The difference between Don Brash and Southern & Molyneux

Written By: - Date published: 2:38 pm, August 8th, 2018 - 66 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, Deep stuff, democracy under attack, don brash, political alternatives, Politics - Tags: , ,

We are into round two of the debate concerning the right to freedom of speech in Aotearoa New Zealand.

By a cruel twist of fate the subject matter is now Don Brash, former National Party leader, and who previously was the applicant for a super injunction that for a time prevented the publication of Nicky Hager’s book Hollow Men.  Brash is also part of the free speech coalition an entity set up to preserve the rights of Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux to insult people and say what they like.  If only Brash was as enthusiastic in protecting the rights of, for instance, Renae Maihi who is being sued by Bob Jones for pointing out that a recent column of his was abjectly racist.

And as Morgan Godfrey and Alexander Bisley have pointed out Brash only supports free speech as long as it is in English.

But the subject of his speech was pretty innocuous. He should have been able to speak.

The question has been asked, can a leftie actually support Molyneux’s and Southern’s rights to freedom of speech but not Brash’s?

That is the situation I find myself in.

With regards to Molyneux and Southern I have said this:

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.

And this:

And dang it but this leftie thinks that we should not have to allow publicly provided facilities to be used for the propagation of monetised hate speech with strict entry requirements.  Especially if they have in the past deliberately picked fights with muslims and acted to disrupt the efforts of others to save refugees from drowning.

They were never stopped from talking.  But I was happy for their ability to speak to be frustrated and for the response to them to be loud and passionate.  Because to me their speech was clearly monetised hate speech and did not deserve to be treated in the same way as honestly held but ignorant views.

My objection to Southern and Molyneux was perfectly captured in this comment by the Failed Estate author Jim Parker:

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.

Brash is a bit different.  It is not so much a business model, just the overuse of the dogwhistle.

And you have to draw a line.  His speech, particularly about race relations, is often wrong, but at least he is attempting to drum up support for the use of conventional means to achieve his goals.  Trying to get people to sign a petition that is recognised by statute is entirely different to trying to get people to riot for the sake of interesting youtube clips.

The problem is that thanks to the amplification of social media the current left right political split is so intense, and America shows what can happen when the left lose.  The hard right in the States has become particularly emboldened, and race relations as well as the rights of minorities is suffering.  The extreme right is very dangerous. Which is why the left is so focussed on them.  There is a great deal at stake.

And elements of the right are so extreme.

Like Infowars.  It is amazing that Alex Jones should have been able to create a business model out of what he was saying and I am not surprised that his social media feeds have been reversed.  He was just too insane for words.  This particular outstanding effort is today’s winner of the weirdest thing on the internet award but highlights what a waste of broadband he was.

But can I say the left is getting a bad  rap out of this.  We do not necessarily want to ban, just confront.

Like last Saturday in Auckland.  A small group of Fascists gathered for a protest at Aotea Square.  Unite Union obviously heard about it and turned up to oppose.  Someone had designed a wonderful list of songs highlighting diversity and this was played loudly in the direction of the Tommy Robinson supporters.  And people chose to celebrate diversity by dancing.

What was really interesting was the interaction between the groups.  Initially interactions were tense.  As time went by there was a great deal of interaction between the groups and a lot of individual discussions occurred.  By the end of the protest both groups were on reasonable talking terms.  It was a typical New Zealand scene.  I don’t think any minds were changed.  But both sides were prepared to defend and debate their points of view and in the case of Unite with style and passion.

So let Don speak. But don’t expect the left’s response to be quiet or respectful.

66 comments on “The difference between Don Brash and Southern & Molyneux”

  1. Superb piece, MS. There is always a line to be drawn, as you say. Brash and the Canadian racists are on a continuum and obviously Brash feels a kinship with them, however that doesn’t mean we should treat all three the same.

    The money aspect is important too. The Canadians make obscene amounts of cash from race baiting and that does differentiate them from Brash. I presume Brash is well off, having milked the taxpayers teat most of his working life. His current efforts to silence maori at local Government level have the feel of a retirement project.

    If only he’d taken up fishing, he could be baiting hooks, not the tangata whenua.

    I’ve noted elsewhere that I once shook Don the Reasonable Racist’s hand. That was when he was Nat leader and looking to become PM. I got a bit of stick for it from mates, but to me, that’s a normal Kiwi response to meeting an opponent.

