RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
6xes

For what its worth....

Recommended Posts

Rodney Hide: Goff ‘opposes private property, individual freedom and, by extension, free speech’

by CS
 

Phil-Goff-photo.jpg?w=594&ssl=1

Rodney Hide wonders why Phil Goff doesn’t support free speech in his NBR column: Quote:

We should not be at all surprised by Mayor Phil Goff banning Canadian far-right activists Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux from speaking at council venues.

The only surprising thing is that it doesn’t happen more often.

Phil Goff is a politician. He opposes private property, individual freedom and, by extension, free speech.

He believes it only right and proper that the state decide what we can and can’t do and, as an elected Grand Poobah, the heavy responsibility of deciding what we can and can’t do must fall upon him.

He’s not alone in this. Most politicians will mouth something like, “I believe in private property but…”, “I believe in individual freedom but…”, “I believe in free speech but…”

The “buts” invariably mean the speaker does not believe in private property, individual freedom or free speech. End quote.

 

Hide goes on to explain what is acceptable for “buts”. Unfortunately, politicians think it means a whole lot more than that. Quote:

There are “buts” but the “buts” properly thought through are narrow and tightly principled. In a free society the “buts” aren’t arbitrated by politicians. It’s scary if those in power decide who can and can’t speak.

Mr Goff explained his ban via Twitter: “[Auckland Council] venues shouldn’t be used to stir up ethnic or religious tensions. Views that divide rather than unite are repugnant and I have made my views on this very clear.”

That is the view of a totalitarian. I consider Marxism, socialism and trade unionism divisive and there’s plenty of theory and history to back my view. But not for a moment would I consider banning speakers, speech, books, thoughts extolling all three. Indeed, I welcome the argument.

But now the potential for hurt feelings is sufficient to have speakers and their speech banned. What about books? Should they be banned too? End quote.

Books, if not banned, are certainly being redacted, rewritten and revised to reflect modern wonky values. Quote:

I emailed Mr Goff’s office to ask who made the decision to ban Ms Southern and Mr Molyneux and under what policy. It turns out it wasn’t Mr Goff at all. And it wasn’t for their views.

I was told by the mayor’s office that it was Auckland Live (the council’s performing arts venue organisation) which made the decision. And that it had done so for “health and safety” reasons. If it weren’t for the threat of protests from, wait for it, Auckland Peace Action, the booked event would have gone ahead despite Mr Goff making his view on the speakers’ views “very clear.”

Again, there should be no surprise to this. “Health and safety” is an easy political and legal vehicle by which to ban speech and dodge the Bill of Rights and contractual obligations.

In his youth Mr Goff protested the Vietnam War. He was free to do so. That was the difference between one side of the war and the other.

It would be all too easy to say that Mr Goff never understood that. And still doesn’t. But that would be wrong. He wasn’t opposing the war so much as supporting the other side. He will happily use our hard-won right to free speech but won’t defend it. Quite the reverse. With just the littlest bit of power he attacks and destroys it. End quote.

It’s time for Goff to eff off. He should be sticking up for the rights of all Aucklanders like he promised to do, not picking and choosing.

Not only has he cost Auckland ratepayers revenue from hiring out a venue at commercial rates, but he has also cost the ratepayers by having to defend a prosecution for his illegal acts in preventing people from hiring a facility based on their politics and views.

Time for him to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The speakers cancelled their trip to NZ.Poor ticket sales the most likely reason.There are many other venues available for them to book if they wish.One of those old red phone boxes would probably be suitable for the 'crowd' who would want to hear them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Conservative Deputy Leader Elliot Ikilei cuts through media lies

by Dieuwe de Boer 
 

As the Lauren Southern controversy has raged, various parties, like ACT and National, timidly expressed their support for free speech but denounced the views of two Canadians they clearly knew nothing about. The hapless Simon Bridges even went so far as to support Phil Goff’s right-wing speaker ban.

One man, New Conservative Deputy Leader Elliot Ikilei, cut through the lies of the media in a quest to discover the truth. On the issue of free speech, it is clear that the New Conservative party is rock solid.

You see, in this day and age, you don’t have to take the word of the extremely biased left-wing media as gospel. You can go and check it out for yourself. You’ll find nothing much controversial in the views of Lauren and Stefan. You’ll find interesting discussions on every topic under the sun and you’ll find quality investigative journalism that puts the fake news to shame. But you won’t find evidence of the accusations of racism, hatred and white supremacy levelled by the left.

 

Elliot Ikilei went into the lion’s den and sparred with Wendyl Nissen of RadioLive for 15 minutes in an ear-bleeding interview that consists mostly of Nissen repeating herself. She starts off with the usual lie-filled line of attack and Elliot Ikilei rebuffs her with facts. He challenges her to provide proof of her statements.

Her response? “If you google it, if you spend enough time looking, I’m sure you can find they’ve said these things.” End of quote.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the pinnacle of radio hosting in this country. Shut it all down and go home – we have a winner. Don’t actually watch any videos by Lauren or Stefan, just google for some radical-left source like the Huffington Post and they’ll tell you what Lauren really meant to say.

The bulk of Wendyl‘s argument is to conflate normal opinions with more repugnant ones. Opposition to the supremacist ideology of Islam, a factual affirmation of the two genders, a rejection of feminism, a rejection of uncontrolled and mass immigration, and the acknowledgement that multiculturalism is a failure, are all common-sense conservative positions. Normal people who don’t live in la-la-land believe those things because they’re factual.

Screen-Shot-2018-07-12-at-4.52.50-PM.png

Screenshot: Whaleoil

She then mixes in accusations of hatred, white supremacy and holocaust denial in a sad attempt to discredit all the other perfectly valid opinions. While I’ve seen virtually all of Lauren’s videos, and a great showcase of her style is the Farmlands documentary, I haven’t seen many of Stefan’s videos. That’s because the man makes three-hour videos on a regular basis. He’s a philosopher who discusses every topic under the sun. That doesn’t mean he agrees with any particular topic. He just enjoys, like most rational people, to question, to learn, to study and to probe ideas.

One of these objectionable topics raised by Wendyl is the “race and IQ” question, which I don’t have space to cover, but the shortest video (clocking in at 30 minutes) I could find of Stefan on the ‘Rubin Report’ clearly shows that Stefan is anything but a racist or white supremacist. If he really did, for instance, deny the Holocaust in one of his many hundreds of hours of video, I’m sure the media would have led with “Holocaust denier Stefan Molyneux”. The fact that they don’t means you can add it to the long list of left-wing fantasies that have never happened.

At one point Wendyl gets so flustered that the best ‘insult’ she can come up with is to compare Elliot Ikilei to President Donald Trump.

Well, Elliot didn’t say it, but I will: Wendyl, you are fake news!

There is no way that Elliot Ikilei agrees with everything Lauren Southern or Stefan Molyneux has to say. I don’t either. They disagree with each other on a whole host of topics too. That’s what makes the whole thing interesting and fun.

This is where we come to Wendyl’s constant “I believe in free speech, but…” statements. She has the audacity to defend using ratepayers’ money on speakers and exhibitions that Ikilei finds offensive, like upside-down crucifixes and depictions of Mary as a prostitute, while, at the same time, she argues that people she deems offensive need to go and find their own private venue. At short notice and after being de-platformed. She’s not just a hypocrite, she also lacks any sense of irony and self-awareness.

She then goes full racist and ageist by challenging definitely not-white Elliot Ikilei to find an “old white rich man” who will rent out a ferry so that the “ten people” who want to listen to Lauren and Stefan can do so. Who was complaining about hatred five minutes ago? Oh yeah, the hypocritical, crazy radio host, who is proud of being so far left that you can’t find a single conservative opinion on her Twitter feed.

You would think Wendyl could appreciate that, as long as you are not breaking the law, council venues should be equal access. What if the next time the boot is on the other foot? The problem with these leftists is that they are incredibly short-sighted and hateful people who can’t imagine a situation where they’d be on the receiving end of their own prejudiced policies.

New Conservative Deputy Leader Elliot Ikilei did a great job in standing up for himself, his beliefs, free speech and two Canadians who were being slandered by fake-news host Wendyl Nissen.

The full interview is attached below. Unlike with the unhinged left, you don’t have to take my word for anything I’ve said above. You can go straight to the source, if you dare.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incredible!!!

A curfew for men

by Christie 
 

womendrinkers.jpg?w=800&ssl=1

The world has gone completely mad. I seem to say that a lot these days. Men, particularly white men, are blamed for everything by feminists who should use their education to write things that make sense. But no. In the latest in a long line of feminist garbage that has been sprouted, this new idea is the most stupid I have come across by a long way. Yes, you read it right. A curfew for men.

The Sydney Morning Herald which should know better writes: Quote:

Gretel Lamont’s recent letter in these pages “No men allowed out after dark”? What a Totally. Awesome. Idea. I have, quite genuinely, been racking my brain as to what we can realistically do to ensure women’s safety after dark.

Demanding safe passage at all hours, regardless of where we are, what we’re wearing or our blood-alcohol level is all very well but that is never going to happen, no matter how much “education” there is. There are always going to be random Evil Dudes out there.

So how do we shift responsibility for women’s safety from the victims to the perpetrators?

Adding her bit to the debate – and in response to the suggestion from yet another letter-writer that women shouldn’t walk alone at night – Ms Lamont came up with perhaps the most practical and efficient solution yet. A curfew on men. Genius. End quote.

