Let him speak

Written By: - Date published: 3:04 pm, August 7th, 2018 - 308 comments
Categories: act, don brash, Media, Politics, the praiseworthy and the pitiful - Tags:

Massey University has apparently cancelled a speech to be given by Donald Brash.

Much as I cannot stand his politics or his thinly veiled racism there is no reason to stop him from speaking.  The contents may approach being thinly veiled hate speech but unless he breaches that standard he should be allowed to speak.

I wish he would allow the same rights to those wanting to speak te reo. And I wonder, as has been pointed out by Emma Espiner, if Brash is improving with age.

But he should be allowed to speak, particularly at a University about politics.

308 comments on “Let him speak”

  1. Cinny 1

    If any are interested he is being interviewed now on radiolive, here is the link to tune in.

    https://www.radiolive.co.nz/home.player.html

  2. Carolyn_Nth 2

    We also need more Kiwis from diverse backgrounds to get as prominent platforms as Brash, and imported Canadian provocateurs.

    How about better platforms for diverse young Uni students?

    Hopefully the “Great Debate” at Auckland Uni on Thursday will go ahead. But the panel is skewed to the right (Fran O’Sullivan, Don Brash, Simon Wilson) and to older Pakeha. That’s pretty odd for a university. There will be some Uni “top debaters” there, so hopefully they will be more representative.

    But while Brash, Canadian hypocrites, etc keep getting mainstream media attention, too many Kiwi voices are not being heard. So these agenda-hoggers are effectively silencing Kiwis whose voices need to be heard.

    • Cinny 2.1

      He’s saying he wants to talk about his time in politics.

      Re Free Speech….. I betcha he won’t utter a whisper about banning the publishing of Nicky’s book Hollow Men while he was PM.

      “The book was initially prevented from being published when Brash obtained an injunction preventing anyone from publishing material from emails that had been stolen from him.

      At the time Brash was unaware that Hager had completed and was about to launch his book.

      However, on 23 November 2006, Brash announced his resignation from the leadership of the National Party. The following day he had the injunction lifted, allowing the book to be released”

      • Carolyn_Nth 2.1.1

        Heh. And in 2004, Brash declined to speak at Christchurch Cathedral because Helen Clark had spoken there in response to Brash’s Orewa speech. He said she shouldn’t have used the Cathedral for a political speech, especially as she is an atheist.

        https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3554978

        “You will be aware of my views that it is not appropriate for a cathedral to be used for such purposes, even leaving aside the Prime Minister’s atheism, her abandonment of grace at state function and her indifference to the institution of marriage,” Dr Brash wrote.

        • Cinny 2.1.1.1

          ROFL Carolyn.

          Reading through the comments there’s so much irony in brashes current situation.

      • alwyn 2.1.2

        ” betcha he won’t utter a whisper about banning the publishing of Nicky’s book Hollow Men while he was PM”.

        I realise that some people commenting here seem to exist in a parallel Universe but I didn’t think you were one of them.
        When was Don Brash Prime Minister?
        And how did he personally ban Hager’s book? An injunction is something that is issued by a Judge, not yet by a politician or a University VC.

      • D'Esterre 2.1.3

        Cinny: “He’s saying he wants to talk about his time in politics.”
        I heard him interviewed on RNZ today. He said that’s what he was asked to talk about. So: nothing contentious at all. Certainly nothing pertaining to free speech issues.

        “Re Free Speech….. I betcha he won’t utter a whisper about banning the publishing of Nicky’s book Hollow Men while he was PM.”
        I well remember that. Firstly, it had nothing at all to do with free speech, and everything to do with what in his view was a privacy breach. You are wrong in your attempt to gloss that as a free speech issue.
        Secondly, he was never PM.

        • Cinny 2.1.3.1

          D, Yes, I stated above 3hrs hours prior to your comment that I got it wrong re he was a PM.

          As well above that did you read the link that the Duke posted?

          “National leader Don Brash is facing a legal onslaught over the use of an injunction which it is claimed has prevented the release of a book alleging he and his party deceived the public and possibly acted illegally. ”

          “In a memorandum filed with the court, the Herald’s lawyer Bruce Gray described Dr Brash’s injunction – and related orders – as “inconsistent with the rights of freedom of expression affirmed and protected by Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights…”

          Will just leave this bit here for you….National’s insistence that he is in possession of “stolen property” is defensive public relations, says Hager. “When someone has an extremely embarrassing leak, I think you’ll find that words like ‘stolen’ and ‘theft’ are used regularly. It’s used when you’re trying to paint yourself as a victim after you’ve been found out.”

          • D'Esterre 2.1.3.1.1

            Cinny: “D, Yes, I stated above 3hrs hours prior to your comment that I got it wrong re he was a PM.”

            I have no control over when comments are posted.

            “…. the Herald’s lawyer Bruce Gray described Dr Brash’s injunction – and related orders – as “inconsistent with the rights of freedom of expression…”

            Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he? Brash saw it differently; his e-mails – which he was in the habit of printing out for later reading – were nicked from his desk, as I recall. Do you know who Wellington scuttlebutt says did the nicking?

            • Cinny 2.1.3.1.1.1

              Who is Wellington scuttlebutt? And who do they say did the nicking?

              • Cinny

                Interesting that some would prefer to discuss who could be Hagers source, rather than the content of the book.

                Something media are particularly guilty of, just like when Dirty Politics was released.

                “Dr Brash has always argued the emails were stolen or hacked.

                He complained the original police investigation wasn’t good enough, but the review, which interviewed 199 people, backed the original finding that this was likely to be a National Party inside job.”

                https://www.newshub.co.nz/general/is-there-a-nat-rat-brash-email-culprit-unfound-2010030817

                • D'Esterre

                  Cinny: “this was likely to be a National Party inside job.””

                  Yup, that’s what the scuttlebutt said at the time. Do you not know the term “scuttlebutt”? Some years ago, John Key attempted to use the term, but – as was his wont – ballsed it up and said “scuttlebug” instead. Much to the raucous amusement of many of us: that certainly isn’t a term that any PM ought to use in public.

                  • Cinny

                    No I don’t know the term, but did a goggle last night, it means ‘a gossiper’ or ‘gossip’. Is that correct?

                    • D'Esterre

                      Cinny: yup, scuttlebutt is an old word (old to me, in any event) meaning gossip or rumour. Go look up “scuttlebug” now.

    • Carolyn if diverse opinions from non pakeha is what is needed.
      Here’s mine for all its worth.

      Ive asked you and many others on this page to explain who you mean when you talk about ‘white people for example’. Everyone here seems to think it makes sense as a phrase.. but no one can explain why. Today arkie tried and failed……everyone fails because its impossible.
      so how is you can continue with something genetics can’t?
      Its because you lack ‘intellectual’ diversity here and you all agree on a narrative that suits your politics. You are all well meaning folk but of similar view points and pre-fixed ideas it seems at times

      Having more students opinion may be good or just be more of the same. Having diversity of thought is what should be treasured and sort out. I dont agree with Brash but he has ideas different to most obviously and like so many conservatives these days does not adopt or necessarily default to a herd mentality but express an individual unease with life. Good on him even if he is wrong.

      • the other pat 2.2.1

        great reply and with diversity we get to challenge our own pre sets and maybe change a few if needed

      • Carolyn_Nth 2.2.2

        I doubt you would accept any response, no matter how adequate.

        It’s a social classification, not a biological one. It’s partly a matter of perception. It usually refers to people of European descent and is contrasted with “people of colour” or “black” people, or more historically, “negro”. “White” is the remainder of people historically, but more recently is a response to the oppression of people who are classified as “black” or “coloured”.

        There is a skin colour element, but largely it refers to ethnic groups that have historically been colonised by Europeans and demonised and oppressed in various ways. And it is most often used in countries that were colonised by Europeans.

        When it’s used, it is usually pretty clear that the people referred to are classified as non-coloured. Ae you saying Brash is not white, or that Marama Davidson is not a brown person? Good luck with that.

        Of course it’s not clear cut. But “a person of European descent” is a mouthful, so “white” is a shorthand.

        Male and female are not clear cut categories either. We could ask why so much time is spent classifying people as male and female from conception?

        These are all the result of the way the dominant sections of society have historically classified people.

        Trying to do away with the category of “white”, at this time in history, is trying to deny that racism still exists.

        • Carolyn_Nth

          you said you doubt I would ”accept any response, no matter how adequate’.’

          If you feel that is adequate as a response then you are sadly mistaken and very misguided . I’m still not sure what you are saying. The explanation is very ambiguous. You use terms to define the category which are in themselves ill-defined. Such as ‘non-coloured’ what on earth is that?
          Europeans or those of European ancestry come from a complex sort of genetic admixture of different ancient populations (one from Turkey) and vary so much to say one is European means so little about the person.
          Barack Obama for example is as much European as he is Kenyan or a Hawaiian or an American. It depends on how he defines himself not how others define him. I suspect you would define him differently to me and that is my point. its all arbitrary
          Ive never met a white person in my life. I don’t know if Don Brash thinks he is one, but I would challenge him the same way if he said it was a valid term.

          you state “Male and female are not clear cut categories either. ”
          at least genetics supports this difference ..and it is clear cut if you define male as a keeper of an XY chromosome and the female as the keeper of the XX. There are those with XXY and YYX chromsomes but Im unaware its common situation in populations. Perhaps you mean gender ‘identity’ is unclear and agree.

          Carolyn ..You state> “Trying to do away with the category of “white”, at this time in history, is trying to deny that racism still exists.”
          Well on the contrary you are arbitrarily creating a racial group for your own political reasons. A group that you cannot define clearly..but simply assert exists. This is dangerous and divisive. One injustice can’t be undone by creating another. No one is white. Skin tone varies seasonally and exists as a spectrum of light to dark; of one colour/tone of brown. There are no distinct groups anyone can define. You know that. You are perpetuating a dangerous idea.

          In WWII …Jews ( my maternal family members) were judged non-whites by the fascist Germans and then white by fascist Italians deporting them to Germany. How ridiculous it all was. If someone says they are Jewish like John Key …do you take a WWII German perspective on their ‘whiteness’ or and Italian one. In others words isn’t you and you alone who decides how you categorize others because you cannot give an answer ….useful in any measurable way …by what you mean.. ‘white person’.

          thank you for your effort to reply

          • Carolyn_Nth 2.2.2.1.1

            Q.E.D.

            We’ve been having this conversation on TS over the last week or 2 about racism, ‘race’ etc. So I realised that probably no reply would satisfy you. That’s the way it’s been here.

            But, I don’t have the time to keep arguing with you. And “whiteness” is not the topic of this post – so it’s a thread hi-jack.

            I didn’t use the term “white”. You raised it. i used the term Pakeha.

            Mate, there’s a load of stuff online about the meaning of “white” and the reality of racism. How about you take the time to read some of it with an open mind instead of trying to get people here to explain something you don’t want to hear.

            And yes, I know all that about European history, and about classifications of Jewish people, etc. Doesn’t change what I wrote.

            • Paul Martinson 2.2.2.1.1.1

              you did use the term white Carolyn …and said you had acknowledged white privilege as part of your life in an earlier post . So I asked. Most folk use the word pakeha these days as a synonym of white . Gareth Morgan stated the same.
              anyway thanks. I only listen to geneticists in this matter. Wikipedia definitions and peoples opinions are often very unhelpful and add nothing as in this case ..they just perpetuate myth and bad ideas

              • mickysavage

                Paul the phrase acknowledges that there is privilege based on race. Sure we can dig into the semantics but race is one of the determinants of privilege.

