Let Chelsea Manning speak

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, August 29th, 2018 - 146 comments
Categories: Deep stuff, democratic participation, International, national, same old national, us politics - Tags: , ,

We have another freedom of speech tester. This one involves Chelsea Manning.

She is well known as a whistleblower and leaker of sensitive US military information. She was sent to jail for espionage after leaking nearly 750,000 pages of information to Wikileaks.  She was sentenced to 35 years jail but received clemency from Barack Obama and now has her freedom.

To paraphrase her psychiatrist her motivation for leaking the information was to change how the world views the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was an attempt to crowdsource an analysis of the war, and it was her opinion that if enough analysis was done on these documents  then society would come to the conclusion that the war wasn’t worth it, and that that no wars are worth it.

She is very different to Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux. She is not known for attacks on ethnic groups. She does not go around manufacturing dissent for Youtube clicks or engaging in hate speech. She has not taken parts in efforts to sabotage efforts to save refugees from drowning.

National was happy enough for Molyneux and Southern to visit and talk. But it thinks that Manning should not.

From Newshub:

National has re-ignited the free speech debate by calling on the Government to bar ex-US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning from visiting the country next month.

Former Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse said the “convicted felon” should not be allowed to earn money talking about her crimes, and it would “not enhance” New Zealand’s relationship with the US.

But Green spokeswoman Golriz Ghahraman said Manning had stood up against authority and silencing her was “callous”.

The Free Speech Coalition labelled National’s stance “foolish” while Wellington’s mayor said Manning had a right to free speech and he would welcome her to his city with open arms, as long as she was allowed into the country.

Manning, who was sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified American diplomatic and military documents, has two speaking events scheduled in early September.

Her conviction for espionage and computer fraud means she will require a “special direction” from the Government to allow her into the country.

This can come from a senior immigration official in the first instance, and then can be appealed to Associate Immigration minister Kris Faafoi, who has the delegation for special directions.

Manning was granted a commuted sentence, not a pardon, by former US President Barack Obama, so her convictions still stand.

And Woodhouse is out to pick a fight:

Woodhouse said if an application from Manning had landed on his desk while he was Immigration Minister, he would have denied it, and called on the Government to do the same.

“This is a convicted felon, sentenced to 35 years in jail, coming in here for money,” Woodhouse said.

“She is wanting to be hailed as a hero for stealing military secrets and state secrets. She was convicted of very serious crimes.

“The discretion is not there to apply to a person who expresses virtually no remorse for her offending…There’s no rehabilitation, no remorse, the very purpose of her visit to come and talk about her crimes.”

“The other thing to consider is that we have a very good and friendly relationship with the US, which I have no doubt would not be enhanced.”

But the Free Speech Coalition is going to ride to the rescue.  I am sure Chris Trotter is feeling much happier.  From Scoop:

The political whims of the National Party must not curtail our right to engage in the most relevant topics of our age, says the Free Speech Coalition, which is calling on National MP Michael Woodhouse to reconsider his comments to the media earlier today.

“The subject of our allies’ wartime conduct is a matter of great public importance,” says Chris Trotter, a spokesperson for the Free Speech Coalition.

“As a democracy, we have a right to be informed on the activities of our friends on the international stage. New Zealanders deserve a chance to hear her speak.”

“There are other examples of previously convicted criminals that have been allowed entry into New Zealand. Nelson Mandela was allowed entrance in 1995. And Jordan Belfort, also known as the ‘Wolf of Wall Street’, was allowed to give a series of motivational speeches in 2014. If these convicted criminals were able to speak in New Zealand, why is Manning any different?”

“We agree with the reported comments Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman that Mr Woodhouse’s campaign for censorship is offensive. New Zealanders should not be denied an opportunity to hear a personal account of military use of power, even by an ally. The Free Speech Coalition hopes Ms Ghahraman continues to support the principle of free speech, no matter the politics of the individual speakers.”

“This isn’t an issue of defending breach of confidence or leaking military secrets. Rather, it is the right of New Zealanders to hear from someone who is noteworthy albeit controversial.”

It seems strange for someone to think that hate speech is fine but that dissent to the American War Machine should be suppressed on the basis that Donald Trump will be upset.

Chelsea should be allowed to come and speak, no matter what her convictions are for.  A discussion about the waste that our world tolerates engaging in wars that destroys lives and communities and countries and how this should no longer be tolerated is well overdue.

146 comments on “Let Chelsea Manning speak ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Cinny 1
    29 August 2018 at 7:52 am

    It’s just bizarre that national have come out guns blazing on Chelsea.

    Trying to fathom the end game in their thinking, because this move appears to be PR suicide for the nats. Or is it a strange tit for tat game.

    Silly old woodhouse didn’t even wait for a visa to be granted (or not) before launching into some kind of ‘do as I say’ speech. It’s just weird.

    Distraction? Could be, simon likes to bandy that word around.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.1
      29 August 2018 at 11:25 am

      It’s just bizarre that national have come out guns blazing on Chelsea.

      No it’s not.

      They’re in favour of keeping secrets from the people especially ones which show the government in a bad light. The type of information that the people need to know so that they can make informed decisions about who to vote for especially when those secrets would most likely prevent a right-wing government from being elected.

      • Andy 1.1.1
        1 September 2018 at 12:59 am

        You speak about the right for people to make informed decisions yet you prevent the likes of Lauren Southern from airing her thoughts on which can make informed decisions.
        The latest tag for the silencing of opposite views is Hate Speach. NZ should be ashamed of itself.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1
          1 September 2018 at 12:07 pm

          yet you prevent the likes of Lauren Southern

          Where have I done that?

          The latest tag for the silencing of opposite views is Hate Speach.

          That would be either you being a complete ignoramus or you’re lying.

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

          As you’re a RWNJ I’ll tilt toward it being the former.

  2. Sanctuary 2
    29 August 2018 at 8:02 am

    “…She is very different to Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux. She is not known for attacks on ethnic groups. She does not go around manufacturing dissent for Youtube clicks or engaging in hate speech. She has not taken parts in efforts to sabotage efforts to save refugees from drowning…”

    She is also not driven primarily by the desire to make money – unlike Molyneux and Southern, who have deliberated parleyed online hate speech and rabble rousing into a nice little niche earner for themselves.

    The difference between Manning and Southern and Molyneux is akin to the difference between a pastor who lives in poverty working amongst and for the poor and a televangelist who lives in a mansion, hob nobs at golf clubs, has a young mistress and takes a tithe off pensioners, the desperate and the guillable. Both profess to be doing God’s work, but only one of them is not a crook.

  3. Marcus Morris 3
    29 August 2018 at 8:03 am

    Have just read a transcript (I think) of an interview she did with Kim Hill recently. This woman was incredibly brave and National’s stand (via Woodhouse) says much more about them than Miss Manning. What she stands for is totally admirable and in total contrast to the ” philosophy” of the Canadian cretins, who, I understand, the National Party would have had no problem with. Every day I have a new reason to be thankful for the outcome of last year’s election.

    Here is the link to that transcript: https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/364910/we-largely-live-in-a-domestic-military-occupation-chelsea-manning

    • veutoviper 3.1
      29 August 2018 at 1:15 pm

      It was an excellent interview, Marcus. The article is a good summation with some good verbatim quotes, but it is also worth listening to the audio. The link to it is in the article. 23 minutes not lost and one of Kim’ s goodies.

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 3.1.1
        29 August 2018 at 2:32 pm

        Agreed, it was an excellent interview. Seems clear to me that Manning is a decent person with genuine integrity and conscience.

  4. Frank Macskasy 4
    29 August 2018 at 8:07 am

    The media release from the Free Speech Coalition was issued in the name of Chris Trotter.

    Previous PRs supporting the two Canadian Polite Fascists were done by Don Brash. Mr Brash has been eerily silent on Ms Manning.

    • Gosman 4.1
      29 August 2018 at 8:22 am

      Umm… That makes not a jot of difference. Chris Trotter has the ability to speak on behalf of the entire group.