Where do I start?

No policemen on the night shift. No ambulance drivers, unless they are women. No security people at nightclubs and other venues. No roadworks at night when there is no traffic. No taxi or Uber drivers to get you home safely, unless they are women. No sewage workers, delivery drivers, rubbish collectors and recyclers. These are mostly men, and men are all evil, so they have to be treated like criminals.

What if I want to go out for dinner and a movie with my male partner? No, no – she’s got that covered. Quote:

There are a number of options. One is simply to ban all men from being on the streets or on public transport after, say, 9.30pm (10.30pm daylight saving). Which is effectively the restriction currently placed on women. End quote.

Rubbish. But anyway: Quote:

But how about when I want to, say, go out and have dinner or a few drinks with male friends? Well, right now, at the conclusion of an evening’s festivities one or more of my male companions see me safely into a taxi. But under the new regime any men out after dark would have to be accompanied by a responsible female, and escorted in person to appropriate transport. It’s completely do-able. I can attest to it. I’ve been doing it for decades.

Same rules for any chap who works nights. End quote.

So a policeman working nights can do his job, so long as he is accompanied by a ‘responsible’ woman? Ditto a road worker? A security guard? An ambulance driver won’t be able to go to a road accident because there isn’t a ‘responsible’ female driver available? A doctor won’t be able to attend either? Has the writer of this article, Melinda Houston, or the originator of the idea, Gretel Lamont, actually thought this through and they STILL think it is a good idea?

Good lord. Words fail me. This is satire, right? Trouble is, it MAY be satire, but so many stupid things are said these days that I am never sure. But, on balance, I don’t think it is satire. I think it is serious.

Because the essence of the complaint is that men are the perpetrators of violence on women but men are also a woman’s best line of defence if she gets into trouble. Going out with a man or a group of men makes it less likely you will be attacked. Men will come to the defence of women in situations where they are at risk. Some men may attack women, but far more men will defend women.

So, is it likely therefore that the rapists are going to take any notice of a curfew? Of course not. Only decent men will do that. So, by forcing decent men to stay home, women are much more at risk than they were before.

This article is not about the safety of women. It is just another put down for men. All men after dark have to be accompanied by a ‘responsible’ female. Even if they are Navy Seals or members of the SAS?

Then again, here is another way of looking at the problem that is feminism.

Feminism.png?w=577&ssl=1

There is another way of solving the problem, but the feminists won’t like it. How about a curfew for Africans in Melbourne, given the disproportionate rate of violent crime committed by African males and females in the city? How about a curfew for Muslims, who think women who dress in Western clothes and drink alcohol are ‘asking for it’? Of course, it will never work. Everyone, including the feminists, will just scream “Racist” and we will be back to where we started.

Sometimes, ladies, it is worth remembering that the ones to fear are the ones that seem to be on your side:

feminist.jpg?w=625&ssl=1

Credit: Stonecross. Supplied by: Lushington Brady

After all, how many male feminists have been accused of sexual assault, rape or worse?

Nah… let’s get out the pussy hats and scream that all men are rapist pigs. That’s much easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fucking idiots...this whole thing has got out of hand because of the actions of a tiny group of scumbags.

Male exploitation has never happened of course.......never, ever.......

They want to try living in India or Pakistan, or the Middle East.....:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, flockofewes2 said:

I can recommend Tucker Carlson on Fox debating Cathy Areu if you really want to see just how  OTT.  feminism has gone

Cathy Areu along with the rest of the crazy fraudulent left will be scurrying back under a rock within 6 months...no need to worry, they are officially dead..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil Goff, take note!!! 

‘Free speech’ speech from a classical liberal

 
 
DiCEhyPU8AAhYMh.jpg?resize=630%2C840&ssl

Rachel Poulain

Kia ora koutou, ko rahera taku ingoa.

Hi everyone, my name is Rachel.

I’m proud to be one of the backers of the Aotearoa Free Speech Coalition. It’s fair to say I don’t have much in common with Don Brash or Chris Trotter or any other members of the coalition. But, as we are often reminded by the people who occupy these buildings around us, a coalition isn’t always a bunch of individuals who all share the exact same world view.

If our three currently governing parties all got together for drinks I’m pretty sure they’d find something argue about. But, something’s obviously uniting them — as is the case with the Free Speech Coalition.

Activists often say, “This is something that affects all of us!” but I don’t think that could be truer than when it comes to freedom of speech.

I try not to attach any political labels to myself, but it’d be accurate to describe me as a classical liberal. My views are fairly progressive (in the original sense of the word). When I see other self-described ‘liberal/progressive’ types wanting to place limits on and make exceptions for free speech, I want to remind them that, more often than not, ‘progress’ starts with dissent.

 

Just because you’re sitting comfortably with the majority today, doesn’t mean you will be tomorrow. Anyone who’s studied their history will know there have been many times when the majority has gotten it wrong.

I support the legal action against the Auckland Council because I don’t believe a public servant like Phil Goff should be able to pick and choose who is allowed a platform and who is not, in order to satisfy the mainstream political attitude of the day.

The council’s justification for the decision was that a so-called ‘peace action’ group was threatening to intimidate and harass attendees and staff if the event were to go ahead, so it was in everybody’s best interests to shut it down.

That is cowardly and dangerous precedent.

These Canadians are no doubt controversial. But controversy comes as a package deal with freedom of speech in a liberal democracy. Freedom to speak is an extension of the freedom to think. It is an essential part of how we communicate, learn and grow. Sharing our thoughts with other human beings, like I’m doing right now, and receiving feedback on those thoughts is how we develop our ideas and beliefs. It’s how we self-reflect. We voice our thoughts, find out what others think about our thoughts so we can then analyse them, re-evaluate them and change our minds accordingly.

Freedom of speech is the fundamental means by which a civil society settles its differences of opinion. It is what gives us the ability to question, challenge and oppose the powers that be.

Without freedom of speech, there would have been no civil-rights movement.

There would be no liberation of marginalised groups or recalling of archaic laws.

There would be no change; no progress.

Protecting freedom of speech sometimes means defending the right of people you disagree with to express views you may personally find abhorrent. ‘Objectionable speech’ is to be debated, reasoned and argued with, not censored or banned.

It is not up to the government to decide which speech ‘divides’ and which ‘unites’.

We all know history never looks back kindly on those who try to eliminate dissenting thought. The word ‘Nazi’ has been thrown around casually with regard to these speakers – in my opinion, disingenuously.

What the people who would ban them are forgetting is that the real Nazis came to power by suppressing free speech. Their hideous ideology took root, in part, because they banned any ideas they deemed subversive. They silenced their political opponents, they censored art and they burned books.

Suppression of free speech led to unimaginable atrocities.

Suppression of freedom of speech as it pertains to this situation may also have unintended side effects. Attempting to silence a certain sector of society can sometimes have the opposite effect. If people with dangerous ideas are not able to express them in public, they will be driven underground where their ignorance and hatred can fester and thrive. That process of feedback and self-reflection is removed when you put people in an echo chamber.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Truly dangerous ideas need to be examined in broad daylight, not hidden in darkness. The price of freedom of speech is that each of us will inevitably be exposed to opinions we disagree with or find offensive. This is the cost of living of a free society, and it’s a very fair price to pay.

We can’t afford to trade our freedom ‘of’ for freedom ‘from’.

Freedom of expression is the lifeblood of art, culture and creativity. Without it, no one could push boundaries or challenge the status quo. Without freedom of expression, there would be no subversive literature, music, comedy or theatre. As an artist, I cannot condone censorship: political or cultural. This is why I am speaking out and why I support the Free Speech Coalition.

My pro-diversity values include the diversity of thought and opinion. I believe in freedom of speech for all, not only those who share my personal worldview. Without freedom of speech, there is no freedom.

Nga mihi.

Thank you very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2018 at 11:12 AM, rdytdy said:

New Conservative Deputy Leader Elliot Ikilei cuts through media lies

 
Screen-Shot-2018-07-12-at-4.52.50-PM.png

Screenshot: Whaleoil

 

 

I had come across both Stephen Molyneaux and Lauren Southern during the Trump election cycle

Its quite clear the knowledge of this stupid Radio Host... speaks loudly about what Nz'ers are being fed by media!!

 

People who want to learn the truth of things Dig deep and search for it... break it down.. test to see if any trusted individuals give credence and then test it with common-sense to see if it stacks up...

When deception is involved... this becomes a little more diffucult to discern truth, and in that scenario you have to trust insider knowledge.. whose conscience has been moved to reveal the truth of deception

 

We need only look at the across to the Trump written off thread to see how much garbage is being shovelled by media.. and the people who love to revel in it!!

 

I admire the fact we can debate... and not be moderated upon our political views!! 

Thumbs up to you  Scooby3051 for allowing sensible debate and freespeech to continue on this forum!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s all be nice…

by Christie 
 

 

Screen-Shot-2018-07-19-at-5.29.15-PM.png

Stuff has published this absurd little piece on free speech.

As the writer, Glenn McConnell, is barely into his twenties, it is an interesting insight into how the mind of the millennial works – and it shows that they think the world is a lovely place, where no one wants to hurt anyone else and we all live in castles with rainbows. I will forgive him his rose-coloured view of the world because he is young.

What I cannot forgive, however, is his complete stupidity and naivety, particularly as he is an aspiring journalist. Quote:

Here’s an age-old adage that has lasted the test of time: “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say it at all.”

It’s funny to think how so many cranky old rhetoricians have failed to grasp this basic kindergarten lesson.

If they had, then I imagine the Free Speech Coalition supporters would now be $50,000 better off (although, I doubt they need the money). End quote. 

Here is the first little dig. These guys are so wealthy that money doesn’t matter to them. Just so you know, young man, I donated to this cause, and I am a long way from being rich. I donated because I think it is a very important issue. Quote:

Instead of wasting their time protecting racist speakers, the likes of Don Brash and Chris Trotter could have been doing something useful. Ironically, they could have been proving to us the importance of free speech. End quote.

 

I can understand his dislike for Don Brash, as his Orewa speech was grossly misunderstood, and therefore badly reported. However, Chris Trotter is a left-leaning political analyst who believes in free speech. It is insulting to describe him as “protecting racist speakers”. Quote:

You see, the best way to defend free speech is by saying something worth listening to.

Want proof? Just think back to your last meeting, or lecture. There was that guy, on some cringeworthy spout about goodness knows what. He was completely off topic, borderline offensive and pushing this meeting ever closer to lunching hour. What did you wish you could shout at that moment? I bet it was, “Shut up, you idiot”.

Maybe you did, and you silenced him right then and there. Kabam! Speech interrupted. End quote.

Kabam! You just stopped someone from exercising their right to speak. Even if it was boring, even if it was long winded, he still had the right to say it. Quote:

And who could blame you? That guy, holding up everyone with some nonsense about how life used to be, or the issue with identity politics, wasn’t helping anyone.

This is the key to free speech: when you feel the urge to scream your thoughts to the world, you should really think, “Is this helping anyone?” End quote.

No, it isn’t, buddy. Both parties in this exchange have equal rights to speak. You just think you have a greater right because you don’t like what you hear. You don’t. That is the essence of what the Coalition for Free Speech is all about. Quote:

When you listen to enough Newstalk ZB or read too many online comments, you start to hear a lot of incredibly unhelpful vitriol.

The outgoing Leighton Smith, for one, has an unusual fascination with toilets and masculinity. He once read a poem about what it is to be a “true man”. And he enjoys hosting long-winded conversations about the rights and wrongs of allowing transgender students to use their chosen bathroom. End quote.

So, you have the right to say what you think but Leighton Smith doesn’t? Because you don’t like what he says about transgender people?

The issue of transgender people is generally not the fact that they are transgender. Nobody particularly cares about that. It is the enormous fuss they make about toilets. Most of us simply can’t understand why they don’t just use a stall in whichever gender toilet they decide is appropriate. Why is this such an enormous issue? It really shouldn’t be. That is the reason these “demagogues” raise the matter. They feel there is something more sinister at play here. Quote:

The issue is, such valiant defenders of old-time norms aren’t helping anyone. They are simply defending the right to discriminate for the sake of it.

Unlike the PC brigade they so predictably detest, conservative demagogues cannot even claim to be speaking for the benefit of anyone other than themselves.

Instead, far too many of these so-called free speech champions use their very large platforms to protect their own comforts. End quote.

No. He is merely voicing his opinion, to which he is entitled, and you are voicing yours. You may not agree with him, but if you have any sense at all, you will defend to the death his right to say what he thinks because you are simply too young and too stupid to understand the consequences that the erosion of free speech brings with it.

Glenn, judging by your photo, it was your great-grandparents’ generation that lived through the Second World War. For most “demagogues”, many of whom are baby boomers, it was our parents’ generation that did. We “demagogues” were brought up with the lessons that those times taught. We heard about the rise of Nazism, and the freedoms that were taken away. Our parents actually took part in the war and lived through horrors that you can never imagine. So, we know – not first hand, but by hearing the stories – how awful life can be if some of the things we take for granted are suddenly not there any more.

The Nazis stopped free speech, freedom of the press and freedom of association. They burned books. They arbitrarily decided that some races were simply ‘sub-human’, so they embarked on a programme of mass extinction of Jews and Slavs. Hitler wanted a pure Aryan race, and was quite happy to murder people in order to achieve it. He did. 61 million people in all died during the war, and about 10 million of those were Slavs, six million were Jews and seven million were Russians. It is just about incomprehensible.

To you, this is as much a part of history as the Hundred Years War but this all happened less than 100 years ago, and it happened because humans didn’t stop their fundamental human rights being eroded when they could have done more about it.

Today the child-sex-slave grooming gangs in Britain are real, Glenn. These are British girls being taken as sex slaves by Muslim men. You can’t deny it. There have been prosecutions, although the authorities are not doing much about it. Why? Well, they don’t want to be seen as racist. It is just like Germany in the 1930s. They don’t like what is happening, but they turn a blind eye. A lot of people in Germany ‘held back’  in the 1930s. At first, they were concerned but said nothing and then it was too late, and they did not dare to speak.

So, take away a person’s right to say what they think, even if you find it boring or long-winded, and you start down that slippery slope. Just like Phil Goff did when he decided that Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux were going to incite racial hatred. He did not know that. He just gave in to pressure from a group he did not wish to offend. There’s that slippery slope.

If you accept that the mayor of Auckland can now decide who will be allowed to hire council venues, then you have to accept him deciding against someone whom you want to go to see. What if the next mayor of Auckland banned Barack Obama from speaking? How would you feel about free speech then? Quote:

Because, even though we all have a right to think whatever we want, sometimes it’s best if we just hold back a few moments before voicing our intolerant and unhelpful opinions. That way, we don’t end up defending racists and brutalising people for no fault of their own. End quote.

The Nazis brutalised people for no fault of their own, Glenn, and it wasn’t merely over toilets.

Don’t, whatever you do, think it will never happen again. It has already started to happen again but, like in the 1930s, people like you won’t see it until it is too late. Only the demagogues, who recognise how all this starts, can save you. And it often starts with people who deny others the right to free speech. Just like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Karl du Fresne on hate speech

by CS
 

Lauren.jpg?w=619&ssl=1

Karl du Fresne writes about hate speech: Quote:

Hate speech. It’s a phrase you hear increasingly often.

I’ve used it myself as a label of journalistic convenience, but I’m not comfortable with it and never have been.

My first concern is that much of what is emotively described as hate speech isn’t hateful at all. Too often it simply means opinions and ideas that some people find distasteful or offensive. But merely being offended is no justification for stifling expressions of opinion in a liberal, open democracy that depends on the contest of ideas.

More worryingly, accusations of “hate speech” can be used to intimidate people into silence and put discussion of certain issues and ideas off-limits. In fact I believe that’s the over-arching aim. End quote.

 

Precisely. The left-wing almost exclusively are the ones using the term hate speech. It is designed to silence. Quote:

Anyway, who defines hate speech? The term is bandied around as if there’s some agreed definition. But there’s not, and freedom of expression is too precious to leave it to an aggrieved minority or an academic elite to define it and therefore determine what the rest of us may say.

It’s also an infinitely elastic term. In Britain, where police have the power to prosecute for hate speech, there have been some frightening cases of overkill and heavy-handedness.

Better to set the legal bar high to allow plenty of space for free speech, as the courts have tended to do in New Zealand. By all means, draw the line at harmful acts, direct threats to people’s safety or incitements to violence against minorities. But the law already allows for criminal prosecution in such cases. End quote.

Do you want Nicky Hager or Valerie Morse or Phil Goff to be the ones deciding what is or isn’t hate speech? Quote:

We have far more to fear from people who want to suppress speech than we do from those who say things that others find objectionable. The real issue here is language control – because if you can control the language people are allowed to use in political discourse, you can control the range of ideas people are permitted to articulate and explore.

This is not a traditional contest between left and right. Enlightened leftists understand that everyone benefits from free speech. The revered American left-wing intellectual Noam Chomsky memorably said that if you don’t believe in free speech for people whose views you despise, you don’t believe in free speech at all.

No, language is the latest battleground in what is known as the culture wars. The mounting clamour for tougher laws against so-called hate speech is an outgrowth of identity politics, in which minority groups are encouraged to see themselves as oppressed or disadvantaged because of their colour, ethnicity, gender, religious belief or sexual orientation.

This has generated a demand for protection from comments that might be seen as critical or belittlinghence the frequency with which we hear people being accused of xenophobia, racism, Islamophobia, homophobia and misogyny.

No one likes to have these labels pinned on them, so people keep their heads down. Accusing someone of hate speech has the same effect. It’s a quick way to shut down debate. End quote.

Which is precisely why the left-wing use it. They don’t want effective voices challenging them. So they use illegal acts, threats, bullying and labels to silence critics.  Quote:

Other code words that are commonly used in an attempt to de-legitimise valid opinions include “far-right” and “alt-right”. These labels are likely to be attached to anyone whose opinions are to the right of the political centre. You can even be labelled far-right for making statements that most people would regard as utterly unremarkable – for example, saying there are only two genders, as the Canadian commentator Lauren Southern did.

Southern is one of the two speakers who have controversially been barred from using the Auckland Council-owned Bruce Mason Centre – a ban which is now the subject of a legal challenge by the hastily formed Free Speech Coalition.

I am not a member of the coalition, but I made a donation to it and unreservedly support its goal of protecting free speech. As a journalist, I regard Auckland mayor Phil Goff’s authoritarian edict as dangerous to democracy.

Over the past two weeks I have read many tortuously argued commentaries purporting to justify the ban on the Canadians. Stripped of all their prolixity, they can generally be summed up as “I absolutely support free speech, but not in this case.”

What especially dismays me is that I have read impassioned commentaries by idealistic young journalists who think Goff was right to ban the Canadians.

Journalists, of all people, should be ardent advocates of free speech because they have the most to fear if it’s abolished. In totalitarian regimes, journalists are often the first people to be imprisoned (as in Turkey) and even risk being murdered (as in Putin’s Russia).

But the most illiberal pronouncement I have read on the supposed dangers of free speech came from a university vice-chancellor who clearly thought that ordinary New Zealanders can’t be trusted to form their own sensible conclusions about contentious issues.

This pompous academic thought we needed guidance to keep us on the right path. And where from? Why, from universities.

We can infer from this that universities see themselves as having taken over the Churches’ role as moral arbiters. God help us all. End quote.

There is no but in free speech, You are either for it or against it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news concerning Tommy Robinson!!

Email i received this morning from Ezra Levant who is part of the Rebel Media in Canada

 

I’m in London, at the Royal Courts of Justice. And moments ago, Tommy Robinson won his appeal!

Tommy_Is_Free.png?1533136501

The court of appeal, led by the Lord Chief Justice himself, ruled that Tommy’s conviction of contempt of court, back in May in Leeds, was legally improper.

I have now had a chance to go through the court’s detailed reasons. They are stunning. It is an absolute vindication of Tommy — and a devastating rebuke to the injustices he has suffered!

The court found that:

* Tommy should not have been put on trial that same day
* Tommy’s lawyer did not have proper time to prepare his case
* the judge in Leeds never clearly presented what Tommy had allegedly done wrong
* the judge did not watch the entire video of Tommy, that supposedly was proof of his contempt
* the judge did not follow the criminal procedure rules
* the sentence was disproportionate; and
* Tommy’s treatment in prison was inappropriate

It was staggering. Everything Tommy has ever said about the system being unfairly rigged against him was proved true — by no-one less than the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales!

The court said the entire Leeds contempt hearing has to be done again — but it’s not certain that the Attorney General will even choose to do that, given how badly they’ve been trounced today.

I will continue to file reports about this at www.TommyTrial.com, and I expect to interview Tommy himself later today or tomorrow — obviously I want to let him reconnect with his family, first.

But let me thank you for your support — I’m so proud that our Rebel viewers crowdfunded Tommy’s legal fees. This victory today is in part due to you!

Tommy is free today.

And the rest of us are all a little bit freer too.

Yours truly,

Ezra Levant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry Williams on gutless thugs shutting down free speech

by CS
 

Lauren.jpg?w=619&ssl=1

Audio Player

Larry Williams echoes what we are all thinking: Quote:

So here’s my take on what happened around Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux.

We had some far left, anarchists, protesters, whatever you want to call them, all worked up, fretting over a couple of Canadian speakers

They were getting all set to go along, jump up and down, scream, rant, get all hysterical at how terrible it all was that two people should be allowed to talk about things like Islam, feminism, immigration, political correctness and those sorts of things.

As to the owner of the Powerstation who pulled the plug, what I understand is that there is more than one owner. One was okay with it, one owner wasn’t, but we’re also told there were some social media attacks and they pulled the plug. It’s a private event, they’re able to do that.

The headline though was extraordinary: ‘Alt right activists in limbo after venue backs out of hosting event’

The alt-right tag has been a common headline in the media. It’s lazy, sloppy, journalism.

Southern is clearly not alt-right. She is not a white nationalist movement with links to neo-Nazism

I watched Southern in a debate week before last on Sky News on multiculturalism. There was nothing that was outrageous – nothing! In fact, it was a good debate between people with different points of view.

Here’s the thing: Southern’s view on multiculturalism is very similar to German leader Angela Merkel.

Merkel said, and I quote, ‘The country’s attempt to create a multi-cultural society has utterly failed’

Merkel said “the idea of people from different cultural backgrounds living happily side by side did not work. Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a life lie or a sham.”

Here’s the question: can you not even debate those ideas in this country, even if you dont agree with them? Agree, don’t agree, you can’t debate?

Well, you can’t. Not if the Mayors, the councils, the political activist groups make enough noise, make threats, even violence, go all hysterical. They win.

And the law abiding people holding a legal, peaceful event, they lose.

And I do note the Aussies weren’t that gutless.

The Powerstation owners are the most gutless of all. They’ve had many offensive acts at their venue, and they caved to thugs threatening them. They should hang their heads in shame.