                • Paul Martinson

                  Sorry micky but your statement makes no sense at all…unless you define race that is. The NZHRC said they can’t. Genetically no one can so how can you ? It’s an anachronistic biological term in Human history and a dangerous one so thoroughly debunked you should be ashamed to use it. I’ve tried so hard to ask the same questions on right wing posts and they are just as determined as you guys to keep this nonsense alive but can never explain why. They all think white people is a valid term. Just like you. It’s very sad to see how this stuff persists.
                  I won’t comment anymore. But thanks for the opportunity to try. It’s true you can bring horses to the water but you can’t make them drink. Hopefully one day society will be thirsty for facts and knowledge.. not divsive myths that suit their narratives. Tschuss

                  • mickysavage

                    Im slightly samoan but I am mostly white. I am also working class. My whiteness gives me an advantage in business and other areas, my working class does not. The fact that I am a male also gives me an advantage.

                    I have a really good insight into business and law and politics. I can tell you that race and class and sex provide big advantages.

                    • Tricledrown

                      Numbers gossipboy also the recent exposure of predatory sexual behaviour in law.
                      Other male dominant industries have a protectionist attitude so they can maintain their dominance.
                      You would have to be blind deaf and dumb to be ignorant of prejudices that abound especially when it comes to pale males

                  • Carolyn_Nth

                    PM, you seem to be being willfully dismissive, without really taking note of what anyone is saying. So, given you don’t accept anyone’s answer, could it be you who are lacking understanding?

                    You have decided ‘race’ doesn’t exist as a biological fact (we all know that), but don’t accept that racism still exists as a result of a different set of circumstances. And it’s more complicated than some clear cut biological difference,

                    Racial discrimination exists, based partly on perceptions of ‘racial’/biological differences, and partly on actual cultural and ethnic differences. It includes issues of cultural power and domination.

                    This racism has a damaging impact on some people’s lives. In that sense, it is very real and cannot be magicked away by saying there are no biologically distinct races, therefore there is no issue.

                    Not talking about it, and not recognising the serious impact on people’s lives is contributing to the problem.

                    The impact can be seen in statistics of ethnic differences in health, education, how people are treated in the criminal justice system, etc. And there’s heaps of well conducted research in this.

                    That is what I meant about it being a social not biological category. But you were just dismissive of that. And, yes, it does take a different form in different contexts. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist as a social reality.

                    In Aussie, in the 60s and 70s, people from southern Mediterranean countries were called “wogs” and discriminated against – they were fairly recent immigrants and many of them stood out because they had a slightly darker skin than most Aussies (usually descended from northern European immigrants).

                    You seem to have decided on a definition of ‘race’ – albeit one no-one agrees with. Then can’t seem to grasp that the answer is different from what you expected.

                    And, as Micky indicated, try telling Maori and Pacific people in West Auckland that race doesn’t exist, when they live with the negative impacts of perceptions of ‘race’ (often highly institutionalised) daily.

                    But, once again, I fear I have wasted my time writing this, because you just don’t seem willing to learn about what racism means for people’s lives. You are just focused on an abstract argument that totally misses the point.

        • ps; Carolyn” you said When it’s used, it is usually pretty clear that the people referred to are classified as non-coloured. Ae you saying Brash is not white, or that Marama Davidson is not a brown person? Good luck with that.”

          yes Brash is not white.. he’s brown..probably yellowish/brown like all of us. Ive never met Marama either but what person isn’t brown. This is NZ where the sun shines .
          I used to be a portrait painter/ still paint people and when I paint models white with white paint they simply don’t look real. Your comment suggests see people by the tone of their skin most of the time. It matters not to me accept when I mix the paint in my garret.

      • Dennis Frank 2.2.3

        Paul, fwiw I can see how framing white as a racial category retains currency for many. It is a social construction, it became an institutionalised norm, therefore it retains considerable inertia. That inertial effect is paradigmatic.

        Kuhn introduced a new meaning for paradigm as related to the old: in science, in respect of how a paradigmatic method generates a belief system in the minds of users. In the eighties this notion went viral & has since been applied outside science to belief systems generally. So even though I posted here the other day the latest scientific take on races (apparent proof that they have no scientific basis) I’m aware of why folks will continue to use the category term regardless. Human nature. Paradigms disappear only when adherents die (physics Nobel Max Planck is usually credited for being the first to broadcast this over a century ago).

        The psychological basis for racial identification is empirical: recognition via eyesight. Because our psychology drives sensory input through the brain into classification/categorisation, with habitual labels as output, that will continue regardless of scientific proof to the contrary.

        None of this contradicts what you have written, but I hope it elucidates dimensions of the situation that may not have been apparent.

    • Lucy 2.3

      That’s a debate? From their pieces in NZHerald they are all the same voice – shame on the idiots at Auckland Uni who thought of this! Debate is an exchange of different ideas this is the same ideas just a spectrum change (and not a big one). Where are the diverse voices – these are the voices of old money people who appear to have highjack all debate in this country. They and you do not seem to understand the more you exclude the voices that want change the more strident the unheard voices get. If you want to complain about people who threaten violence think about where that threat comes from, it comes from a feeling of no power. Trump supporters have been losing jobs, losing homes, losing money feel like the parties in power are not relevant to them. So they supported someone who was not a party person, who didn’t listen, who humiliated anyone who didn’t agree with him, who harnessed their anger into a political force. Now we have people who are riding that wave who can harness the feeling of impotence into a movement – like the Canadians, like Brash. They all have large platforms on the internet, power comes from going out of their echo chamber and coming into the real world.

  3. Puckish Rogue 3

    Nice

  4. marty mars 4

    I think anyone promoting derision and hate against Māori should be banned. The free speech is only for the pale worms cos the victims are rendered mute as the dominant society circles it’s wagons around it’s heroes. Not a surprise for anyone who knows the REAL history of the physical, emotional and mental colonisation of this land.

    • Chris T 4.1

      Are you for real

      Where exactly has he promoted hatred of Maori?

      This twisting anything to do with an area you get sensitive about is suddenly racism and hate speech is beginning to get on my tits.

      What next?

      Ban the Nats from speaking as they are slightly right of center?

        • that’s ‘controversial criticism’..in the speech… justified or not …surely someone can argue their viewpoint without the damn hate word being smeared on them yet again because someone was offended. And I don’t agree with it and here Im saying this to defend his right to /Bloody hell!

          • mickysavage 4.1.1.1.1

            It went really close. And it ignored and trashed the Maori world view.

            • marty mars 4.1.1.1.1.1

              Yes good point that one Micky. The law was not broken. The law in large part was created by people like b.rash in class gender ethnicity upbringing over the years. The values of that group may not reflect the values of Māori much, who have been the recipients of really not good stuff from b.rash. I know he utterly believes the shit he says and others do too. To me it’s the most idiotic bullshit from start to finish. Brash knows the law and went to the edge and this tactic has given him traction on the news and so on. He seems to have a number of bees in his bonnet – I w8sh he’s just stfu.

            • Gosman 4.1.1.1.1.2

              People are allowed to trash other people’s World view without it being hateful. My World view is trashed all the time here. I don’t jump up and diwn claiming hate speech.

            • D'Esterre 4.1.1.1.1.3

              Mickeysavage: “It went really close. And it ignored and trashed the Maori world view.”

              No it didn’t. Just after he delivered that speech, I read it and sent him a critique of it. In the past few days, I’ve reread it. Much of what he was talking about has been overtaken by events: in 2004, we were slap in the middle of the foreshore and seabed furore.

              Among other things, he said this: “Much of the non-Maori tolerance for the Treaty settlement process – where people who weren’t around in the 19th century pay compensation to the part-descendants of those who were – is based on a perception of relative Maori poverty. But in fact Maori income distribution is not very different from Pakeha income distribution, as sociologist Simon Chapple pointed out a couple of years ago in a much publicised piece of research.”

              He’s correct about this: I remember the public discourse about Maori poverty. I also vividly remember the uproar over Simon Chapple’s research, but Chapple was right.

              I’d add that Brash made a number of entirely reasonable points, including about the history of the colonisation of NZ, the large-scale land grab by settler governments and colonists, and the disastrous effect that this had on Maori.

              He also pointed out that Maori were human, just like the rest of us. NZ prior to colonisation wasn’t some bucolic paradise, peopled by ecologically wise pacifists; Maori were just as prone to inter-tribal conflict as the rest of humanity. And once they got hold of muskets, they put them to use killing one another. Just like Europeans were doing to each other in Europe at the time. Maori weren’t just helpless victims: they took quickly to the new technologies brought by settlers, and also took advantage of the the many benefits of colonisation.

              They had the vote and the Maori seats before the end of the 19th century.

              However: Brash expressed concerns about the over-interpretation of the Treaty. And he wouldn’t be alone in that. He took issue with what he and others saw as the Treaty grievance industry which had developed by then. A number of us disagreed with him about that, but he was within his rights to express that view.

              None of what he said could be construed as hate speech.

              I recommend that everyone here reread his speech.

      • marty mars 4.1.2

        Aww chrisT feeling a bit sad are you – perhaps a long holiday overseas will cheer you up bubby.

        • Chris T 4.1.2.1

          Nah. I am quite happy here living in a country where hopefully people are allowed to have views get all sensitive about without being labelled things they aren’t

          • marty mars 4.1.2.1.1

            Dont hope chris – make it so.

            • greywarshark 4.1.2.1.1.1

              Well Chris T some people are sensitive about these matters. You could have a think abiout their points and sdee what you are doing that makes them feel unhappy. Nobody can be right all the time.

    • How did he say he hates Maori or promote hatred of Maori? That is pretty provocative marty .

      • marty mars 4.2.1

        He doesn’t want the language spoken and is actively trying to stop others speaking one of our 3 official languages – that is hate speech when Māori are partners via the treaty imo. His Orewa speech and all of the other nonsesne he has spouted against Māori for years. He gets a free pass because he is feeble brained and bigoted but frankly that is not good enough. If people don’t like Māori they should get the next bus off these islands imo.

        I’m on my phone and doing links is hard and really they are hardly necessary in this situation.

        • I didnt hear his interview with Kim Hill recently on this. But if he said he didn’t want Maori spoken in NZ I’d be totally stunned. You kidding me? . Its part of who we are as kiwis. . OK So that’s his view. I’m still not sure why he cant hold it and discuss it .
          marty, Maybe you could publish things NZers are allowed to say and think so they can pass your hate speech test?

          • Infused 4.2.1.1.1

            He didn’t. Marty’s missing a few brain cells

          • marty mars 4.2.1.1.2

            Don’t ask if you don’t want the answer. You obviously, like inpoosed, are immune to empathy –
            Seems to me that that is the typical coloniser attitude – pity still around today and not just with b.rash.

          • mauī 4.2.1.1.3

            He doesn’t like or want Māori broadcast on radio and I assume on any MSM platform. Which backs up what marty was saying that he is stopping people from speaking it.

            https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/11/don-brash-s-scathing-statement-on-te-reo-usage.html

            • Paul Martinson 4.2.1.1.3.1

              expressing a dislike… is a far cry from trying to stop something being spoken. That would be contradiction for someone who supports free speech. Something not right here.

              • mauī

                and right below this comment is Carolyn’s comment which says he doesn’t want it spoken on RNZ… which is nothing like your “he’s just expressing a dislike”.

          • Carolyn_Nth 4.2.1.1.4

            Brash said he was sick of Te Reo being spoken in RNZ:

            Former National Party leader Don Brash has weighed in to the debate on the use of te reo on RNZ saying it shouldn’t be “forced” on English-speaking people.

            The debate was sparked by a controversial column condemning its use as “inflicting te reo on the entire population”, which drew swift and mainly unfavourable reaction from others in the media.

            Mr Brash said he had “no problem” with Maori being an official language, any more than sign language was.

            “The point I’m making is that I don’t want to listen [to it] …and lets face it most people don’t want to either”

            “The point I’m making is that I don’t want to listen [to it] …and lets face it most people don’t want to either” – Don Brash

            He said there were 21 Māori radio stations and Māori Television if people want to listen to the language.

            “Maori have a lots of of opportunity to listen to their language if they wish to do so, I don’t see any reason why those who speak no Māori at all – and I am one of those- should have to listen to Guyon Espiner spouting on.”

            He did not not agree with the charter clause giving RNZ a responsibility for promoting it, he said.

            “I don’t want to learn te reo, it has no value to me at all.”

          • D\'Esterre 4.2.1.1.5

            Paul Martinson: “But if he said he didn’t want Maori spoken in NZ I’d be totally stunned.”

            I heard that interview. He didn’t say that. What he said was that he took exception to presenters’ use of te reo on Morning Report, and on RNZ generally, given that very few people speak te reo here, and therefore that almost none of RNZ’s listeners would understand what was being said.

            I agree with Dr. Brash about te reo on RNZ, though not for the same reasons.

            RNZ’s use of te reo is well-intentioned, but it’s tokenism of the worst sort. Greetings, farewells, and the odd word peppered through English (and unfortunately often mangled by presenters), will do nothing to save the language.

            For te reo to survive and prosper, it needs native speakers. This ought to be of vital concern to Maori: it’s their heritage, after all. No matter how many second language speakers there are, they will not help with language survival, unless they themselves bring up their children to be native speakers. Not just bilingual: native speakers are what’s needed.

            If there are now no native speakers – and that may be so – then te reo is a dead language, just as is Latin. Maori need to put sustained effort into producing those native speakers.

            If RNZ is serious about promoting te reo, it could abandon its current approach and return to broadcasting at least some programmes every week, delivered entirely in te reo, as it used to do many years ago. If there are enough listeners who are fluent, or on the way to fluency, I’m sure that they’d appreciate such programmes.

      • AB 4.2.2

        He of course doesn’t hate Maori as people, but I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say he hates ‘Maoriness’.
        By which I mean, the idea that there is a Maori worldview that is different from that of pakeha, and has validity. The thing Brash finds anathema is what Jim (James K) Baxter called “learning from the Maori side of the fence”. That makes Brash an assimilationist racist rather than a discriminationist one.
        In Brash’s world, we must all be neoliberals, because TINA. To believe for instance, that a river has a mauri rather than just being a resource for irrigation or power generation would be stone age nonsense in Brash’s world view.
        On the question of whether he should be allowed to speak – of course he should. But why does he get so many damned opportunities to do so when the rest of us get none -especially when the intellectual quality of his contribution is so abysmal?

      • Tricledrown 4.2.3

        By denying Maori redress to Maori disenfranchisement.
        While he claims Maori were given the right to equal protection under the law.
        When it comes equal protection of land ownership Maori were denied the protections.
        When it came to Parliamentary representation land owners were the only ones allowed to vote, Maori were the majority of land owners laws were passed to sideline Maori.
        Legal representation Maori didn’t get legal advice or representation until after most of their land had been sold at cheap prices confiscated.
        Brash is deliberately bullying by ignoring most of the early history of New Zealand.
        Saying that Maori should pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
        While Maori have had their income and resources severely damaged because the very laws that were conferred to Maori by the Crown were not enforced
        By the courts or Parliament because colonists never intended to give Maori those rights.
        Knowing Maori didn’t understand the language laws or voting.
        Colonisers took full advantage of the insider trading they were committing.

  5. Goodshepherd 5

    Let him speak.

    You couldn’t pay me enough to go listen to him. I’ve heard enough from him over many years to last me the rest of my life.

    He’s a citizen, not a foreign fascist ‘provocateur’; he has a right to speak here. Especially at a uni where the contest of ideas should be supported, expected, demanded.

    • I agree. He is a fellow NZ citizen and to me that changes everything.

      He is not some rabble rouser from a foreign country trying to tell us how we should think in our own backyards with issues that do not even pertain to us.

      He is, in fact , and almost unfortunately , Don Brash, citizen of NZ.

      Let him speak.

    • Goodshepherd, Yes 1000% Yes!!

  6. Stuart Munro 6

    I’ve heard quite enough from Brash in my lifetime. Surely someone better can be found.

    • Chris T 6.1

      You mean someone you don’t disagree with

      • Stuart Munro 6.1.1

        I mean someone whose views find endorsement beyond the 1% or so who find Brash’s views palatable.

        He’s an old man whose vision was never up to much even in his prime.

        And get it straight – speaking at a university is a privilege, not a right.

        The man’s a fool.

        We need to hear from wiser people.

        • Anne 6.1.1.1

          … speaking at a university is a privilege, not a right.

          The man’s a fool.

          We need to hear from wiser people.

          On the button.

          Love the way David Seymour and others are describing the cancellation of some tin-pot meeting as a ban… as if Don Brash has been banned from setting foot on the Massey campus.

          This gross over-reaction by the ‘alt right’ is perilously close to fake news and verbal incitements to violence.

          • Chris T 6.1.1.1.1

            Tell Ardern and Hipkins

            They disagree with you

            • Anne 6.1.1.1.1.1

              Neither Ardern nor Hipkins mentioned David Seymour’s claims that Brash had been banned from the university. They just cancelled a meeting. Meetings get cancelled all the time. Whether it was warranted is another matter, but nobody has been banned.

              Over-reaction by the ‘hard right’ don’t you think? Or are you just thick.

        • Grantoc 6.1.1.2

          Who was the eminent person who said “speaking at university is a privilege not a right”? (And Im not referring to you Stuart)

          Where in the laws and regulations that govern universities in this country is this stated?

          I suspect you’re making it up Stuart; god knows for what reason unless you too want to close down free speech.

          I contribute to the well being of universities in this country through my taxes that help them pay their way. if I want to speak at one, I consider that to be my right.

          I will not tolerate a left wing bigot, such as is the VC at Massey trying to prevent me from doing so because she may disagree with my opinion.

          • Stuart Munro 6.1.1.2.1

            You know, I don’t really care who said it – it’s a fact.

            Were I to bowl along to my local university tomorrow my speaking rights are not assured; neither are yours.

            Free speech is not at issue – Brash may indeed subsequently speak at Massey – he hasn’t been banned.

            What appears to have happened is that, post-Southern, he has been recognized as being a contentious speaker who may occasion security concerns. Which are quite sufficient reason to disinvite him, if his inanity were not.

  7. dV 7

    Yes it is best to have full sunlight on his ideas.

  8. Draco T Bastard 8

    He should definitely be heard. Hearing him speak will allow people to understand just how wrong he is.

  9. McFlock 9

    Veiled threat my arse.

    ACToids are trying to breath relevance into a racist fossil by jumping on the melting-snowflake victim treadmill. Placards scare them so they call it “violence”.

    • [ Placards scare them so they call it “violence” ]

      Lol ! So true,- they would get all anxiety ridden even with these :

      Funny Protest Signs By Hilarious People – YouTube
      Video for placards at a silly protest you tube▶ 12:20

    • Chris T 9.2

      You would have a point if the VC hadn’t cancelled it due to safety

      • McFlock 9.2.1

        Only because the student club announced that they couldn’t meet the terms of their venue booking.

        If they were genuinely concerned, they’d have hired their own security. Or, you know, called the person who made the “threat” and asked for clarification.

        that’s the nice thing about safety. Anyone can take measures to improve it.

        • Dennis Frank 9.2.1.1

          “Massey University Politics Society spokesman Michael Curtis said the members were disappointed and a little surprised. They invited Brash to talk about his time in politics… Curtis said they were not unduly concerned about security, but thought it prudent to raise an alert that a few individuals were making threats about causing problems.”

          So, like I said, some leftists have learnt that threatening public safety is all you need to do to close down the exercise of free speech by rightists. Obviously some rightists will now reciprocate, so it will no longer be possible for either left or right to speak at public venues in future. Why? Because authorities responsible for those venues are legally required to keep the public safe.

          • McFlock 9.2.1.1.1

            And if the signed open letter was anything to go by, their measure of “threat” is fucking bullshit.

            It’s utter bollocks – there’d be a bigger safety problem than that “threat” if they organised an end of year social like many other clubs do.

            If a threat is explicit enough to demonstrate an actual danger to safety, you refer it to the cops, not the venue.

            • Dennis Frank 9.2.1.1.1.1

              Exactly. So where to from here??

            • Gosman 9.2.1.1.1.2

              I can’t understand your position here Mcflock.

              You acknowledge there was no real safety threat but seem to think it is okay for the VC to stop the event from happening.

              The only valid reason to stop the event would be for safety reasons so you must therefore oppose the actions of the university.

              • McFlock

                Moderately oppose but with the proviso that maybe there might have been an actual threat they handled badly, but don’t really give a shit. Partly because Brash’s mates actually have something worth testing in court now (and they’re eager to spend money on such things), but also because technically the uni is still doing the right thing: the client for the venue reported that they couldn’t run a safe event, so the booking was cancelled.

                Whether the students were playing silly buggers for pr or just panicky kids, as soon as someone makes that call it requires a response. Sure, it’s bureaucratic dickishness, but it’s technically correct bureaucratic dickishness.

                • Gosman

                  It’s a ‘Gonna cost someone their job’ bureaucratic dickishness is what it is.

                  • McFlock

                    The number of times I’ve heard some dick move will “cost someone their job” is substantially larger than the number of times someone subsequently lost their job.

                    And VCs are expensive to fire.

    • Gosman 9.3

      The University cancelled his engagement director the threats from the protests not “ACToids”(sic)

      • McFlock 9.3.1

        Because the pols crowd cdecided it was unsafe. I’m sure the police have become involved. They might have even phoned the guy who put his number on the letter, by now…

        • Gosman 9.3.1.1

          Did the VC contact the Police? If not don’t you think that is telling?

          • McFlock 9.3.1.1.1

            Did the student group do likewise?

            If not, nobody looks good in this situation. One party wanted to pretend they were threatened, another party was happy to act in the manner most likely to eliminate that danger if it were true. Both for their own stupid reasons.

  10. ianmac 10

    A great threat to Freedom of speech is giving in to a bomb threat.

  11. indiana 11

    Anyone applying for jobs with qualifications from Massey University, should have their CV’s placed in the bin.

  12. McFlock 12

    The other thought that occurs is: when the fuck did the university start telling students’ associations who they could and could not have as speakers?

    Some time around 2010? In my day we told them to get fucked, but then we didn’t rely on the uni for our paycheques.

  13. Dennis Frank 13

    Of course he ought to be allowed to speak at a university. But the bomb threat strategy is working for the left. The next step will be to realise that the Nats can be defeated at the next election by using bomb threats to cancel their public election meetings. Since the right will figure this out, they’ll use a reciprocal strategy. So we can expect an election campaign free of public meetings. Campaign funds will have to be used for media only.