    Southern and Molyneux are not my opponents, however. They are the enemy of all that is good and decent in New Zealand (and in the very similarly civilised country of Canada). They operate at a different level to Brash and for a very different purpose.

  2. Puckish Rogue 2

    “So let Don speak. But don’t expect the left’s response to be quiet or respectful.”

    As long as its legal its all good

  3. The difference is Southern and her mate are FOREIGNERS.

    Coming to our country , stirring up crap about issues that do not even remotely pertain to us. They should clean their own backyard up before snooping around ours. And we have every right to decide when and if someones message is toxic and harmful to our way of life.

    That’s our sovereign democratic right and freedom of speech to do so.

    Irrespective of whether they wish to claim a Pyrrhic victory for their cause on having access denied. They got the short shrift here and their only recourse is then to claim a weak victory in defending ‘freedom of speech’. And anyone can see right through that spurious line of reasoning.

    Now Mr Brash ,… is another kettle of fish entirely. He is a NZ citizen. And while some may not agree with him, at least on the whole his messages pertain directly to the prevalent issues facing NZ politics today. And its up to us to either oppose or agree with that message. We will deal with our own the best way we see fit to.

    Let Mr Brash speak.

    But don’t lets see any more of this importing of extremist foreigners here to do your own dirty work for you if your own arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny. Especially ones who are irrelevant to NZ issues and only seek to harm our way of life.

    • Gosman 3.1

      So the VC should resign in your opinion?

      • WILD KATIPO 3.1.1

        The VC should have a jolly good talking to.

        This is not a foreigners paradise where they think they can just come here , spout off their toxic irrelevant nonsense and stir up trouble without even a buy you or leave , – but when one of our own citizens wishes to speak then we deal with that accordingly.

        That’s where I personally draw the line.

        Don Brash is a long time NZ citizen , has held prominent positions and whether we like him or not , he has a right to speak on issues that pertain to NZ , – perceived or otherwise. And if his views do not hold up to scrutiny, so be it.

  4. Ad 4

    “Like last Saturday in Auckland. A small group of Fascists gathered for a protest at Aotea Square. Unite Union obviously heard about it and turned up to oppose. Someone had designed a wonderful list of songs highlighting diversity and this was played loudly in the direction of the Tommy Robinson supporters. And people chose to celebrate diversity by dancing.

    What was really interesting was the interaction between the groups. Initially interactions were tense. As time went by there was a great deal of interaction between the groups and a lot of individual discussions occurred. By the end of the protest both groups were on reasonable talking terms. It was a typical New Zealand scene. I don’t think any minds were changed. But both sides were prepared to defend and debate their points of view and in the case of Unite with style and passion.”

    It’s a good story, if you’re espousing more contests between views. If you thought the line needed to be drawn there, clearly they proved you wrong.

    It illustrates that the left who want to ban speakers should trust New Zealanders to engage with respect. The patrician left. It cuts right against the weak-assed crap like the Massey Vice Chancellor afraid of a voice or two being raised.

    As for monetising speech being bad, well, monetised speech is in every single broadcaster in New Zealand except RNZ. It’s a fact that’s been with us for a wee while and it hasn’t killed us. If the left were making money hosting speakers for the good of their parties, no-one would complain.

    Just as two other examples, the Minister of Finance spoke at Sky City today to a bunch of investors giving a standard State of the Nation, and you can guarantee that wasn’t free.

    Minister Twyford will be keynote at the Building Nations conference on Thursday. Tickets are sold out at nearly $2,000 a head.

    I agree lines have to be drawn. If they have to be drawn by the courts occasionally, that’s the right thing to occur. Courts are used at the extremes of Alec Jones-type contest with Whaleoil. And it’s not like the Courts are tilting in Whaleoil’s favour are they?

    It’s not like the left are losing ground here: we’re in power. We should afford a little more contesting of ideas.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1

      As for monetising speech being bad, well, monetised speech is in every single broadcaster in New Zealand except RNZ.

      It’s not monetised speech that’s the problem but monetised hate speech.

      Whether you like it or not hate speech is illegal in NZ.

      • Ad 4.1.1

        It does the left no favours when they retreat of labelling speech hateful. Again, if needs be the courts can do that.

        Currently the only chance we get to do that as a whole and trusted public is in an election. Even though that speech has been as full of hate as Don Brash could muster, the left still beat him.

        Trust the people and they will reward you.

      • Dennis Frank 4.1.2

        I haven’t seen evidence of hate speech. Perceptions of it by some individuals seem to have marginal relevance only, while a consensus around the existence of such continues to fail to manifest. A successful prosecution would establish relevance. Is the only reason Brash has not been prosecuted his deep pockets?

  5. Cinny 5

    Excellent post Micky.

  6. OctusSpherus 6

    Innocuous is right. I read his speech notes and damn near fell asleep.

  7. Bill 7

    Reads to me like there’s a confusion between the principle of free speech on the one hand and the content of any given speechon the other. And a subjective (and pre-emptive) evaluation of the latter being used to justify stomping down on the former.

    No one, contrary to what’s written in this post, has the right to say what they want. There are obvious caveats around incitement.

    Southern and Molyneux did not incite anything, (How could they have?) but this nonsense claim about them being fascist, as opposed to just plain stupid (politically), and that claim then being accepted “as read” and used to do battle in grand pappy’s imagined 1930s/40s shadow to shut them down, isn’t just merely acting from a purely subjective standpoint, but is incredibly authoritarian to boot.

    A coach and horses can be driven through Southern and Molyneux’s political positions with consummate ease and could have/should have been done in the unlikely event their booked presentation caused any ripples.

    But robbing them of this new platform where they can now, and with some reason, claim to be victims of anti-free speech stuff is much more difficult. As is also the case with Tommy (EDL) Robinson, who was similarly gifted a platform of moral high ground by idiots.

    Are there differences between Brash on one side and Mollyneux and Southern on the other? Yes. Does any difference have anything whatsoever to do with the price of cheese (ie – the principle of free speech)? No. Has monetisation got anything to do with anything? No.

    I can fully understand the authoritarian left calling out anything and everything that doesn’t accord with their own political authoritarianism as being fascist, and then getting all hard on it as they manipulate people and imagine executing a storming of the Winter Palace Mk II (it’s what they do and have always done).

    And I fully understand and support those who turned up to Aotea Square to celebrate diversity and community.

    What I don’t understand is this wholly arbitrary justification for killing speech from people who don’t have that old “communist”* wheelbarrow to push (unless they’ve been hoodwinked by “the communists”*).

    You’re post doesn’t help on that front and more, since you finally rest your objection on something that Jim Parker wrote that undermines all your protestations and claims about “hate speech” and “fascism”, well…my confusion’s compounded.

    Question. In the future, who get’s to decide whether any given speaker or speech is acceptable? Is it just going to be down to whether enough of a stink can get whipped up by whoever?

    And if it is going to come down to that, then how long before you reckon good people are on the wrong side of that mob menatility, or silenced by it; before some quite fascistic culture determines who can have a voice and what can be voiced? From where I’m sitting, the first steps down that lamentable path have been taken (and that’s without mentioning anything about corporations like the BBC killing political discourse, or providers of digital platforms being gifted the role of judge and jury on political speech).

    * obviously not a reference to actual communism or communists insofar as authoritarianism is the antithesis of communism.

    • McFlock 7.1

      Their desire for outrage is commercial and apolitical. What they say is political.

      The people who feel invested enough in their political messages to donate to their pages, pay to see them speak, and buy their merchandise… those people aren’t apolitical at all.

      Just to find some sort of milestone for semantic comparison, Bill, would you regard the Charleston marchers as being in the ballpark of “fascist”? You know, the torchlight march where they chanted that “the Jews will not replace us”?

      Because I regard them as being close enough to the term as to not have any practical distinction from it.

      • Bill 7.1.1

        What I do and don’t see as “in the ballpark” of fascist/authoritarian/fucked-up isn’t relevant.

        Neither is any comparison between a public march or protest, and a person merely speaking to a self selecting audience.

        • McFlock 7.1.1.1

          Yeah, it actually would let me see if we’re even close to using the word in a similar fashion.

          Because if we have at least some commonality in the use of the word, at least we’d be debating about what S&M are rather than just talking past each other yet again.

          • Bill 7.1.1.1.1

            I don’t care what S&M are – they have a right to speak to people who want to listen to them. The only caveat is that (or those) that exist around incitement.

            And no, they have no right to expect others to provide them with a platform, though, as No Right Turn has pointed out, there is the question of the Human Rights Act when it comes to pulling the rug out from under them.

            A bit like “cake lady” then. Turn them down, but don’t drop yourself in it by contravening the HRA.