The mainstream media, especially Patrick Gower should likewise hang their heads in enduring shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, rdytdy said:

Watch Patrick Gower make a complete prat of himself with this interview. His bias is unbelievable yet his targets excel with good grace and manners.

 

so much for journalism in Nz... bring back John Campbell!! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, rdytdy said:

The Powerstation owners are the most gutless of all. They’ve had many offensive acts at their venue, and they caved to thugs threatening them. They should hang their heads in shame.

 

pressure from the both public and unknown forces have forced the hand of that owner who changed his mind last minute...

i wouldnt be at all suprised if it was a planned stunt to waste the time of these 2 speakers...

the fallout serves as a indicator for us living here in Nz... where our liberties stand in this day and age !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘The protesters are the sheep from Animal Farm’

by GP
 
21765787_1353028958152558_74421164731005

Elliot Ikilei – New Conservative Deputy Leader

Fakalofa atu to you all,

I promised Whaleoil that I would review the event, but of course that event was cut down, so what do I review now?

Well, perhaps then, I shall review the players surrounding this particular battle…

The speakers:

I hate Nazi’s, which is why I do not hate Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, and I want to talk to these two in order that we have the kete of knowledge filled with all the good, bad and ugly data we can get. Average IQ levels differ between ethnicities? If it’s true then we desperately need to know. Is Sharia law infiltrating Western culture and is it incompatible as a shared system of laws, practices and social structures? If it’s true then we desperately need to know. Ignorance is not bliss, and knowledge is power.

 

The attendees:

I am so sorry for you all; it was easy for me – I organised for my kids to be with their pohpoh (grandmother) and, once it was cancelled I just met up with a couple of peeps and had dinner.

But I have talked and heard stories from you of time taken off, therefore losing that money, hotels booked and paid, children placed with other family and hundreds spent on travel, food and expenses. It would have been worth it, and I really want you to know that I am absolutely gutted about you losing out more than just the ticket price – it just sucks…it really does, and if those other people had empathy, they would have gotten it too…if…

The Venue:

One of the owners of The Powerstation, Gabrielle Mullins, claimed that she did not know who was attending and that “They can say whatever they want but personally I don’t want it in my venue.” I watched the clip several times, and I believe there is a lot more to the story than some last minute turnaround as per a number of physical and speech indicators. It will be fascinating to see what comes out but, in the meantime, I now view The Powerstation with a bit of amusement at their name “Power”station…

The Protesters:

Ah yes, the “Hate Aotearoa, Love Racism” crew (did I jumble up the words, or merely correct according to their actual function? I don’t know) and their ironically named sidekick, “Peace Action”; they won this battle, and I attended their rally that night, commenting to a friend that whatever the wording may have purported on their public description, ‘peace’ was not what they were looking for. They were ready to deliver that ‘peace’ to any who sought to engage in any thought outside the rally’s accepted parameters.

I actually did engage with some on their own sites and had some robust kōrero that was excellent. I also got told “f*** off”, “you’re a f****** idiot”, “brainwashed”, “ya racist dog”, and a couple of other ditties. Oh, I pressed the function on my phone that takes a screenshot because, you know, I don’t like saying something happened and then saying I ‘deleted’ them.

What I did find was that the protesters had such a powerful ignorance of facts, to their own critical awareness, to the irony of standing against mātauranga (knowledge), that my understanding of the term “groupthink” finally had an objective example to measure against and verify. I laughed ruefully once I realised this.

The protesters are the sheep from Animal Farm, and among them are Napoleon’s dogs, waiting for that call…

The true threat:

The last couple of skirmishes with free speech have uncovered a most fearful element in our society.

Several months ago, Israel Folau replied with a one sentence answer to a loaded question on social media. What followed was a 6 week, daily attack on him, and occasionally his wife Maria, by mainstream and some alternate media – daily…and a constant assault on his Christian belief, his very right to speak or engage on social media, his own thoughts even.

But all of that did not chill me. What chilled me is that a reigning Member of Parliament, Louisa Wall, also engaged in the attacks on his speech saying, among other comments

“I’m sure he’d be distressed to know his comments can kill, and they kill because young people feel despair because (they feel) there’s something wrong with them, and they should take their own lives”

Wow…a ruling government MP stepped away from being a representative of New Zealand as a whole country and engaging in activist speak for a personal matter, with words inaccurate, venomous and plain wrong. Not the only one, either: Green MP’s Golriz Ghahraman and Marama Davidson, Labour MP’s Iain Lees-Galloway, Jacinda Ardern and ex-Labour leader Phil Goff all put their comments towards the dampening down, or straight out shutting down, of free speech. There were video clips and standing with the picket signs, activism and protesting hand in hand. And that is what has me chilled.

What happens now that the activists rule our country?

Kia monuina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.