      • Dennis Frank 4.1.1
        29 August 2018 at 8:40 am

        Yes, if we presume that the way the FSC has agreed to operate is that any member may articulate the common view of the whole. If we also assume that they held a conference call to establish consensus prior to each public statement from the FSC.

        If Brash & other rightists on the FSC do not proceed to disagree with Trotter on Manning, then those assumptions will seem valid. Woodhouse seems out of his depth. Wolf of Wall Street got to do his thing here, allowed in by a National government. He’s an extremely successful capitalist criminal!

        • Gosman 4.1.1.1
          29 August 2018 at 8:59 am

          Agreed. Michael Woodhouse is a joke. If Bridges doesn’t rein him in then it also reflects badly on him.

          • Tricledrown 4.1.1.1.1
            29 August 2018 at 10:17 am

            Gossipboy Woodhouse is a nobody going nowhere so he has been tossed a bone to chew on barking at cars gets boring.
            Woodhouse does as he is told.

          • cleangreen 4.1.1.1.2
            29 August 2018 at 4:59 pm

            Good luick there Gossie.

            Nats love to flap there jaws with every chance.

            Like my ewes sitting there mashing their teeth, he has the limit of his lack of intellegence in the same way too.

        • dukeofurl 4.1.1.2
          29 August 2018 at 9:48 am

          The FSC is just another name on the office door of the Taxpayers Union.

          The person pulling the strings of Brash and Trotter is Jordan Williams- who carries the grand title of Executive Director, you can see his fingerprints on switching back and forth between Brash and Trotter. I Think the reason both play along is that , very handily, the TU covers travelling expenses.

      • Frank Macskasy 4.1.2
        29 August 2018 at 8:43 am

        But will Mr Brash?

        Or only when it suits him?

        • Gosman 4.1.2.1
          29 August 2018 at 8:57 am

          Your argument is puerile. It would be like someone arguing that because not every member of the current Government made a statement about a subject then they don’t agree with what the Government is doing. If Don Brash disagrees with Chris Trotter speaking on behalf of the Free Speech coalition he would either come out and say Chris doesn’t represent our views OR he would resign as a member stating that he no longer agrees with their stance. He doesn’t need to also make a statement against the position of the National party. You are obsessed with trying to find supposed ‘evil intent’ in specific members of organisations you disagree with.

          • Tricledrown 4.1.2.1.1
            29 August 2018 at 10:13 am

            Gosman you miss the point completely as usual.
            As Wayne says if you can’t win an argument you have to keep explaining.

            • Gosman 4.1.2.1.1.1
              29 August 2018 at 10:59 am

              What was the point then other than to attack Don Brash?

              • Tricledrown …
                29 August 2018 at 12:15 pm

                Duplicity Gossipboy he jumps on the bandwagon when it suits him but doesn’t when it affects his extreme right wing divisiness.
                Manning opened the world’s eyes to how murders are covered up by governments Socold “defending freedom of speech”
                Where neo Fascists want to stop free speech
                Ironically those who uncover murder of civilians are locked up and the key thrown away.
                President Obama had the guts to release Manning but not to prosecute the murderers.
                Brash defends Fascists is how it looks.

                • Gosman …
                  29 August 2018 at 1:03 pm

                  So the whole point of the comment was to simply attack Brash which is what I picked up on and therefore I did not miss the point at all.

    • Lucy 4.2
      29 August 2018 at 9:47 am

      Think that this points to FSC motivation. Brash and Trotter both want voices that fill their own echo chambers. So Brash speaks to right and Trotter speaks to left. That whole “I hate what they say but will defend their right to say it” spiel falls down when Brash will not speak for a person whose views run counter to his, and at the same time make clear how far along the spectrum his views really are.

      • Gosman 4.2.1
        29 August 2018 at 10:12 am

        He doesn’t need to speak up. Do you not understand that??? The organisation he helped found has stood up to defend Manning’s right to come and speak here. This is not a complex concept to grasp.

  5. James 5
    29 August 2018 at 8:27 am

    I agree let her speak.

    But this is what happens when people start trying to shutdown people they don’t like – it keeps getting extended and used against others.

    Free speech for all – not just the ones you like.

    • Sanctuary 5.1
      29 August 2018 at 8:51 am

      No it isn’t, it is when some idiot in the National party decides to go Trump.

    • KJT 5.3
      29 August 2018 at 10:11 am

      Never thought i would agree with James, but this is correct.

      Shutting down speakers because someone finds them objectionable, is a very slippery slope.

      As for Chelsea Manning. Why is it those whose war crimes she exposed get to keep their jobs, while she was imprisoned for making them public? How, in any world, is that, justice!

    • Bill 5.4
      29 August 2018 at 10:17 am

      Like KJT, I had no real expectation there would come a day when we were in agreement James. Just goes to show…

    • Tricledrown 5.5
      29 August 2018 at 11:17 am

      Fascists want to shut down free speech
      Spread racial division aka Brash.
      Those who are proponents of shutting down freedoms should not have the right to free speech.
      Nobody stopped the Canadian neo Fascists coming to the country and speaking.

      • McFlock 5.5.1
        29 August 2018 at 1:30 pm

        Personally, I would have stopped them at the border.

        The slippery slope is simply that pearl-clutchers confuse “normalising fascist beliefs” with “someone saying something I don’t like”.

        That’s like confusing “I hit someone in self defense” with “I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die”.

    • mauī 5.6
      29 August 2018 at 12:23 pm

      Agree with James (who I dislike), KJT and Bill.

    • cleangreen 5.7
      29 August 2018 at 5:01 pm

      100% james, I’m with you there.

  6. SaveNZ 6
    29 August 2018 at 8:50 am

    Of course she should be allowed to speak. Personally think they all should have been allowed to speak. What the F is going on that NZ keeps thinking we should ban everyone!

    If you don’t like what they are saying, don’t go!

    • james 6.1
      29 August 2018 at 11:01 am

      Aggghhhh – SaveNZ and I are on exactly the same page (on this topic at least).

    • gsays 6.2
      29 August 2018 at 1:15 pm

      As to what is going on in nz…
      The times are a changing (the influence of his Bobness is strong in this one).

      I was reflecting on this a coupla days ago.
      There is no way Prodigy could release ‘smack my bitch up’ nowadays.

      Listening to Stevie Wonder in 20feet from stardom talking about a Ray Charles song, where the call and answer was mimicking sexual noises.

  7. Ad 7
    29 August 2018 at 8:55 am

    – Here to make money. Yes
    – Here to boost her international and domestic profile. Yes
    – Deliberately controversial. Yes
    – Sketchy academic and professional credentials. Yes

    So far, Manning is exactly the same as Southern and Molyneaux.

    But the left favours Manning coming here because she has extra things that only the left love:
    – Democratic candidate
    – Transsexual
    – Undermined the U.S. military

    And the left loves Manning particularly because her PR is more digestible, in turn because it is professionally done:
    – Organised by a professional touring company
    – Same company that toured Julian Assange, Dr Cornell West, and Edward Snowden

    None of the above has a single consistent principle operating in its judgement anywhere.

    • Professor Longhair 7.1
      29 August 2018 at 9:42 am

      This “Ad” tick has written what is perhaps the most depraved and stupid comment of the year. Does this site have any standards whatsoever?

      • Dennis Frank 7.1.1
        29 August 2018 at 9:45 am

        Seems like an accurate critique by Ad. What’s your problem? Wanna get specific?

      • te reo putake 7.1.2
        29 August 2018 at 9:48 am

        You are Morrissey Breen and I claim my five pounds.

      • Stunned Mullet 7.1.3
        29 August 2018 at 9:51 am

        ” Does this site have any standards whatsoever?”

        Well this site lets Morrissey Breen and his sockpuppets post copious amounts of crud so perhaps not.

        Perhaps consult here for more info

        https://thestandard.org.nz/policy/

      • The Chairman 7.1.4
        29 August 2018 at 10:25 am

        “Does this site have any standards whatsoever?”

        Yep, get a haircut.