            • Robert Guyton 7.1.1.1.1.1

              “A bit like “cake lady” then. Turn them down, but don’t drop yourself in it by contravening the HRA.”
              Spot on, that.

            • McFlock 7.1.1.1.1.2

              I agree with the cake lady thing.

              But I believe S&M shouldn’t have been allowed into the country in the first place. Because of what they are. Whether they run close to incitement or over it, their followers are a threat to the rest of society. Including both of us.

    • Was the message of Southern and her little buddy a wholesome uplifting one to encourage peaceful and harmonious cultural interactions ?. No . And quite possibly that should be the litmus test by which we judge things.

      Perhaps that’s why also , in lieu of lacking sufficient laws or legal body’s to either define what is and what isn’t a detrimental message that could potentially lead to social unrest and / or harm there was such a backlash.

      The other thing was that they were foreigners presenting irrelevant nonsense about issues that were not even applicable to this country . Unlike Brash who is a NZ citizen , and is part of the evolving race relations debate in this country – for better or for worse. He is relevant, – Southern was not.

      There are countless times when Police officers intervene when someone is yelling and stirring up a potentially violent situation , – and they do it to diffuse a situation. And yet all the ‘ offender’ did was yell etc.

      IE : Intent.

    • Pat 7.3

      that….and the fact they are the most successful recruiters for that which they so mindlessly oppose.

  8. McFlock 8

    Yeah, the comparison with the nestle chocolate dude is especially apt – both university-controlled venues cancelling objectionable events on safety grounds.

    However, in the case of milo the threats were clear, had been moderated as much as possible, and still was a danger to public safety.

    With Brash, the threat seems to be less clear, the presenter less likely to be a firebrand, and tensions are still much less heightened and with lower numbers of people.

    Gosman is wanking on about demanding resignations, but it’s not really all that catastrophic. Maybe a bit worse than dumping the Critic magazines a few weeks back.

  9. Draco T Bastard 9

    Because to me their speech was clearly monetised hate speech and did not deserve to be treated in the same way as honestly held but ignorant views.

    Instead of seeing it as a free-speech issue perhaps we should see it as a business issue and ban that type (monetised hate speech) of business. There are precedents for banning business models that are detrimental to society. No one advertises as Assassin for Hire in the local rag for example.

    • Ad 9.1

      The New Zealand electorate is quite happy to have the Communist League of New Zealand actively contest elections, as it has for decades. They support the violent overthrow of most things.

      As of course you do.

      Sure, the local Communists aren’t very popular. But they advertise their wares, and who are we to stop them?

      • WILD KATIPO 9.1.1

        Nuuuuuuuuuuuu…. formed in 1969 by a bunch of students who protested the Vietnam war among other popular items of the day…

        But they were hardly the Red Brigade or the Weathermen . LOL !

        And if they did have violent intent,… how long do you think it would be until the GSCB and SIS along with the NZ Police infiltrated their number?

        And I certainly think they never advertised their wares as being ‘assassins for hire’.

        🙂

        • Ad 9.1.1.1

          Ok you’re on.
          I’m doing a post on why we need more radicals.

          • WILD KATIPO 9.1.1.1.1

            Goody. But make sure they are ‘nice’ radicals. And excluding neo liberals because they are not nice.

          • Robert Guyton 9.1.1.1.2

            I reckon there’s a natural limit on the number of radicals in any population, be they human or aphid.

        • Bewildered 9.1.1.2

          Why don’t communist and fascist get the same level of vitriol, both ideologies killled millions, communism more so and greater number of thier own people I always find it strange why it’s ok to be a communist as far as the left is concerned but not a fascist where each are equally abhorrent Just one of the many double standards, selective morality and contradictions that comes out from the left

          • WILD KATIPO 9.1.1.2.1

            Yeah but some of us are more old school pre 1984 ‘centrists’ and dislike fascism and communism with equal abhorrence. Yet due to being that type of old schooler we now get branded as ‘left’ by the so called ‘orthodox’ and radical neo liberals…

            Maybe Ad could do a post on not very nice radical neo liberalism …?

          • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.2.2

            both ideologies killled millions, communism more so and greater number of thier own people
            And capitalism even more so. In fact, fascism is just another form of capitalism.

            And Marx would never have recognised either the USSR or China as communist.

