

            I think that list needs to be determined. But obviously more significant issues that affect societal harmony. I am not concerned about issues such as dress, ceremonies, etc.

            But once known, it should be part of the selection criteria for allowing people in. Effectively what will be measured is their ability to integrate into our society.

            If we want to allow people in who don’t conform at present, then they should be required to undertake training as to the expectations of our cultural norms prior to being established formally in our society.
            • Robert Guyton 22.1.1.2.1.1

              26 July 2018 at 10:08 am

              Smithfield
              “I think that list needs to be determined”
              Well, if your idea has any merit, it needs to be truth-tested. Do you mind compiling the list so we can see if it’s doable. Otherwise, it might be just pie in the sky.
              • tsmithfield …

                26 July 2018 at 10:20 am

                “Do you mind compiling the list…”

                No I won’t play that game. The examples I gave are clear enough without getting into the fine details.

                But will make the point that a lot of refugees etc coming to NZ are coming because they are fleeing societies that don’t abide by the sorts of values that we espouse as I mentioned earlier.

                So, if they are expecting something better in our society, then they should happily relinquish aspects of the culture they have come from that are largely reason they fled in the first place.

                I really don’t understand why the left would have an issue with this line of thinking.
                • Puckish Rogue …

                  26 July 2018 at 10:23 am

                  In some cases i just think its ingrained in them, like if someone on the right says something then, to someone on the left, it must be wrong and must be argued against

                  Not all lefties of course
                  • tsmithfield …

                    26 July 2018 at 10:33 am

                    I agree. So we need to help them adapt so they fit in better. This could involve more in depth counselling and training prior to fully integrating into our culture.

                    If they are simply bringing across the beliefs and attitudes that led to that are part of their problem, then we will just get similar problems developing in our culture. As has been clearly seen in Britain and Europe.
                    • Robert Guyton …

                      26 July 2018 at 1:25 pm

                      What would have happened had Maori required the same of us tauiwi back in the day.
                • David Mac …

                  26 July 2018 at 10:35 am

                  When I landed in Sweden few employers wanted to know me until I had completed and passed a ‘Sweden for Immigrants’ polytech type course.

                  It wasn’t compulsory and the exam could be sat at any stage that the tutor deemed the student ready. It focused on learning the language but there was a lot of ‘How we do things in Sweden’ by osmosis. Those with a Germanic language mother tongue took about 6 months to complete the course. The Aussie, Thai brides and I, more like 12 months.

                  In the middle of the day we all selected a story from the day’s newspaper and wrote the lead paragraph up on the whiteboard. Great idea, it hit so many bases with learning the language and constantly updating our knowledge of ‘What matters in Sweden today’. We discussed the letters, words, grammar, pronunciation and content.

                  I think tsmithfield has a valid point because I think much of what ails Sweden now re: immigration friction, no go precincts etc is because ‘Svenska fer invandare’ isn’t compulsory. Immigrants are free to group together and create back home in their new home, minimal interaction with those they share with.
                • Robert Guyton …

                  26 July 2018 at 11:07 am

                  It’s the “fine details” that matter, Smithfield. It’s easy for you to nominate some easy examples but without the full proposal, a reasonable assessment can’t be made; the devil’s in the details, ‘parently. The reason “the Left” have a problem with your line of thinking, is that it’s selective and fails the test of realism. Would you, for example, be expecting cultures that circumcise their male babies to abandon that practice when they come to NZ? Where you say “…what will be measured is their ability to integrate into our society.” could you please define “our society” and it’s edges; there are a mix of cultures here, some of which have practices you might need to rank and possible disallow.
                  • Puckish Rogue …

                    26 July 2018 at 11:19 am

                    The nz bill of rights is probably not a bad place to start
                    • tsmithfield …

                      26 July 2018 at 11:32 am

                      I agree. That is probably the best option, and free from political points of view on the matter.
    • Gabby 22.2

      26 July 2018 at 10:44 am

      Surely we have local fascists that are qualified to rouse the rabble and incite violence schmiddy? Why should this foreigner come over ‘ere taking our jobs?
23. Ross 23

    26 July 2018 at 8:01 am

    Israel Folau is pilloried for criticising gays and for potentially leading some gays to commit suicide.

    Yet, when Lauren Southern set up a stall in a public square in Britain in February with posters declaring: “Allah is gay, Allah is trans, Allah is lesbian…” to draw attention to Islam’s negative attitudes to the LGBT community, she was the one who was pilloried, especially by the political left. Her stall was shut down by the police because the constabulary feared violence might erupt. No word, then, about how Islam’s attitudes to gays might drive some of them to suicide.

    https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/social-issues/lauren-southern-criticising-religion/
    • tsmithfield 23.1

      26 July 2018 at 9:23 am

      Exactly. The double standards are nauseating.
24. Ssornivek 24

    26 July 2018 at 4:13 pm

    Its on : https://axiomatic.events/stefan-molyneux-and-lauren-southern-live-in-auckland/
25. WILD KATIPO 25

    26 July 2018 at 5:36 pm

    The Eagle has landed – More bloody foreigners – Full … – Godialy
    Video for The Eagle has landed – More bloody foreigners▶ 0:12
    http://www.godialy.com/…/the-eagle-has-landed-more-bloody-foreigners

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS