- Date published:
7:54 am, March 26th, 2019 - 564 comments
Categories: censorship, Christchurch Attack, Deep stuff, don brash, internet, interweb, Politics, Propaganda, spin, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: dan satherley, jordan williams, Thomas Beagle
The Free Speech coalition has a somewhat checkered history. It was formed to support a couple of low class fascists coming to New Zealand and insulting multiculturalism for clicks and profit.
The really upsetting thing about the fascists was that it seemed questionable that they actually believed what they said. Instead it appeared to be monetised hate speech.
Jim Parker summarised the business model well:
There’s a pattern emerging. [Lauren Southern], 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.
So who is the Free Speech coalition.
Don Brash is a member. As I said earlier his commitment to the freedom of the publication of ideas is such that he once took out a preemptive injunction trying to stop the publication of Nicky Hager’s book Hollow Men.
And he is also totally opposed to the use of Maori. Freedom of speech as long as it is not about him and is in English.
The spokesperson is Dr. David Cumin who thought that the New Zealand supported UN resolution on Palestine at the end of last year unfairly demonised Israel and who opposes “hateful” graffiti that attacks Israel. Anti Israeli graffiti clearly for him is not the exercise of free speech.
And Jordan Williams is still there. As I said earlier he has some history. He did not like it when Eleanor Catton criticised National and is not happy about Colin Craig exercising his right to free speech and say not very nice things about Williams.
So what do they think about the Censor’s decision to ban the manifesto of that person who shall not be named? From Dan Satherley at Newshub:
“This is a completely improper use of the censorship powers,” Free Speech Coalition spokesperson Stephen Franks said. “Most New Zealanders will have no interest in reading the rants of an evil person. But there is a major debate going on right now on the causes of extremism. Kiwis should not be wrapped in cotton wool with their news and information censored.”
But wait. There is another organisation in our country full of legal talent and dedicated to the protection of our freedoms. I wonder what they think?
But another free speech group, the NZ Council for Civil Liberties, says the Chief Censor’s decision falls “right in the middle” of what the law calls for.
“It’s not an extreme ruling or a novel interpretation of the law,” chairperson Thomas Beagle told Magic Talk on Monday.
“I think it’s important that people in New Zealand do know the basis for what has happened. I’m not sure whether they need the interpretations from the media, or go read it themselves. We believe that freedom of expression is important, but we also believe there should be limits to it, as is justifiable in a free and democratic society. And I can’t see this particular ban as being a serious impediment to that.”
Beagle said it wasn’t a “gross invasion” of free speech, and even if the document wasn’t banned, sharing it could contravene other laws – such as the Human Rights Act, which outlaws inciting racial disharmony. The manifesto details the gunman’s white supremacist and anti-migrant views.
Beagle is perfectly correct. There is no absolute right to freedom of speech.
In particular the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 provides that a publication is deemed to be objectionable if it promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support acts of torture or the infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty.
And the manifesto clearly does. It is a call to arms against the Muslim community.
It advocates for and urges acts of hostility against Muslims living in Aotearoa New Zealand of which there are many.
Honest this is not even close. I am amazed that the Free Speech coalition should even think about arguing this.
And this is not a recent Government inspired change to practice. This sort of decision would have been made at any time since the passage of the legislation. And to those conspiracy theorists out there the same decision has been made about ISIS propaganda.
If you need more details then read the Censor’s views.
He says this in the press release accompanying the decision:
There is an important distinction to be made between ‘hate speech’, which may be rejected by many right-thinking people but which is legal to express, and this type of publication, which is deliberately constructed to inspire further murder and terrorism,” says Mr Shanks.
“It crosses the line.”
It is recognised that the publication has been widely reported on over the past week, with many media outlets publishing commentary on it, and sometimes providing links to it or downloadable copies. Many New Zealanders may have read it, possibly seeking answers for why this dreadful atrocity took place.
Most people reading the publication will not be harmed by it. “Most New Zealanders who have read this will simply find it repellent. But most New Zealanders are not the target audience. It is aimed at a small group who may be receptive to its hateful, racist and violent ideology, and who may be inspired to follow the example set by its apparent author.”
There is power in the Act for the Censor to grant exemptions to scholars and reporters so that the manifesto can be analysed by them if they want.
It is a shame we cannot have a sensible debate about this issue especially at this difficult time. Hysterical grandstanding is the last thing that we need.
“There is no absolute right to freedom of speech.”
Yes, and we need to stop doing the right’s job for them by using the phrase ‘free speech’. It is just public speech, which has always been regulated.
Interesting how the freezepeach warriors are not concerned about those 50 voices silenced by murderous hatred.
This stupid argument again. All repeat after me, fuck no.
Why do you woke de woke de always forget the one simple rule. Never give you political friends any powers you wouldn’t give you political enemies. The power to ban hate speech is a precedence right wingers should never have.
Just look what National did with Rogernomics when Lange gave his political friends Chicago Boy Economics only for national to go on and further the right wing agenda. Nah, you woke radical lefties lost the Great Meme war of 2016 and you’re not about to repaire you’re tattered reputations by banning hate speech. Just stand down nubs.
If we construct rules to manage public expressions that are ultimately intended to result in the non-existence of a group of people, I do not much mind who is overseeing those rules.
I may be too pragmatic to carry off being ‘woke’. 🙂
Hate speech laws are the other side of the coin from blasphemy laws, and the fact that countries that have them aren’t constantly on fire neither proves in itself that they do no harm, nor that they do good.
“the other side of the coin from blasphemy laws”
I mentioned the non-existence of a group of people, not merely disagreeing with their beliefs.
I am against it because like the other people have said, it will be used against you as well. since the High Court and Parliament have rule on Corporate personhood are considered as people like you and me that means every time someone try to protest or say hurtful things to like Anadarko or other corporate or even Te Uruwera rain forest (actually has personhood), I bet your ass that they would use this new hate speech thing against anyone who speaks out against them.
Round of applause. Sam used the word your properly!
You don’t have to be desperate for attention. Just fall back.
Very well set point that is Sam. 100%
Corporation’s have set this all up to hide under the mantle of “Person’s” so they are exempt from “corporate responsibility” ever after from when this is tested in court to make it a test case;
I bet my life on this, and no many are stupid to see this happening right on their watch today sadly..
You are so very right.
I am a conservative, a political enemy if you will (even though I love all New Zealanders and cherish their rights!), and I believe strongly that free speech applies to all, including those we find abhorrent.
You cannot incite a riot, or cause a stampede in a crowded theatre, but if you want to argue for white supremacy or the reinstatement of Stalinism, then go right ahead and I will defend your right to spout such crap.
NZ will be a much-diminished culture if the censorship of the mass killer’s manifesto is hidden. His actions will have frightened some of us so much that we will be forced to hide from his ideas rather than confront them. I am not afraid of this killer’s words any more than I am afraid of Mein Kampf.
Yeah, that this government can achieve a greater than 75% super majority for post March 15 Reforms means unicorns really do happen.
They don’t seem to be too concerned about free speech when it comes to hosting opposing views in their extremist echo chambers. However, it has been uplifting to watch the good folk at Whaleoil hiding their comment histories as they scuttle back under the rock.
I do not think that is a fair comment. Matt Nippert is about to launch an Orwellian private Stasi to troll through people’s comment history and that is not an entirely comfortable notion. If this trend solidifies, with the Press acting as judge/jury on the exercise of people’s free speech, we have definitely entered a new and generally antidemocratic phase of our history.
I am quite content that the manifesto – from the parts I’ve seen quoted – fully fits the prohibition against yelling “fire” in a cinema when there is no fire. I am very happy that there are state regulators that monitor that kind of speech.
But Mickey remember Brash has been foolishly de-platformed too many times to not have a point about protecting free speech. The best exemplar of proper dialogical contest is the marae, where this year Brash got a platform, and go the response from the crowd that showed they disagreed.
That coalition just can’t see the difference between a cinema and a marae.
I really really wish people would stop using that “yelling fire” reference when defending free speech, US vs. Schenk was a shit law, Holmes was making a shit point.
Like shit it was shit shggy.
Well the ruling that Holmes was arguing for was struck down, and if the ACLU seems pretty clear that it was a shit point. But hey, they’re free speech lawyers, what do I know.
The analogy and the case don’t match shggy, did you not notice? Sloppy, very sloppy.
It’s worth noting that Graeme Edgeler thinks the rating on the manifesto should be changed to allow some access for reporters and others with a good reason to read it.
Explain how the manifesto is equivalent to causing a stampede in a crowded theatre. That assertion is rubbish. The manifesto is a screed against immigration, by an large, and is not going to stampede anyone. We should not censor something just because we abhor it. Child pornography, yes. An anti-immigration manifesto? No.
Jordan Williams didn’t state Catton should be quiet. He stated that it was not true what she was claiming about the arts not being supported and backed it up by using Catton’s own support as an example. That to me is the VERY definition of free speech. You can say what you want but you ate not free of criticism.
Did I say that Williams said Catton should be quiet?
You are criticising Williams for attacking Catton over her hypocrisy over receiving copious amount of taxpayers funds while arguing the arts does not get support. That is what his job is. You might not like it but he is paid to lobby against people who they perceive as getting excessive amounts of taxpayers funding. What was the reason you brought this up in relation to his involvement in the free speech coalition?
Catton is not “the arts” so it doesn’t follow that because she received funds as an individual, that “the arts” is well supported. This approach to stopping people from being heard is common, but irrelevant.
Jordon Williams is not stopping Catton. He is just pointing out her hypocrisy. That is entirely valid for him to do in his role as the spokesperson for the Taxpayers Union.
Jordan Williams is indeed an expert on hypocrisy.
“Jordon Williams is not stopping Catton”
No, he is just trying to stop her being heard, by pointing out an irrelevancy, and using that to say she has no point.
“That is entirely valid for him to do in his role as the spokesperson for the Taxpayers Union.”
His self-named organisation is a boy’s plaything, it is does not give him authority or provide him with authenticity to speak on behalf of all taxpayers.
Are you really going to go there?
bollocks. he takes money from any group who will give him some, for pretty much any reason. tobacco? had nothing to do with excessive amounts of taxpayer dollars. just a shill, who needs oxygen. hates free speech , no money in free speech. wouldnt give you or anybody else the time of day for nothing.
Gosman got the ban. He’s not no right of reply so it’s a bit tacky punching some one with no arms. Besides. Williams is literally a slut veteran for higher and proud of it.
Best time to punch ’em 😉
Do you mean williams is a “mercenary”?
Nothing wrong with being a slut. I’m a slut. I’m just not very good at it.
Some one say fill me with meat? So There is a slut, then there’s a slut veteran. Personally I would put myself in the slut category with every one else.
Dear boy, sluts we might be, but even I would not want your meat.
Williams is a “veteran” of what?
My girl. You tease me. Carful I might just eat you up.
So Williams literally hoers himself for information which he trades for cash, he’s even boasted about rooting nurses to subvert emploeyment disputes. Literally a slut veteran.
In your dreams.
As for williams, he’s a slimy shit, but sadly your genital fixation and archaic moral judgements make your attempted insults against him somewhat surreal.
You talk to me with such vigour and vitality my girl. Go on, please.
Arousal seems to help both your spelling and your vocabulary. I guess we know where your brain is located, then.
Would you like, some brains?
Brains? From you? No, that would be like having a blood donation from an anaemic toad. No doubt you would accomplish your goal in under ten seconds, though.
I didn’t dumb it down because I wanted to. I had to dumb it down because you took my Jordan Peterson statements out of context and now you have attitude and I love it.
Your comments were your comments.
No back-pedalling now. You was very upset.
Racist fucks piss me off sometimes.
It’s pretty easy to challenge some ones desires for diversity and social justice and inclusion when they want the authority to ban.
He’s probably socked up though isn’t he sambimbo.
I’m not a mind reader.
Your only failing!
What a guy!
I’m a put it on the Goerge Forman grill and come back latter kind of guy.
You’re a, ‘put-it-on-the-“George Foreman”-grill-and-come-back-later’ kinda guy?
So, charcoal-muncher, eh!
I knew it!
Least it’s not cool to BBQ here.
“Gosman got the ban. He’s not (sic) no right of reply”
He’s got the right, he just ain’t got the means .
I don’t want to knit pick. He banned. That’s that
I don’t want to nit-pick either!
We’re birds of a fever!
Just ruined a good song with your hypocrisy.
Birds of a fever flog together.
There’s always one bird with just enough strength to fly over the cuckoos nest.
Alas a free voice has been silenced. A truculent and quarrelsome free voice which went round and round and round, but a voice none the less.
If you look at gooies questions or question on general for that matter, all they are are questions from normies who don’t know what to do next.
Sorry, what the fuck are you talking about?
I see there is some confusion in your scribbles. Let me help clear up some of that confusion for you. It’s a dick move to talk shit about people after they’ve been banned.
For heaven’s sake, you plonker: Gosman’s ban ended today, so he has in fact had right and means of reply. That is why he has been annoying us again. How do you think he made his post at 9.19am?
But now I see he has deservedly got himself another ban. At some undetermined time after 3.31pm… Moderators’ comments are not timed.
How terribly sad.
People have been banned???
I missed that…
Sorry Sam, on checking, I see that you are in fact referring to Gosman’s latest ban. But I fail to understand your gallantry. You have a particularly aggressive way of throwing dust into people’s eyes by using metaphor and obfuscation. I dislike your hostile attitude and rudeness to other contributors.
So I am not all that sorry..
That’s fairly hypocritical of you too to have something banned and then keep talking about it. All be it Gosman, but once banned, there’s no going back, this is one reason why it’s so difficult to police speech, every one always thinks the rules apply to every one else and not to themselves.
Why don’t you put your substance abuse aside and try to construct a sentence properly for once.
That’d be great.
Swearing and now substance abuse comes off of your tongue much quicker than a coherent reason for chit chatting about people who are a banned when they have no right of reply.
Gosman commented 54 times on this thread of 348 comments.
I think he said enough, don’t you?
Your such a fucking hypocrite that there is nothing left of you that is respectable.
So you understood. Good.
Sam, you may convince yourself with this bumph, but is there any evidence of anybody else believing you?
Other than the fact that you conceded Gosman received a ban I’m not sure what more you wish to be discussed. If you want an opportunity to discuss your feelings and reasons well, here’s your opportunity.
There’s no evidence he received a ban. He certainly was banned though, praise the lord.
“ bumph !
Yes. That’s it!
I’d have said, pabulum, but bumph is more elegant.
Oh so you want to dispute the fact that Vino conceded gooie got banned. Ok, well cool. I rest my case. If further evidence is required please take it up with TRP.
Oh, he got banned, earned a ban, sure, but did he receive that ban?
We’ll probably never know…
But how does it make you feel?
Or rather, how does Gosman feel??
We’ll probably never know…
Is there a reason why gosmans feelings concern you?
I feel for Gosman. He seems to want to play but so often gets sent home.
Is there a reason why my feelings concern you, Sam?
I understand your concerns. It’s just not evidenced based.
My feelings aren’t evidence based?
You’re pretty sharp!
I don’t believe you’re commenting with integrity and good intent; you’re just throwing words and phrases into the soup to try to appear astute. Your strategy is failing, judging by comments others have made in that regard.
I don’t use supporting personalities or likes or what ever to judge whether or not an argument is stronger or weaker because fans will always speak in support of who ever they idolise. I’m just not about to put myself out there like that.
If one opponent can not carry an argument, fumbles, changes subject or what ever that is a lose. So, try not to change the subject any more and take on my arguments head on, kind of like a man.
Now what was I saying about gooie. Well he’s banned and it’s no good brining up the names and topics banned people bring up.
1) because they may be ad bots so rehearsing there material is like stupid.
2) because they’ve got no right of reply so any one can say just about anything like maybe he raped some one but didn’t even
There’s a whole bunch of reasons why we don’t discuss people who get banned that you can pick from instead of catching feelings and reasons for acting like a douche nozzle.
Gosman is banned and gone but still you’re talking about him?
Stop thrashing his ghost like a dusty sheet!
The confusion is in your scribbles, Sam. I did not concede that Gosman had been banned. I never denied it. My concession was about the timing of his ban related to my criticism of one of your messages. You mess with facts like this to throw dust into people’s eyes.. I think you should concede that Robert has demonstrated that a rational discussion is pretty well impossible with you. You do not honestly discuss an issue – you leap and dance around it, kicking up dust and avoiding logical debate that leads to a conclusion.
I’ll have to answer you too pre pubescent pre madonnas at once. I mean yeah. Ya both backtracked. Neither disproved my argument.
That’s the most poorly-reasoned essay I’ve seen you present here, MS. So many flaws! I’m doing a Taranaki 2050 workshop today so I don’t have time to address them.
There’s a medial path between the two extremes you describe, which I’m confident most in Aotearoa will follow. As a member of the NZCCL, I’m intrigued by the position adopted by Thomas – have never disagreed with him in the past – but will reserve judgment for now.
As I pointed out yesterday, the censor is in a weak position, failing to justify his position in media discussion by providing evidence to back his decision. Contempt for the public never goes down well.
Um you should check my background. I have extensive experience in censorship law.
Thank goodness for that. I liked the post and agree with the premise. Keep up the good work mate.
Yes but are you any match for an armchair expert with time on his hands? Show us your citations, sir!
That just makes it a suitable essay for your peer group. Since when have lawyers ever been famous for expertise in articulating the common good? Since never.
Come in Dennis that is silly. Back down you noggin.
The censor operates under the law. My peer group is everyone watching to see if the censor has got the law right.
” I’m intrigued by the position adopted by Thomas – have never disagreed with him in the past – but will reserve judgment for now.”
Perhaps you’re out of step, Dennis.
With who? You know the old phrase about marching to the beat of a different drummer? The beat goes on. I usually have good company. I noticed this morning I’d been joined by lawyer Graeme Edgeler (see Legal Beagle) and there will be others… 😎
“Contempt for the public never goes down well.”
You wouldn’t be spinning falsities though, would you Frank.
We shouldn’t ban speech based on potential harm that it may cause (unproven) to a small section of society. There may well be a case to be made to restrict access by that section of society but that can be managed in a different manner. Criminalising having access to this material is a ridiculous idea and the Free Speech coalition is right to stand up against it.
It has been the current law since 1993 and before then was even more restrictive. If you are going to shout out urging people that a class of people are terrorists and should be killed then sorry but as far as I am concerned this is not protected speech and should be banned.
Why isn’t Mein Kampf banned then?
It was in Germany until recently.
I don’t get you guys. The country has had a unmitigated disaster and you want the cause of this to have his words circulated far and wide.
Not only is it objectionable but it is also hate speech.
How many tests do you want this publication to fail?
Did we ban any other material as a result of any other Terrorist action around the World? Considering the Terrorist who carried out this action was not radicalised in NZ it isn’t as if banning his material here would necessarily stop something like that from radicalising another foreign born individual who would then come here and carry out an attack. The only way you would do that is getting agreement for ALL nations to ban this material. I would suggest that is extremely unlikely.
Not many bans, but plenty of SIS profile flags on your file if you search for them, or worse search and open them.
The bans are for those that fall under the act, the rest is scooped up under state enforcement algorythms. Guarantee you and I both have files Gosman.
Yeah Gosman, but we might try lead by example now the reality of it has hit home. The world sorely needs good leadership. Your mob don’t have it.
You know, you do have the right to remain silent.
Where’s the harm? You can still read Mein Kampf and Breivik’s story – that ought to be enough for you.
Why ought that be enough for me?
We’ve had an undesirable event, and we’re not too keen on having a repeat of it.
It’s unknown to what degree the manifesto triggers murderous rampages in right wing trolls, but the harm is sufficient to justify a reasonable level of prudence. Until a week or so ago you could scare up your daily dose of bile without reference to this material, unless there’s something you’re not telling us. You can no continue to do without it without your liberties being greatly curtailed.
If I recall correctly the Chief Censor banned all publications that supported the 1951 wharfies, and made possession of such material an imprisonable offence.
how do YOU know the terrorist wasnt radicalised in New Zealand. you are (as usual) assuming. perhaps you should shut up and learn instead of argueing from a postion of ignorance…
The concern on the right is that banning right-wing extremist incitements to violence makes the right look bad (if I were them I’d be more concerned about right-wing extremists murdering people making the right look bad, but what would I know?). They’re also concerned about potential scope creep, ie if this asshole’s incitement to violence gets banned, is Don Brash’s anti-Māori blathering next on the censor’s hit list?
Personally, I believe NZ does poorly at freedom of expression and the OFLC (or rather, the legislation OFLC follows) is one of the reasons for that. I’ve disagreed with many decisions of the Chief Censor over the years, and find it highly suspicious that in all that time the only decision that really seems to bother right-wingers is when a racist incitement to violence gets banned. That’s the one that strikes a nerve with them? Is that really what they’re willing to die in a ditch over?
I’ve briefly read the manifesto and you can call this guy a white supremacist or a neo-nazi but the only way you can call him right wing is if you somehow make the illogical jump that supporting limited government and individual rights makes one a neo-nazi – which should hopefully be clear to all is ridiculous. You can find quotes of the manifesto elsewhere online which is the type of thing no right wing person would say ever and you can find very few quotes from him that they would. Unfortunately this is now banned and you can’t check for yourself – which is the point.
So right wing people aren’t worried about racist incitements to violence reflecting badly on them. They are however (at least I, and from what I can tell others with similar views) worried about what you term “scope creep”.
And all NZers should be worried about potential scope creep, including the people who post on this website. On every other thread someone is referring to the 1% richest NZers as “scum” or “parasites” etc. and suggesting in not so veiled terms what the would like to happen to them, as it their right to do, but it is hard to read Section 61 of Human Rights Act and see how these types of statements couldn’t be interpreted as an offence under this poorly written and conceived legislation by the appointee of some future hard line populist government – the types of which are raising their head in Europe. These types of draconian overreaches are an affront to us all.
Which leads us to the Classification Act, you say “I’ve disagreed with many decisions of the Chief Censor over the years, and find it highly suspicious that in all that time the only decision that really seems to bother right-wingers is when a racist incitement to violence gets banned” well I’ve never paid much attention to them before, to my shame (and the shame of other free speech believers at a personal level who seem to be in the same boat) I guess, but I am now, and I find both the Classification Act and the Human Rights Act to be poorly written over the top restrictions on our freedom of expression, and that’s why I’m opposed to this and I’m sure if I look into their past decisions I’ll be just as appalled and what change all the more.
Does anyone honestly believe that we can ban the document where the perpetuator of our most heinous crime outlines why we did it forever, not a limited document with the incitements to violence omitted but the entire text banned, and be taken seriously as a free thinking, serious democracy?
Who’s going to take us not seriously? Will it severely tarnish our reputation? Who is it tarnished to? Is there some etiquette to be observed when eating shit? Table fork third from centre?
…the only way you can call him right wing is if you somehow make the illogical jump that supporting limited government and individual rights makes one a neo-nazi…
Actions, not words, are what counts, ie one murder victim weighs more than infinity words. This fuckwit’s actions say that he’s a right-wing extremist – whatever he wrote in a manifesto counts for shit (other than the incitements to violence, which is what copped the Chief Censor’s whacking stick).
But yeah – the possibility of scope creep is real and there’ll be plenty on the left encouraging it. I don’t agree with those people.
Actions, not words, are what counts,
Absolutely, no-one can argue with that, although all to often we allow ourselves to be distracted by what a person says and only too late realise what their actions mean.
one murder victim weighs more than infinity words
Which reminds us that no matter how pure and perfect we imagine our political cause, it never justifies murder.
This fuckwit’s actions say that he’s a right-wing extremist
Usually you make your arguments more carefully than this. Actions do not come with a label attached, unless of course you want to argue that political murder is exclusively a right wing act.
Actions can come with a label attached, like the one under discussion for instance. Leftists have as much of a history of mass murder as rightists do, but mass murder of a particular ethnic group for not being White is historically a crime of the right, not the left. Maybe in the future some left-winger will commit racist mass murder and refute my theory, but there’s no sign of that happening so far.
That’s a good answer. It’s certainly consistent with terrorism as we know it from the past century or so. Still it’s not consistent to discount the importance of words either; after all to turn this argument on it’s head, why would we bother banning the manifesto if we truly believed it had no meaning?
And have to the way some people selectively believe the parts of his dozen pages of rambling BS that tell what they want to hear, but then deny the other parts that don’t conform to their narrative is a very human foible indeed.
“Actions, not words, are what counts, ie one murder victim weighs more than infinity words. This fuckwit’s actions say that he’s a right-wing extremist – whatever he wrote in a manifesto counts for shit (other than the incitements to violence, which is what copped the Chief Censor’s whacking stick).”
Let me see if I can understanding your view by way of analogy; are you saying that if an environmentalist was radicalised and committed a terrorist attack murdering members of the board of a company they deemed was polluting the environment, that I could describe them a left-wing terrorist (the left being most closely associated with environmentalism and proud of this by their own admission) even if in the terrorist’s own manifesto they described themselves as a Libertarian, and expressed disdain for manner of left wing ideology because “actions, not words, are what counts?”
If that’s right, then that is insane.
The only way you can call him not right wing is if you somehow make the illogical jump that Neo-liberalism is the only form of right wing politics.
Couple of points..
First, Am quite happy for manifesto to be deemed objectionable at this point in time as a courtesy to the families of those who were killed however the claim that the ban will stop its circulation far and wide is a nonsense….the document is freely available to anyone who so chooses to find it and has been since it was posted, there is nothing to be done about that even with the best will in the world.
Second, there is a very real risk that there will be an overstep on what is deemed ‘banable’ and the Free Speech Coalition are right to keep this front and centre of the publics mind.
Be very careful what you wish for because the cause du jour that you support may well be the next to be deemed ‘objectionable’
When causes I currently support start inciting violence, first I won’t support them anymore, I’ll oppose them. Second, I’ll support the censor banning their publications that incite violence and are therefore legally objectionable.
There has been plenty of commentary from credible sources that have read it that the manifesto contained specific incitements to violence. It appears fairly clear that these specific incitements were what stepped over the legal line and required it to be banned under our laws, and that the political content played no part in the banning decision.
I’m also very confident that in due time, the banning decision will be thoroughly examined by experts with access to the manifesto. Then, even if a consensus forms that the banning was unwarranted, I see very little possible harm from it having been banned unreasonably for a period of time. On the flipside, if it truly contains objectionable harmful content, then real harm could result in it remaining freely available while dithering over whether to ban it or not.
That s a good question Gosman asked.
“Why isn’t Mein Kampf banned then”?
I can also get this book from a NZ website. Should this be banned too?
Should this book be banned as well?
They’re all dead aren’t they gozzer? Maybe you can publish shatpant’s magnum opus once he’s pushing up daisies.
Are you stating Osama Bin Laden’s statements should have been banned while he was alive?
tell you what, gos. If you have concerns about any particular publication currently on sale, try referring it to the censor yourself.
Your trust in offices of the government of the day in determining what should or shouldn’t be banned is admirable. I don’t have the same faith in government knowing what is best for each of us but if you do then I am sure you will also not mind increasing the powers of State surveillance over us. They are only interested in the “bad guys” after all.
your trust that nobody in the country would use the fucker’s manifesto as inspiration or even direct instruction is fucked in the head. But given that the tories were pandering to that crowd right up until “an emptional junior staffer” pulled the petition, it’s not surprising that you’d want to be able to freely distribute the fucker’s manifesto.
“They’re all dead aren’t they gozzer? Maybe you can publish shatpant’s magnum opus once he’s pushing up daisies.”
And his victims and their descendants have had several generations to heal.
Does that mean you think the book on Osama bin Laden’s sayings should also be banned?
I suspect you’re pointing out a level of hypocrisy that will go right over the heads of some here. Nonetheless, I applaud your efforts.
One handed slow clap*
That’s a wave, right; the sort that would clear personal space of a bad smell?
It’s just intellectual speak for wanker.
Oh. Intellectuals don’t say, “wanker”?
Who was your comment directed at, O Intellectual One?
Seemingly, Shadrach, but it wasn’t clear to me.
If the shoe fits just shove that fucker right on.
To whom were you assigning the shoe, Sam?
I only seek to understand your meaning which seems couched in an unusual form.
The gospel of the social justice worrier is to redefine words in dictionaries to suit there feelings and emotions instead of what’s going on around them. Being ideologically driven like that is unusual to me.
If this sound familiar, considering getting yourselves a Xanax prescription https://youtu.be/TAI9rbzWTGY
The Communist manifesto calls for a violent revolution against a small section in society. should that be banned as well?
Gosman, like your economic freedom policies have failed, so too are speech freedom policy settings failing.
Humans left unfettered have a history of destruction. Unfortunately, regulation is required. As it was so aptly put by somebody on here recently – tolerance requires intolerance of the intolerant, lest intolerance rises to the top.
Your picking at small technicalities and isolated examples doesn’t help. It is clearly a spectrum thing isn’t it.
Re the Chch murderer’s ‘manifesto’, given the lowestlife killed 50 people in my neighbourhood I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with its banning. In fact, to not do so would be contrary to all humanity..
.. further, if ever there is a case for the death penalty, this is it
How do we determine what this spectrum is other than having debates such as this?
True that, fair point. Whereabouts on that spectrum the line should be drawn is indeed the issue…
.. and on reflection, your particular questions about previous ones are relevant.
Its beyond me and my realm of worldly experience though, so will leave it to the experts.
So, why are those other ones not banned as well mickysavage? I think you said somewhere that you have experience in this arena. Why aren’t those ones Gosman listed banned as well?
How is this line drawn?
Dont get sucked into gosman bullshit vto ffs youre better than that imo
yes, I dont have a lot of time for the anarchic freedoms he typically posits, but in this case isn’t the particular point relevant? Namely, where and how is the line drawn on what should be banned? And why are some of those examples not banned, in light of the mosque-murderer ban?
I think it is a massive question for any society, with potentially far-reaching effects in either direction. Get it wrong in either direction and society is considerably worse off and exposed to risk of authoritarian rule.
It’s an ongoing conversation – read up about it. The right make sly points that apparently have merit but they do this deliberately to distract, to muddy, to confuse and to push a right wing agenda. Dont fall for the bullshit mate – look around at the devastation – use your heart AND brain.
Oh no! The dreaded “right wing agenda!” Any one would think we live in a free and democratic pluralistic society where differences of opinion are not merely tolerated but encouraged.
You’re just a bot mate spitting prepared lines – the same ones from years ago. I’m not fooled I doubt many are.
Gosman, are you arguing against the idea that some things are so harmful they should be banned (ie you think everything should be allowed, kiddie porn, snuff films, completely open slather), or are you objecting to the line being drawn at a level where this instance goes beyond the line?
I’m arguing that the reasons for the banning of this particular polemic could equally apply to any number of similarly unpleasant writings (many of which have inspired horrific acts of mass murder). That suggests banning something to stop potential harm is not necessarily a good idea and that it is right for the Free Speech Coalition to make a case against it.
To me that answer looks like you want to argue against censorship entirely, but don’t want to come right out and say so directly, so you’re skirting around it.
With a secondary goal of trying to divert the original OP topic into quibbling about “why this and not that”.
I guess Gossy wants to see child porn and snuff movies as well. Sick individual.
Cant help your ugliness can you Macro brain?
I might disagree with Gosman a lot’ – but be civil cant you?
Yes some comments have been less than classy which is ironic given that the same people seem to oppose free speech. Go figure.
It’s called reductio ad absurdum – showing the falsehood of the argument by reducing it to its absurd conclusion. Obviously there must be restrictions on speech. If not, then anything goes.
I got a different impression from his reasoning, and it seemed valid. Consider this: would the ban have been implemented if the massacre had not happened here?
I suspect not. People (understandably) react emotionally way more than reasonably or rationally to mass killing.
Well, yes, context does matter.
Without the context of him murdering 50 of us, he’s be just another random shitposter in some of the more obscure, sadder corners of the internet. Even sending it direct to the PMs office would have just got him a bit more SIS attention, but I suspect that kind of thing is common enough these days there would be no reason for the media to get interested and give it publicity.
So if there’s no risk of public dissemination, why would any censors need to get involved? Or if we expect them to get involved in policing the weirder corners of da webz, we’re going to need to staff up the censor’s office orders of magnitude greater than we’ve now got.
I got the impression from the chief censor that he was making his best judgment call. He seemed sincere. The lack of proof is what bothers me – that he felt the public interest carried no weight was obvious, so I called it a paternalist stance. Anyway, have you given consideration to Edgeler’s reasoning? https://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/why-the-censors-total-ban-on-possession-of/
I hadn’t seen Edgeler’s piece, thanks for that.
That Edgeler’s criticisms are pretty much limited to the fact it’s a blanket ban (with provision to apply for exemption), rather than a near blanket ban with a few carefully targeted exemptions, gives me comfort that there’s no substantial freedoms getting eroded by this banning. At worst, there’s some bureaucratic procedures that could do with fine-tuning.
Given that it’s a heat-of-the-moment situation, I can live with some degree of off-calibration in the response. And I’m confident that Edgeler and other experts have a lot more to offer the process of fine-tuning than I ever could.
Yeah, likewise. Thanks for the feedback.
Its not an argument against drawing a line.