            • KJT 9.1.1.2.2.1

              Actually. US capitalists body count now exceeds both Stalin and Hitler, combined.

              • Draco T Bastard

                Yeah, that bit was supposed to be quoted. It was actually by Bewildered who’s simply believing and spouting the lies of those who want to prove communism/socialism as bad but who never look at the death toll of the capitalists in their never ending wars.

          • Anne 9.1.1.2.3

            Who said its OK to be a communist? The reason we are talking about fascism is because at this point it is the extreme ideology which is causing all the trouble.

            Communism as practiced by the Soviet Union is no longer a threat to world peace. Of course that could all change one day just like it has with fascism, but I guess this might be a bit too bewildering Bewildered.

            • Dukeofurl 9.1.1.2.3.1

              Communism is still the official idelogy of the people’s republic of China

              • Anne

                Yes. and there is no guarantee sometime in the future it won’t become a threat, but at this point it is relatively benign even if its human rights record leaves a lot to be desired.

            • Bewildered 9.1.1.2.3.2

              The ideology has killed millions as recent as Cambodia, where ever it has been practiced the impact on humanity has been atrocious To say it’s ok now is to argue if a facist comes out and says I am a new fascist ( ie the S& M type) not like the historical ones all is ok, Draco get out of jail card by speaking the mind of a guy who died a hundred years ago is getting pretty desperate to simply abdicate communist ideology that led to the of death of millions in the 20th century is shameful

              • Oh , what a load of complete and utter selective bollocks !

                Who was Pinochet , then ?

                —————————————————–

                [ ‘ The dictatorship was established after the democratically-elected socialist government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by a CIA-backed coup d’état on 11 September 1973.

                The regime was characterized by the systematic suppression of political parties and the persecution of dissidents to an extent unprecedented in the history of Chile. Overall, the regime left over 3,000 dead or missing, tortured tens of thousands of prisoners,[1] and drove an estimated 200,000 Chileans into exile.[2] The dictatorship’s effects on Chilean political and economic life continue to be felt. Two years after its ascension radical neoliberal economic reforms were implemented, in sharp contrast to Allende’s leftist policies, advised by a team of free-market economists educated in American universities known as the Chicago Boys ‘ ].

                ———————————————————

                Just one example of a fascist and their genocides.

                Communism , fascism . All of em bad bastards.

              • McFlock

                Basically, the stated objective of communism is stateless peace for everyone. The objective of fascism is everyone else is under the control of the fascists. The stated belief of Nazis is everyone else dies.

                I dislike the political predictions of Marx: Communism is always a bit “no true Scotsman”. Every regime that called itself Communist at the time is written off by “true Communists” as merely the pre-Communist stumbling block of the “Dictatorship of the proletariat”, and sadly failed to achieve true Communism.

                Marx was outstanding at pointing out the flaws of capitalism. His solution to it is a bit hand-wavy, unfortunately. But at least he managed the first bit, which was more than anyone else managed at the time.

                • [‘ But at least he managed the first bit, which was more than anyone else managed at the time ‘].

                  Yeah I guess so , but there always seems such a gulf between the academics , the idealist and the purist and what gets translated into reality. And that’s the problem. All good intentions and a framework of theory ,… but in creeps the power-heads and the opportunists.

                  The French revolution is a classic example of an out of control situation that started off with all good intentions of egalitarianism ( kind off) which led on to the wholesale slaughter of royals , innocent or not , anyone opposing the slaughter , anyone who even remotely opposed the revolution , – and eventually , – even the guy who pushed for the executions the hardest (Robespierre ) . And then finally,… into the conquest of Europe by Napoleon and countless more deaths.

                  And that insanity became almost a blueprint for both communism and fascism of the future.

                  • McFlock

                    Well, Marius went a bit nuts in Rome too, if I recall correctly.

                    The French Revolution had its share of intellectuals, but it was more a mob mentality.

                    One could also argue that the problem with Marx is that his abstract predictions were in the same line as “Jesus will come again”: for the first few hundred years of Christianity, the operating condition was “any day now”. Marx created painfully researched documentation of factory conditions in England, and coupled it with a Hegelian dialectic of “feudalism, capitalism, then after a brief transition that will have seen many previous failed attempts, Communism and mung beans”.

                    Meaning every revolutionary sees themselves as being the culmination of history.

                    The right wing fringes are more about “we don’t have power. We want total power. Then we’ll be in charge”.