    • Robert Guyton 13.1

      You know for certain, Dennis, that the alleged “bomb threat” came from ‘the left”?

      • Dennis Frank 13.1.1

        No, of course not. Pattern detection, Robert, we all do it. And I did not allege it, I just suspected it and therefore followed up with the evidence from the media that I reported down-thread that there was none.

        • In Vino 13.1.1.1

          No public meetings?? In that case we subversives will switch our bomb threats to the TV Studios!
          Robert has a more serious point: such a threat could have been cynically made by a right-winger, a black flag operation. We conspiracists will not cease to plumb the murky depths of this matter.

          • Dennis Frank 13.1.1.1.1

            Yes, if an anonymous threat then we all must keep that possibility in mind. In this case it came from a protestor who spoke to the media & revealed it wasn’t a real threat. The gun threat mentioned later was from online & may have been anonymous.

  14. greywarshark 14

    As long as time is spent listening to other speakers who have a strong case to make.

    • Puckish Rogue 14.1

      Of course, both sides should be heard and allowed to speak

      • greywarshark 14.1.1

        I wasn’;t just talking about ‘the other side’ – there are many people with something worthwhile to say that can’t or don’t get heard. A couple of people who come over to rouse the deadheads in society are a dime a dozen, but it is known that they can charge more than that. Many of the deadheads went to sleep as soon as they made some money. They are anxious that people may notice that and can be roused to attend meetings like this one and pay well for it.

  15. Robert Guyton 15

    If only he wasn’t so brash .

  16. Chris T 16

    If the Vice Chancellor was really that worried about a bomb threat or threats of violence from left protesters on on social media then we can expect a full complaint from them to the police and an investigation into those Facebook users.

    Leading to them being thrown out of Massey

    But why do I think this won’t happen?

    • McFlock 16.1

      Seriously, who mentioned bomb threats? All I’ve seen mentioned was some guy who reckoned that free speech had consequences, and left his phone number in the letter so people could ask him to explain himself.

      This apparently caused a student politics club to shit their pants and say they couldn’t organise a safe event.

      • Chris T 16.1.1

        It was cancelled by th VC

        • McFlock 16.1.1.1

          Because the club said they couldn’t make a safe event.

          Now, who said there was a bomb threat. If there was one, I’d actually be agreeing with you lot. He’s a fuckwit, but there’s no point to doing more than waving placards agin him.

          • Chris T 16.1.1.1.1

            I haven’t seen the bomb actually quoted either but another poster mentioned it.

            You seem to be ignoring it’s the unis responsibility to make their premises safe. Not the unions who had permission to have the event

            Frankly if it was just that letter then it makes her decision even more disgusting.

            • McFlock 16.1.1.1.1.1

              I think it was ianmac, but I’m not even sure they were talking in this instance.

              As for the VC, I’m not overly impressed. I suspect it’s a case of “you want to play that game? OK”.

              The pisser is that, to be blunt, Brash is not the audience drawcard those other two were. I’ve been to shit like that. They’d be lucky to get 50 people there in an election year. Even fewer protestors. Easy resolution: call the author of the letter. Have one of the duty security guards on standby – you know, the ones they have in case a professor locks themself out of their office. If it looks dodgy (e.g. gather crowd 30 mins before event), then you reassess security. But it’s Brash. Lolz.

          • Chris T 16.1.1.1.2

            ..

        • Incognito 16.1.1.2

          You mean the Vice Cancellor?

  17. Wayne 17

    I just heard VC Thomas on the ZB.

    She didn’t do herself any favours by conflating threats against Don Brash and hate speech. She pretty much accused Don Brash of hate speech. She didn’t say what the actual threats were, just that there was chatter on social media.

    I wasn’t surprised that she would be the first person to use the the Goff decision as an excuse to ban Brash. That was always one of the dangers of the Goff decision, that it would would then be extended.

    Thomas’s article in the Herald a couple of weeks ago gave a clear indication of her view that anyone who disagreed with Massey University’s view of the role of the Treaty would be accused of hate speech. That the Manawatu voters who opposed seperate Maori wards were also guilty of hate speech. And since Don Brash was behind Hobsons Pledge he was ipso facto guilty of hate speech.

    Will she (or the University Council) review her own decision? She/they should, but I don’t hold out any expectations.

    • Dennis Frank 17.1

      Don Brash on RNZ: “”When you argue for equal political rights for everybody irrespective of ethnicity, to say that is hate speech is absolutely Orwellian nonsense.” The university’s decision was a threat to free speech, he added. “It implies that threaten violence and you can shut somebody down,” he said. “It’s a worrying fact, I mean if people can shut down people whose views they don’t like by threatening violence, we’ve come to a very sad state.”

      Seymour has called for the Vice-Chancellor’s resignation. That’s appropriate. Unless she can produce evidence of a bomb threat, her decision was illegal under the HRA. If the University Council fails to discipline her, legal action should be taken against it by the FSC. Brash just told Jim Mora’s panel that he’s received support from right across the political spectrum. So he should.

      • Tricledrown 17.1.1

        Hobson’s choice Web site has plenty of hate speech Jordan Williams, Don Brash are enabling some horrific hate speech to occur on their Web site.

        • Dennis Frank 17.1.1.1

          You’ve obviously got a robust constitution. 🙂 Never occurred to me to even go there and look, I’d need a damn good reason first!

          • marty mars 17.1.1.1.1

            If you did you will indeed find hate speech on the site b.rash is associated with. Evidence that adds context and illumination to the quotes you quoted.

      • greywarshark 17.1.2

        Oh my god. Self righteous principillers should take a pill or a laxative and stop floating saint-like above the grubby ground where people have to live and try and do the best thing, which often is imperfect seen from others’ eyes.

    • To be fair, racist Don is racist. Hate speech disguised by a veneer of reasonableness is still hate speech. Yeah, I know i’m supposed to be polite and call it ‘dog whistling’, but fuck that. Racists gotta race hate and it’s great that its occasionally biting them on their arses.

    • Ad 17.3

      The Vice Chancellor should immediately apply for a $50,000 “critic and conscience of society award” for dutifully following the mob’s shout to stop people from having any opinion challenged at all.

      https://www.universitiesnz.ac.nz/latest-news-and-publications/apply-critic-and-conscience-society-award-50k-assist-research-28-feb

    • D'Esterre 17.4

      Wayne: “Thomas’s article in the Herald a couple of weeks ago gave a clear indication of her view that anyone who disagreed with Massey University’s view of the role of the Treaty would be accused of hate speech. That the Manawatu voters who opposed seperate Maori wards were also guilty of hate speech. And since Don Brash was behind Hobsons Pledge he was ipso facto guilty of hate speech.”

      Oh, so that’s what Thomas thinks hate speech is. Good grief: I wouldn’t normally agree with Brash, but if that’s what he means by “Orwellian” I’d have to go along with that. I note that the Human Rights Act doesn’t use the term “hate speech”; so there’s no actual definition, beyond something informal, like: “stuff you say that I don’t like”. Or vice versa. Which, qu’on dit, covers a multitude of iniquities.

      So: “hate speech” is just another empty epithet, used – like “racism” – to metaphorically beat people about the head and shut them down, when somebody disagrees with, or is offended by, what they say.

  18. Last year I wrote to Don Brash and said ‘do you understand races don’t exist in our taxonomy and its dangerous provocative word, you should avoid it’. (or something to that effect) .
    he replied he knew that race had no meaning in biology or to him personally and he understood it to be “shorthand for culture” . He clearly didn’t see people divided by biological traits but by how they lived their lives. Culture is just knowledge and knowledge is best when shared with others. Stopping someone speaking is not sharing ideas but arrogant elitism imo.

    • dukeofurl 18.1

      “knowledge is best when shared with others”… except when Brash requested and received an interim injunction preventing others receiving knowledge about him in a new book

      • knowledge or character assassination? I’m sure the court with allow ..if its truthful and factual knowledge.

        • Dukeofurl 18.1.1.1

          From memory Brash didn’t know what was in the book, if it was defamatory there were other remedies, but in this case truth was a defence for the author as it was Brashs own words.
          Brash also didn’t like the ‘reported speech’ of his Washington meeting either. Again Brash doesn’t mind punching down but is quick to react when he’s the target.
          A hypocrite when it comes to ‘free speech’

      • greywarshark 18.1.2

        Is Paul Martinson’s comment an example of a circularargument? I’m not up on the way to identify daulty thinking but something is amiss here.

        • Carolyn_Nth 18.1.2.1

          Yes, I think there is a circularity of argument. He has decided what ‘race’ should be if it exists. PM has decided ‘race’ doesn’t exist as a clear cut biological category, so it or racism or metaphors of colour don’t exist and people shouldn’t be talking about it.

          He asks people what they mean by ‘race’ or related words. When they give him an answer that doesn’t define ‘race’ or racism in clear cut biological terms, he says they can’t define it, it doesn’t exist, and they shouldn’t be talking about it.

          Circular thinking.

    • mickysavage 18.2

      Come out to Henderson and say there is no such thing as race. Honestly your phrasing gives you away. There is race and class.

      • D\'Esterre 18.2.1

        Mickysavage: “Come out to Henderson and say there is no such thing as race. Honestly your phrasing gives you away. There is race and class.”

        Fwiw, Paul Martinson is right: from biological perspective, “race” is a meaningless term. Genetically, humans are one species. It’s language, culture and class – and to some extent skin colour, though even that isn’t a surefire marker – which distinguish us from each other.

  19. Zack Brando 19

    All this ‘speaker banning’ is the result of the current American partisanship seeping into New Zealand via American media, normally via YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

    Trump derangement syndrome is rife – by that I’m referring to the Orwellian idea of the ‘memory hole’ – terms like fascist, Nazi, free speech, socialism, capitalism, left, right, etc have NOT just lost their meanings, their meanings HAVE BEEN CHANGED, in true Orwellian fashion!

    Near 24/7 news coverage of Trump, which is at constant odds with him – even when he is being reasonable is detrimental to America and western countries like New Zealand. Russian hysteria is on par with the ‘red scare’ but with no cold war.

    Due to gender-studies, environmental-studies, etc .. territory courses (these ‘studies’) start with an ideology and look only for information to support it. Critical thinking has been replaced by PC group think/speak and ‘free speech’ replaced by ‘freedom from speech’.

    The American experiment has been spat on. Once people knew from History what it was like to live under Papal power, having no freedom of speech or religion. People once understood why America’s constitutional republic was founded.

    People also once understood that good speech drives out bad – but to have [realize what was] the good speech, you had to have the bad, you had to have Freedom of Speech!

    University means unity in diversity. With ‘safe spaces’ and all that’s going on, New Zealand could find itself not as a country of Kiwis (of diverse races) but different groups/races, living in separate communities, tuned out from a culture that doesn’t reflect the majorities economic circumstances – living under the auspices of the NZ government.

    • well said Zack. Speaker banning or attempt to do so is so scary. Its a dangerous repeat of history/ only now the intolerance comes from the left not the right.

    • D'Esterre 19.2

      Zack Brando: “All this ‘speaker banning’ is the result of the current American partisanship seeping into New Zealand via American media, normally via YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.”

      Yup. You’ve nailed it.