I’m not arguing against drawing a line at all. I’m arguing whether it is sensible to draw a line over this. I believe that is also what the Free Speech coalition is doing and that I am stating is their role. To argue they shouldn’t would be like claiming Amnesty International shouldn’t raise concerns if we decided to start torturing the Terrorist suspect in custody.
Here’s another place to draw the line:
Whether free speech is considered a criminal incitement or threat.
The person named in the media answering to the charges of threat is Jimmy James Whioke. He appeared in the Rotorua District Court
A threat to get every gang member in New Zealand to “shoot everyone in the offices of every Member of Parliament” has landed a Lower Hutt man in court.
This guy is pleading Not Guilty.
Gosman how would you defend him in court?
“We shouldn’t ban speech based on potential harm that it may cause (unproven) to a small section of society. There may well be a case to be made to restrict access by that section of society”
You’re suggesting that the solution to hate speech against Muslims is to ban access to it by Muslims?
You may find the concept of incitement useful ..
Ummm… no. I’m stating that if there is a potential that a small section of people may be susceptible to being influenced by such writings (e.g. people becoming violent White supremacists) then we should look to deal with THEIR access to the material not the vast majority of us who are not.
Er, the people susceptible to being influenced by white supremacist writings are white people, and in particular white right-wingers. That would be an interesting restriction for the Chief Censor to apply, but would be unenforcable.
Yep a restriction of possession of the manifesto by those who are liable to be susceptible to extreme white supremacist views would be rather hard to police.
It’s an interesting suggestion to narrow a proposed legal restriction to just a particular group, whose views mostly consist of extreme right wing views Particularly coming from a right-winger.
Since the only way to actually implement the suggestion is vastly increased surveillance, particular of right-wingers, in order to identify that particular sub-group.
hmmm! What a good idea! Maybe Gossy is onto something here.
Ban white males from reading.
That’ll do it.
We’ll need a clasdification system for the off-whites.
A creamy one
A coffee one
A mochacino one
A Half-Spanish White
A Sea Foam
And a Rich Butter
Stop those skin tones reading Mein Kampf or Das Kapital.
Then we’ll be fine.
At the most recent Spearhead gig, Michael Franti was his usual enthusiastic self about Aoteroa.
“My caramel coloured cousins” was his phrase that I have since used often.
Exactly. So if it is too difficult to restrict their access look at how to counter the influence of such material in other ways then.
A good solid SIS file is the usual start.
That is a valid argument.
Plus a yearly knock and chat tp see how they’re doing.
That’s a reasonable intersecting outcome of both the Royal Commission and the upcoming Budget increased mental health funding.
Regular state-enforced chats at home with marginals who click on THOSE sites.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition..
The friendliness of the chat to be determined by their attitude, weapons cache, valid license, and click history.
I may be more inclined to agree with you more readily if the SIS didn’t have a long and ignoble reputation for stepping outside their brief and incompetence at the same time.
Banning it outright is an other way.
Banning it outright is like using a falling piano to hammer in a nail.
More like a needle to lance a boil.
Better than everyone standing around, debating the nature of the nail, considering whether the nail should be hammered in, questioning whether the nail is in fact a screw, looking closely at the nail, until the shelf that the nail was supposed to support in place falls the fuck down.
Which is the gosman approach to preserving society.
I love the fact you think you are preserving society by banning stuff. It is almost as if you have morphed in to a Conservative from the 1950’s.
If we tolerate nazis, they end up killing the rest of us. It really is that simple.
And Communists too. Don’t forget the Communists.
You need to be a bit more specific with your smart-arsedness Gozzy – you mean Stalinism and Maoism perhaps, but not communism really – in itself it is not intrinsically evil in the way that Nazism was (is).
“if it is too difficult to restrict their access look at how to counter the influence of such material in other ways”
Like a wider ban, for instance? That might work.
@ Gosman: You say what you think shouldn’t be banned.
“We shouldn’t ban speech based on potential harm that it may cause (unproven) to a small section of society”
Do you think any speech should be censored?
Where do you draw the line?
The murders in Christchurch have caused me to rethink my attitudes on censorship.
For example, citizens ‘sharing’ the livestream link, should have at least, a visit from the police. Then, if an individuals cyber life has evidence of denigration of others, racist, overtly xenophobia, suggesting or encouraging violence then charges should follow.
We are finding out ‘social media’ can be extremely anti social.
“We are finding out ‘social media’ can be extremely anti social.”
And that is just on the comments section of this site.
Come on mate, any chance of getting an answer to the questions?
I am sincerely keen to understand where your line in the sand is.
After all you and I are us.
A lot of this is essentially an ad-hominem attack against members of the free speech coalition. It is irrelevant whether you agree with Don Brash’s actions in the past over whether they have a case to be made on this topic. This topic IS the very reason we NEED a Free speech lobby group to stand up against efforts to restrict access to material.
Why? I was intrigued that Brash should make himself out to be a free speech champion. He has no time for free speech in te reo and he is one of the few people in the country to ever attempt to ban the publication of a book using court processes.
Don Brash has no problem with free speech. He just doesn’t want taxpayers money being used to promote Te Reo on Radio NZ Nations. I disagree with him on that point but it isn’t a matter of free speech. It would be a matter if he wanted to deny people the right to speak Maori (e.g. interview guests and the like).
What an odd argument. That’s it is simply an exercise in free speech to call for the banning of Maori in a country where it is an official language.
He isn’t calling for Maori to be banned, not even on RNZ National. He is arguing that it shouldn’t be officially promoted on the Station. As stated I disagree with him but it isn’t a free speech issue. It would become one if he stated that anyone who spoke Te Reo on Radio NZ National should be stopped from doing so.
What does ‘officially promoted’ mean?
“Spoken”… apparently this isn’t a free speech issue though lol.
Rubbish he wants the language gone and he’s all over the place with it. His ramblings on this are incoherent. Free speech advocate I dont think so. He’s the opposite.
No he doesn’t. He has NEVER stated he wants Te Reo gone as a language. He has NEVER stated that Maori should be denied opportunities to speak the language.
How about *hearing* the language? And why should Te Reo be restricted to Māori people? It’s an official language of our nation.
I agree. Hence why I disagree with Don Brash on that topic. But it isn’t a matter of free speech.
Rubbish. Your bullshit is gold plated today.
Bravo for such a comprehensive and well thought out riposte. I have no counter to such a well developed argument.
Thank you I was pretty sure your response unit would overload with that one.
” He has NEVER stated he wants Te Reo gone as a language. ”
Just cunning enough then…
Since when has Brash ever resiled from speaking his mind? Seems like you don’t believe conservatives are capable of being principled. Well, I held that position too for a very long time.
Nowadays I would cite George Will as evidence they can. There’s someone oft cited in literature too. Dunno anything about him, but think it is Edmund Burke. Anyway the social category of principled conservative is a thing I’ve often encountered, and Brash seems typical. I’ve been biased against him since he was a corporate cheerleader in the ’80s, so I must’ve mellowed with age to be that generous…
“Seems like you don’t believe conservatives are capable of being principled.”
I know some very principled conservatives. In fact, I once had breakfast with Brash, and a very principled chap he seemed. Cornflakes, and tinned peaches, as I recall. I remember thinking, The Greens eat so much better than the Nat’s!
“Mr Brash is scathing of Morning Report host Guyon Espiner’s use of one of New Zealand’s three official languages.
“I don’t want to be forced to listen to Guyon Espiner talk at some length in Te Reo without any explanation at all of what he’s saying,” he says.
“It’s quite pointless. There’s no translation provided. You can’t learn anything from listening to it, you’re just utterly bamboozled.”
Mr Brash says he doesn’t see why he should learn Te Reo to understand what RNZ is talking about.
“Why should I? Why should I?” he asks. “There are 20-odd radio stations which broadcast in Te Reo, and a Māori TV station.”
Mr Brash has previously made scathing statements about Mr Espiner, the “worst offender”.
“I’m utterly sick of people talking in Maori on RNZ in what are primarily English-language broadcasts,” he said on Facebook.”
Brash said that Maori have their own radio and TV stations where they can hear all te Reo they like
Kim Hill : Isnt that separatism which you are opposed to as well?
Brash :“The separatism I object to is not the cultural separatism-”
KH “OH A DIFFERENT KIND OF SEPARATISM THEN.”
I’m quite aware of his views on that and have stated repeatedly here I disagree with his views. It isn’t a free speech issue.
Perhaps he’s labouring under the misapprehension that his freedom to turn the tuning knob on his ancient transistor radio is somehow being restricted?
He is exercising his right to express his opinion how a State controlled Radio station should use Taxpayers money to communicate with the wider population. He is not suggesting Te Reo should be banned.
If Brash wants a whites-only radio station he is more than welcome to set one up. Preferably in South Africa, Queensland, Utah or somewhere similarly welcoming.
Exercising his right, but not his responsibility.
In your opinion Robert.
@Sacha, that’s quite unfair to Utahns. For a state that’s packed full of Republican religious kooks, they’re actually remarkably tolerant and welcoming of others. I put it down to an unintended consequence of the way they make pests of themselves all over the world, but in the process pick up an interest in diversity.
In your opinion, Gosman.
“Why should I? Why should I?” he asks.
Why should Don bother to learn an official language of NZ if he wants to understand what people are saying in it? Why, that’s just one of life’s great fucking mysteries, I guess. Seriously, what a tool.
It’s a big jump to get outside of one’s own culture. There be dragons.
he is one of the few people in the country to ever attempt to ban the publication of a book using court processes
The book contained text he had written and was being published without his permission or the permission of his office. Copyright violation plain and simple.
And he should seek damages if this was the case. I have the strong impression that protection of his intellectual property was not his motivation.
Great piece micky, the Canadians did seem to be all about generating cash flow, if they were really that keen on communicating with people, a mini sound system on a corner, mall, or back of a truck would have enabled that.
The Free Speech Coalition is a roll of dishonour, without exception, for anyone associated with it in my view. The thing with the ultra right is that they will eat all the free speech on offer, and then piss all over the well meaning people that enabled it, with their “I don’t like what you say, but defend your right to say it” proclamations.
the Great. Taking over the blog again. Can’t there be an automatic limit put on posts so we know after five at least there will be no more for that day. Or but more difficult only two per hour, which would just slow the flow allowing other views to develop. Gosman acts like a cattle prod on a post.
Do you want those restrictions placed on everybody here or just people you disagree with?
I’d be happy to accept them in the service of broader conversation.
Just you. You spam using obvious right wing tactics and you get away with it. Sad. Your dribble adds zero to the discussion imo.
If reason and logic is a right tactic, what are yours Marty, emotion, anger, feelings, abuse and confirmation biais
Question mark missing, little sense made.
Is this a comments blog or essay writing competiion Robert ??? 😊 By the way did you not learn your lessons at school that the world just hates a corrector, I would have thought all those wedgies would have done the trick Albiet good to hear from you my friend, it is comforting I have my own proof reader as I lack the skill time and patience 👍
I don’t hate correctors, Bewildered and I’m part of the “world” you cite. In fact, I value the learning that comes with advice around the use of words. Interesting that, after admonishing marty for what you believe to be his lack of reason and logic, you confess to your own shortcomings; a lack of skill and patience! What a curious sequence of events!
I agree correctors don’t hate thier fellow correctors but most non correctors find them a bore I don’t want you to be a bore Robert? This is a blog site i dont really feel the need or have the time to make everything word perfect to your standard Robert, sorry it just not that important, Just as the people who have time to spend all day, and every day here are not really that important They obviously have very little to do that is meaningful This site really beyond all the huff and puff is entertainment and a place to go for light relief to break up the day ( me) or for some to let off steam that no one in the real world will listen to or gives a shit re thier opinion So I guess it serves a social purpose, but to improve bad english and grammar, nup
We need to improve clarity, Bewildered, and your inarticulacy is quite often an obstacle… I don’t want to sweat about what the hell you mean because you are bloody lazy and think it is all just ‘light relief’. That is an insult to the rest of us. Shape up or ship out.
That’s so sweet, Bewildered; encouraging me to avoid being a bore; thanks! And to hear that The Standard provides you with light relief; superb! I’ll look upon all your future comments as entertainment, and treat them accordingly; mind you, entertainers have to cope with heckling; it’s part of the deal! Enjoy!
Some people are here to try and improve things for our fellow humans.
I am pleased that you have clarified your reasons for being here.
Explains a lot.
Robert – wasting your time trying to help bewildered. He or she remains determinedly so. A contraption to pass their time playing at being superior, or a mask by one of the huge army of PR people in this country grooming the thoughts of NZs and throwing swill into the discourse.
Yeah nah – the ‘if’ is your problem – my advice is learn how to frame the issue better so you dont fall into your own trap. 101 stuff really.
Not sure they taught, anger, your subjective feelings, emotion in 101 reasoning and arguementation beyond how to make a deductive arguement invalid or inductive one weak Saying that you are a great case study as an example of many fallacies, confirmation bias the most prevelent
Perhaps and I know what if means too.
If you’re going to try to play the argument game, Bewildered, you really need to learn the basics.
In an if statement, anything follows from a false premise.
Reason and logic are strangers to the Right, as is the use of evidence. They are a sad benighted group, determined to quibble even when they lack any foundation to do so, much less the tools to handle such arguments.
Gosman has been on a ban till today and clearly he’s making up for lost time. As always, nobody has to engage with him. If the comments get too repetitive, then moderation might be an option. However, Gossie does seem to be putting up a coherent, if flawed, argument at present.
Wrong-headed? Just a suggestion. Gosman, fresh from a ban, arguing against banning! Almost poetic in it’s simplicity.
+ 1 lovely thanks
You’re so kind to live Trojan horses. They do boost production and movement though. Like cattle prods would.
This from WTF Free Speech:
26 March 2019 at 3:31 pm
I didn’t state Molyneux or Southern didn’t have ideas that you could argue were aligned to the Terrorists own. I asked how do you know he was motivated by such views.
[I’m not going to waste time explaining how Venn diagrams work or exploring your theory that its possible that a man enamoured with the same racist concepts that drive Southern and Molyneux could be unaware of their work, or, indeed, their controversial visits to both his own country and his adopted home. So I’m just going to end this now by returning you to your previous status.
Banned till May for trolling. TRP]
The Ban must apply to everyone. No applications for academic or journalistic exceptions will be allowed.
The Ban is largely symbolic. The document has been out there for long enough for there to be numerous analyses made. Wikipedia has very comprehensive cover…which I’d link to but that might get me in the pooh.
The Censor is either going to be very, very busy or selectively blind.
Agreed – it’s largely symbolic, hence the moral panic from the gosmans. The message from the Censor is; this stuff is harmful and shouldn’t be left lying around; I’ll put it in this cupboard. NOT THE CUPBOARD! screech the Brashites.
“hence the moral panic”
So true. You’d think someone was threatening the lives of the shrill righties up in arms about freezepeach.
But presumably the Chief Sensor wasn’t harmed in the process of reading it. It wasn’t a courageous decision by him. It would’ve been courageous of him to allow the manifesto to be read and discussed.
“But presumably the Chief Sensor wasn’t harmed in the process of reading it”
He’s trained for the job. He’s peer reviewed. He’s hardened to this sort of thing, through greater-than-usual exposure to it. Potential harms he will suffer are catered for by his employer.
This is not the case with the general public.
You make valid points but the Chief Sensor has said that the vast majority of people could read the document without being harmed. He is merely raising the possibility of harm. Does he not cross the road because he could possibly get run over?
Release of the document would do far less harm than alcohol, which we can all consume. The fact a few cannot handle their alcohol is not a good reason to ban it!
A few? It’s a national health and behavioural crisis.
Yep, noticed that, though Gozz would argue that he’s the Chief Sensor.
And watching the argument above by him I think its more a case of “I want it all, and I want NOW” (Queen)
Or more likely:
Gozz…… have you ever thought that sometime in the future – in the fullness of time going forward – it might all become available
(purely for academic interest of course!)
Are you able to reword your comment so that it makes actual sense please?
No I don’t really think so @ Gozz, but I was wondering if anyone else would like to start keeping score.
So far I have 40/L’eouf to Mr Savage and I lost cunt in the doubles a bit later on when some up-and-coming ‘Formerly’ popped up where I had you at L’oeuf too.
I was wondering whether a fair and balanced Mister Frank or some other sage might volunteer to keep score, but then I thought
It is like you are slightly mentally deficient. You can almost construct a coherent sentence but then at the last minute veer off in to the void of incomprehensibility.
It sounds as if you’re criticising those who support free speech because they are being consistent. No doubt you would criticise them if they were being inconsistent!
As for the old canard about Brash and Maori being spoken on radio, a large majority of Maori do not speak Maori or understand it. And of course few among the non-Maori population speak it or understand it.
About 3% of the population speak Maori. That might make you unhappy, Mickey, but that’s not Brash’s fault. 🙂
He’s not helping.
Yep I agree – let’s work on getting compulsion into it and get those percentages moving up. Good you’re onto it fr.
“It sounds as if you’re criticising those who support free speech because they are being consistent.”
When we see the freezepeach chaps spruiking a media release about how bad it was that 50 people’s rights to speech were permanently terminated, you can claim consistency.
Trying to argue that the Free Speech Coalition are being callous and uncaring against the Terrorist victims is despicable. Do not use the deaths of these innocent people to make political points.
Of course it is political. Others noted the gap in that organisation’s media releases and blog updates. I never said they did not care, just that they were not being consistent by challenging an extreme violation of freedom to speak.
Yep the free speech oxymoronic crew are just looking after themselves like they always do. Can’t blame turnips for being turnips.
Straight out of the NRA playbook.
Thanks for that.
That is almost the exact line given by an NRA representative to a One Nation representative when asked how to handle media after a terror event. Reported by Al Jazeera after three years undercover investigating these organisations.
You just showed your true masters Gosman. You should read the news.
First, “Say nothing.” If media queries persist, go on the “offence, offence, offence”. Smear gun-control groups. “Shame them” with statements such as – “How dare you stand on the graves of those children to put forward your political agenda?” ”
To be fair to Gosman, the “say nothing” part was involuntarily enforced on him: he’s been on a ban until today.
Your reasoning is all over the place. Hundreds of people died on the roads last year. None died at the hands of white supremacists. I will let you decide which is the more dangerous. But it is a bad idea to spurn free speech on the basis of the actions of one individual.
There were bound to be white supremacists in those cars and it is sad they died on the road. If there were no white supremacists then there would be zero of them killed on our roads – that’s something I would support.
Edit – robert snap – looks like the rain heading up to us tonight. Be good for the rivers.
“Hundreds of people died on the roads last year. None died at the hands of white supremacists.”
How do you know there weren’t white supremacists behind the wheel in some those head-ons, Formerly?
Is driving a form of speech?
Is banning texting while driving an infringement of free speech?
Whether it’s free depends what plan you’re on.
I’v still got my New Zealand sim and live in Australia so when ever some one sends me a text it costs them $2 per text. I used to get all these intrusive texts and when I moved to Australia I noticed texts cost $2 to send, so I kept it, and every one I knew was still sending me texts about there day until they got the bill. Now I only get texts if it’s important.
I get it. You’re an Aussie which is why you are trying to protect the Christchurch murderer’s speech.
Australia is easily one of the most racist countries in the world and definitely the most racist in the Asia Pacific region. They, you, just don’t get compassion for other peoples and that has been core to your very nature since colonisation.
Ok so what’s some of the things that make Australia one of the most rascist countries and what’s some of the things that make me a colonisers?
SpeechRoss knows a white supremacist when he see one.
“But it is a bad idea to spurn free speech on the basis of the actions of one individual.”
What about on the grounds of consent? FoS is is the right of anyone to say what they want but what about people’s right to not hear it? This is where FoS fundamentally fails for me because the rights of the speaker equate to denying the rights of others. People are forcibly exposed to things they didn’t choose, things that can be distressing and even harmful.
Whose consent are you meaning here? How is this consent given?
“How is this consent given?” – it’s not, that’s the point. If someone wants to publicly exercise their right to free speech they can blast their shit far and wide with no need for consent from people who just happen to be walking by. People are forced to hear/see just by proximity. Why aren’t the rights of others who don’t want to be exposed to some things protected or even respected. Freedom of speech must be balanced against the rights of the public.
I love it. You think that the right to free speech should include the right not to be exposed to ideas you don’t like. Fair enough. You already have those rights. Don’t read or listen to someone’s views you don’t like.
You’ve missed my point. You said “Don’t read or listen to someone’s views you don’t like” – I’m asking how do people do that when it’s in public? Do you really think that people are impervious to influence, that there is no subconscious influence from exposure?
You’ve also assumed my comments are about what I like or don’t like. I’m a huge supporter of FoS but think it’s dangerous and want to figure out how we can have that very important exposure to conflicting opinions and ideas without assaulting those who want no part of it.
FFS, you have to actively click on the link to this Terrorist’s manifesto online and then read it! Noone is forcing you to absorb the information like a scene from Clockwork Orange.
Who said I was talking exclusively about the manifesto?
Slow down and read.
Who is force feeding you ANY information that you find objectionable? Examples please.
I am sure you dislike my views Maggie (I sure as heck dislike yours). Here’s a tip. Don’t read what I write and you are protected from feeling bad.
“Who is force feeding you ANY information that you find objectionable? Examples please.”
Forget ‘objectionable’ for a moment and let’s just focus on information in general.
We are bombarded with information every day, even when we don’t seek it out. Billboard, signs, company branding, brand awareness, media advertising all work on the premise that you don’t have to consciously absorb it. It is literally like pumping fumes into the air that get inhaled as you go past. It’s a scientific fact. It is impossible to isolate yourself from these influences.
What about on the grounds of consent? FoS is is the right of anyone to say what they want but what about people’s right to not hear it? This is where FoS fundamentally fails for me because the rights of the speaker equate to denying the rights of others.
That’s pretty much Don Brash’s argument: he doesn’t want to hear people speaking te reo Māori on RNZ National, but people keep speaking it despite his personal wish not to hear it, therefore Something Must Be Done. There’s a fairly obvious problem with that argument.
Agreed. Acknowledging that we have no choice about exposure the question then becomes what do we limit and why? It’s unfair to limit purely on personal preference if that limitation interferes with the rights of others which is why I believe that FoS ought to have different rules depending on how and where we exercise free speech. The strictest rules need to be protective of public spaces whilst the most lenient rules applied to private settings.
Lots of kids can’t speak grownup wasross. Should we all talk like kids?
These so called ‘free speechers’ are completely fucken deluded.
If the outright demonisation of a very small minority in New Zealand, calling them ‘invaders’, labelling them as a threat to not only the way of life, but to the very biologically existence of the majority, and then even justifying the slaughter of the children of this minority is not objectionable then what the fuck is?
Public safety trumps other rights at a time like this. We don’t subordinate everything to the idea of free expression. No society does. Otherwise there would be no laws preventing anyone running butt naked through queen street daubed with swastikas. But [Please don’t name him – MS]‘s manifesto goes way beyond this.
The fact is one can put a narrative together with superficially plausible logic to justify any atrocity. And people will be sucked in by it.
And if people in this so-called ‘free speech’ coalition were members of a very small minority group, I am sure they would want material such as [Please don’t name him – MS]‘s banned outright, if not for their own safety but for the safety of their children. To provide that feeling of security and safety which is the right of every single citizen and resident of New Zealand is the duty of the authorities, the censor has done the right thing.
To disseminate and propagate [Please don’t name him – MS]’s manifesto is nothing more than a direct incitement to violence and murder and that in any jurisdiction in the world is simply unacceptable.
It is at times like this, when one can see what Hone Harawira meant when he said ‘free speech is white peoples shit’
To the moderator: Thanks, for this reminder—agree we should not name the fucker.
That bits of information has to be locked away in you brain, and to unlock it requires national security clearance is the definition of brain damage. MS is literally promoting brain damage. And you agreed to it, amazing.
Helluva relief for you sambimbo.
Are you trying to jerk me off?
Do you get debate and selfpleasure confused? Is that why you bang on about people debating you sambimbo?
That’s just you struggling to come up with a descent argument.
Just to help you out, here is a definition of brain damage:
Injury to the brain that impairs its functions, especially permanently.
Yes it is, but what does it have to do with what you were talking about?
Mark now has bits of information in his brain that’s locked away, and to use it properly requires national security clearance. Do you agree that is a form of brain damage or nah?
No it is not.
So what would you call parts of the brain where bits of information is inaccessible?
Why are you such a child?
Ah solkie. There you go again straight duck diving again. Can only answer a question with a question. You lack conviction in your argument and you’ve got no argument thus you’ve got nothing to say which is just lose.
Banning books is clearly the way to go but we must – absolutely must – allow the sale of guns to all and sundry. It is true: books are far more dangerous than guns!
Let me get this correct, is this the same free speech coalition, who made a big deal re free speech when lauren southern and stefan molyneux came to NZ? Even though it appears that the terrorist was motivated by molyneux and southern and their anti immigration ideas.
Wondering what exactly is the free speech coalitions motivation? Obviously the slaughter of 50 innocent victims isn’t motivation enough for them to review or even consider their actions.
Because from where I’m sitting the free speech coalition appears to more motivated by hate speech having a platform than anything else.
You don’t appear to have heard of Voltaire. He was big on free speech and to the best of my knowledge didn’t kill anyone. Oh and I think you will find that Pol Pot wasn’t keen on free speech and he was on the left of the political spectrum. The whole left-right thing doesn’t apply to free speech. You either believe in it or you don’t.
“You either believe in it or you don’t.”
Can you define free speech for us, Formery?
What is your definition of free speech? You seem opposed to it so I gather you must have a good idea of what you’re opposed to.
We do have incitement laws, however… where do they fit into governing acceptable public speech?
Don’t our Police arrest people for inciting an incident ?
And what is the difference between the spoken word and the written ?
Well, Ross, convention has it that when asked a question, it’s polite to answer it before asking the same thing of the enquirer. Fair? I’m happy to have a go once you’ve made your case.
You don’t strike me as a conventional person so god knows why you want to bring convention into the discussion. I’m not opposed to free speech but seeing as you are, I am interested to know why you have a problem with it. If the gunman had brought copies of his “work” instead of guns, no one would’ve been hurt. Clearly guns are more dangerous than the written word.
Ross (& Goss, though I see you’ve had a retreat beaten for you); common decency suggests that a fair question asked, gets answered before posing a return question; do you really struggle with that concept? I note you still have not answered my question. Here it is again, Formerly:
“Can you define free speech for us”?
If you were to provide your definition of free speech, I’d be able to align my comments to your definition, providing it’s a reasonable one.
I’m loathe to ask another question on top of the first, but will you? Please?
What conventions states this? I know of no such convention.
This, to me, sums up your despicable behaviour on this site, Gosman. In any conversation, you constantly throw in awkward questions designed to divert and discourage. You argue punctiliously to maintain diversion. Yet now, when Robert justifiably points out that he asked the difficult (for your side) question first, you try to justify the coward’s ploy of asking the same question back, instead of attempting an honest answer.
By this despicable behaviour you bring dishonour upon yourself.
I enjoyed your ban.
Well said wine one.
I’ve asked simple questions of Gosman and they aren’t answered.
It implies a lack of sincerity to me.
Obfuscation, pin head dancing and whataboutism.
Really tests my resolve to be kind.
How easy life would be if everything was black and white. One way or another – no shades of grey. Slavoj Zizek says it was harder to serve under a Communist regime in Yugoslavia that bent a little towards the west, was a bit flexible. You didn’t know what the rule was that week, or for this particular person or situation. Authoritarian rule with no ifs and buts is simpler. So black and white thinking as of Formerly Ross wanting a yes or no to free speech, is trying for simple and that is not possible.
To quote Voltaire is also the act of the lazy thinker. I thought i would look up this estimable gentleman. First, of course a lot of people will know, that name was a pseudonym for Aouret? Second he was a philosopher and the line about defending someone’s right to free speech is a theoretical idea, and I don’t see it noted that he ever had to chance his life for it. And this is where it gets complicated, and we know that one person’s free speech is another person’s blasphemy. Voltaire was particularly strong against religious intolerance.
What he wasn’t strong about was perfect probity. He and a mathematician friend in 1729 made a lot of money out of exploiting a fault in the national French lottery. The image of his painting shows him with a tight-lipped smile!
He wrote prodigiously and left 20,000 letters,50 plays, dozens of treatises on science, politics and philosophy, and several books of history on everything from the Russian Empire to the French Parliament. He would sometimes dictate from bed and kept himself going with up to 40 cups of coffee a day.
His free speech statement may have been self-serving. Since his writing denigrated everything from organized religion to the justice system, Voltaire ran up against frequent censorship from the French government. A good portion of his work was suppressed, and the authorities even ordered certain books to be burned by the state executioner.
Voltaire had a big mouth and unshaking commitment to his own rightness. He was friendly with Frederick of Prussia; being a little devious, he embarked on being an informant for France, but his abilities didn’t meet his own expectations.
Voltaire later moved to Prussia in 1750 to take a permanent position in…Frederick’s court. Their relationship finally soured in 1752, after Voltaire made a series of scathing attacks on the head of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. Frederick responded by lambasting Voltaire, and ordered that a satirical pamphlet he had written be publically burned.
He set up house with his niece, and they adopted the child of a poor young woman and helped raise her, and paid her dowry.
As an old man he helped set up a watchmaking business in Fermy, Switzerland where he had been living in virtual exile. This went well and helped establish Fermy as being a fine watchmaking centre, and he promoted the watches to people with whom he mixed in the upper class.
Now that rounds out the simple idea about free speech, and Voltaire’s proclamation about it. It is obvious that as a robust theory, it is full of ambivalence. And so was he, likely to take up causes on a whim. I think we need to apply ourselves and think together about where free speech has to be restrained. And quote another famous person Benjamin Franklin:
“We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”
I seem to remember reading that Voltaire never actually wrote the famous quote, “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” (Which is an English translation anyway..)
To get the quote, several disjointed fragments were put together, if I remember correctly. But I don’t feel like Googling it.. or maybe I will.
Ah, here it is:
““I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Unfortunately, the quote isn’t real — or at least, it’s not really Voltaire. It comes from a 1906 biography by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, in which it was intended to represent a summary of his thinking on free speech issues.Jan 8, 2015”
Nice! One should not omit Candide however, nor the conclusion that: il faut cultiver notre jardin, which might ultimately be the cure for a number of social and environmental ills beyond poverty, idleness, and vice.
“… son jardin,” old boy.. one’s garden, not our garden. I would prefer that he had written ‘our garden’ from a Leftie’s perspective, but Candide actually advocated feathering one’s own personal nest. Depressing.
But we have improved since then, haven’t we? …
(Mind you, Candide had been through some hard times…)
I didn’t notice that & of course I gave my copy to the last student I taught with it. I have always thought the metaphor very productive however. What is the world if not the garden? And if our societies are not making it into the primal paradise once more, the fault lies not with the world, but with us.
I have knowledge of both Voltaire and on a more personal level the evil Pol Pot.
But thanks for the link.
I wonder why some turn to a person who died hundreds of years ago for advice or justification of actions. Surely the world has changed and evolved considerably since the baroque period?
“The whole left-right thing doesn’t apply to free speech. You either believe in it or you don’t.” Really? Are you saying there is no grey area?
I tell you what I don’t believe in…. using the phrase ‘free speech’ to justify hate speech, which is what has been typically happening in recent times.
I am sorry if you have had some connection with Pol Pot. He and his people seem to have gone OTT then times over when it comes to bad deeds.
It seems strange that Voltaire is so frequently remembered and quoted. Lots of things that others have said that should have been remembered and passed down for generations into infinity have not. So I guess it is a call to authority by people who feel they are on a sticky wicket or something, and grasp at a pretentious prosy pillock to substantiate a position that is lacking.
+ 1 yep I’m sitting with you.
How do you know the Terrorist was motivated by Molyneux and Southern? I have not seen ANY evidence suggesting this is the case. This seems to be merely your supposition.
But where does it all stop? – Is there no way to protect ourselves from malevolent groups and individuals seeking to incite disorder and mayhem?
Or is it all just open slather and anything goes?
Why do we have laws ?
Gosbot’s alive! I thought you’d blown a fuse back there being exposed as the puppet of hate meme generating gun salesmen.
So you ran away, to regroup, and attack somewhere else aye.
I won’t link to the 2018 material of Molyneux. France: Burn till you learn. But it’s the usual immigrants are ruining the world bullshit.
You know France, that country that allegedly yanked the terrorists heart strings.
At best you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You haven’t been searching hard enough, Gosman.
For those that don’t want to click on the link, it’s Lauren Southern talking about ‘the Great Replacement’.
I didn’t state Molyneux or Southern didn’t have ideas that you could argue were aligned to the Terrorists own. I asked how do you know he was motivated by such views.
[I’m not going to waste time explaining how Venn diagrams work or exploring your theory that its possible that a man enamoured with the same racist concepts that drive Southern and Molyneux could be unaware of their work, or, indeed, their controversial visits to both his own country and his adopted home. So I’m just going to end this now by returning you to your previous status. Banned till May for trolling. TRP]
Typical rwnj – you’re crooked buddy – just a discard, a lack.
Edit. Oh dear what a pity lol
I am sure there is a thesis in this thread and Gosmans goneburgerness.