                    Communism tends to fuck up because its “the workers should be in power. We are the sword of the workers. Some workers don’t like us. Those workers must be secret capitalists. We will kill them on behalf of the workers”.

                    • Pretty much finding myself agreeing, tbh.

                      One thing I picked up on is the Hegalian dialectic,… that’s an interesting one which we see being used all the time by manipulative politicians of all political stripes,…

                      [ ‘ Comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction; an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis; and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. In more simplistic terms, one can consider it thus: problem → reaction → solution’].

                      Well , in simple terms… create a situation ( thesis ) , then give the polar extreme ( antithesis ) – after that ,- swoop in with the answer they desired all along ( synthesis).

                      Basically , – manipulation. And they do it to us all the time in countless ways. That’s why politicians have such low ratings with the public regards trustworthiness.

                      Another thing I’m glad you mentioned is that … the temporal activist often views themselves as you put it , …’ as every revolutionary sees themselves as being the culmination of history’. It is often at this point that the world has moved on… Che Guevara was one such. There are many more. They outlive their use by dates and find themselves out of step.

                      But the damage and harm that extremists often cause by distorting the original idea to achieve their aims often negates all the best work of those extremists. And they are rejected. I believe it is simply a human tendency. A type of social entropy ,… in a sense.

                      Extremes, … and the violence that often accompany’s it ,…is never a long term solution or even a short term one. And it is more often than not the very same thing that kills the movement after time.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  Every regime that called itself Communist at the time is written off by “true Communists” as merely the pre-Communist stumbling block of the “Dictatorship of the proletariat”, and sadly failed to achieve true Communism.

                  Well, they didn’t achieve True Communism. If they had they would have been a participatory democracy with no hierarchy.

                  And the “Dictatorship of the proletariat” is an oxymoron. You can’t actually have one. The proletariat is all of the people and the only way they could make decisions is through a democratic system with no dictator in sight.

                  The USSR and China and The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea ended up as dictatorships precisely because they’re not communist and never were.

              • KJT

                Cuba seems to be doing rather well. Compared with the hotbeds of Dictatorship, crime and corruption in the surrounding “Capitalist” US client States.

              • Draco T Bastard

                Draco get out of jail card by speaking the mind of a guy who died a hundred years ago

                Actually, I pretty much only speak my own mind.

                You, on the other hand, only seem to spout the lies that you’ve been told by those higher up the pecking order of your ideology.

      • Draco T Bastard 9.1.2

        The New Zealand electorate is quite happy to have the Communist League of New Zealand actively contest elections, as it has for decades. They support the violent overthrow of most things.

        [citation needed]

        As of course you do.

        That’s just an outright lie.

    • Chris T 9.2

      Why?

      Does it make your argument easier to defend?

      It is a free speech issue

      Attached to this is what qualifies as hate speech

      Because its obviously a hazy line of what is and what isnt between people going by recent events only courts can decide this no matter how much the people deciding they are the countries censors think otherwise

      • WILD KATIPO 9.2.1

        In one aspect perhaps the people in this country are the censors ???

        Southern certainly seemed to get the bums rush from them…

        Sure is a multi faceted topic.

        • Chris T 9.2.1.1

          Fair point, but not entirely true

          They had a venue. The venue owner just did a runner on them just before the event.

          • WILD KATIPO 9.2.1.1.1

            Well , perhaps the venue owner exercised their freedom of choice… 🙂

            And,…lets not forget also, Southern and sidekick were free to search for another venue… but they didn’t,… which also begs the question… just what substance did their message have if they didn’t even have the organizational skills for a plan B?

            They must have known in advance they were not particularly popular… but chose to pull the martyr thing instead… kinda weak, really…

            • Chris T 9.2.1.1.1.1

              It kind of more begs the question of how they are supposed to find one that holds that many people in such a short amount of time

              It’s all irrelevant now any way

              What is done is done

              Protesters (apparently making a bomb threat according to a couple of papers) – 1
              Free speech – 0

              • I reckon it just about pans out equal… Protesters shouldn’t do some of the things they do nor should people like Southern go around trying to troll and stir up unnecessary social turmoil.

                And you would of thought if they were so popular and being supported by some very wealthy individuals in NZ that finding another venue would have been a cinch.

        • Robert Guyton 9.2.1.2

          …bums’ rush, eh…

      • Draco T Bastard 9.2.2

        Does it make your argument easier to defend?