  20. AsleepWhileWalking 21

    Brash is a relic best left in the past or an obscure hall somewhere.

    • marty mars 21.1

      Ha I read that the first time as ‘Brash is a relic beast, left in the past …’ and I thought fuck yeah good line!. Still a good one.

  21. Dennis Frank 22

    From the written statement by Massey Vice-Chancellor Jan Thomas: “”Mr Brash’s leadership of Hobson’s Pledge and views he and its supporters espoused in relation to Māori wards on councils was clearly of concern to many staff, particularly Māori staff.”

    “Whether those views would have been repeated to students in the context of a discussion about the National Party may seem unlikely, but I have no way of knowing. In my opinion the views expressed by members of Hobson’s Pledge come dangerously close to hate speech. They are certainly not conducive with the University’ strategy of recognising the values of a Tiriti o Waitangi-led organisation.”

    As a rationale for cancelling the speech, this is weird-as. Not only no evidence of a security threat, she almost seems to be saying it was the need to protect staff and students from possible recycling of prior statements by Brash. She could have just told them that anyone with sensitive feelings ought to refrain from attending the event.

    • McFlock 22.1

      Follows on:
      “It is clear there is heightened sensitivity and passion at this time, following the protests both against and in support of Ms Southern and Mr Molyneux’s right to be heard. Our ultimate responsibility is for the safety and wellbeing of students, staff and members of the public on our campuses and under those circumstances cancelling the booking is the right thing to do. The members of the Politics Club have acted responsibly in raising their concerns with the university and are free to meet Dr Brash at another venue if they wish.”

      The club said they couldn’t ensure safety, and she’s put icing on it with the “hate speech” bit.

    • Chris T 22.2

      Disagreeing with Maori seats on council is now hate speech.

      Bye bye academic freedom at Massey

  22. Incognito 23

    Maybe somebody should remind Massey University of their duty as critic and conscience of our society as laid out in the Education Act.

  23. Dennis Frank 24

    The originator of the security threat denies that he issued one: “The man who lit the fuse leading to Don Brash’s ban from speaking at Massey University’s Manawatū campus has no regrets, and denies ever threatening anyone. “Kardinal” Karl Pearce said the students who organised it were naive if they thought there was no potential for conflict at the event, but he never intended to do anything more than wave a sign and make a statement in protest.” [from Stuff]

    “Pearce’s letter to vice-chancellor Jan Thomas prompted her to pull the plug on the event… Pearce said he supported her decision, but he thought commentators had misinterpreted what he wrote if they thought it was some sort of security threat.”

    “Remember in light of their type of ‘Free Speech’ does not come Free of Consequences,” he wrote. Pearce said the consequences he was talking about were the hurt and possible backlash against those vilified by Brash’s type of “separatist and supremacist rhetoric”.

    “Students have responded to the university’s action by organising a protest to be held at 11am on Wednesday. It is promoted as “protesting censorship of free speech”, arguing students have the right to make up their own minds about issues.”

    So the vice-chancellor hallucinated the threat? Unless she can produce some other reason for her decision, that seems to be the conclusion most observers will reach.

    • Chris T 24.1

      I think it is looking pretty obvious the reason she stopped it wasn’t any so called threat.

      It was an issue of her own personal leanings deciding she would block him speaking to students.

      • Dennis Frank 24.1.1

        Does indeed seem like that. Can’t see her surviving on that basis. I wonder if the UC is vulnerable? If it operates under a constitution protecting free speech…

  24. Ad 25

    How is this post consistent with opposing Lauren Southern from speaking in New Zealand?

    • Who says it has to be? There are a variety of opinions presented here every day. What’s yours?

      • Ad 25.1.1

        Yes, it has to.

        It has to be because the same writer is not being consistent.

        If Mickey thinks he is being consistent in advocating to ban one speaker and not another, then Mickey should say why.

        • te reo putake 25.1.1.1

          Hmmm, not sure that MS advocated banning the Canadian bigots. It’s also important to note they weren’t actually banned. They just couldn’t get a venue. Same for Don the Reasonable Racist.

          • Ad 25.1.1.1.1

            Such a memory you have. Does it extend more than August the 2nd?

            “The last thing we need is a couple of fascists to attack what is a central tenet of our way of life.” – Mickey Savage, “Free Speech Champions?”, The Standard.

            • te reo putake 25.1.1.1.1.1

              And the bit where MS advocated for them to be banned? Go on, I’ve got all night.

              • Ad

                I’ve included that below.

                It was two days before that.

                You may well have all night – you’ll need it at this rate.

                • I take it then that you can’t back up your claim? Case closed, m’lud.

                  And just for the record, I don’t recall every comment ever made here; there’s thousands every month.

                  So, to save time, next time you want to make a claim like that, do some research and provide a link.

                  • Ad

                    “And dang it but this leftie thinks that we should not have to allow publicly provided facilities to be used for the propagation of monetised hate speech with strict entry requirements.”

                    This is a quote from Mickey Savage in a post Mickey wrote just days ago.

                    I was responding to Mickey. Mickey knew precisely where it was from.

                    If I were arguing about quotes from you in a post you had written, you betcha I would expect you to remember what you had written.

                    • mickysavage

                      Yep I am proud of it too.

                      I also said this in another post:

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

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

                      If there is no absolute right to free speech then you have to draw a line somewhere. I’m happy to draw the line as above. Brash invokes the same reaction as Molyneux and Southern but he works within existing constitutional parameters. This is what is different.

                    • Gosman

                      “…Brash invokes the same reaction as Molyneux and Southern but he works within existing constitutional parameters.”

                      Ummmm… what “existing constitutional parameters” (whatever that means) does Brash work within that Molyneux and Southern didn’t?

    • mickysavage 25.2

      Degree. Molyhneux and Southern were out and out racist and seeking to stir up discontent and malice by their comments. Deliberately. For show. Brash is not quite there.

      • Ad 25.2.1

        Really?

        Brash has an entire organization behind him that has run specific campaigns into our electoral system. Also very well funded given their advertising budget and membership. They are right behind those 100% successful campaigns against Maori wards in local government.

        I’d call that a wee way more threatening to our democracy than Southern.

        Brash is a person of high standing in society, having been highly qualified, Head of the Reserve Bank and controlled monetary settings for a decade, and previously leader of our largest political party. He got close to running the country.

        Brash authored the most powerful and effective political speech we’ve had in the MMP age with the Orewa speech.

        And yet Brash is less of a threat to you than Lauren Southern.

        Mickey you’ve walked into a debate in which the left has no principle to argue from, and it is of their own making.

        • Ed 25.2.1.1

          Brash is a dangerous racist who would undo a lot of nation has made.

          • Ad 25.2.1.1.1

            “And dang it but this leftie thinks that we should not have to allow publicly provided facilities to be used for the propagation of monetised hate speech with strict entry requirements.”

            This phrase, let’s see, was it used by the Vice Chancellor of Massey University, while defending the role of the University in New Zealand as the critic and conscience of society?

        • mickysavage 25.2.1.2

          The campaigns were conducted in accordance with the rules. Effectiveness in destroying an inclusive society is not the test, just if the language will

          Brash tiptoed to the edge but never went over. The edge is using “words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons in or who may be coming to New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons”.

          Saying there should be “equal” democratic rights is one thing. Saying that if you are black you are dumber than white people is another.

          • Anne 25.2.1.2.1

            +100.

            Ad has a habit of arguing the toss where the toss is not worth arguing. I call it intellectual snobbery.

            • Ad 25.2.1.2.1.1

              I have a habit of holding on to principles that people have fought and died for. Doesn’t matter what you call your own moral laziness. It is what it is.

          • Ad 25.2.1.2.2

            I think it’s great that you are defending the right of Don Brash to speak.
            It’s kinda shocking that it needs such a defence. Remember when we defended things on principle?

            “Effectiveness in destroying an inclusive society is not the test, just if the language will”, is one of the weirder defenses. Language is the most effective means of destroying civil society – and Brash is a far better rhetorician than Lauren Southern could muster if she were trapped in Groundhog Mississippi 1961. What test are you really applying to them both?

            What are the points along your degree continuum in which you would ban one speaker and not the other?

            • mickysavage 25.2.1.2.2.1

              I’m writing a post …

              This comment by Failed Estate’s Jim Parker perfectly summarised for me the tediousness of Molyneux and Southern and why tolerance of free speech should not stretch to them:

              “There’s a pattern emerging. This woman, Milo, the Information Wars guy and Australia’s assortment of provocateurs have latched onto a business model. This involves calculatedly creating outrage to generate notoriety and ‘brand’ awareness. The politics is neither here nor there. What’s important is getting noticed and monetising that attention. It’s the desperate last days of neoliberalism and these outrage manufacturers are the ultimate expression of its bankruptcy as an idea.”

              Breaching their calculated use of their freedom of speech saves our ethnic communities from abuse and hits their business model. I’m comfortable with that.

              • Dennis Frank

                Okay, you’re onto something with this. I can see that a media-hijack strategy can be derived from a business model as much as from a sincere motivation to introduce balance into the immigration debate. However, tempting though it is to allow cynicism to dictate a preference for the former motivation to apply and the latter not, don’t discount the possibility that the latter applied originally, and the former emerged subsequently, and both are operating concurrently.

                • mickysavage

                  ” … sincere motivation to introduce balance into the immigration debate”.

                  Molyneux and Southern? You have to be joking, They are slightly more sophisticated examples of Slater.

                  • Dennis Frank

                    You may be right. You may have forced yourself to endure their videos. I found the prospect too distasteful – my time is too valuable.

                    I’m just commenting from the position of the average kiwi on the situation: fair-minded, judges stuff on the evidence presented. When the media & opponents combine to keep us in the dark about where this couple are really coming from we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. I’ve seen enough to know they’re simple-minded & partisan, but that description fits some of the leftists who comment here (others are partisan but intelligent, others are intelligent & fair).

              • Incognito

                Yup, good one.

    • Andre 25.3

      I make no claim to consistency, since I was OK with S & M being declined use of venues but I’m also quite peeved about Brash also being declined a venue.

      Seems to me that Brash, as a citizen and resident here, is seeking to use his right of free speech to influence the future direction of the society he lives in. Which is a fairly major part of the point of free speech, however wrong-headed he may be.

      Whereas S & M were just planning to seagull us – flap on in squawking loudly, shit all over the place, scavenge some crumbs, flap on out still squawking, leaving others to deal with the mess without ever living the consequences.

      We have enough of that garbage home-grown, we don’t need to import it.

    • Andre 25.4

      Also:

      “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. …”

      https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/353571-a-foolish-consistency-is-the-hobgoblin-of-little-minds-adored

      Seems to me the two situations are sufficiently different that an arbitrary demand for consistency inhibits the freedom of thought needed to come up with appropriate responses.

  25. Chris 26

    The university are taking their health and safety obligations seriously:

    “The university considered providing additional security for the event, but decided the risk of harm to students, staff and members of the public was too great, particularly at time of heightened tension over the issues around free speech and hate speech.

    “Dr Brash was also a supporter of right-wing Canadian speakers Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, who were due to address a public meeting in Auckland.”

    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/363534/don-brash-s-talk-to-massey-students-canned

    The university need to prove that they identified all the health and safety risks and took action that would effectively mitigate them. They decided they couldn’t do that. Even WhaleOil commentators think thats a fair assessment of the university’s legal obligations.