In this community (TS) dissenting views are tolerated, engaged with and a good deal of goodwill spent on them.
Then you get this shit today.
Principles are important, but what I have waded through on this thread, the goodwill and integrity was largely coming from one side.
Plus banning can be a way of being kind to the community and it’s errant member.
Thanks TRP, the comments on that link, woahs.
This is wilful, deceitful denial. The rest of your arguments on this thread are for the sake of argument and can be treated as such, but for you to deny any link between the thinking of those Canadian right wing supremacists and the Christchurch mass murderer just makes me angry.
Do you have evidence the Terrorist was influenced by them – yes or no?
I am asking for evidence not your opinion.
I would hazard a guess that many individuals are encouraged by the dissemination of such materials by Molyneux and Southern ,- if that were not true , – why then do the same expend so much energy’s and finances expounding their views ?
I will repeat what I typed to Formerly Ross,
… ” I think ,… you would be wise to read thoroughly the 3 links I provided lower on down the page.
This is not a rhetorical philosophical debate but rather one of a legal nature ” …
It is only your opinion then. Thanks for confirming that.
You are beating around an ever decreasing sized bush to argue points that are irrelevant.
Again, I would suggest you read in minutiae the 3 links near the bottom of the page I provided to see how groundless are your arguments.
The law does indeed discern between free speech and hate speech for very good reasons. This is why we have censorship laws, Gosman…
They have identical views on muslim immigration and call for ‘white nations’ to defend themselves against islamic invasion.
I’d say they’re all in the same ship.
That’s nice you think that. However, considering the question wasn’t whether the Terrorist shared views with them but how was he motivated to do what he did by reading their opinions, the fact he shared views with them is irrelevant. He apparently felt the environment was in danger of collapsing through over population. In that he shares views with the Club of Rome . Shall we ban their views as a result of his actions as well?
He didn’t shoot dead 50 people in the name of the views of the Club of Rome. He did so in the name of the views of white supremacists of which Southern and Molyneux are paid up members.
Again, what evidence do you have that he committed anything as a result of being motivated by Molyneux and Southern?
You wanting me to point to a specific reference by this Australian mass murderer to Southern and Molyneux? I can’t do that because it’s such a deliberately narrow set of flags.
What I can say is that the evidence is clear that he and they shared views on the white supremacist idea that an ‘Islamic invasion’ must be rejected. He acted upon those views in the most grotesque way possible.
I see you’ve been banned for shifting goalposts and narrowing flags.
Agree with you here actually Gossie and you made a valid point. There is no evidence, and this is basically guilt by association. It looks like an opportunity by the left to shut down anything in the vicinity it doesn’t like the look of. They’ve tried doing this with Trump and Moscow already, so its all par for the course.
Catch up Maui. Gosman has been banned for the very type of comment you praised him for.
That’s really fucking rich of you mutton to want to ban hate speech while at the same time talk shit about our Aussie cousins. I’ll have you know that the Aussie cops and fire and rescue who leant a hand during the Christurch Earth Quakes and now with the terror investigation are held in much higher regard than your putuid attitude towards Aussies. Fuckwit.
Sam is correct; I’ve made this point before. There continue to be many things said on this site which can, and possibly will be, freely interpreted as hate speech at some point in the future.
The overreach promoted here is a disease far worse than the problem it alleges to cure.
Hardly. Like you Gosman, he is utterly insincere. There is no evidence of environmental concern in his actions, only a few talking points for witless trolls like you to leverage off. You may fool a handful of your fellow travelers, or his, but not anyone with actual environmental concerns.
Nice that you think you have a handle on his motivations. How did you gain this insight by the way?
The matter has been extensively reported Gosman, including in places not covered by the ban. The Bellingcat article was reasonably researched, and concluded that he was a shitposter, a heading under which you too might be economically filed.
You can find it here, https://www.bellingcat.com/tag/christchurch/ since we’ve long since established that you struggle to Google.
Equating me with a Terrorist. You are full of class SM /sarc.
Ha!- even Charles Manson , another racist who used hate speech to incite gullible minors into committing murder used to push the fact that he was an ‘ environmentalist’.
Fat lot of good it did him , – he like the CHCH murderer will end his days in prison affecting no one with his hate speech.
If you don’t wish to be thought of as a shitposter you could always try to up your game.
Yes, Gosman, I am all class. And you, poor fellow, seem to get off on wallowing in filth like hate speech. What ails you? Have you, at the end of the day, no decency, Gosman?
You have ZERO evidence I have any interest in any views that you think qualifies as Hate speech. Trying to link me with a far right Terrorist is a disgusting tactic in my mind. The sort of thing intellectual scum do when they realise the bankruptcy of their arguments.
On the contrary Gosman – you evidence a disproportionate interest in freeing and circulating the views of a racist terrorist. You have linked yourself. If you lie down with dogs, you’ll get up with fleas.
I read the now banned document.
I also read the words of molyneux on the twitter not long after the terrorist slaughtered innocent people. I watched as he incited mistruth’s immediately following the event, before all the info started coming out.
Moldypoo would appear to be a lying sacoshitt.
Cinny, I’m impressed that you read the manifesto. I admire your intestinal fortitude! I wonder if that elucidated your perception of any basis for classifying it as hate speech.
I share the feeling of many here that it can reasonably be classified as such on the general basis that the shooter used it to justify mass killing. That’s an emotional decision rather than a rational decision, but it seems reasonable to me because deciding on the basis of our feelings is something we all do daily. Multiple times daily. I’m fishing for something more explicit: did he provide instances of inciting violent acts in the text?
That’s what would provide objective proof under the hate speech law. Failure to provide such proof is why I criticised the chief censor. It was an ideal opportunity to test the law, seems to me. I don’t like his obstruction. I feel that the law ought to be rendered workable, rather than considered impractical.
In the days after the Christchurch massacre the media propagated the idea that we should hate less and love more. I’m finding it difficult to find the love for free speech in this thread. All that goodwill from something so tragic. It was fleeting. We have reverted to hate. The more things change the more they stay the same.
The media were talking about love amongst the community , not love for a concept such as free speech.
Free speech is concept of individual liberty’s , it is neither capable of love or hate, as such it is amoral until someones uses it one way or the other.
No ones reverted to hate, just temperance in what passes as socially acceptable dissemination pertaining to values, morals, decency and the common good.
So love is to be rationed now? Free speech is to be restricted and so is love! Yours is a sad world.
I think ,… you would be wise to read thoroughly the 3 links I provided lower on down the page.
This is not a rhetorical philosophical debate but rather one of a legal nature.
“I’m finding it difficult to find the love for free speech”
Such very fake concern.
I can’t fault your observational skills./
It’s true, I have no love for hate speech, nor for those who speak hate speech.
It’s also true I have no love for weapons of mass murder, nor for those who wish to keep those weapons of mass murder readily available to the public.
However, I’m heartened that the goodwill you refer to has resulted in expressions of love and support for the community that was the subject of that appalling hate. I’m heartened that the goodwill you refer to has resulted (finally!) in some concrete action to reduce the availability of mass-murder weapons. I’m heartened that the goodwill has apparently resulted in a stronger focus on hate speech and how to reduce its damaging effects in our society. None of that looks fleeting to me.
I’m sorry you’re not feeling the love, I really am. Perhaps you should take a good look at yourself and maybe you’ll come up with some insight as to why.
Andre I talked of free speech, not hate speech. It’s interesting you can’t or don’t want to separate the two. Can you separate love from hate? It’s easy if you try…
If you accuse him / her of conflating free speech with hate speech , …then that imply’s you perhaps are comfortable with hate speech coming under the banner of ‘free speech’…
Yes or no?
Some might find your anti our indigenous language comments hateful and against our nation’s identity too Ross….
Incitement – Wikipedia
Imminent lawless action – Wikipedia
United States free speech exceptions – Wikipedia
Bob Dylan – I Shall Be Free No. 10 (RARE OUTTAKE) – YouTube
The argument for unfettered FoS ignores human nature and the inherent influence of exposure. We like to think we’re rational and capable of resisting influence but the truth is so much of it happens in the subconscious without us even being aware of it.
– Anything repeated often enough becomes seen as a truth, regardless of its inherent truthfulness.
Adolf Hitler knew about the technique. “Slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea,” he wrote in Mein Kampf. This is due to the illusory effect where familiarity overpowers rationality. “The truth of any proposition has nothing to do with its credibility and vice versa.” —Parker’s law of political statements (Bloch, 1979, p. 84)
– We are most comfortable with what we see around us. Seeing frequent hate speech conditions the brain to regard it more positively regardless of acceptance of the message (The mere-exposure effect). The more often the netuser sees it, sees it approved of by his or her peers the greater the social influence. Trends are proof of social influence.
Dissociation of processes in belief: source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth (1992)
– People are hardwired to conform. Our brain weighs the negative as more important than the positive; fear over peace, loss over gain, punishment over reward. The argument for FoS itself focuses on the fear of loss of freedom and rights which is why so many people adopt it.
Survival depends on cooperation, getting along, and fitting in. So your brain actively resists ideas and thoughts that threaten social inclusion and decisions will be influenced by your social group (those you see around you, including online, most often), their actions and attitudes. To do otherwise is to risk social exclusion which has been proven to negatively influence biological and psychological health and well-being. But more than that, our brain copes with the discomfort of incongruity of making such conformist decisions (when they go against beliefs) by dehumanising the target group of the hate speech. This dehumanisation then lowers our empathetic responses to that target group because our mirror neural responses are stronger for conspecifics. We even regard messages spoken by people with easily pronounceable names (ease of pronunciation being linked to ethnic familiarity) as being more truthful.
People with Easier to Pronounce Names Promote Truthiness of Claims
We don’t live in a vacuum and individual rights shouldn’t take precedence over the safety and well-being of society, especially when there’s plenty of evidence of harm.
Great post !,- I have exactly the same problems countering disbelief in Sasquatch despite the entire genome having been mapped years ago! ( The burden of disproving such things is on the cynic- not the researcher ! )
People will often listen to the loudest , squalling ‘authoritative sounding ‘ voices and only grab the headline bit. They often will not spend the time to go any deeper.
A classic example is when John Key was accused by the IMF as encouraging a tax haven. But people still chose to vote for the guy. They had 9 years of repetition from that party to ‘excuse’ his and his party’s obvious excesses. So they could get away with telling any old cock and bull story.
Well, … its the same with these so called ‘freedom of speech’ advocates we see on this post. They will go to great lengths to argue the most minute and irrelevant of points and deny that certain kinds of speech are clearly designed to incite violent acts. We have a right to protect our society from such speech.
They will usually cite American Constitutional laws regarding freedom of speech ,- but ALWAYS ignore any caveats that even the American Constitution and the USA’s legal and governing body’s put on it.
In their haste to push an ‘Americanized’ point of view , they instead present a deliberately perverted notion that not only makes their beloved America look like a complete lawless shambles , – but double up in denying their own American idealism and legal system by implying it has no suitable checks and balances.
I find it funny that the arguments FOR FoS are seldom seen enacted. FoS promotes open and honest dialogue about difficult topics LOL!! Right! No it doesn’t.
I have yet to ever see any peer reviewed studies that show exposure to unfettered FoS is harmless.
I joined a social network that have absolute freedom of speech as its guiding rule and I can tell you, not one single intelligent open debate or discussion happened there. It was a non-stop shit-storm of hate and depravity. No one was interested in learning new perspectives or debating pros and cons. Instead it was a hornets nest of angry rabid people who wanted their opinions heard and nothing else.
Except it’s not, because the difference you’re talking about above is entirely subjective and we have a legislative bar on regulating speech based on purely subjective opinions. There’s a case to be made that some forms of speech are regulateable as non-speech, but there is no real case to be made that hate or even free speech as a category can be defined such that a regulation on it is the least restrictive option, or measurable or even fixed so national security can target it.
Excellent points. My points focus on absolute free speech, not the legally defined version of free speech we have here.
“we have a legislative bar on regulating speech based on purely subjective opinions.” By this I’m assuming you mean unsubstantiated subjective opinion? It’s a mucky segregation considering it’s impossible to form a completely objective opinion.
Yeah, so the way I kind of came to understand it and I could be completely wrong because I’m not a lawyer but I’m assuming Artile one of the Treaty of Waitangi, the bit that refers to protecting freedoms of expression, and linked to the Human Rights Act 1993 later on, kind of implies to me that we can’t really jail people for what they say but for what they do.
Can you link it or copy the text pls
Well, looks like I was kind of wrong, I blame Geofrey Palmer for making everything so dam hard. Ok so I found the relevant bit in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 19 which governes all human rights documents which The Treaty is one of as:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
It’s interesting because Article 30 explicitly says:
“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”
.. which I take to mean you can’t use your right to free speech to engage in any activity that’s aimed at destroying the rights and freedoms of others.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which NZ has signed and implemented) states that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law” (article 20).
So, inciting hatred is forbidden regardless of whether the speech incites violence.
Well I would counter with Europe and America and the UK and France and even New Zealand can not be trusted to make hate speech into punishable crimes. Honestly, the best argument against hate speech laws is how completely useless they are. Countries with hate speech laws don’t have fewer or less powerful political extremists than countries that do. So why give the government the power to censor people? There’s no guarantee that the person who brought in anti hate speech laws would stay in power for ever unless they become an undead God King, once they die there political opponents get to take over and decide what hate speech is, which is code for banning everything that may criticize the government. But unlike the very far left, my part of the political spectrum (The center left, or at least my section of it), will let you talk shit about Americans AND Chinese.
Thanks Maggie for the UDHR article 30 detail and interpretation, a good example of a ‘line in the sand’ aspiration (as is article 19 – thanks Sam.)
Much like anti-smacking and other progressive legislation, this informs what we should be aspiring to, enforceable or not.
I mean, would you agree with banning pro-gay propaganda? It certainly (according to anti-gays, Destinies Church) promotes hatred against those who do not agree with it, or who, in the words of their supporters, refuse to accept such a degenerate lifestyle.
If not. Why? Well, because the government might agree with that stance. I would agree if I wanted an easy 5% boost to my pole.
But that’s not the only stance governments have taken. Russia currently bans propaganda of homosexuals and it’s a popular law.
So here’s the thing— Hate speech laws only work against politically suboridnate and powerless groups. Why? Because a powerful group is in a position to prevent such laws from ever applying to them.
In the 1950s and 1960s, had the US had hate speech laws, their social order would be quite different today. You know why?
Because to a vast number of Americans, hate speech included Attempting to disrupt the harmonious relation of the negro and white man in the South. Bull Conner would never have been touched by a hatecrime law. the Civil Rights movement? It would have been strangled in its crib.
Ironically, it’s as much the left that tends to freak out when the dreaded C (class) word is used. There’s such a target fixation when it comes to racism that any hint that race has become subordinate to class ends with howls of that person being a secret Assade apologist or something. Basically the left staked everything on identify politics in 2016 and is paying for it dearly now. And even within identity politics, there are Worthy and Unworthy Identities. Witness what happens when you bring up disabilities as as big or bigger an issue than racism numerically and in terms of impact among certain groups and watch the blood run through the streets.
Yeah, but Sam, it doesn’t matter which way what. People are gonna cry foul. That’s what folk do. They whinge and whine about their pet peev like spoilt children quibbling over whose piece of cake was bigger, who got more icing, unfair division of sprinkles etc. Whining doesn’t mean policies are unfair or not working and there is no one-size-fits-all in this. Nothing works for everyone – that’s what we need to learn more than anything. At some point we have to acknowledge that we have a government, they oversee our laws and they haven’t killed us or sold us off to an overseas cohort yet.
Listen, I get it. I nearly burst a woowoo valve when John Key was in power because I could see how manipulative and predatory he was. I fully believe that man is a straight up high functioning psychopath. Those were very unhappy days for me where I felt increasingly powerless to ensure my kids had a country worth living in.
It’s a horrible feeling to not trust your own government.
We outlaw Nazi’s. Specifically. No more Nazis… But why stop there? We’ve established that narratives that are potentially dangerous can indeed be outlawed from even being discussed in the political realm. So why do we draw the line at them? We Republicans know that Communism means death and would mean disaster for the spirit of the Nation. So no official Communist party is allowed. People deemed communists cannot participate. They’ll destroy this country. We the party in power have made it so.
Yes, it may be a slippery slope argument, but it holds true. Political speech is vigorously policed at parliament level and lax everywhere else for that reason. You can be a bigot, go out and wave nazi salutes, whatever. And people can come and yell at you and tell you that you’re a piece of shit. Our laws already establish that no political violence is to be accepted and shit that Nazis’ want to do is explicitly illegal. If the argument then becomes those laws aren’t enough to stop them, then hate speech laws certainly wont be enough to stop them. Kiwis generally like having the right to subscribe to any political theory and we’ve seen what happens in this country when you try to clamp down on political movements.