      • Professor Longhair 7.1.5
        29 August 2018 at 3:40 pm

        It has been made clear to me that my characterization of one “Ad” earlier today was ill-advised and hasty, and that I had displayed all the discretion and good sense of an elephant in musth.

        I extend my apologies to “Ad” (whoever that may be) and offer only one explanation for my ungallant behaviour: too much ingestion, shortly before sending off my abusive message into cyberspace, of that substance beloved by the present incumbent of the White House, viz., cocaine.

        • Dennis Frank 7.1.5.1
          29 August 2018 at 3:50 pm

          Ah so. I honour your noble apology good sir. Shoot first, think later is a traditional male reaction, of course, but I oughtn’t assume your gender lest I get reprimanded by the gender police! 😎

        • reason 7.1.5.2
          29 August 2018 at 3:59 pm

          Professor Longhair the only mistake in your comment is Ad has made more offensive and stupid remarks than the one you responded to.

          He’s slandered Nicky Hager in a similar fashion to John Key … ie made up bullshit.

          And he’s very pro war …. although I doubt he’d have ‘the guts’ to walk into a room with chi;dren and take to their skulls with a hammer …. he’s more than happy to let people like Wayne mapp take NZ into the part of sticking metal into childrens heads.

          If your against war your a “wet” sooky baby according to Ad

    • Cinny 7.2
      29 August 2018 at 9:53 am

      Some right wingers appear to be anti whistle blowers…. I wonder why….?

      Collateral murder backers?

      Meanwhile stefan is still asking for money via his youtube rants, while his followers continue to suggest a call to arms.

    • dukeofurl 7.3
      29 August 2018 at 10:06 am

      Democratic candidate – you would have to look hard to find that out- She lost against a sitting democratic senator in the primary

      Undermined the military ? Oh yes releasing the helicopter footage showing the crew having ‘fun’ killing people.

      and BTW Woodhouse too has a police record which could restrict his travel options

      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11350616

    • Bill 7.4
      29 August 2018 at 10:15 am

      The fools who would have us pick and choose between supposedly worthy and unworthy people and apply the principle of free speech according to whatever washes out from their deliberations and bias, might want to reflect on the sheer breadth of the political spectrum that’s calling them on their bullshit.

      So far, and just on this thread as of 9 O’Clock, we have James, Ad and myself – hardly three people known for being in concert pointing to the same blindingly fucking obvious points. Again.

      I say “blindingly fucking obvious”, and yet still there’s a pack of liberals who seem to think free speech is all about political outcomes and/or scoring political points over their ideological adversaries.

      • KJT 7.4.1
        29 August 2018 at 10:24 am

        You can add me to the list.

        • Bill 7.4.1.1
          29 August 2018 at 10:54 am

          And Pat. And Red Logix. I can easily enough think of other regular site users who’d willingly add their names too.

          What I have real problems with is those, who having got it all wrong with Southern and Molyneax, expressed confusion, doubled down, kept digging…and fuck me if they aren’t still fucking well digging.

          And on posts and comments about how this culture that would presume to shut down and censor is being applied to left and progressive websites….my memory and impression is that there has not been so much as a fucking dicky bird from any of those same people.

        • Molly 7.4.1.2
          29 August 2018 at 11:05 am

          Me also. I was disappointed to see the narrow construct of discussion re Molyneaux and Southern. Very few seemed to disagree with the majority outrage and reaction.

        • SpaceMonkey 7.4.1.3
          29 August 2018 at 12:02 pm

          Me too.

      • RedLogix 7.4.2
        29 August 2018 at 10:46 am

        Agree totally Bill. It’s the defining issue which sorts the totalitarians out.

      • Sanctuary 7.4.3
        29 August 2018 at 10:48 am

        Actually what we have in this thread is a self selecting bunch of halfwits who seem incapable of assessing anything on a case by case basis, apply any sort of common sense analysis to the day by day complexities of life and instead demand simple rules for their simple minds so they need not be troubled by having to think.

        It is completely obvious to any objective analysis there is no equivalence between Molyneux/Southern and Manning. But muddlers are gonna muddle, I guess.

        • Cinny 7.4.3.1
          29 August 2018 at 10:59 am

          In one breath….. a self selecting bunch of halfwits who seem incapable of assessing anything on a case by case basis

          Nek minute…. there is no equivalence between Molyneux/Southern and Manning…

          Ummmm ok then Sanctuary…..

        • Bill 7.4.3.2
          29 August 2018 at 11:03 am

          That’s a repeat of a comment from a few weeks back, yes?

          But okay. What the fuck has assessing […] on a case by case basis got to do with the principle of free speech?

          I can easily enough assess whether I agree or disagree with some perspective or other, and I can even disagree with some to the extent I equate those perspectives with dog shit or whatever.

          But, explain to me how that ability ought to translate into me – or anyone else – being the arbiter of who gets to speak and who doesn’t?

          • Sanctuary 7.4.3.2.1
            29 August 2018 at 11:51 am

            “…But okay. What the fuck has assessing […] on a case by case basis got to do with the principle of free speech..?”

            because there is no such thing as “free speech”. Freedom of speech is conditional, always has been and always will be. There are rather just degrees of tolerance, permissiveness and relative freedom, with boundaries, legal, social and cultural, some of which we barely notice because they are so normative and others clear and laid out – Your freedom of speech is heavily curtailed in time of war, for example.

            We live in a society with permissive boundaries on what you can say. But if you test those boundaries, then you will be punished. Just as Chelsea Manning what happens when you try and exercise absolute free speech in a supposedly free society.

            in a democratic society the duty of the citizen is to engage with issues, not demand one size fits all solutions carved in stone.

            So let’s do a quick comparison.

            Is Manning a racist? No.

            Is Manning a peddler of baseless conspiracy theories? No.

            Is Manning a provocateur who is seeking to stir up trouble here largely for personal financial gain? No.

            What is Manning known for? For being a whistleblower, for which she spent several years in prison.

            What is Molyneux and Southern known for? Making Youtube videos bleating about how they are not as privileged as they think their skin colour entitles them to be.

            Does Manning make constant begging Youtube videos asking for money? No.

            Molyneux and Southern are fakes, famous for being famous in an echo chamber of miserably ignorant right wing conspiracy theorists and racists. Southern can get back to me on the courage of her convictions when she has the guts to wear her “OK to be White” tee shirt somewhere where her so-called commitment to her beliefs might actually have consequences like in South Central Los Angeles rather than in the safety of an airport arrival hall. Molyneux and Southern are all mouth and no trousers.

            Manning did something she thought was the right thing to do, the consequences of which have thrust her into the limelight. She was arrested and punished for this.

            Manning has walked her walk and has something interesting to say about those events, for which she has been invited here to talk about. Molyneux and Southern has nothing of consequence except stir up trouble so they can make a living out of their mischief.

            Need we go on?

            • Macro 7.4.3.2.1.1
              29 August 2018 at 1:27 pm

              +1

            • Cinny 7.4.3.2.1.2
              29 August 2018 at 2:22 pm

              Coolies Sanctuary, I was wondering where you were coming from before 🙂

            • adam 7.4.3.2.1.3
              29 August 2018 at 6:21 pm

              Good to see you climb on up that slippery slope Sanctuary, when did we make you the arbitre of what is acceptable or not not? When did we decide that you could say what is good or not? When did you become the moral arbitrator?

              I missed the memo.

              p.s. I find you attempts at staking out a moral high ground repulsive and deeply offensive, but you have the right to say such things. I’ll even defended your right to make such morally bankrupt statements any time.

            • Bill 7.4.3.2.1.4
              29 August 2018 at 8:57 pm

              Need we go on? you ask – as though you left the fucking starting block.

              Will we try again?

              I can easily enough assess whether I agree or disagree with some perspective or other, and I can even disagree with some to the extent I equate those perspectives with dog shit or whatever.

              But, explain to me how that ability ought to translate into me – or anyone else – being the arbiter of who gets to speak and who doesn’t?

              Hmm. Get. this. through. your. apparently thick. skull…

              I can agree 100% with your take on what or who Manning and Southern and Molyneaux (and whoever else) are, or what they and their views are in comparison to one other (obnoxious/odious/acceptable/laudable)… and neither your view, nor my view, nor anyone else’s view on those things has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not to hold to or defend the principle of free speech.

              So again. Same question – with obvious and already existing legal caveats in place. Why should you, or I, or anyone be accepted as arbiters of what people should be allowed to say if they are not breaking existing laws in saying what they say?

              You ready? On your marks! Get set! ….Go!

              • arkie …
                29 August 2018 at 9:15 pm

                From Emma Hart on Public Address:

                A while back, there was a campaign around diversity in board gaming and role-playing called You Are Welcome at my Table. On the surface of it, that’s a great idea, but underneath, it bugged me. If you say that everyone is welcome at your table, then some people are really going to feel unwelcome. You’re only halfway there. If you want pressured minorities at your tables, in your spaces, then you are going to have to say to the people who persecute them, “No. You are not welcome. Kindly be on your way.” Unfettered free speech or free access is like an unfettered free market; it preserves the inequalities that already exist.

                https://publicaddress.net/up-front/roar/

                The whole post is worth a read.

                • Dennis Frank …
                  29 August 2018 at 9:43 pm

                  I went & read it. Just left me feeling a little sad for her. That leftist virtue-signalling hall of mirrors thing is a terrible affliction for anyone.

                  Of course free speech “preserves the inequalities that already exist”. That’s because it operates like a level playing field, and players of unequal ability have their inequalities preserved on it. Duh!

                  You think she really can’t understand that?? What’s wrong with our education system nowadays, if students get through it without learning how to think clearly about important issues?

                  • arkie …
                    29 August 2018 at 11:08 pm

                    I think the idea is that in a liberal society is that we are trying to be inclusive of those of unequal ability as you put it. be it their gender, race or class.

                    While your sadness is probably an appropriate response to Emma Hart’s words; your patronising complaints about the education system nowadays not so much.

                  • solkta …
                    30 August 2018 at 7:15 am

                    I guess back in the nineteenth century when you went to school they taught them real good.

            • marty mars 7.4.3.2.1.5
              29 August 2018 at 9:34 pm

              + 1 yep pretty basic 101 stuff but too hard for some obviously.

    • dukeofurl 7.5
      29 August 2018 at 10:51 am

      The essential rationale for not letting Southern and Molyneaux speak here is this:

      Human Rights Act
      131. Inciting racial disharmony
      (1)
      Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $7,000 who, with intent to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons…

      Big difference from a sort of This is my life story from Chelsea Manning

    • james 7.6
      29 August 2018 at 11:02 am

      No to mention – Southern and Molyneaux were perfectly entitled to come to NZ and had all the appropiate visas etc.

      Manning is here to profit off a crime.

      • Cinny 7.6.1
        29 August 2018 at 11:09 am

        At least one of them has a venue lolololz.

        Who is the real criminal?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zok8yMxXEwk

        Can’t get my head around the intentions of woodhouse, distraction from Pike?

      • dukeofurl 7.6.2
        29 August 2018 at 11:31 am

        “Manning is here to profit off a crime.”

        You forget that Southern was here to commit crimes , this:

        “Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $7,000 who, with intent to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins ..

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 7.6.3
        29 August 2018 at 2:38 pm

        “Manning is here to profit off a crime.”

        Crimes such as exposing the murder of infants and elderly civilians by US troops.

        “A US diplomatic cable said that American troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including and infant an a 70-year old woman, and then called in an air strike to destroy the evidence.”

    • McFlock 7.7
      29 August 2018 at 1:36 pm

      – Deliberately controversial.

      Is that shorthand for “came to NZ in order to make fascists feel warm and cuddly”?

      • Incognito 7.7.1
        29 August 2018 at 8:53 pm

        Both Ad and Trotter are labelling Manning as “controversial” and it’s not meant to be a compliment I believe.

        If I had too, I’d use the label of “complex”; Manning is a complex personality, which by itself makes her interesting and worthwhile listening to.

      • Bill 7.7.2
        29 August 2018 at 9:06 pm

        You and your fellow travelers feeling warm and cuddly then?

        I guess, given the banishment of Alex “the loon” Jones, so soon after the Southern and Molyneaux “win”, you may well all be cuddling warmly before your flames of righteousness.

        Meanwhile, that same righteous torch you help to bear is being set beneath the left, and if comments on relevant posts on this blog are anything to go by, you don’t give a flying fuck, because “on balance” and “all things considered” and “result”.

        • marty mars 7.7.2.1
          29 August 2018 at 9:42 pm

          banished alex? – he’s still there on some social media platforms, still got all his followers and who gives a fuck – you’ll fight for alex jones? lol amazing

        • McFlock 7.7.2.2
          29 August 2018 at 10:19 pm

          You know what – I don’t really give a flying fuck. If someone is spouting hate and dogwhistling to psychos, nobody is required to give those pricks a platform and frankly we can do without issuing them visitor visas, too.

          If they’re spouting extermination of someone else or justifying the murder of innocents, fuck ’em.

          Should large organisations have policies in place for establishing take-down procedures? Yes. Should they have appeal processes for deciding if such an order is unjust? Of course. Do successful appeals mean the entire system should be abandoned? No. It might mean the system needs to be improved a bit, but the principle is sound.

          Note that nowhere in this comment have I said whether this applies to tories alone. It applies to everyone. What controversial opinions does Manning have?

          • Bill 7.7.2.2.1
            30 August 2018 at 11:16 am

            If anyone is calling for injury or injuries to be inflicted on individuals or identifiable groups of people, there are existing laws that can be rolled out against them.

            No-one has claimed that any person is required to give any other person a platform.

            Moving on from extending or applying the principle of free speech across the board such that anyone has the same right to spout nonsense and/or bullshit as anyone else, and everyone is subject to the same legal consequences for speech deemed to be hateful/damaging/injurious…

            There is nothing wrong with either large organisations, or small organisations having “terms of service”. The problem is when that “large” organisation is the only organisation providing a service, and it has somewhat nebulous or ill defined “terms of service” that it then willfully employs at the bidding of government – eg, (and only most obviously) facebook and Israel, or google and China.

            Said it elsewhere. These monopolies (google, fb, youtube etc) need to be treated like public utilities and regulated such that our access to them is protected.

            This current bullshit situation, where they are acting as willing enforcers for censorious governments , or for powerful groups associated with permanent and unelected institutions of government, doesn’t end well.

            • McFlock 7.7.2.2.1.1
              30 August 2018 at 2:07 pm

              If anyone is calling for injury or injuries to be inflicted on individuals or identifiable groups of people, there are existing laws that can be rolled out against them.

              Not dogwhistling. Not heavily implying it. Not feeding someone’s ethno-paranoia.

              There’s a middle ground between locking someone up for incitement and assuming that their speech is harmless. That ground includes denying entry visas.

              No-one has claimed that any person is required to give any other person a platform.

              cf:

              These monopolies (google, fb, youtube etc) need to be treated like public utilities and regulated such that our access to them is protected.

              So Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Page are required to give everyone a platform, then…

              • Bill …
                30 August 2018 at 4:55 pm

                If you want racist dog-whistling, implied intent or whatever, or feeding into someone’s “ethno-paranoia” dealt with by way of convictions or what not being handed down, then….Phil Twyford and the NZ Labour Party caucus, Don Brash and WInston Peters come to mind straight away.

                I’d also guess a lot of “entertainment” programming, advertising and news reporting would be subject to court action too.

                Who said speech either falls into a category marked “incitement” or is harmless? Not me. The world is full of dangerous ideas. I think I cleave to a few myself 🙂

                cf? I already laid out the difference lies in the fact we’re talking about monopolies. (Not to mention we’re talking about a service provider as opposed to allowing thoughts to be aired by way of speech in a hall or from a soap box in a city square or whatever)

                So, Mark Zuckerman…

                Yes. Subject to a regulatory framework that is put in place by a third party – eg, government, and that has the interests of (since we’re essentially talking money making platforms) consumer rights sitting at their core.

                • McFlock …
                  30 August 2018 at 5:25 pm

                  ISTR one such ‘documentary’ was removed from a NZ online film archive just recently for exactly that reason – it wasn’t incitement, but it did forment racist myths.

                  I have no problem with this.

                  And just as you talked about why Zuckerberg is an exception, I’ve talked about why neofascists are an exception.

                  • Bill …
                    30 August 2018 at 6:41 pm

                    And just as you talked about why Zuckerberg is an exception, I’ve talked about why neofascists are an exception.

                    Come back to me when you care to explain what the regulation of a public utility has to do with people airing their thoughts/ideas.

                    Southern and Molyneux are liberals btw (Somewhat fundamentalist, but liberal nevertheless). Even a cursory glance at their obnoxious and objectionable politics and messaging reveals that. But still, I guess in your world, they can still fall foul of your “neofascist” exception because it’s you who calls the shots on what is and isn’t neofascist…..well, you and Woodhouse and who-ever else who may be looking to assign themselves as gatekeepers of “acceptable” thoughts and words.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 August 2018 at 7:53 pm

                      Because what you call a public utility (is that because “monopoly” was insufficient?) is also owned by someone with thoughts and ideas on what they want to air.

                      As for your definition of liberal, whatever. They still argue cultural superirority of whites and pretend that the dominant ethnic group is somehow under existential threat. Not even a “public utility” should have to air that shit.

                    • Bill …
                      30 August 2018 at 10:21 pm

                      I used the term “public utility” because (as argued) that’s what these monopolies should be looked upon as and managed as.

                      Facebook is not a publisher. Facebook does not operate like a newspaper. And Facebook cannot be taken to court for anything that might appear on their platform.

                      And Zuckerman is only interested in data and advertising and money.

                      And again, your insistence on deciding what other people should and should not be allowed to think and/or say on the basis (as per previous comments) of a bar that would be “correctly” set if it aligned with your idea of what neo-fascism is.

                      Irony not your strong suit?

                    • McFlock …
                      31 August 2018 at 2:21 pm

                      Facebook is indeed a publisher.

                      Yes, they can be taken to court over what they publish.

                      And yes, pretty much all publishers are focused on data, advertising and money. You think the stuff quizzes are just a handy timewaster? No, they ask questions about products and current news stories. They’re market research.

                      You call it irony, I call it the paradox of tolerance. Just because I don’t believe in hitting people I don’t like, it doesn’t mean I’ll turn the other cheek. Self defense is ok in my book, and fascists are dangerous bastards. And I call them that because people associated with folks who march in torchlight parades saying “the Jews will not replace us” have precious-few appropriate descriptions of their political territory.

                      But while we’re on the subject of ironic denotation, I guess that’s just another thing you’re allowed to do that I’m not: call social media companies “public utilities”. Take that one to Twitter, mate, it’s priceless.

                    • Bill …
                      31 August 2018 at 2:54 pm

                      McFlock, Facebook aren’t a publisher. There is no editorial voice, no “facebook news” or “facebook stories”… users self publish their material through a platform called facebook.

                      And that Lewis case. Did it get heard or kicked out of court? I can’t see anything beyond the initial reports that a case was being filed. But going by previous attempts to claim defamation in British courts (by various Russians slandered by Browder or Steele) it won’t fly.

                      Hmm. You do understand my claim is that facebook etc are monopolies, but that their service or presence is so ubiquitous that they ought to be treated as public utilities and regulated accordingly, yes?

                      And still applying a selective [mis]understanding to Popper’s supposed “paradox of tolerance” I see. Oh well. (Hint – neither NZ or anywhere else practices “tolerance without limit”. The limits are set by law and revolve around such things as incitement.)

                    • McFlock …
                      31 August 2018 at 3:15 pm

                      You’re welcome to post links to the effect that the previous cases which went to court were kicked out because FB was above the law, rather than simply that the cases had no merit.

                      And users submit content to FB, and FB publishes that content. Yes, the process is automatic, but FB can decline to publish some information or to some people. Blocked content ring a bell?

                      Your reliance on existing legal limits is essentially an appeal to authority, by the way. You’ve given no justification as to why you think the line for all forms of free speech should be at the point of criminality, or why the point of criminality should be placed just there. I go by the position that current hate speech laws only cover explicit threats, whereas self defense legislation also covers implicit threats via a reasonableness test. And I think hatemongers like the canadians exploit that gap.

                    • Bill …
                      31 August 2018 at 3:30 pm

                      But going by previous attempts to claim defamation in British courts (by various Russians slandered by Browder or Steele) it won’t fly.

                      You understand the defendants in those cases were Browder and Steele, not facebook?

                      But if you can find any court case that has led to facebook being prosecuted for material on the facebook platform, then I’d really appreciate the link. I don’t think you’ll find anything though. If they were publishers, there would doubtless be pages and pages of successfully executed cases.

                      I see Trump said he was going to get to the bottom of white farmers being murdered in South Africa (something like that). Shame people didn’t actually engage with what Southern would have spouted (if she’d allowed to speak) and instead, by silencing her, arguably gave that bullshit ( via her Farmlands doco) a free run to the US President (and some big wig in Oz too).

                    • McFlock …
                      31 August 2018 at 4:28 pm

                      No, I did not know that because you did not link to the cases to which you referred.

                      But you literally said “And Facebook cannot be taken to court for anything that might appear on their platform.”.

                      This might or might not be true in the US. But US legislation does not yet control the rest of the world.

                      And Southern wasn’t providing avenues for “engagement”. And even if people were able to meaningfully engage, all that does is bore people with debates about statistical methodologies while legitimising with respect a point of view with no validity at all. And what good does it do to pretend that Southern and Molyneux don’t already know this?

                    • Bill …
                      31 August 2018 at 7:04 pm

                      And even if people were able to meaningfully engage, all that does is bore people with debates about statistical methodologies while legitimising with respect a point of view with no validity at all. And what good does it do to pretend that Southern and Molyneux don’t already know this?

                      Well, you could (like that BBC link) do the whole statistics mumbo that generally leaves people confused. Or you could point to “The Suidlanders” who apparently took credit for spreading the farmer panic and the wider concept of “white genocide” around the world.

                      https://mg.co.za/article/2018-03-23-00-radical-right-plugs-swart-gevaar

                      https://splinternews.com/trump-thrills-white-supremacists-with-tweet-about-south-1828542149

                      And you could, y’know, look for any links between Lauren Southern, The Suidlanders, her trip to S.A. and their tour of N. America.

                      edit – as it is, you and me and whoever can state “she’s racist”, and as comments on this forum have shown, when people say “How so? Show me?” or go on about the “terrible situation in S.A.”….there’s fuck all response. None. Go trawl through comments and you’ll see it for yourself.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 September 2018 at 12:21 am

                      Yeah, you could do that. If you get to debate with her on an equal footing, and get to fact-check her bullshit in real time. And if all that happens, then she still wins because you treated her fucking bullshit as if it was a reasonable and respectable position in the first place. And excerpts are edited and all the little fascists empower each other with “Southern OWNS libtard!!!” videos.

                      And as for whether Southern is a racist, you literally just linked to an article that describes how she’s made entire movies based on lies made by racist groups arming themselves for a race war, and you want other people to justify their position that she’s racist? Big surprise that people ignore demands to justify the fucking obvious. What about this one – getting racey enough for you? The “it’s ok to be white” tshirt good enough if you add that in? Distributing racist material has been discussed in posts. And then look at the fucking company she keeps, the people she does double-billings with, and the people who pay to see her acts and watch her content.

                      And some of that comes from this very site, so it’s not like her racism has never been discussed or the accusation justified here.

                    • Bill …
                      1 September 2018 at 10:25 am

                      The point is that (some) people took the charge that she’s racist on faith. That’s lazy and dangerous (take that on faith, and what else might be taken on faith?)

                      I know Farmlands is full of racist bile. I skyted through it when the pair hit the blogs/airwaves. And I sat and watched the comments on this blog, noticing that whenever anyone was asked to illustrate how or where or when Southern had been racist, there was just tumble weeds in spite of that obvious source..

                      I assume then, that (many) people looking to kill off any broadcast of “fascism”, hadn’t even bothered to find out precisely what views were being promulgated by the person they were seeking to shut down and/or the actual nature of those views and/or where and why and at whose behest those views were being peddled. In other words, they were being led by the nose.

                      I haven’t said there was no discussion here or elsewhere btw. Precious little of substance though, before a lot of emotive vacuity.

                      And like I said, nothing much of substance countering the message from The Suidlanders meant it got a free run to Trump and to Australia’s Dutton (Minister of Home Affairs) who offered special immigration criteria be applied to white South Africans because the only message out there was that white farmers in SA were being slaughtered.

                      I can almost imagine a discussion with Trump (and others) that goes, very loosely, something like “White S.A. farmers are being slaughtered!” and the question “Are you sure?” is asked, and ”the big picture” that pops up from a quick look, is stuff from Southern, Hopkins and the rest of them on one side, and on the other, stuff about people trying to shut them down, and some simple conclusion popping up about how they are heroes for free speech bravely trying to carry forth a difficult message. 🙄

                      People who claim to be staunchly opposed to stuff they label as fascism – not other forms of totalitarianism though (or so it seems) – have made some wonderful contributions to the above by being (in part) down right lazy and thoughtless.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 September 2018 at 2:18 pm

                      Hate to break it to you, but pretty much any proposition is taken at face value by a large proportion of the planet. If you want people in general to support or oppose things only after doing what you regard as an appropriate level of research, you’re shit out of luck.

                      But that doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

                      As for what goes on in the dolt45 white house, nothing in their behaviour leads me to infer that they look at any issue from more than one side, and they barely glance at even that side.

                    • Bill …
                      2 September 2018 at 3:08 pm

                      Very good McFlock.

                      So what you’re telling me is that the next time you decide to engage* with some person you regard as being fascist, you’ll go off all half cocked again, not bother to get informed again, and not give a fuck about any consequences that might flow from any ill-informed and stupid action you might be partaking in.

                      Jolly.

                      * If those Canadians had simply been ignored, they’d have given a speech to a few dozen converts and they and their message would have remained invisible.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 September 2018 at 9:19 pm

                      You call it “half cocked”. I still made an accurate call.

                      If those Canadians had simply been ignored, they’d have given a speech to a few dozen converts and they and their message would have remained invisible.

                      That’s how fascists become dangerous. They are a little group that manages to cobble together support while people ignore them until they get parliamentary representation, at which point the fascists get called by the power elite to break a parliamentary tie. At that point they leverage themselves into power.

                      Fascists should never be ignored.

                    • Bill …
                      2 September 2018 at 10:38 pm

                      That’s how fascists become dangerous. They are a little group that manages to cobble together support while people ignore them until …

                      You mean a little group like The Suidlanders who sent people off to tour the US looking for support, who then got Southern and Hopkins to go to S.A. and make utterly racist documentaries about how they, white farmers, are being slaughtered ?

                      Who have spread a message that’s barely been challenged (you linked to stats and poo-pooed the suggestion actual links be investigated)….that kind of little group?

                      A little group whose members wound up being offered some sort of “fast track” immigration deal by Australia?

                      A little group you’d be happy remained invisible because all you can be arsed to do is sit around shouting “fascist!” at a couple of idiot Canadian liberal fundamentalists, thus ensuring that they (the Canadians) and the message they were running with got huge exposure?

                      Fuckssake. 🙄

                    • McFlock …
                      2 September 2018 at 11:16 pm

                      Yeah. Like those guys.

                      Because they didn’t just get a couple of youtubers. They got money. They got support. They got links to similar groups in the US. All of which nobody would know about if it weren’t for people protesting S&M.

                      It’d just be festering away, and growing.

                      Like the fuckers here. We now know there are enough fascists in NZ to make such a gig financially viable, but not enough to actually hold it. Good. Let’s keep it that way.

                    • Bill …
                      3 September 2018 at 11:40 am

                      Their links involve Southern. But because people like you just wanted to stand around shouting “fascist!”, and because you were happy enough to cede moral high ground around the principle of free speech, and because, having chosen to pay attention/engage, you didn’t engage fully – those guys, and Southern’s links to them, and the politically motivated basis for that whole Farmlands documentary etc…that all slipped right under the radar.

                      Instead, people like you helped create a favourable public narrative for them that revolved around free speech, when the narrative (seeing as how they weren’t ignored) should have been about their ideas and thoughts.

                      And out of that abysmal failure at engagement, Dutton made an offer of favoured immigration status to white South African farmers/land owners ….

                      I’m also (finally) very curious as to why you insist on the lazy labeling? Nothing that Southern or Molyneux says is unique to fascism and the threat to the white “race” and cultural superiority stuff is quintessentially liberal.

                      Segregation of the so-called races, following on from many decades of straight up enslavement of one so-called race by another because “superior” all happened many, many years before fascism was ever dreamed up by Mussolini. And the “yellow peril” (another “threat” to the white “race”) was also doing the rounds well before fascism. Colonialism – that thing justified by notions of superiority? – that happened way before fascism too.

                      So, is there anything in the rush to label people like Southern as “fascist” beyond laziness and ignorance?

                      edit – You write All of which nobody would know about.. in relation to The Suidlanders. But if you do a google search of The Sydney Morning Herald, Stuff, Guardian etc, although you’ll get hit after hit for a search on Lauren Southern, you’ll get zero for Suidlander. “Nobody” knows….

                    • McFlock …
                      3 September 2018 at 4:22 pm

                      what a load of bollocks.

                      We could “engage” according to your rules, using words like “liberal” in a context that most people have never come across. It might be “lazy labelling” (and marked down if I were writing a phd thesis), but at least it gets the point across and even if it doesn’t meet the approval of the lord high arbitrator of all that is proper, it’s pretty accurate. I’m not writing laws. I’m just calling it how I see it.

                      When fuckers waving tiki torches aren’t linking to their videos, then you come back to me with how the content isn’t “unique to fascism”. Snappy clothes aren’t unique to fascism either, but put a package of that shit together and people start looking a bit wary.

                      There was no “rush” to label anyone. It’s just that most people can read the cliff notes without having to parse every word anyone ever said or wrote.

                      As for whatever slipped under the radar – no, it didn’t, really. You’re fixating on just one aspect of the Canadians’ ouvre and then complaining that a specific label hasn’t been used by Stuff (amongst others). And blaming me for it.

                      So what approach would you have taken? Maybe given her an opportunity to talk about that, so you talk about the Suidlanders, so she calls them simply a union or the equivalent of a kapa haka group, so rather than talking about the SA murder rate you get dragged into either a statistical quagmire (never resolvable, but makes her point look valid) or a supposedly rational debate about whether the Suidlanders are a hate group or a bunch of really nice chaps with valid and serious concerns (with lots of gloopy stories of white people being murdered, any one of which might or might not be true).

                      This is not an area for rational debate and strict use of technical nomeclature. These folks play chess to stalemate, not to win, because even a stalemate normalises their discussions as part of the acceptable political spectrum. Fuck that.

  8. greywarshark 8
    29 August 2018 at 10:14 am

    Chelsea must be able to come.l She has brought forward information that reveals plots and bad intentions of the people at the top of the political-military tree who tend to be warmongers and anti-people and our wellbeing. She wants to help ordinary vulnerable persons to know what is happening so we may be able to protect ourselves from the worst outcomes.

    The other two whio wanted to, and did speak.were bringers of disinformation and selected speech that is in the anti-people and our wellbeing category. These two were inclined to foment negative feelings against vulnerable persons, and had no wish to help all have better outcomes.

    • Stunned Mullet 8.1
      29 August 2018 at 10:19 am

      🙄

    • Chris T 8.2
      29 August 2018 at 10:29 am

      Lol

      FFS

    • KJT 8.3
      29 August 2018 at 10:32 am

      The first two were all of the things you say.

      However, if you “no platform” the first two, you give ammunition, to those who want to remove speakers like Chelsea Manning. Not too mention all the free publicity.