    Don can come speak when the hornets nest Southern/Molyneux and those deploying them has settled down. But not this week.

    The fault for all this is squarely in the court of Southern/Molyneux and those deploying them.

    • Cinny 26.1

      This bit…..

      Don can come speak when the hornets nest Southern/Molyneux and those deploying them has settled down. But not this week.

      The fault for all this is squarely in the court of Southern/Molyneux and those deploying them.

      🙂

    • Puckish Rogue 26.2

      “Don can come speak when the hornets nest Southern/Molyneux and those deploying them has settled down. But not this week.”

      Right up until someone makes another excuse for the VC to cancel it

  26. tsmithfield 27

    We are now seeing the slippery slope fully in action.

    The problem is that it is the speech of right wing speakers that is being threatened at the moment. Tomorrow it could be left wing speakers.

    For this reason, the most important speech to defend is speech one doesn’t like.

    The moment someone says “I support free speech but….” it is immediately obvious that they don’t support free speech.

  27. Chris 28

    The university vice chancellor said on TV that they identified threats of gun violence over social media. They considered defending the meeting, which had already been approved (which proves the University did want to defend free speech), with security guards. But decided that could not effectively mitigate the threat of gun violence.

    I think the university’s decision is very unfortunate but very defendable under their Health and Safety law obligations (which are very stringent).

    • tsmithfield 28.1

      If that is the case then it is a worry for all of us.

      All that needs to happen to cancel an event, from whatever perspective is for some loony on the other side of the debate to make an anonymous bomb or gun threat. Think about that next time there is a left wing speaker people here are looking forward to go and see.

      I think this was more of an excuse after the fact though. If there had been a threat of such nature that she was genuinely concerned about, her first step from a health and safety perspective should have been to get the police involved. However, there is no evidence she did that.

      • Dennis Frank 28.1.1

        She made that comment on The Project. She described it as written on a social media site but I didn’t catch whether it was a suggestion or declaration of intent.

        She was umming and ahhing continuously, extremely nervous, as if she knew she was on thin ice, but did give the impression that her decision was made in consultation. She said we. Didn’t say who. What’s the chancellor for, then?

        Yeah, I already made your first point so if you didn’t bounce off that then good independent thinking! Your second point is a good one. Perhaps she has no faith in the cops?? More likely, she grabbed the excuse to discriminate against Brash!

    • Tricledrown 28.2

      Brash was trying to equate speaking at Universities as a good place to Foster new ways of thinking.
      Not with Brash he wants to take us back to Dickensian days Dinosaur Don.
      Colonial Dogmatist.
      His lot made it virtually impossible for most poor people to study at university
      Cutting new ideas coming from the lower classes being heard.
      That has been a deliberate ploy to shut University debate down to just the well off classes ironically.

      • Wayne 28.2.1

        Don Brash was never in govt. Helen Clark was.
        Enrolements in universities have progressively increased my entire life. When I was a student only 10% of the population attended university, now it is 35%. Any one who is qualified to go irrespective of circumstances can. Grants for low income people, loans for high income people.
        So in short you are wrong.

        • Blazer 28.2.1.1

          well Wayne..I lerned something new today..’ 10% of the population attended university, now it is 35%. ‘

          Not sure why I find this hard to believe,bit I know you willback it up

        • WILD KATIPO 28.2.1.2

          Not withstanding a large number of those now going to uni are foreign students, eh Wayne…

          Gotta love that free market , lends itself to all sorts of manipulation of the facts and statistics…

          • In Vino 28.2.1.2.1

            Good point WK. This is how Wayne’s ilk love to present half-truths which, when presented in a certain situation, constitute outright lies.

    • Cinny 28.3

      Would the ‘harmful digital communications bill’ be able to be exercised, re threats of violence towards the event on social media?

      Resulting in a means of prevention pre event, by disabling/uncovering etc the possible threat.

      Would that count towards a health and safety measure, towards said event? Or any event that is threatened with violence.

    • Chris T 28.4

      If that is the case I await the full police investigation and arrests in the next few days.

    • McFlock 28.5

      Oh, if there were explicit threats then that’s easy: refer it to the cops, get a security assessment from them. You don’t just bung some security guards at the door, but it is a manageable threat.

      In NZ we’ve had visits from potus, the queen, billionaires, and other people who are seriously threatened every day. More than Don Fucking Brash.

      And that’s assuming that it’s not one bunch playing smart-alecs in assuming a heightened threat level for publicity, but being out-smart-aleced by someone perfectly happy to play along with that to cancel their booking.

      And if it is some jerk who decided that threats get cancellations, I hope their arse also gets handed to them on a plate by the cops. Someone that stupid probably isn’t as smart as rawshark at hiding their tracks.

  28. R.P Mcmurphy 29

    I have heard him address a public meeting when he was running for PM and he is pillock. true!

  29. Chris T Jacinda and Chris “Do not agree with Brash or support him”, They support his right to speak.

    You are over egging!!

    • Chris T 30.1

      Think you might be misconstruing my words

      His point tonight is his right to speak

      Which is what they agree with

      Of course they don’t agree with his philosophy

  30. Ed 31

    Fake news.
    A beat up by the ACT Party and its naive bedfellows on the left.
    The University is correct to take health and safety seriously.

    If Don Brash wants to debate, let him.
    Just somewhere else.

    • Dukeofurl 31.1

      Gone before dinnertime you reckon?
      The old scoundrel didn’t like it when when he was the subject of all the talking

    • tsmithfield 31.2

      Ed: “The University is correct to take health and safety seriously.”

      They didn’t take it seriously really though did they?

      If they were really serious they would have got the police involved. But the police said they didn’t know anything about it.

      The health and safety angle sounds like an excuse thought up later to defend the indefensible.

    • Gosman 31.3

      What health and safety issues were there?

  31. Chris 32

    The goverment has the power to guarantee Don’s free speech rights by deploying police at Massey to guarantee security.

    That would:

    1. Uphold free speech and defang the right’s argument that the left are preventing free speech (which we are not).

    2. Put a stop to extremists threatening violence to prevent free speech.

    • Dennis Frank 32.1

      I suspect you are incorrect on the first point. There seems to be an operational separation between police minister and commissioner. Perhaps others here can clarify it. In recent years I’ve often seen politicians informing the public that ministers cannot command the public service by telling it what to do operationally (such as tell public servants how to do their job).

      If the university had called in police protection instead of operating like stalinists, the threat from the leftist protestor could have been ignored. In which case your point two is valid.

  32. greywarshark 33

    Well at 158 commets here in one day, I think M&S have generated a lot of truly\free speech – no-one is being asked to pay anything! Perhaps that’s the best use for them, discussing their motives and the likely consequences.

  33. peterlepaysan 34

    It is ridiculous. Massey university (?) feels threatened by hints of violence, and then bans a speaker.

    What a wonderful precedent for future events.
    Just send an anonymous “social media” menacing message and a bastion of intellectual academic freedom dissolves into a whimpering mess.

    OBTW I am a multi racial multi lingual person.

    I disagree with Brash on several matters but would never stop him expressing them on my front lawn.

    Massey should drop the pretence it is an university. It is a hothouse of precious grievance nurturers.

  34. Ross 35

    I doubt this would’ve happened had Steve Maharey still been VC. I mean, he was happy to say “fuck you” to an MP during question time in Parliament. He adored free speech. 🙂

  35. Cinny 36

    Herald has published brashes speech notes for the event. Here’s the link if any are interested.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12102874

    • Gosman 36.1

      A single statement involving anything to do with Maori and When They was merely a passing reference why he was disappointed with the last National lead Government. I can see why people felt threatened by him /sarc

      • dukeofurl 36.1.1

        The Politics Club didnt ask him to speak just so he could reminisce through rose tinted glasses, plus normally for a ‘speech’ he would want travelling expenses which I doubt the club could fund.
        It was a set up, but the University over-reacted.

        • Gosman 36.1.1.1

          Ummm… do you have any actual EVIDENCE for this?

          To help you in case you don’t understand what evidence might be useful would be a comment from the Politics Club stating that Don Brash requested travelling expenses which they couldn’t fund.

  36. Dennis Frank 37

    I just heard Guyon Espiner say on Morning Report that the chancellor of Massey University is supporting his vice-chancellor but doesn’t want to make a public comment on the controversy.

    They seem to think eliminating Brash’s right of free speech is their natural right. The law of the land has no bearing on their behaviour. If no prosecution ensues, they will be proven right. Zero accountability to the public for their misbehaviour?

    Paula Bennett told the AM show this morning that the education minister ought to send them a letter advising them how to deal with free speech. That presumes the two authority figures don’t already know. I suspect they do, and it is a carefully-calculated ploy to demonstrate that academics can ignore politicians because the law allows it.

  37. Dennis Frank 38

    AM show poll result: 79% of respondents believe freedom of thought & opinion is being threatened. So there’s an overwhelming visceral reaction throughout the country. Brash said he had a call from Matt Robson, who said he’d disagreed with just about everything Brash ever said but was supporting him on this one.

    I realise only a minority of leftists are currently exhibiting their closet-stalinism. What other leftists ought to reflect on, since this is a teachable moment, is the extent to which the rabid contaminate the entirety, and whether doing nothing about is really wise. My advice is that it will be better for the left to admonish the rabid sternly, and explain to them precisely what they are doing wrong. Damage control.

    • Cinny 38.1

      AM polls are easy as to manipulate. Depends on how many email addy’s one has. As well it’s not that difficult to ask all of ones friends to vote or club members or political party members etc.

      Their polls are bogus and not a snapshot of NZ opinion. More like the opinion of their listeners and the ones with multiple email accounts etc

    • Anne 38.2

      Yes we know about those unscientific polls on Stuff/TV3 in particular. The Nat DP teams spring into action and the texts/emails are rolled out to their list of recipients. In the past they were also able to manipulate the system with multiple voting. I recall Cameron Slater boasting about it.

      As for the comment :
      I realise only a minority of leftists are currently exhibiting their closet-stalinism. What other leftists ought to reflect on, since this is a teachable moment, is the extent to which the rabid contaminate the entirety.

      That is garbage.

      Yes, there is a smattering of hard line lefties out there just as there is a smattering of hard line righties. They operate in isolated groups and have no power whatsoever. Extremists who try to infiltrate the Labour Party are smartly sent on their merry way, and I have no doubt their ilk on the other side of the political fence experience the same fate from National.

      So how about you stop speading a long debunked myth about the political left in NZ being infiltrated by closet ‘commies’.

      • Dennis Frank 38.2.1

        Perhaps you aren’t differentiating between closet-stalinism as syndrome & behaviour pattern, and ideologues who adhere to stalinism as a belief system?

    • veutoviper 38.3

      Re what you say in your para 2, I fully second Anne with what she says in her reply at 38.2.

      I had been giving you a bit of slack over recent days from my original impressions of your views/opinions from coming across your comments on other blogs for many years, but I am back to square one having read the above AND the following which you posted on Pundit under Tim Watkin’s post on the S & M road show.

      Yes, a good appraisal of the situation. Too bad you didn’t also acknowledge that the hysteria was generated by leftists. Demonising the opposition is primitive behaviour because it polarises society and makes our culture toxic.