Hate speech laws wouldn’t stop Nazis’ from popping up. They tend to be a degenerate group anyway. If a hate speech law is all that would guard Kiwis from driving people to the sea on foot or in caskets’ then God help us.
“I mean, would you agree with banning pro-gay propaganda? It certainly (according to anti-gays, Destinies Church) promotes hatred against those who do not agree with it, or who, in the words of their supporters, refuse to accept such a degenerate lifestyle.
If not. Why? Well, because the government might agree with that stance. I would agree if I wanted an easy 5% boost to my pole.”
No I wouldn’t because incitement to hate is not the same as invoking hate.
All the other examples you gave are just manipulations of the laws against hate speech and there are laws to counter them (for the most part). Where there isn’t – those are called loop holes and shouldn’t be used to promote one side of a debate because they don’t represent the true nature of the law.
Well there are reasons why must crimes are dealt with at high court level and not kicked up to International court level with all the other crimes against humanity. One reason is because the fodder level crims don’t require international support to invade and occupy a forign nation practising hate speech. The lower level fodder can be dealt with our laws as it is, reason for that is because the centre left don’t want the GCSB, SIS and police to gain any real time survelience powers over us lefties than they already have. With the new gun laws and some slight modifications and re education there’s enough laws and such there now so that extremists bubble up to national security level and are dealt with with the appropriate amount of force. If it happens strengthening speech laws or other modifications comes up in the Royal Commision into the failures of March 15th then I would expect those to be implemented with out prejudice.
You’ve gone all coherent in a faux legalistic bullshitty way sambimbo. Are you working in shifts?
Like I said to you before your spotlight metophors make people lose respect for you and it’s not just me that’s losing respect for you.
Is that more of that inceleckeral speak sambimbo?
Still waiting on your rebuttal if you here https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-25-03-2019/#comment-1600625
If you can. Was taking a page out of 12 rules for life, the one about listening to people in case they’ve got something important to say. Guess the normie is worth the value of the sum of all of there words and thoughts.
My respect for Gabby is growing apace!
Like a laser, she is!
“Instead it was a hornets nest of angry rabid people who wanted their opinions heard and nothing else.”
Much like here then…
Gosman a week ago you were crowing like a cock going on about how May would get an article 50 extension based solely on your opinion and not on that fact the the rules are 100% certain. People who believe in free speech are not ideologically driven, we believe in the rules.
Sorry I was 100% correct about the Brexit Article 50 extension. What is your point?
Point is that there is no article 50 extension. You and Wayne where just wishful thinking and you’re a hypocrite for accusing others of being angry and rabid and wanting there opinions heard.
I thought you were banned Gosman. You rise again like dracula?
Not like Dracula.
Dracula (especially when Christopher Lee) has presentation skills.
He’s back !!!
Back to haunt us all forever like a dose of the flu !
You cant pin him down! , – he’s here to haunt us all like Ebeneezer Scrooges ghost forever !!!
So funny .
No, nothing like here. On there people were literally yelling into the cybervoid. They weren’t trying to engage, discuss or respond to others.
Yep,… I’m starting to be of the opinion that hate speech really just comes under the banner of ‘incitement’.
And ‘incitement’ doesn’t always have to mean physical harm , either. It can entail denial of job opportunity’s, humiliation , denial of housing… the lists are endless.
I should imagine what we really need to be addressing is ‘incitement’.
Not freedom of speech.
It could be argued that in times of an oppressive , unpopular and indeed, murderous regime,… that inciting to overthrow that regime is justified perhaps,… such as POW’s during the Second World War… but that is a totally different set of circumstances during peace time.
But inciting to hate and by extension , – potentially commit acts that are harmful and illegal,… to me seems it becomes more of a legal issue than a moral or ‘democratic’ one of civil liberty’s.
I really don’t know where to draw the line. I would love to see racism itself deemed objectionable but then, as you pointed out here and elsewhere we can’t exclude on offensiveness. So incitement is a good deciding criteria but I’m still cringing about unfettered racist dialogue because I know how easily that shit stains. Perhaps what we need to do is make critical thinking compulsory in schools at all levels. We should be teaching kids how to think, not what to think.
“Perhaps what we need to do is make critical thinking compulsory in schools at all levels. We should be teaching kids how to think, not what to think.”
Teachers know about this and do try.
I’m not sure as much can be said of the media unfortunately.
Haha yes! My daughter came home not long ago and told me that in a class experiment she opted to throw the baby off the boat (some sort of critical reasoning challenge).
more learning is done in the home
But racism is deemed objectionable. Often. We just get a plethora of folks being unable to apply the definition, haring off trying to pin the tail on the donkey in all sorts of random directions. Leftists, I mean. Not to imply that all leftists are that irrational!
no question mark
Okay then. The most recent example was the news report of a march against racism in New York. Apparently it was triggered by the Chch massacre. Now I get that the shooter seems like a white supremacist.
Racism is evident via that implication. Yet no evidence has been presented to prove the point in the media. Leftists have in fact united to prevent that happening. Yet they march against the hypothesis!
Short step to mass psychosis, seems to me. Talk about the madness of crowds! It would help us to know if proof of racism was actually documentable. Anyone who read it could offer their opinion, eh? But their opinion still isn’t worth much to the rest of us without evidence to back it – and I still haven’t seen anyone offering even the interim opinion.
Random labelling based on subjective opinions just muddies public debate of the issues. To get clarity, we must have evidence.
Racism itself can’t be deemed legally objectionable because our laws allow us to hold any opinion or belief but that doesn’t mean it’s lawful to freely express racist ideology.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
“any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law” (article 20).
So it seems that any speech that encourages breaching the human rights of another because of their ethnicity is prohibited. I’m all good with that.
Likewise. I gather you are a lawyer. If so, have you considered why Graeme Edgeler reckons the censor got it wrong? https://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/why-the-censors-total-ban-on-possession-of/
Incidentally, there’s a rightist lawyer supporting the censor here: https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/why-it-might-make-sense-to-censor-this-manifesto
“Perhaps what we need to do is make critical thinking compulsory in schools at all levels. We should be teaching kids how to think, not what to think.”
You got my vote on this issue.
The diseased mindset behind those writings has no relevance to any issues it may touch upon for New Zealand, and anyone referencing any issue to them in anyway, should face jail time and/or heavy fines.
The ‘Free Speech’ coalition, has cried wolf one too many times now.
Yes but ,… any regulatory stipulations must be carefully balanced,… as you know.
The big fear of some is if that freedom of speech is stifled , … it becomes perfect for the totalitarian regime. As you also know.
Therefore it seems to me, … that the ONLY way of truly ruling if something is ‘hate speech’ is if it does or has the potential to incite against others in a negative, harmful way.
But even that can be difficult in determining what is ‘harm’, initially .
However ,…If someone was to accuse someone else of hate speech and that case ended up in court , there is a provision to dismiss that case if it is found to be ‘vexatious’.
Inversely, … if it was found that the speech in question was found to be inciting others to act in a harmful way towards others , then that then becomes a punishable offense.
We have all heard of the old ‘inciting a riot’ charge.
Well ,… these days ,… we now have quite comprehensive laws defining just what is and isn’t hate speech. The law has broadened , … and it seems to me hate speech is a form of incitement to illegal activity’s.
The balance is that the viewpoints of mass murder have no legitimacy to anything for NZ society.
And legally it would probably be filed under Incitement.
And unless there are more extensive and more defined terms and legal bases for it ( which I’m sure there would be ) , … to simply argue or debate from an emotional, philosophical , altruistic , or subjective angle is fruitless and enables nit picking trolls like Gosman to subvert intelligent discussion on threads such as these .
Seems like you are articulating my position on this. If the censor had cited a specific section of text from the manifesto as incitement to violence, someone could use it as test prosecution of the (apparently untested) hate-speech law.
The govt’s prosecutor could, eh? If the manifesto is still available to them, perhaps they will. I hope so. I believe it is in our common interests for them to do it.
The balance is that the viewpoints of mass murder have no legitimacy to anything for NZ society.
So if the PM went on a murderous rampage, her views on various issues (eg climate change, gay marriage) – views which have generally been applauded – would count for nothing? Interesting logic.
Again your trying out the limits of conflation.
One is a legal issue , the other is opinion and knowledge. Two totally different things. How old are you mate?
The Older Noddy Theme Tune – YouTube
Freedom of speech is fine as long as it doesn’t upset anyone? Yeah nah. If you’re scared of upsetting someone, you don’t enjoy freedom of speech, which includes the right to offend. That is what Valerie Morse did to old diggers when she burnt a flag during a dawn service on Anzac Day in 2007. They were outraged and understandably so.
Well said, Paul.
So ,… um,… you’d be quite OK if a mob assembled outside your home at a family function and verbally and racially abused your mother , uncle, sister, grandfather , father , brother , and your children because it was all being done under free speech.
Or would you :
A ) Call the Police because of intimidating and inciting behavior , OR,…
B ) Lecture your family that it was all OK because these wonderful people were just simply exercising their democratic right to free speech and you’d defend them to the last in their right to spout such vitriol.
Your a bloody drongo , mate.
Burning the flag must really irritate you.
How is burning the flag and incitement and actual execution of violence against a minority even the same thing?
How is burning the flag in protest of war the same thing as a white supremacist arguing we need to kill all he migrants/Muslims before actually executing a terrorist attack and murdering 50 Muslims the same thing?
Or are you the “wise man’s” listener wint spoke of:
the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: “theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron”
Valerie Morse was prosecuted so the State clearly thought she did something really bad. It was offensive to some people. But it’s reassuring to know you would choose to prosecute on the basis of personal whim. That’s just what we need.
Don’t know what your on about old chum and I don’t care.
Your new name to me is Gosman #2.
Yeah wierd, you cite a section from a pro freespeech/freezepeach peice and miss out the very next paragraph:
“It was perhaps surprising, in view of that stance, that Spoonley recently told RNZ’s Morning Report he was not opposed to a ban on the Canadians Southern and Molyneux. He said he was very much in favour of free speech, but questioned whether free speech was advanced by “hateful and extreme” views.”
I was confused by your post as I took several papers under Dr Spoonley during my time at Massey and he did not strike me as a rabbid freeze peach advocate, his work on neo nazi’s in Canterbury really impressed me on how dangerous white supremacists are and that they are not a historical foot note. Reading the listener bit does show that no Spoonley is still the deeply rational man I remember from my youth and of course was in agreement on banning hate speech Molyneux and Lauren southern who have done racist bullshit videos like white replacement, misapplied rk theory that did inform the ChCh white supremacist terrorist.
Spoonley, is cool with discussing/researching things, not platforming/giving space for nazi bullshit, even before NZ largest terrorist attack. (listener piece seems to have been published July 2018)
Poor form picking and choosing a man’s word’s and action’s to suit your argument, especially so when you left out the following paragraph.
Nothing weird about it. Spoonley talks about driving individuals underground. Would you really want that for people like the Christchurch gunman? And let’s face it, comparing him to Molyneux and Southern is like comparing prune juice with champagne.
He agreed with not allowing Molyneux and Southern into the country to speak, he was fine with censoring hate speech, “driving it under ground”. What are you blithering about drinks for? Are you arguing full active violent facisim/white supremacy should have free speech protections but peddlers of white supremecy theories and “women have to much power and will end western civilisation” like Molyneux and Southern should/can be censored?
Spoonley want’s hate speech defined to include hate speech against religion (and disability and sexual orientation) in reaction to the chch shooting, he want’s more censorship against hateful fuckheads. Hell not just censorship he want’s it to be illegal under the Human right’s act.
Yeah I would like that sort of stuff driven underground, so we don’t get a repeat of killings of people based on their religion, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation ect.
if you’d actually read Spoonley’s work with neo nazi groups, they did operate covertly “underground” but they thought they could recruit him so tended to confide in him after he gained their trust, but they were cagey and distrustful of him till he gained their confidence.
Yeah I would like that sort of stuff driven underground, so we don’t get a repeat of killings of people based on their religion, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation ect.
Driving guys like the CHCH gunman underground would be a recipe for disaster. The GCSB and SIS apparently weren’t aware of him, and you want to make their job even harder? Oh dear.
And it was over turned. What does burning flags have to do with hate speech and terrorist attacks in accordance with hate speech. Here’s the answer they’re not the same thing.
Are you illterate?
The Story you cite has Dr Spoonley agreeing with Southern and Molynoux being banned as hate speech as it offers nothing constructive.
“It was perhaps surprising, in view of that stance, that Spoonley recently told RNZ’s Morning Report he was not opposed to a ban on the Canadians Southern and Molyneux. He said he was very much in favour of free speech, but questioned whether free speech was advanced by “hateful and extreme” views.”
Good to see you showing your arse in defending free speech for fascists though, misguided that you don’t even see the Spoonley’s actual feeling on the matter.
Here’s the thing if illegal white supremacy speech is on your pc, or typed by you into 8chan/facebook/kiwifarms the GCSB, SIS will have a flag they can give to the police to have that person investigated. This is a harder investigation if white supremacy speech is treated some one exercising their free speech.
Spoonley on the needing new laws on hate speech actually post the terrorist attack by a white supremacist (not cherry picked bullshit from last year where it actully points out he’s fine with banning two far right hate mongers) :
“Unlike countries such as Germany, New Zealand has no specific laws on hate speech.
Race and ethnic relations expert Paul Spoonley says that needs to change, and quickly.
“I don’t think we can delay, because if you delay, then the changes of something else occurring like the events of last week might be a possibility.”
He says we’ve been turning a blind eye to the issue for too long.
“We have been complacent and a little naive to think we were exempt from this. We need now to have a debate about what constitutes hate speech in New Zealand and we need to act upon that definition.””
“Professor Paul Spoonley, a sociologist at Massey University, has studied hate speech and last year provided a briefing paper on the issue to several government agencies.
“I looked online to see how much hate speech there was and I was really surprised,” he told the Herald.
“What struck me was how much hate speech was directed at Muslims.”
He said there were obvious problems with New Zealand’s current legislation, including in the Human Rights Act which is due to be reviewed this year.
Under section 61 of the act it is unlawful to publish, distribute or broadcast material which is threatening, abusive, or insulting and “likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt” people based on their colour, race, or ethnic or national origins.
But the law does not specifically mention discrimination based on religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability.
Section 131, which is the criminal law equivalent of section 61, has a similar limitation.
Last week, Chief Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt questioned the scope of these sections during a presentation at the University of Otago.
“Why does the law prohibit the incitement of hostility against someone because of their race or colour – but not because of their religion – or their sexual orientation – or because they have a disability?” he said.
“It’s not rocket science: every member of our community should feel safe. Nobody should be permitted to incite hostility because somebody else has a different religion – or because they have a partner of the same sex – or because they use a wheelchair.”
Spoonley said section 61, and other legislation such the Harmful Digital Communications Act, also provide a mostly civil complaints based approach rather than criminal prosecution.”
Legally, according to part 3, section 28, you can argue that there’s no need to list every possible discriminatory criteria to be covered by the law.
Other rights and freedoms not affected
An existing right or freedom shall not be held to be abrogated or restricted by reason only that the right or freedom is not included in this Bill of Rights or is included only in part.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
Non-discrimination and minority rights
19 Freedom from discrimination
(1)Everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993.
but here’s a list anyway.
Human Rights Act 1993
Prohibited grounds of discrimination
Heading: inserted, on 1 January 2002, by section 7 of the Human Rights Amendment Act 2001 (2001 No 96).
21 Prohibited grounds of discrimination
For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are—
sex, which includes pregnancy and childbirth:
marital status, which means being—
married, in a civil union, or in a de facto relationship; or
the surviving spouse of a marriage or the surviving partner of a civil union or de facto relationship; or
separated from a spouse or civil union partner; or
a party to a marriage or civil union that is now dissolved, or to a de facto relationship that is now ended:
ethical belief, which means the lack of a religious belief, whether in respect of a particular religion or religions or all religions:
ethnic or national origins, which includes nationality or citizenship:
disability, which means—
physical disability or impairment:
intellectual or psychological disability or impairment:
any other loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function:
reliance on a guide dog, wheelchair, or other remedial means:
the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing illness:
age, which means,—
for the purposes of sections 22 to 41 and section 70 and in relation to any different treatment based on age that occurs in the period beginning with 1 February 1994 and ending with the close of 31 January 1999, any age commencing with the age of 16 years and ending with the date on which persons of the age of the person whose age is in issue qualify for national superannuation under section 7 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 (irrespective of whether or not the particular person qualifies for national superannuation at that age or any other age):
for the purposes of sections 22 to 41 and section 70 and in relation to any different treatment based on age that occurs on or after 1 February 1999, any age commencing with the age of 16 years:
for the purposes of any other provision of Part 2, any age commencing with the age of 16 years:
political opinion, which includes the lack of a particular political opinion or any political opinion:
employment status, which means—
being unemployed; or
being a recipient of a benefit as defined in Schedule 2 of the Social Security Act 2018 or an entitlement under the Accident Compensation Act 2001:
family status, which means—
having the responsibility for part-time care or full-time care of children or other dependants; or
having no responsibility for the care of children or other dependants; or
being married to, or being in a civil union or de facto relationship with, a particular person; or
being a relative of a particular person:
sexual orientation, which means a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation.