        What argument?

        Attached to this is what qualifies as hate speech

        Defined in law – look it up.

        • Chris T 9.2.2.1

          trying to switch it from a free speech issue to a business issue

          • Robert Guyton 9.2.2.1.1

            “But the subject of his speech was pretty innocuous. He should have been able to speak.”
            Bet he would have gone off-script. That Brash; he’s a cagey one!

  10. Stuart Munro 10

    Well I back the chancellor.

    It’s simply ludicrous to let raddled old political roués like Brash hide behind principles they do not and have never espoused.

    It’s like swallowing the manufactured rage of Chinese speculators over Twyford’s revelation of their existence, and buying their specious racism arguments.

    Brash’s freedom of speech has not been curtailed. There is nothing more to be said.

    • Chris T 10.1

      “Brash’s freedom of speech has not been curtailed”

      Has at the uni

      As has the students right to hear

      • WILD KATIPO 10.1.1

        He’ll be back ,… with his corned beef and peas.

        Don’t worry.

      • Dukeofurl 10.1.2

        What was the essence of the Free Speech Coalition legal case then, it wasn’t that their Free speech was curtailed. It was about a judicial review to the venues right to cancel.
        Yet they ignored any legal avenue that involved freedom of expression- the NZ term

      • Stuart Munro 10.1.3

        Crikey – haven’t Massey students heard of skype? My Korean colleagues used to set up teleconferences at the drop of a hat.

        I guess I can understand their not being bothered enough to though.

  11. Jenny 11

    As reported on TV1 News tonight, Auckland University who have invited Don Brash to speak, had previously banned Hone Harawira from speaking, allegedly for fear of protesters.

    What is the difference between Don Brash and Hone Harawira

    Well quite obviously their skin colour is a different shade.

    If the University of Auckland don’t want to be seen as biased they need to invite Hone Harawira to the same stage with the same amount of speaking time as Don Brash.

    If the University and Brash don’t agree, then I for one will be protesting.

    Will the University call off Brash’s speech because of protesters?

    Don’t hold your breath.

    Free Speech at Auckland University. Maori needn’t apply

    • Would actually be good to have them both up on stage.

      And get a real political debate going.

      Its time for this country to grow up.

      • Jenny 11.1.1

        There is no such thing as free speech
        Te Reo Putake

        In the interests of fairness and real free speech, to provide a counter balance to Brash’s dangerous white supremacist lies, and because of their past history of banning him, it is incumbent on the University of Auckland to invite Hone Harawira onto the same platform. (or if Harawira is not available at short notice, Harawira’s spokesperson Joe Trinder.)*

        Brash shouldn’t be allowed to speak until Hone Harawira is given equal right.

        Now I would pay real money for that.

        *(For those who don’t know him, Joe Trinder is the author of the Mana News Website, the official website of the Mana Movement.)

        HOBSON’S LEGACY IS NOT HOBSON’S PLEDGE
        Mana News – September 18, 2017

  12. Nick K 12

    Jeez, Brash doesn’t have greater rights to freedom of expression than S&M (heh!), they both have the same rights, measured against the limits in the Bill of Rights Act.

    You should understand that, Mickey.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Significant step in Pike River drift re-entry
    Minister Responsible for Pike River Re-entry Andrew Little has received the report on re-entering the Pike River drift following nine months of intensive work by Te Kāhui Whakamana Rua Tekau Mā Iwa Pike River Recovery Agency. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Ngāpuhi mandate proposal to vote
    Ngāpuhi rangatira and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Andrew Little have unanimously agreed to move towards negotiations by taking the vote to the people after meeting at Parliament tonight ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Criminal Case Review Commission Bill passes first reading
    Justice Minister Andrew Little’s Bill establishing a Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) passed its First Reading in Parliament today.  ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Trans-Tasman e-Invoicing Arrangement signed
    Today in Canberra Small Business Minister Hon Stuart Nash signed the formal trans-Tasman e-Invoicing Arrangement with Australian Assistant Treasurer, Hon Stuart Robert. As well as signing the Arrangement they also discussed the longer term advantages for businesses using the Australian ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Minister visiting Australian counterparts
    This week Minister for Small Business, Hon Stuart Nash, is travelling to Canberra for a range of meetings with his Australian counterparts across three of his portfolios. The first visit is with the Australian Assistant Treasurer, the Honourable Stuart Robert ...
    3 weeks ago