      • dukeofurl 8.3.1
        29 August 2018 at 11:35 am

        deplatform ?

        The right was quite happy about doing that for Hone Hawawira back in 2011. Not a squeak from those who have suddenly found free speech trumps all.

        Farrar made a big deal about ‘the right to protest ‘ at the time, which was campus young nats p.o.v

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4996046/Harawira-lecture-axed-because-of-redneck-racism
        https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/05/the_right_to_protest.html

      • greywarshark 8.3.2
        29 August 2018 at 12:12 pm

        I am bothered by the free speech thing. The right generally have the money to buy-fund people who are happy to get trips around the world, be in the limelight, and shape their cant to whatever brings the dosh. If there is no limitation, no requirements at all, apart from the brutally simple one of ‘does the speech incite violence’, then we will get drowned in dangerous slush, toxic ideas whether diluted so they don’t sound violent; thinking gets put aside with a tl;dr.

        All the good cases made for ‘free speech ‘ and free rights etc don’t allow for the unpleasant leading to menacing in-your-face opportunity this provides. The harrassment and moving imprisonment on others as they try to pursue their own lives and solutions is hard to bear and for others who believe in reason coupled with freedom, hard to watch. These lovers of freedom impose on others their own unpleasant or horridly prejudiced and limiting worlds.

        The unfettered free speech and rights movement become bullies and stalkers. People who don’t have concern and respect for all others, are quick to utilise the rights that a society based on the age of reason and

        Free speech grew and enabled – the Nuremburg Rallies.!
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Rally

        https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/propaganda-in-nazi-germany/
        [To] ensure that everybody could hear Hitler speak, Goebbels organised the sale of cheap radios. these were called the “People’s Receiver” and they cost only 76 marks. A smaller version cost just 35 marks. Goebbels believed that if Hitler was to give speeches, the people should be able to hear him.

        Loud speakers were put up in streets so that people could not avoid any speeches by the Fuhrer. Cafes and other such properties were ordered to play in public speeches by Hitler.

        It is necessary to invoke the past to try and scare some thoughts about realities of human instinctual thinking into the minds of apologists who think they are being thoughtful. Think again.

        Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason questioned the Bible and religion.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason

        Paine advocates reason in the place of revelation, leading him to reject miracles and to view the Bible as an ordinary piece of literature rather than as a divinely inspired text. It promotes natural religion and argues for the existence of a creator-god.

        Most of Paine’s arguments had long been available to the educated elite, but by presenting them in an engaging and irreverent style, he made deism appealing and accessible to the masses. Originally distributed as unbound pamphlets, the book was also cheap, putting it within the reach of a large number of buyers.

        Fearing the spread of what they viewed as potentially revolutionary ideas, the British government prosecuted printers and book-sellers who tried to publish and distribute it. Nevertheless, Paine’s work inspired and guided many free thinkers.

        Free thinkers of the type above are probably the genesis of those who now advance free speech. In the past the authorities tried to suppress Paine’s ideas against organised religion, less superstition and more reason. And in the past Hitler and his Nazis gained strength until they could suppress any ideas against those firing people up for a great new future. the one he was able to impose. Free speech on a theme that gains a big following which ignores negative consequences can destroy a society.

  9. Dennis Frank 9
    29 August 2018 at 10:45 am

    Gholriz, on behalf of the Greens: “In what kind of surreal nightmare does a person who exposes war crimes against civilians and journalists undergo lifelong punishment? In whose interest is it to treat a whistleblower with more condemnation than the abusers she exposed?”
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/106646095/criticism-over-chelsea-mannings-nz-visit-is-about-condemning-whistleblowers

    The traditional arselicker syndrome has long resided in the National Party psyche along with closet-fascism. So when a National MP recycles the US military and US rightist line that patriotism must prevail over civil rights, we know what syndrome is operating.

    Subservience to the strong arm of the patriarchy is predictable in right-wing politics but I’m sceptical that it continues to be effective in winning public support. More likely that it just makes Nats look like rather antiquated clowns, in the minds of the third of the electorate who self-identify as neither left nor right.

    Manning is an archetypal whistle-blower of immense personal courage and moral conviction. Such a role model ought not to just be welcome here, they ought to be celebrated for their exemplary behaviour at the top level of politics. If the current government fails to do so, it may become necessary to describe them as a bunch of cowards. They ought to provide public support for Manning!

    I recall reading the classic novel From Here To Eternity when young, about the US military culture in the fifties, and being profoundly affected by the realisation that recruits actually died in the process of being taught conformity. How Manning is still alive after that & seven years in a US prison is inexplicable.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1
      29 August 2018 at 11:38 am

      +111

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 9.2
      29 August 2018 at 2:39 pm

      Absolutely!

    • Incognito 9.3
      29 August 2018 at 2:41 pm

      First comment, as far as I can tell, that mentions “moral”, which is very telling in its own right.

      Some people here have argued in terms of outcomes and some have in terms of principles but few seem to discuss free speech explicitly in terms of values, value judgments, or moral reasoning. IMHO this is the number one reason why so many socio-political ‘discussions’ end up nowhere and people either talk past each other or start to get ‘nasty’ …

      • Dennis Frank 9.3.1
        29 August 2018 at 3:43 pm

        It’s an important political dimension inasmuch as it connects to both social psychology & culture. Having grown up in an era when morality became a dirty word (having been enforced by christians into sterile convention), I’ve come to see the moral dimension as a way of cutting across class lines, and the boundaries defined by identity politics.

        I’m no expert on it, don’t think anyone is, but since I read The Moral Animal back in the nineties I’ve been reflecting on how morality arises organically in human society, so I call it how I see it. Authentic role models such as Manning perform an exemplary function from which younger generations take their cue. Hollywood & novels give us continuity on this stuff, but real life is always more powerful.

        • Incognito 9.3.1.1
          29 August 2018 at 8:47 pm

          Yes, “morality” is now a charged/loaded word/concept. However, regardless of whether one is aware and explicitly acknowledges it, one’s value system is an important part of one’s identity and as such it feeds directly into one’s opinions, for example.

          It’s important also to note that identity and culture are linked (interwoven) but also acquired attributes and not (as) fixed as some like to think. In fact, some cling to their values’ for dear life in fear of losing their identity (ego) and/or becoming a social pariah (i.e. excluded from their peer-groups).

          I think it would be highly beneficial to reframe socio-political issues in terms of a values framework rather and discuss these important and complex issues accordingly. But nobody wants to go there, it seems, because it’s too abstract, not pragmatic enough (i.e. ineffective), too much finger-wagging, etc.

  10. Stuart Munro 10
    29 August 2018 at 11:18 am

    I don’t think Manning is really the issue – it’s more Woodhouse sending a message to the US far right, and as usual, struggling for local relevance.

    We’re a joined up world now (apart from those of us suffering the intermittent services of NZ’s largest internet host), and Manning’s message would not be suppressed even were Woodhouse to achieve his dream of arbitrary suppression of Left aligned speakers.

  11. chris73 11
    29 August 2018 at 11:25 am

    The standard for banning someone from speaking should be extremely high, let her speak

  12. Tuppence Shrewsbury 12
    29 August 2018 at 11:30 am

    If she’s allowed in under immigration law, she should be allowed to speak. If she’s given special dispensation from immigration law to speak that’s a whole different story.

    I’m not sure what the threshold is for immigration to deny people a visa is in New Zealand based on their criminal history.

    • Draco T Bastard 12.1
      29 August 2018 at 11:42 am

      I’m not sure what the threshold is for immigration to deny people a visa is in New Zealand based on their criminal history.

      She has been convicted of a crime which means that she doesn’t pass the Good Character test and so she would need to get special dispensation to get a visa to enter.

  13. Jimmy 13
    29 August 2018 at 12:06 pm

    If she would normally be allowed in by immigration for a holiday, then yes I think she should be allowed to speak. If not due to serious convictions (eg. Mike Tyson?) then no she doesn’t get in to NZ.
    Don Brash (and the Canadians) should of been allowed to speak too, cant have free speech for some. They would have pretty small audiences anyway, but now they are all getting heaps of publicity.