      However not all leftists are guilty. I saw plenty of them defending free speech. I wanted to see evidence that the leftists claiming the Canadians were using hate speech were right, but our media failed that credibility test. The Sunday show, promoted as an interview, mainly featured opponents emoting at the camera. It was an abysmal display of bigotry. I wondered if the decade I spent trying to improve our state broadcaster was a waste of time. The journo who did the miniscule interview was so biased she couldn’t even ask the pertinent questions to expose whatever racist views they hypothetically have. Nor did anyone else, so we’re none the wiser.

      https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/good-is-a-conversation-what-nzs-weekend-of-division-should-teach-us#comments

      So you give a little leeway in both comments to not all lefties being closet stalinists but you are back to your sanctimonious ‘I know best’ lecturing.

      Personally I thought the Sunday programme was a reasonable if not outstanding attempt to encapsulate a lot into what was only a window of less than 18 minutes to do so.

      I also considered Tania Page’s fronting and interviews were measured and balanced (as did Gavin Ellis) and was impressed at the way she did not attempt to be the centre of attention as so many media people seem to do these days.

      I really did not know who Tania Page was but was interested enough to check out her bio – a NZer of Ngati Kahu and Ngai Tahu descent, who started in journalism with TV3 in 1999, and then went to London in 2005 and was part of the Al Jazeera English launch team, and in 2012 transferred to be their Southern Africa correspondent based in Johannesburg until returning to NZ with her family recently. IMHO a perfect choice for this particular programme – and loved her understated response when Southern and Molyneux tried to get her to say it was okay to be white!

      Anyway, if you want to see the whole 58 minutes of Tania’s interview of Southern and Molyneux, the latter have put it up on YouTube and it is available for anyone to view. I personally have only been able to stomach a few minutes of it at a time, but my views of Tania expressed above are being reinforced by it – as are my opposite views of the other two.

      • Dennis Frank 38.3.1

        It’s a shame you experience those contributions as sanctimony, but I suppose that any moral stand is likely to have that effect. Thanks for the vid, I’ve viewed 13 minutes so far & am surprised! I take back my categorisation of the pair as simple-minded: definitely not so.

        I haven’t seen any hate speech or racism yet. The room acoustics make her voice hard to follow at times. I agree with you that the interviewer is trying to be fair to them. Having spent a decade making news & current affairs stories, I can now see that the hack job that resulted in the Sunday segment was due to editorial and program-composition decisions by the producer.

        • Dennis Frank 38.3.1.1

          From 19-23 minutes they discuss the relation of race to IQ. SM explains that he included a range of interviewees with relevant expertise on his show and his opinion that IQ has a genetic basis derives from the aggregate consensus he observed. The interviewer then asked about environmental effects on IQ and he agreed that they modified the genetic basis.

          So he’s not doing anything different to anyone else. He’s reporting a scientific consensus about what’s real. Spin about him promoting racism likely results from media misreporting. The interviewer was fishing for racism and gave up that line of enquiry when she couldn’t find any. That’s why Sunday didn’t report any.

          • solkta 38.3.1.1.1

            So he’s not doing anything different to anyone else. He’s reporting a scientific consensus about what’s real.

            But he is not reporting any kind of consensus but rather being very selective about who he interviews and then presenting a minority viewpoint as if it is settled science.

            • Gosman 38.3.1.1.1.1

              Which is what lot’s of people do. Does that mean we should stop them from speaking in NZ?

            • Dennis Frank 38.3.1.1.1.2

              I take your point. To reiterate, he’s reporting the consensus that he found. He made it clear that he didn’t set out to preselect those he interviewed to suit a pre-existent bias. He wasn’t defensive, just explaining his method. I agree that his method doesn’t represent the big picture.

              • solkta

                He made it clear that he didn’t set out to preselect those he interviewed to suit a pre-existent bias.

                Well he is either lying or completely out of his depth.

                • solkta

                  He does the same thing with Climate Change, cherry picking all over the place to present a denialist position.

          • Dennis Frank 38.3.1.1.2

            Discussion of multiculturalism runs from around half-way up to 35 minutes, ending with reference to this country. The issue of inclusivity/exclusivity as defined by the Islamic belief system crystallises, and the interviewer leaves it hanging in the air. The Canadians have made it clear that the separatism of immigrants (rather than assimilation) is the threat that motivates them. Again no evidence of racism or hate speech.

            • Dennis Frank 38.3.1.1.2.1

              Feminism 35-38 minutes. Her framing is re biological determinism. As a belief system, feminism is operating to warp female nature by making women feel as if they must deny themselves and copy men (my take).

              She responds to the situation of our PM, saying “That’s great!” He comments that her mothering won’t be as good due to the demands of her job, and the interviewer challenges that. He explains that he knows what the job requires based on his nine years spent as a stay-at-home father. So he’s making a point about the generic nurturing parental role rather than motherhood. Any amount of absentee parenting not good for the child, we all know that.

              • Dennis Frank

                Interesting bit 43/44 minutes in, where SM explains he uses a producer & fact-checker staff for his shows, and says he’s sometimes had to broadcast correction videos when something wrong with a prior broadcast became evident. He says the online community are onto you in a flash if you screw up. This demonstrates he has a sense of social accountability and takes responsibility for his errors and corrects them.

                • solkta

                  Lol, you make me laugh.

                • Dennis Frank

                  SM further explained his method in relation to the Armenian genocide: read the most relevant books then interview the best available expert. Then there was a discussion on South Africa re her doco, mention of a new law the current govt passed while they were there. Reverse-racism, sounded like.

                  The interview gives you a real sense of them as genuine & sincere & vastly more on the ball than I expected. Sunday did its best to avoid representing this reality. The use of a miniscule fraction of what they recorded indicates a profound contempt for their viewers. So why did TVNZ decide to misrepresent the Canadians? Postmodernism. Truth doesn’t matter. It’s all about manufacturing perceptions. Not reality.

            • McFlock 38.3.1.1.2.2

              All so much more benign than what they actually said at one of their events.

              I liked the quote

              “I want you you remember that great evils were halted with the advent of whites to Australia as great evils were halted with the advent of whites to South Africa”.

              and

              Molyneux tells a story of being on a train in Melbourne and suddenly the train was full of Chinese people. “What are you doing?” He says, to the cheers of many.

              and

              Southern says that we have to do something until we are “outnumbered in our own country.” Then we will lose our autonomy and it will be too late.

              Totally no evidence of racism or hate speech. A mild, reasonable statement that reflects a broad consesnus of experts in the area. /sarc

              • Dennis Frank

                Dunno what you’re on about. That Copland tweet-stream used as if it was some kind of fact report? Gimme a break. It was all about him emoting instead of reporting and lots of others emoting in response. Juvenile.

                Even the few quotes he actually managed to transcribe had no proof of racism or hate speech. The left can’t impress others using false claims as a strategy – people don’t like those who insult their intelligence.

                • McFlock

                  Well, no, it wasn’t “all about him emoting”, otherwise there would have been no quotes at all, let alone extensive paraphrasing of their comments. And fear of being “outnumbered in our own country” is pretty close to the line of racist hate speech all by itself. It could literally be their only comment and still be as fucked up as Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech.

                  Call it gonzo twittering if you want, but the summary you provided of the interview above is about as useful as Copland’s tweet stream. Unless you’re more reliable than he is? Yes, I could take half an hour out of my life and watch the interview, but I don’t have time today. Besides, that would be unfair to you – I can’t subject Copland’s tweet stream to similar scrutiny.

                  All I’m saying is that when talking to mainstream media, S&M seem to have a distinctly more moderate approach than when they’re preaching to the converted.

                  • Dennis Frank

                    Okay, fair enough, thanks for the explanation. My take on their fear of being out-numbered is that the cultural consequence of a non-level playing field is their greater fear. Cultural bias. Push-back against multiculturalism to give those who feel it has become a problem a voice. I agree with the left re inclusion of ethnicities as potentially enriching via cross-fertilisation, and I agree with them re the toxic effect of segregation & separatism. I feel typical of most kiwis in wanting both sides of the cultural divide to be included in the debate.

                    • McFlock

                      The thing is, they’re playing up that fear rather than seeking to understand and reduce it. They say that other cultures are inflexible, but they don’t want western culture to change. They highlight any problems with other cultures and ignore what those cultures have to offer, and do the opposite for English-origin culture.

                      They might never drop the “N” word, but with that consistent bias “racism” becomes a reasonable inference to make.

  38. SaveNZ 39

    Of course Brash should be allowed to speak. What a weird culture we live in, on one hand we have these universities refusing to let ex politicians speak and then on the other hand they are off removing specialist libraries to apparently save money (course quality is of secondary importance). Spot light on university behaviour in management is needed!

    Saying that one of the most offensive interviews I have ever seem was Brash on Water with Hone Hawawira. Actually I couldn’t watch to the end it was so disturbing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhx5VDWVv0M

    If you want to understand how NZ is going to look in the TPPA tribunals when and if anybody tries to save our environment or protect Maori culture, this is a dry run and it’s not pretty.

    Personally miss Waatea 5th Estate. What the F are creative NZ doing, when they give nearly a million to Ben and ??? and $700k to Spinoff TV? Real news and debate in NZ is totally stifled and has been for a long time.

    I don’t know where the Nazi left who want to ban everybody from speaking and thinks everyone is a racist is manufactured or real, but they certainly seem to have created a mob.

    The only issue is, where are they on real issues, like water rights and areas where there will be specific disadvantage when they are effectively given away to private interests? No protests in the streets there.

  39. Robert Guyton 40

    Yes, let him squeak, I say.

  40. left_forward 41

    FFS – nobody is stopping him from speaking – just not letting him into the house!
    I wouldn’t let him into my house either.

    • Gosman 41.1

      Is your house publicly funded with an obligation to provide an environment for free speech?

      • Robert Guyton 41.1.1

        Gosman, Great Protector of Free Speech and the Right to Say Whatever One Believes – did you support the publication of Nicky Hager’s The Hollow Men and Dirty Politics when they came out? Or did you decry his right to express his views?

        • greywarshark 41.1.1.1

          Views and inconvenient facts and examination of outcomes from said speech. All matters to be considered separately and equally.

        • Gosman 41.1.1.2

          As I have stated on at least one other occasion I had no objection to Nicky Hager publishing those books.

    • Gosman 41.2

      If your partner wanted to invite someone around to have a discussion about a topic and you were not obliged to participate would you stop them from doing so?

      • Cinny 41.2.1

        Gossy, if you want to go down that road……Depends if the topic would end up creating violence in the home or not.

        • Gosman 41.2.1.1

          You mean if left_forward was so enraged they decided to bash their partner?

          • Cinny 41.2.1.1.1

            Dude, I’m against any violence in the home, there’s nothing left or right about it. What about you?

            • Gosman 41.2.1.1.1.1

              Ummm… I have no idea what it is you are asking me?

              • Cinny

                Lolz Gossy, I was answering your question above which was..

                You mean if left_forward was so enraged they decided to bash their partner?

                my answer was…. Dude, I’m against any violence in the home, there’s nothing left or right about it. What about you?

                • Gosman

                  I still don’t understand what it is you are asking me. Are you seriously asking me if I support domestic violence?

                  • Cinny

                    Maybe I was confused Gossy. Did you mean ‘left-foward’ as a political leaning?

                    • left_forward

                      No Goz was referring to my pseudonym – sorry that my old football position confused you.
                      You are right though Cinny, I would indeed object (in a kind and caring sort of way) to my partner inviting a rude and unpleasant man around and that could theoretically lead to tension – fortunately she has similar views to me on racist pricks, so most unlikely.
                      Goz is demanding of the generally tolerant, tolerance for the intolerant!