Each of the grounds specified in subsection (1) is a prohibited ground of discrimination, for the purposes of this Act, if—
it pertains to a person or to a relative or associate of a person; and
currently exists or has in the past existed; or
is suspected or assumed or believed to exist or to have existed by the person alleged to have discriminated.
Section 21(1)(b): substituted, on 26 April 2005, by section 7 of the Relationships (Statutory References) Act 2005 (2005 No 3).
I just watched the Hate and the Internet Forum recording. Interestingly Spoonley said he supported putting more obligations on online platforms to control the content they host.
“In Spoonley’s view, the best response to hate speech is to get it out in the open where it can be confronted and countered.” – That doesn’t work. Statistically speaking, debating hot topics doesn’t change people’s minds; it only makes them hold to it further.
“Even after the evidence “for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs,” the researchers noted. In this case, the failure was “particularly impressive,” since two data points would never have been enough information to generalize from.
The Stanford studies became famous. Coming from a group of academics in the nineteen-seventies, the contention that people can’t think straight was shocking. It isn’t any longer. Thousands of subsequent experiments have confirmed (and elaborated on) this finding. As everyone who’s followed the research—or even occasionally picked up a copy of Psychology Today—knows, any graduate student with a clipboard can demonstrate that reasonable-seeming people are often totally irrational. ”
This is a little off topic but why is inconstant morals immoral?
I don’t want to steal your thunder but you said earlier, or tried to prove that hate speech is immoral. So if we can’t say that hate speech is immoral using a contradiction-system then I don’t see that as a valid argument.
It’s kind of like the law of explosion okay, bare with me. People use the law of explosion for moral philosophy but it doesn’t inherently mean that the moral systems we have is immoral. So you can have an inconsistent moral system that’s really good. We can even still be consistent and immoral like Hitler because he was pretty consistent.
So now we have a new thing where we have to determine what moral system is determining what’s immoral.
So I could just grand stand a moral argument and say that you can’t prove it because morals isn’t something we can objectively measure but maybe there are other measures we could target, I’v already said National Security Targets like technology gaps, Organization gaps, and doctrine gaps between potential murders and the police.
So I think the moral systems of our current day society is fines. What ever current day New Zealand’s got going on Y’know, it’s cool with me. I like the universal values system that we share. We give value to life with second hand values to pets with humans so they have value, people in our society value certain animals or we sympathies with them more. I think it’s that humans can’t control that they care about other humans.
So the social contract is made by humans to support human life. So if kiwis aren’t interested in hate speech then why is it immoral? Y’know, so I guess I’m just checking in to see if it’s still immoral to commit hate speech because from your above statements it seems you’re deviating from The Treaty which is New Zealand’s social contract. I mean not so long ago our social contract was colonisation so I don’t really care about the old things I just care about the current day society. Do we have to be okay with every social contract, well I don’t think so. So I think you’d have to prove why today’s social contract is immoral in order to strengthen speech laws in areas you believe they are weak. In my opinion.
Alternatively, if any particular issue is important to you, you could just work towards a legislative objective by participating in the democratic process.
No need to prove anything to a newborn ethical relativist. Just do it.
Why would I do that stuff. Like I said I’m cool with the way the current New Zealand society is set up. We’re growing and diversifying. Perhaps maybe if Jacinda is able to legalize the marijuanas the 500,000 New Zealanders that left from 1999 onwards will come back to their nation of birth, or even sign a US FTA. If I was to reverse anything I’d probably start with those.
If the US wanted an FTA, they would have gone with the TPPA.
As for MJ bringing back the NZ diaspora… good luck with that.
Well I’m sure can Maggie speak for herself assuming her states are correct but how about this. So why are we killing a bunch of animals in order to trade that for technology, preferably U.S tech instead of communicating how many insurgents we fragged in the war on terror via the 5eyes network — well that just goes into the social contract for the safety of humans and obviously animals aren’t on there.
So let’s just recap what immoral is, it’s basically just a misbehaviour in society. That’s pretty much the definition. Basically all I’m saying is the kiwi social contract is just the bases of all my morals, that’s all I’m saying. So I could say that slavery is wrong because by today’s standards of morals we see that incriminating humans of darker colours is not beneficial to all humans because all humans deserve to be free, correct? That’s basically the idea and trading animal carcasses doesn’t fall under anything I would deco sided immoral in this case.
But again Maggie can speak for herself. Y’know I’v given you plenty of opportunity to have a civil debate in the past and you just spit in my face but hey, if you really feel the need to explain shit for her then go right ahead.
That’s more “legality” than “morality”. Going by your relativist approach, someone beating their child is immoral to some people in NZ society, but morally permissable to other members of the same society.
Social contract theory is about the legitimacy of governments and other social power structures, not about morality. And given that you live in Aus, one could argue that you chose to opt-out of the NZ social contract anyway.
I’m not sure what you think “incriminating” means in this context, but I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Additionally, your claim of deservingness naively references justice as a form of utility while ignoring that there can be just reasons for restricting the freedoms of some people, as well as fundamentally misunderstanding the low regard many racists have for our fellows “of darker colours”.
That sentence is nonsense, in the Lewis Carroll sense of the term.
The social contract is just what I use to measure morals, I’m a kiwi and proud of it, no one has the right to take that away from me. So going into to detail about how to be a better terrorist is something I would consider immoral and prohibitive. Prohibiting terrorist rhetoric because of the way it makes people feel is like fine, just don’t distract the adults from dealing with the threat appropriately. So how would you measure morals particularly to do with national security measures.
I’d take the practical steps allowed within categorical imperatives as expressed in documents like the UDHR.
Yeah, so because I was born in New Zealand, bred, enjoyed growing up there and blah blah blah, I’m staunch enough to use the social contract kiwi style…,
And I’m guessing you’re really into internationalism or something really nobel? I mean that may work for pair to pair adversaries, but it’s a little overkill vs a small terrorist cell don’t you think. If we wanted to kick that guy t boi up to that higher level I’d assume that Australia would have to be harbouring T boys network or something. At least that’s how I would hope it worked. Perhaps it works different where you are from.
You do realise NZ is a signatory of the UDHR?
And part of what that means is that things like torture are off the table when it comes to national security?
I guess not.
I signed up to the Treaty of Waitangi, that gives permission for a strong central government and ability for commerce and other things like make an airforce. What they do latter on is really like, oh, okay, what ever. So long as central government keeps repairing Te Reo and Tino Rangatiratanga we’re cool really.
So how does the Treaty inform or affect your moral framework in Australia?
Lore my sister, Tangata Whenua.
I’m with you re our use of social contract. Few pointy-heads in Aotearoa. McFlock is correct re social contract theory (I picked up a book with exactly that title in the nineties & still haven’t got around to reading it) but kiwis tend to belong to the make-it-up-as-you-go-along school of philosophy (those few of us who bother).
Yeah, I mean it’s a subjective topic really I was just trying to be objective about how we go about measuring national security threats so I just wanted to be a little more selective about how we choose to go about targeting white supremacy, hate speech and national security and a little of ISIS mixed in, rather than targeting every one who looks different.
The easy ones are the white supremacists and neonazis and suchlike. They don’t just look different, being one is the most clear indicator of an enemy to a multicultural society you’d ever find.
It’s illegal to be a Nazi, it’s not illegal to be a white supremacy. It is illegal to murder and say some stupid things.
I’v even saved a pitched Mongol mob member who hocked some guy wearing a Nazi jacket and sieg hailing up the street, got knocked out cold. So I had to explain to people standing around what happened. Once I explained what happened every one was pretty disgusted at the skin head. I mean as long as you knock some sense into them and don’t kill them, people can go around saying what ever they want. And on the flip side Tuhoe can walk around the bush with guns and say what ever they like.
There was the Tuhoe raids I hope you can agree with that. So a part of that was the cops claimed some maaris was saying risky stuff and walking around the bush with guns and the Atorney General, Special councils and Closed court judges all had to concede that walking around the bush with guns isn’t illegal and I’d like to keep it that way.
Perhaps you could elaborate more on your third way.
The Tuhoe raids were a classic case of an obsession creating massive confirmation bias.
Everything the cops looked at was interpreted as “terrorist activity”. But it was not terrorist activity, much of it wasn’t even illegal activity. But if it had been, then the cops’ behaviour would have been more appropriate.But it wasn’t, so their behaviour wasn’t, so they’d seriously fucked up.
Taxonomy is one step. Correctly identifying which classification applies to a new instance is another step.
So do we agree that taxonomy is a system of inquiry. If so then then targeting external factors with out internal observations, I mean internal observations is my preference because external factors just feeds into confirmation bias. Again looking for indications of a gut feeling. Where as internal observations can be measured, so it’s much easier to count the number of times some one inquires about bomb making and frequents local places that they’ve been talking shit about. Rather than waiting for some random event to happen some where over there. So is there something more to this profiling strategy that I’m missing because I’d I’m not mistaking Jim Crow tried something similar with black Americans and well, I’m not sure some one with half the skill of the original could export it to New Zealand. Happy to be proven wrong.
No, it’s a system of classification. Different classifications have different treatments. “Terrorist ready to attack” has a different treatment from “harmless idiot without means or intent to actually do anything”.
What do you mean by “internal” vs “external” factors?
Tracking every teen who asked how to make a bomb would be very exhaustive indeed.
What you’re missing is that I never said anything about racial profiling. You brought that up. I don’t know why.
Let’s use as an example a group of fuckwits in recent prominence: white supremacists. Turns out they were serious. Ok, adapt to the change. Some of the groups have disbanded, but do we know some former members? Yes. Flag them. Have any of them renounced their membership completely? Yes. Ask them if they know the names of their former associates, how they communicated, who prominent group members were, and so on. Then you build a network map, looking for nodes with many edges. Look at what they do. Does anyone else have similar connections (that’s where “profiles” come in)? Are there regular travellers of a certain type travelling to common destinations? Do folks use computers, or couriers, or mail? Phones?
Why you’re fixated on racial profiling, I have no idea.
Okay then we agree that taxonomy is a system of classification.
Additionally you seem to have been doing well on your own discovering for yourself differences between external factors and internal ones. I guess the only thing I’d have to say is that all of your classifications from youngsters to organised crims is those can be handled by a duty Sargent with the current laws we have now which is kind of what my premiss was that I’m pretty cool with the current societal set up.
And honestly MrTrash. You’re just not a detective. Detectives just don’t talk like you. Well for instance I’m just not going to elaborate on some online message board what counter cyber shit spooks get up to. It’s just not worth trying to be a hero online. And as I say I’m pretty happy with the set up we have. A few tweaks, some hand spankys, all behind closed doors of course. But if there’s some major renovations that you see need fixing sing out muh bin.
Never said I was a detective. And if you’re within arms length of law enforcement, that’s just fucking tragic.
I don’t know what printer has done to his back end but this site is giving my network online STDs and I’m catching some brain damage off of it. You’re such an arshole printer.
Anyway, where was I. My premiss is that our current society is about right. People actually spoke to authorities about Tyrant (Y’know what I mean, printers infecting me with his retardation) only he didn’t bubble up to national security lvl but I’m sure with a few tweaks that can be fixed Y’know. But as far as a hail marry ligislative pass I mean I just don’t see any desperation for it coming from front line staff or who ever.
About right, huh.
Major loopholes in acquiring weapons, and right wing extremism in general on nobody’s radar (except for the peoplke right wing extremists target, of course).
Nowhere near “about right”.
The GCSB, the SIS and the Police have been well resourced and furnished with clear legislation over the past year or two. Intelligence is only as good as the information received. Apart of that is recruiting from a diverse background, New Zealand has over 200 ethnicities in its number and security and intelligence recruiters need to be reaching those that want to make a difference. That’s about the few change that I’d make. Plus Te Reo programmes in all schools, not compulsory fluency just like place names and treaty history and shit but that’s for another Tim,e.
I knew enough to cover my arse and sue them for wrongful dismissal, breach of human rights and win without having to employ a lawyer or go to court. Not bad for knowing fuck all.
So there’s like brain injured people who represent themselves against ACC and win. There’s also like people who catch murder charges, represent themselves like Malcom Rewa and get off a few. So having a law doesn’t justify whether somethings morally right or not other wise Taina Pora wouldn’t have been framed for somethings Rewa did so having a law doesn’t mean it’s morally justified and that’s why normies are always urged to seek legal council / representation. So yeah, just wanted to clear a few things up.
Oh and that last sentence where I said “deco sided” is meant to read as “consider.” Don’t know what happened, could have sworn I typed consider. What ever, fixed it for you.
So what has our current trade got to do with our current security agreements, and how would a free trade deal change that (assuming Wisconsin farmers didn’t lobby against it)?
Well I’m not much of a conspiracy lover, so. Well it’s a little side note so GCSB in particular dropped the ball so hard it fell through six floors I to the basement. So they’ve got huge man power and Intellegence issues. Addressing those issues through recruiting or outsourcing is one way but what’s more important is the PRICE of recruiting and outsourcing and addressing those issues. So Jacinda has a responsibility to steer us away from those issues by insuring that growth and the GDP rises faster than the cost of keeping the peace. So yeah, I’m not much onto conspiracy theories but you can see the argument.
Or they could simply reprioritise from obsessing over Islam and anarchists and widening the scope to all manner of known fuckwits
So that would be considered profiling which is kind of a no no under your UNHR guidelines under the bit that says no racial profiling.
As I began to explain earlier there are specific technologies, organisational and doctrines that terrorists fall on and they all kind of fall on the same stuff because that is the nature of a small fighting force. Don’t intend to get any more specific than that but those tactics are well known by New Zealand’s security aperartus after years as a 5eyes partner, coalition partner and honoured guest of security conferences. So as I mentioned restricting certain technologies, organisational structures and doctrines, restricted weapons is one, restricted institutional training and knowledge is another, filtering objectionable material is another. Managing scarce Intellegence resources effectively would kind of not fit an every ones a terrorist approach IMO so I guess why do you think that every one should be labeled or profiled as a terrorist.
Unless your position is that everyone in the country is a known fuckwit, I don’t see the relevance of your comment.
And if that is indeed your position, why would you calibrate your moral compass according to the social mores of a group of known fuckwits?
You’ve got it upside down again and trying to out words in my mouth by trying to sound all hard and strong on the Internet.
So on any objective standard including your own beloved UN guidelines and I’m not trying to bully you here so there’s no need to catch feelings or reasons. But on any objective measure it’s worthless to adopt profiling as a means to target national security threats and much more productive to maintain the technological, organisational and doctrin gap between potential mass murderers and the police.
You see the classic republican / right wing response to the war on terror is to over react and start spray and preying and regime change war.
The classic left wing response is to subotage material and logistics targets to save on the human casualties. For all I know German officers in WW2 where descent guys just lead by a loon. So it’s in a left wing mans nature to target things more than people.
Which begs the question. What do you target, things or people?
Targetted surveillance and investigation is not “racial profiling”, unless the targetting policy strictly consists of “is this person of ethnicity X” and nothing else.
And I quote
McFlock> Or they could simply reprioritise from obsessing over Islam and anarchists and widening the scope to all manner of known fuckwits.
So are you now dropping the wider scoop of all manner of fuckwits to a more targeted regime here or is this what you do where you are from. I’m a little confused here because my premise was about using a moral compass as a national security target acquisition guide and you are like in and out of it all the time.
So yeah, if you could explain a little more that would be swell.
All manner of known fuckwits.
If someone is not known to be a fuckwit, they’re not in scope.
For that to become “racial profiling”, it would have to be the case that everyone in a particular ethnic group is a fuckwit. I do not believe that to be the case about any ethnic, religious, or cultural group larger than maybe 300 people. Above that size it becomes a basic certainty that at least one non-fuckwit somehow got caught up in it. Except Nazis. that shit is what it says on the box. Anyone signing up to that for realsies is a fuckwit.
Well you’re still all over the place because any one can be stupid or contemptible. Unless you’re born perfect like people have off days, something might go wrong and bang, McTrash reckons that person is now a national security threat. Amazing.