    • greywarshark 13.1
      29 August 2018 at 1:38 pm

      Well at least they get some sort of publicity and discussion going, restarting the cogs and wheels so they don’t get rusty. But let’s face it Don Brash keeps on saying the same things and just to be current he has to say rude things about our society while posing as some wise old Saruman (the Man of Skill) who cares about hobbitville. I say “You shall not pass.” They will not educate us to a level that we could examine at primary school level. They don’t reach modern intellectual standards.

  14. Jackel 14
    29 August 2018 at 1:57 pm

    Anyone is free to speak here as long as they don’t incite the undermining of basic human rights.

  15. You_Fool 15
    29 August 2018 at 3:57 pm

    Has anyone noted the fact that the Wolf of Wall Street came here during Woodhouse’s time as Immigration Minister?

    Has anyone asked him why it is ok for that scam-artist to come but it isn’t for Manning?

    • Dennis Frank 15.1
      29 August 2018 at 9:28 pm

      Yes. Probably not, would be the answer to the second question. I know from working with them professionally for a decade that journalists don’t find it easy to respond if you ask them about something that happened yesterday. Ask them about something that happened last week, the eyes glaze over. Ask them about something that happened years ago they’ll look at you as if you’re crazy.

      But, if Woodhouse was asked, he’d point out that Belfort is now an entertainer & educator. His book was fun, no doubt his stand-up anecdotes are even better, and he was here to provide tuition for local capitalists. Top game-players get that way by figuring out how to finesse the rules of any game, so he’d explain how to run rings around the SEC & any local regulators.

  16. Drowsy M. Kram 16
    29 August 2018 at 4:12 pm

    Southern and Molyneux spent some time in New Zealand, and expressed their views while here. When arrangements for their initial (two?) performance venues fell through, they did not persevere.

    Manning did hard time for leaking ‘sensitive material’.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dinkar-jain/mockery-of-justice-abu-gh_b_3790616.html

    http://werewolf.co.nz/2018/08/gordon-campbell-on-nationals-crusade-against-chelsea-manning/

    The principle of free speech means Southern, Molyneux and Manning should be free to publicise their belief systems, but can this principle be stretched to provide equal access to all performance venues – free speech vs free market.

    https://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/events/whats-on/Antidote/2018/chelsea-manning.html

    https://thetivoli.com.au/events/an-evening-with-chelsea-manning

    Interestingly, for the Tivoli event under-18s must be accompanied by a parent or guardian. A frivolous question – does that stipulation infringe on Manning’s right to free speech?

  17. Paul Campbell 17
    29 August 2018 at 4:52 pm

    Don’t forget that Woodhouse is pretty homophobic, I’m still pretty disgusted at the response I got from him during the marriage bill. He may be playing this for other reasons as well …

  18. veutoviper 18
    29 August 2018 at 8:01 pm

    I have been non-communcato today so have not caught up with all of today’s action here or elsewhere including whether Manning should be allowed into NZ to speak. My opinion is absolutely yes; as it was re Southern and Molyneux although I think they are just con artists – nothing more, nothing less.

    I am not sure whether anyone has raised it here, but what has crossed my mind since discussion started as to whether Manning will be allowed into NZ because of her convictions, is whether she has already got a visa to enter Australia.

    Like S & M, Manning’s visit to NZ is part of a tour of Australia and NZ whereby she is due to speak in Sydney (2 Sept) and Melbourne (7 Sept) before Auckland (8 Sept) and Wellington (9 Sept), then returning to Brisbane for her final speech there on 11 Sept.

    Several main Australian media have reported in detail on Woodhouse’s call for Manning to be banned from NZ, but nothing as to whether she has been granted entry to Australia.

    The Sydney Morning Herald only states that comment has been requested from the Australian Department of Home Affairs about whether Manning has been granted a visa.

    https://www.smh.com.au/world/oceania/call-for-chelsea-manning-to-be-barred-from-nz-20180828-p500ap.html

    The Australian reports that the Australian Department of Home Affairs said it wouldn’t comment on particular applications when asked whether it had granted Ms Manning a visa, but a spokeswoman said that a substantial criminal record was, however, grounds for barring someone.

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/call-for-manning-to-be-barred-from-nz/news-story/3fd49f2da15e7113dbe717956726691a

    The Guardian says nothing about Manning even going to Australia but does report that Manning tweeted last year that she was banned from entering Canada due to her criminal convictions. However, she managed to secure a Canadian visa in May this year.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/29/ban-felon-chelsea-manning-from-new-zealand-urge-opposition-mps

    Here in NZ, the latest media report I could find was RNZ News which reported two hours ago that Manning’s Think Inc director, Mikee Tucker, said that the team handling Ms Manning’s visa application had advised him that her special direction was likely to be granted this week.
    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/365221/chelsea-manning-s-visa-expected-to-be-granted

    So it will be interesting to see whether Australia and NZ again both grant visas despite our differences in immigration laws.

  19. Keith Hawkins 19
    30 August 2018 at 1:20 am

    Daniel Ellsberg was considered a hero for releasing the pentagon papers during the vietnam war and was considered a hero.
    Chelsea manning does the same with the papers on the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and is considered a villian . Can any one else see the hypocracy in this

  20. Andy 20
    1 September 2018 at 1:06 am

    NZ should be ashamed of itself.
    It appears NZ supports traitors who would steal state secret information, and expose persons named in the information to harm, and possible death. Yet prevent free speech from the likes of Lauren Southern who does not propagate Hate speech as charged, like radical Islamists who are welcomed to speak in NZ and propagate hate for infidels amongst young Muslims, but simply reports on facts and actual events, and allow her audience to form their own informed opinions.
    Shame on NZ for allowing the left to silence free speech.. Hate speech being any views that oppose their own.

    • Dennis Frank 20.1
      1 September 2018 at 11:35 am

      Someone in the media the other day reported the result of the official investigation of the consequences of Manning’s action: no evidence of anybody dying as a result. Unusual honesty from the US govt as they were dead keen for deaths to appear!

    • marty mars 20.2
      1 September 2018 at 12:24 pm

      Yes thank goodness voices like yours have no venue, your voice is silenced and there is no way your voice can be heard. You are muzzled and muffled and no one hears a word you say … oh yeah except for everything duh andy

    • dV 20.3
      1 September 2018 at 12:32 pm

      Andy Southern etc got a visa to NZ.

  21. Dennis Frank 21
    1 September 2018 at 11:43 am

    Aotearoa needs whistleblower role models: “New Zealand needs Chelsea Manning – and others like her”. Good to see this dual opinion from Craig Tuck, human rights lawyer & transnational criminal justice specialist, and Dr Thomas Harré, specialist in transnational criminal law.

    Craig’s been “counsel in many high profile and leading cases – including those involving the death penalty abroad. He is trained in psychology and law, with a masters in criminology from Cambridge University. His work in human trafficking has received commendations from the UN.” Thomas combines legal practice with academic research, has published and presented widely – including advice on issues of forced labour and human trafficking in New Zealand and throughout Southeast Asia.

  22. veutoviper 22
    1 September 2018 at 1:54 pm

    Latest on Australian situation re visa as at an hour ago.

    https://www.sbs.com.au/news/chelsea-manning-thanks-aussie-supporters-as-government-maintains-visa-ban

    No, The Aussie Govt still have not made a final decision, but it is too late for Manning to appear in person at the Sydney Opera House at the Antidote festival tomorrow, but she will appear by satellite from Los Angeles.

    The next planned event is in Melbourne next Friday night, 7 Sept, before Auckland on Sat 8 Sept and Wellington 9 Sept, then Brisbane 11 Sept.

    Quite a few Australian media reports are claiming that the Aussies are probably going to refuse a visa so as not to upset the US …

    Might as well throw in this link also – Shorten roasts Dutton for au pair drama

    https://www.sbs.com.au/news/a-nanny-state-bill-shorten-roasts-peter-dutton-over-au-pair-drama