                    • Cinny

                      Oh dear, my sincere apologies Gosman for misunderstanding. Sorry about that my bad.

                      Thanks for explaining left_forward. Once again apologies for my confusion.

    • Puckish Rogue 41.3

      I feel much the same way as anti-vaxers and anti-fluride types as you seem to feel about Don Brash, however as long as they don’t break any of NZs laws they have as much right to speak as Don Brash does

  41. Robert Guyton 42

    What, you reckon anti-vexers and anti-fluoride (sic) types shouldn’t try to balance on thin wooden planks, nor try to lever themselves into go carts?
    You are becoming odder by the day, Pucky!
    Let him squeak, I say again!

  42. Jenny 43

    There is no way that a racist like Don Brash should be allowed a sole platform while his opponents have virtually none.

    Anti-Maori political activist Don Brash should be allowed to speak, but never without the full right of reply on the same platform from a critical Maori voice able to expose Brash’s ignorance to the scrutiny it deserves.

    It is this critical Maori voice that is hardly ever heard in public, and has been hardly mentioned in the mainstream media.

    Despite the fact that he has never won an elected position. Despite the fact that he has no mandate, apart from an immeasurably small bunch of fellow bigots.

    All his adult lift Don Brash has enjoyed a level of unchallenged public utterance on multiple media platforms that most Maori in this country, (even Winston Peters), would be envious of, despite the fact that Brash is completely undeserving of such a privilege.

    This long history of one sided access to the bully pulpit of the media that has been afforded Don Brash, is not free speech it is biased speech. A long time discriminatory bias that has allowed Don Brash to push his unrepresentative, anti-Maori rhetoric into the public arena.

    Related posts and comments:

    There is no such thing as free speech
    Te Reo Putake

    Fact checking Don Brash’s racism
    Joe Trinder

    Hobson’s Pledge: Contradictions and Falsehoods

    • marty mars 43.1

      Yep his utterances have adversely affected this country – he’s a well poisoner. He’s like the human kauri dieback disease spreading toxic crap around the roots of tangata whenua. And as people call danger his supporters go – hey we are pine trees and not affected so it doesn’t matter.

      He is not smoothing the pillow he is holding it over the face!

    • Tricledrown 43.2

      Hobson’s Pledge incites divisiveness
      Neo Nazi’s regularly post and support this site.
      Brash is very happy to have these skin heads as his support base.

  43. David Mac 44

    Stephen and Lauren don’t give a big rat’s bottom about any cultural issues we may have in NZ. They care about money. Their outrageous sensationalist views don’t come from their hearts but their greedy wallets. In his own questionable way, Brash does care about NZ. His words come from his heart, not his pocket.

    The motive matters, in defending my family I can walk away from a murder charge, murder in rage and I’ll spend my life locked up. The discerning difference between S & M and Brash is why they wish to speak with us.

    • Robert Guyton 44.1

      Brash doesn’t care about money?
      Ex- Reserve Bank Governor, ACT and National Party leader???
      (Does anybody else know this?)

      • David Mac 44.1.1

        What do you think Brash’s utube income was last month? 100k? 150k?

        Brash doesn’t speak to meet his Lambo payments.

        • Robert Guyton 44.1.1.1

          Brash speaks from the heart? For the benefit of all humanity? As does Monty Burns, I guess but Brash’s beliefs come from his head, not his heart, I would propose.

          • David Mac 44.1.1.1.1

            Yeah, looks like we’re playing ping-pong but I think we fundamentally agree. Don doesn’t want to speak to line his pocket.

            Wearing an ‘Allah is gay’ T Shirt outside a mosque is all about utube clicks, nothing more, a sensationalist click magnet.

            Regardless of how we feel about him….the chances of seeing Don in a ‘Ban Te Reo’ T-Shirt outside a Kura are slim.

            • Robert Guyton 44.1.1.1.1.1

              It would be against Don’s principles to use the two words “te” and “reo”, so yes, slim.

            • Cinny 44.1.1.1.1.2

              David… this bit…

              “Wearing an ‘Allah is gay’ T Shirt outside a mosque is all about utube clicks, nothing more, a sensationalist click magnet.

              Regardless of how we feel about him….the chances of seeing Don in a ‘Ban Te Reo’ T-Shirt outside a Kura are slim.”

              Nailed it, well said.

    • Cinny 44.2

      Free speech, free speech….. please give generously so I don’t have to work and can take free holidays in the south pacific. Pay per view free speech?

      • Chris T 44.2.1

        Do you think Clinton, Obama and Al Gore do their speeches for free?

        • Robert Guyton 44.2.1.1

          The Canadians didn’t give one in NZ yet still swelled their coffers – that’s the point, Chris T.

        • David Mac 44.2.1.2

          No, they are paid hefty speaking fees. Just as Hosking is when he opens a shopping centre.

          Obama gets the big bucks because he is an ex POTUS. Not because he is a 1 million view utube jockey throwing salt in the wounds of minority groups for cash.

          • Chris T 44.2.1.2.1

            Do you think hero of the left whistle blower/5 x convicted of espionage Chelsea Manning will be speaking for free when she rocks on over in a few weeks with zero hassles?

            • greywarshark 44.2.1.2.1.1

              Chris T
              Do you think that other people should stick their necks out to reveal stuff we should know and that they do this because they are rich, or because they wish to be rich? They will have foregone much including living costs and probably are quite poor. They need to have something to live on and are likely to find ordinary employment hard to get.

              • Chris T

                Not when some of what they are giving out is the details of special forces soldiers currently under cover infiltrating an enemy in the middle of a war, no.

                Do you not think that is slightly irresponsible, to say the least?

                Have they not heard of a black felt pen?

            • David Mac 44.2.1.2.1.2

              Chelsea has an interesting dynamic story to tell. If people want to pay to hear her, fine.

              S & M’s story to share is ‘I wore this T Shirt and this happened’ and “Hey black people, a scientist told me you’re dumber than white people.”….that’s their life story to share.

              It has nothing to do with sharing life experiences and ideas and everything to do with churning a $.

            • Cinny 44.2.1.2.1.3

              Do you Chris?

              • Chris T

                Do I what?

                • Cinny

                  “Do you think hero of the left whistle blower/5 x convicted of espionage Chelsea Manning will be speaking for free when she rocks on over in a few weeks with zero hassles?”

                  • Chris T

                    Of course not

                    Everyone is entitled to charge for what ever they are worth people paying to go to.

                    Just like a band or a play or a movie

                    And the Canadians, Chelsea Manning etc aren’t multi jagiliionaires like the 3 politicians I mentioned (Who also get free first class airfares and accommodation), so couldn’t afford to come if they didn’t

                    If they weren’t worth the money people wouldn’t buy the tickets

                    • David Mac

                      Yep, I agree, we shouldn’t ban any wild west medicine show that comes to town. Let the flim flam men sell their wares to the unsuspecting.

                      What if one of their concoctions is 35% opiates? It seems enough of us thought that that two medicine men were selling such a recipe. We ran them out of town, they’re free to peddle their medicine online.

        • Cinny 44.2.1.3

          Lmao, of course ex USA politicians jump on that cash cow, like many others.

          Will s&m sue over a booking blunder? Probably not. Rather they prefer to beg via the youtube for money. Will s&m post their NZ speech on the net for free?

          I’d be very interested to know if s&m take any legal action at all over the situation.

          • David Mac 44.2.1.3.1

            As Robert Guyton pointed out, they’ve done nicely out of NZ. I paid them. I wanted an accurate handle on what they’re on about, watched Southern’s feature length movie on utube.

            100’s of people have become millionaires via the utube content they upload.

            S & M will be clipping the NZ ticket without being here, job done.

            • SaveNZ 44.2.1.3.1.1

              Exactly, I had zero interest in anything they had to say, but after 2 weeks of solid media coverage, I watched the movie too, to work out what the F they were saying. Whatever I watched, Homeland? the South African one, was not that offensive in my view and the IQ one was saying Jews were the most intelligent based on some tiny pool of army recruits. IQ is pretty much discredited as a concept anyway. So I wasn’t interested in diving too deep into anything those two had to say, but I couldn’t see anything inciting violence or hate crimes in what I viewed just normal crap you see everywhere… so the extreme intolerant “antiracist” mob is actually getting these guys money as well as publicity and taking more important local things off the radar! Good Job! (sarcasm).

  44. sumsuch 45

    300 comments on things that don’t matter as much as so much. Good shit. End of the super-human (near and sharp 90 % decline of human population) and the predominance of the people over the rich. But fucken easy to comment. Unlike saying or doing anything about what does matter.

  45. Gosman 46

    I spoke with Massey University’s Vice Chancellor office (not with the VC though). They stated the only reason the event with Don Brash was cancelled was because of a Facebook post on a page from a Vorn Rossiter in which he stated that a gun might be being brought to the event. There are two FB profiles for Vorn Rossiter although they seem to be the same person. The one which caused the cancellation is the one based in Hell, Norway (obviously a joke). The VC office stated they made the decision to cancel the event on security grounds without consulting Police.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Ngāti Tūwharetoa passes third reading
    Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Andrew Little, today welcomed Te Ariki Tā Tumu Te Heuheu and members of Ngāti Tūwharetoa to Parliament to witness the Third Reading of their Treaty Settlement legislation, the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill. ...
    12 hours ago
  • Crackdown on synthetic drug dealers
    Crackdown on synthetic drug dealers  The Government is responding to increased drug-related deaths by cracking down on the suppliers of synthetic drugs while making it easier for those with addiction problems to get treatment, Health Minister Dr David Clark ...
    14 hours ago
  • Milestone in Police recruitment
    A milestone in Police recruitment has been achieved with the deployment of more than 1,000 new constables around the country since the government was formed. Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters and Police Minister Stuart Nash congratulated graduates of Wing 321 ...
    17 hours ago
  • Government ropes in livestock rustling
    Justice Minister Andrew Little today introduced a supplementary order paper (SOP) on the Crimes Amendment Bill to crack down on livestock rustling. ...
    2 days ago
  • Small business the focus of Australian talks
    Efforts to progress a seamless trans-Tasman business environment will take another step at a ministerial roundtable meeting in Sydney tomorrow. Small Business Minister Stuart Nash and Australian Assistant Treasurer Stuart Robert will co-host a roundtable meeting of senior government and ...
    3 days ago
  • Andrew Little – Speech to Amnesty International event to mark the 70th Anniversary of the Univ...
    ANDREW LITTLE - SPEECH TO AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL EVENT TO MARK THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ON WORLD HUMAN RIGHTS DAY, PARLIAMENT, WELLINGTON ...
    3 days ago
  • Tax reforms focus on fairness
    New tax legislation has been introduced to Parliament to ensure greater fairness in the way the tax system shapes commerce, investment decisions and social policies. Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has introduced the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2019-20, GST Offshore Supplier ...
    1 week ago
  • Preventing death and injury on our roads
    Police Minister Stuart Nash and Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter are encouraging road users to be alert to a new safety campaign launched today by Police and the NZ Transport Agency in the lead up to the Christmas. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • New comms centre improves public services
    A new digital services and communications centre opened on the Kapiti Coast will help transform the way Police connect with the public and work to make communities safe. Police Minister Stuart Nash has officially opened the Police Digital Services Centre, ...
    2 weeks ago