Or you could express some curiosity as to what the term “fuckwit” is used to denote in this instance. You like to make up meanings for words, why not anyone else?
Nah. I’v got no desires of redefining the word fuckwit. You go right on though.
you’ve abused the fuck out of pretty much every other damned word in the English language, damned if I know why you’d suddenly stop.
You’re just undesirable to me.
You really do have difficulty with the English language.
So do you have an argument, counte argument or are you trying to fall back on your last comment.
I’ve stated my argument. You have railed against it, even though you have no interest in understanding the words that are part of it.
So you’re a mind reader now, swell. Y’know 50 people died. A lot of people are hurting, and a lot of people who screwed up royally are hurting and it’s having no small effect in Australia. It actually blew every one away that the Airforce would show up with a Hercules to evacuate some abo’s. They’d never do that before March 15. So yeah, am I happy with the current societal set up, yeah, I am. And there’s not a god dam thing no out of person that I have no respect for can shake my resolve.
You Literally said you had no desire to know how a word was being used. Then you claim that pointing that out is an act of mindreading, before you pull the NRA line.
Huh. Thought I heard some one say muh 2nd amendment. To which I would have said owning a gun is a privilege. Not a right. And like I said, I’v got no desire to re define words just to be clear.
If you’re quite finished just fall back now.
Edit: made some spelling mistakes, meh.
A Orville, huh. You keep that conventional syntax you use between yourself and the voices in your head that talk about a 2nd amendment.
Edit: oh, another predictive text fail, was it? I suspect more of a chair-keyboard interface issue, frankly.
Yeah, fixed it. Now just fall back.
on what grounds? Because some illiterate thinks he’s a legend?
On the grounds that you are projecting what you want some one think. Now just fall back.
No, me not projecting what me want some one think. Me responding to what me see some fool write.
night night, jerkwad.
Okay, fall back.
I really don’t think that means what you think it means.
“Having the last word is closely associated with ego. Egomaniacs always have to have the last word. It gives them a feeling of power, as if they immediate draw all of the power of the person they are communicating with and become powerful due to it.”
There are many differet social contracts you can choose to orient morals around. So I don’t want to be a theorist. I’m a practician of the social contract so all I care about is what’s in it for me.
An objectivist Hobbesian? That’s a new one.
That’s fine, now fall back.
How does one “fall back”?
I tried leaning back really far, but the wheels on my office chair meant I just slid back.
Just do as Sam demands, McFlock, or…
…he’ll say it again!
Really nice, now fall back.
I’m trying, but I hit the cubicle wall. I now seem to be stuck at a thirty degree angle, and my colleagues are looking at me with concerned expressions on their faces.
Just fall back.
I hurt my nose. I think maybe I fell forward instead.
Keep trying. I’m confident that you will learn how to fall back.
Give us a hint, mate. Now I’m just spinning around on me chair.
That’s okay, I’m here with you for as long as it takes for you to figure out how to fall back
I’m resting my feet up on my desk – is that close enough?
What ever helps you to fall back.
I really have no idea what you think that means.
That doesn’t matter. Just fall back.
That’s it. Fall back.
Seriously, what do you think “fall back” means in this case?
Rogue rogue rogue media furtherance of antagonisms (shakes head), are brain cells that big a disqualifier to the job??
lol, nah,I’m not a lawyer.
I’ll answer your question anyway if that’s ok.
I read the article you link. It seems Edgeler has his nose outa joint because the press have to apply for an exception to the law if they want access. I can see his point of frustration in that it’s expensive and takes a while but I don’t see the media as bastions of honesty and pure intent either.
Perhaps there needs to be a mid ground where the media can view the material, say at a court house, govt dept or law library but they would be prohibited from recording or in any other way making a copy of it. That way they can still do the necessary research without objectionable material being given out.
His arguments certainly aren’t strong enough to support his claim that the chief censor was wrong in his judgement IMO
I never really liked the whole left/right designation but I did do some political test that said I’m either snuggled up between Noam Chomsky and Bernie Sanders or sitting in Ghandi’s lap.
If you mean the political compass website test then my red dot appeared in the middle of Bernie’s face. But I’ve never been a socialist. As a diagnostic tool, it seems to use values rather than identity politics, and the latter is what matters.
The censor may have been right to decide suppression is in the public interest, but he didn’t feel the need to prove it. It’s the old privileged caste mentality coming through in a younger generation. Sad.
I feel the media ought to be able to quote sections from the manifesto to prove relevant points on an ethical or moral basis. Otherwise all we ever get is innuendo & waffle. The whole point of democracy is to have an informed electorate.
Ignorance is bliss? Maybe. The legendary kiwi complacency would suggest so. However the effect of the massacre could wake a few of them up, eh? If so, they may seek to help solve the problem. Can’t solve a social problem without informed discussion. So we have a bunch of leftists trying to prevent consensus decision-making…
“Can’t solve a social problem without informed discussion. So we have a bunch of leftists trying to prevent consensus decision-making…” C’mon, Dennis. Think about the cost, the actual money it would take to put something like that to the vote. The govt would have to hire researchers and consultants to advise and offer educated expert opinion only to have the whole thing dissolve into an intellectual pissing contest. It simply isn’t worth it. If the decision was one of on-going censorship where we were deciding whether porn should be legal in NZ then sure, put it up for a vote but the govt has a lot of other, more important things that need attention.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply a referendum. I was making more of a philosophical point re freedom of information & informed citizenry. Social problems persist until we generate a consensus around a solution.
Remember the old days when leaders were supposed to lead are now gone. Nowadays people are more likely to suppose that leaders follow the wisdom of the crowd – so it’s up to us to generate it! Can’t do so if a censor won’t let us have the relevant info…
The hate speech issue seems to be causing problems elsewhere, and the legal consequences of this case may prove more productive than some of the arguments we’ve seen thus far today. https://www.thedailybeast.com/lawyer-for-anthony-comello-suspect-in-killing-of-gambino-mob-boss-frank-cali-blames-white-house?via=FB_Page&source=TDB&fbclid=IwAR2uW66wMjIFj9kqkSrLXXtph28zuqKe8gIYrACF7moyov9_pz2XPhQVPNk
The old processes of propaganda and incitement seem likely to become broadly understood once more, and those who have been overstepping those boundaries may have to find a new modus operandi.
Most of you lot are one eyed, Free Speech is Hundreds of Moslems ( Men ) marching in London in support of SHARIA LAW , HELLO.
It’s Muslim (gotta love spell check).
You’re right of course. Free speech does mean Muslim men get to march in support of their beliefs…just like we get to parade our culture and beliefs.
Either option is correct Maggie , not that I passed my English 11 + 69 years ago In London.
Right. So you aren’t using the alternative spelling as a racial slur then?
No, I would rather live in a society where a Religion not Race, want to change the Laws & Norms of that country by bringing primitive customs with them, your smart enough to know what I mean Maggie even if like most on the extreme Left are One Eyed.
My stance has been similar to yours Colin. To be fair to that group of leftists, I think they mean well much of the time. They just allow partisanship to distract them from the common good.
Those of us who adopted multiculturalism in the sixties have long taken it for granted. Does not mean we will condone excessive immigration – particularly since both Labour & National seem to have done it without obtaining an electoral mandate to prove public support.
Such stealth policy seems deceitful and will rightfully provoke a public backlash whenever it happens.
“To be fair to that group of leftists, I think they mean well much of the time. They just allow partisanship to distract them from the common good”
I feel like I’ve just been patted on the head.
The problem with dismissing others is that you never think of them as a threat, you never see them coming until it’s too late. One day you wake up and it’s “leftist” rule far and wide.
We ignored the rising white supremacy, dismissed it as being a bunch of bedroom-dwelling social rejects and look what happened. When we become so focused on our own point of view we close our eyes to solutions.
I don’t support excessive immigration because it’s an economic tool designed to prop up an already bloated capitalist system. Capitalism itself isn’t the problem but rather how it’s been utilised by the elite to keep wages low and profits high, profits that aren’t being funneled back into our economy like they should be. Immigrants are coming here in the hopes of a better life unaware they’ll most likely never be anything more than a working class prop. This is especially so for non-white immigrants. It’s disgusting and it’s racist. If we open our borders to other countries then we have to do so without eyeing them up as fresh meat for the capitalist grinder.
No intention to head-pat, just diagnose the relevant political psychology operating. And I share your diagnosis except for the racist tag. Capitalists nowadays don’t care which races are in the labour pool. The employment system sucks all volunteers into the system equally (like a vacuum cleaner).
If your point was that small business owners prefer to source from some countries rather than others, yeah that has been expressed by some in the media but not in racist terms. Just identified as a reliable source of suitable labour when thousands of unemployed kiwis choose not to volunteer for those jobs.
I think that’s a bit simplistic Dennis and I don’t think small business owners are the culprits. It’s bigger companies who are most at fault.
Many of those jobs don’t pay enough to live on and require a commitment to hours that rules out anyone with family. Immigrants have quite cleverly figured out if they jam four or five families into a single house and work two or three of these types of jobs each then eventually they’ll have saved enough to buy a small business of their own. Unless kiwis are prepared to co-habit with other families and work ridiculous hours they’ll never be able to earn their way out of the labour mill.
The last job I had I was the customer service manager. Then the company made the operations manager redundant so I ended up doing that role too without a pay rise or title. I was working 60+ hours a week on a 40 hr per week salary of 45k. I left when they said they wanted me to do split shifts – 12am to 4am then 10 am to 4pm. More and more people are being forced to work like that.
The system is built on exploitation and immigrants as well as women returning to the work force are desperate, willing to do anything and as a society we’re complicit because we benefit from it.
Okay, looks like your relevant work experience being more recent than mine ought to prevail (I retired onto super four years ago).
When I was working in the TVNZ newsroom management tried to force us onto midnight to dawn shifts (early ’90s). I complained due to suffering ill-health doing them in the seventies. So I’m familiar with the coercion psychology, & the leftists in the state hierarchy doing copycat are as bad as the corporates…
The system is built on the exploitation of those in no position to behave otherwise….regardless.
So this really young and handsome Chef newly promoted to Demi Chef is bumping it with his uncle at some hotel management conference and the Regional Manager for Hyatt says to the guy that she’s the regional manager blah blah blah and the young handsome guy replys you don’t look a day over 30 and she really did look fit.
So all this boo hoo, poor me o me narritive is not how young impressionable talent should be mentored. Just got to go over your CV, make it as immaculate as you can, show employers that you are hungry and that will give people options because contrary to popular belief companies that start up in New Zealand are very family and community oriented. So before any one thinks about quitting it’s good to make sure you’re all buttoned up and shit.
You can be such a dick at times. It wasn’t a wah-wah over being hard done by. It was an anecdote for how work requirements are changing.
As for your ‘advice’… it’s beyond naive.
My CV works for me, I always get an interview but my age doesn’t work for me. They like ’em young these days, younger than me. Companies promote a family/community front but they are profit focused and use the family/community angle as a form of marketing. Also, I didn’t say I quit my job. I said I left. It’s not always the employees choice.
Every time an employee brings any type of employment dispute against an employer they quit in something like 90% of the time with in 9 months. Employment disputes is just something people do to help the next guy out. Employment disputes is absolutely terrible for the employee right now. So before any one try’s it on, you’ve got to give the complainant some options so they aren’t negotiating with guns to there heads. Y’know, fuckining kiwi managers these days know fuck all. Yeah you, I’m saying you know fuck all.
Edit: oh yeah, what was I saying. Was implying something about status. So having status is totally useless if you don’t know what it is, how to use it, why to use it, but most importantly when to use it. So use it or lose it.
It would be a mistake to assume from my comments here that they encapsulate the entirety of my opinion on the matter. Labels are lazy, a way of dismissing the opinions that don’t jibe.
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what they want. They can believe what they like just as you and I can.
You say you don’t want to live in a society where a religion wants to change the laws and norms of a country and yet that’s exactly whats happened in every country. The colonisation of New Zealand is a perfect example of that. The laws and norms of society are built on religion that persists today even in the absence of personal beliefs. The proof of this is seen in how we still refer to women who are promiscuous as sluts.
I think it’s hypocritical of you to say I’m one-eyed, Colin, given your own monocular view.
Written Arabic hardly has any vowels, which means in a lot of cases it’s up to translators to insert whatever English vowel they think is the most suitable. That’s why you get Muslims/Moslems, Mohammed/Mohammad/Muhammad etc.
Example: Arabic for ‘book’ is کتاب (kitaab). The Arabic letters are k,t,a,b, so English translators have to pick an English vowel to go between the k and the t. I think all have put ‘i’ in there, but it’s really just a matter of opinion because there is no letter there in the original word.
Nice response, thank you. I know ‘moslem’ can be used as a racial slur if it’s pronounced with a z sound because it changes the meaning of the word. I’ve come across quite a few Islamophobic people who use ‘moslem’ for Muslim and ‘koran’ for Qur’an.
Maggie, as an aged teacher of languages, I assure you that Colin is quite correct. Find an old hard copy Oxford Dictionary, and check all 4 words out. Alternatives and synonyms, none with any pejorative connotation. All can be used as a slur if that is the intent of the writer.
Something random time…
I think we need something a little positive and beautiful for the moment… this mans voice… so magnificent.
JOHN ROWLES – Cheryl Moana Marie (1970) – YouTube
I think I got a fur ball just from watching him. I would have thought gold chains and chest hair would be a bit ouchies!
HAHAHAHA … yeah OK,…
But put it in context of the era… 🙂
The guy still had a rich deep baritone voice.
He surely does 🙂
Thanks W.K for keeping the past alive..
They don’t write and sing em like that anymore.
Newshub spoke to Love Aotearoa Hate Racism co-founder Joe Carolan, who said Bhamji was one speaker out of 30 and there were many different points of view at the event.
When asked whether he agreed with or believed the theory that Mossad were behind the attack, Carolan told Newshub “absolutely not”.
But Moses says the event organisers should have publicly disagreed with Bhamji.
“It is unfortunate that they did not appear to put its anti-racism message into practice, by challenging or condemning the racism in their midst,” she told Newshub.
Freedom of speech and this is what we get – an irresponsible Muslim leader stirring the pot with suspicions in Mt Roskill, Auckland. This is absolutely wrong. If refugees and others come here because it is supposed to be peaceful, and then there is this awful incident, why would it seem appropriate to make it worse with allegations based on reckons?
And Joe Carolan can take his so-called Love and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
I stuck that one on open mike,… I was a little sad for Joe Carolan, perhaps he could / should have gently intervened,… Joe has been a real force in the Union movement and helped to see real changes with casual hours being changed for workers so they are no longer exploited.
Occasionally speakers go off on their own fucked up tangent – I have seen facilitators de-mic people and renounce comments that were overboard or opposite the principles of the event. It should have been done in this case.
I liked your wording at 26.2 – short and to the point. I put it up on Chris Trotter’s The Blame Game to cut through the concerns expressed about rumour-mongering. That there was a sensible approach to prevent venting or quieten down reaction should be noted, and your point that such actions have been done before. There is precedent. Future organisers please note that and be on hand to come forward and prevent or limit firing everybody’s fears and conspiracy theories.
Of course the terrorist action was designed to be exploited by the pro “American freedom and values” true blue crew of the patriot act loving nationalist security movement on the right (the right wing in Oz has been seeking to infiltrate their main parties).
Or as Don Brash calls it, in our lingo, white middle class national majority rule (state security apparatus protection of the corporate) of the Kiwi.
We should watch for the NRA and the Koch brothers bringing their funding our way. In defence of guns and free speech. Whaleoil will have its hands out, as usual.
Fear for “for our (white race) civilisation heritage of free speech” speaks to a deep insecurity over cultural/demographic change. The right like (to exploit) the cheap skilled migrant workers, but they also like to use fear of multi-culturalism to mobilise the white race to vote for them – thus their UN Migration Compact position.
Hell’s bells wouldn’t it be lovely to have an automatic cut out – no more than two comments in an hour. That’s my latest wheeze.
Sam – McFlock etc and on……………………………
I have written one to Sam and will watch with interest the knock-back I’ll probably get. But I suspect that we are getting a good dollop of paid material. Contract rates $.. for paid provocation. Just turn away from the PR machine watching that its output is coming out the nozzle nice and evenly in appropriate colours, turn to TS and knock out some smart-arse line, and back to creating a New World Order that isn’t new or brave and really BAU.
The frantic willy waving is sure pathetic.
I’ve just looked closer and I see that it was a bit of a test with McFlock seeing if there was any substance in the other. It bothers me that a group of humans using a blog to keep in touch with others’ ideas could be messed up by a ‘bot’ in the future, or now? And it might not be a bot but some sort pretending to be
one. There is such a lot of fakery around and empty-headness I think – will we know who is real and speaking, carefully, from the heart?