DANGER DANGER free speech has gone missing
Dangerous Don,,, Canadian Far Right Speakers… who will put their neck out there next only to have it chopped off…
Mob mentality on the rise??
Upon leaving Lauren Southern said ” enjoy Shariah”… I looked it up and was astonished at the silent waves that have been crashing our shores…if this is not discrimination, if this is democracy???,
I am a little scared today.
I am not Racist, I like Don Brash, Don Brash is not racist, people out there just want problems to go away but no one is being forced to face certain realities..It is shameful for a culture to lay their problems on another, the shite family court system is awash with problems that have stemmed from vicious violences largely occuring in certain races,, but no one can speek so separatistly, the smacking bill was a good example of this.
I am a little afraid today.
One of the great historic debates?
I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.
How many different ways can it be said?
There is free speech and there is hate speech –
making such difference is critical.
Disseminating hate is a crime.
“Enjoy Shariah” is nothing to be scared of.
Jews have their Shariah – so do Catholics and so do Muslims.
What the media is feeding us however has nothing to do with religion.
Rather, religion is a scapegoat for hate.
This is the dumbest quote ever heard. No disrespect intended.
Clever wording but no substance – more like a feminist slogan.
Some old fool once said
I think that is the more appropriate personal consensus on one’s own freedom of speech.
My favorite of course is
The key word here being to speak positive and always strive to speak positively.
Positively means “solution oriented.”
Physical violence may be more visible, easier to identify, but the psychology violence of the feminist agenda transformed to a war against men – that has been far more destructive.
Shariah has been fully installed in the NZ meat system, this is for trade not religion, regardless it has happened. It will cover much more like it has started to in Australia.
I wonder if this was a religious move by the industry or by any number of smart #8-Wire Kiwi businessmen adapting to global market demands by incorporating rituals borrowed from Islam and steering the NZ Meat Industry into sounder and overall better economic prospects?
Stating that “Shariah has been installed in the NZ meat system” might be misinformation.
Sharia, Sharia law, or Islamic law is the religious law forming part of the Islamic tradition.
The slaughtering practice is yet but a minuscule part of that beast. 🙂
Just Curious @ 3:
So you want to tell people to shut up unless their views conform to your own chosen definition of what is ‘positive’? And you want to restrict others from speaking unless they are being ‘solution focused’?
Defending people’s right to speak even when some disagree is a fundamental requirement for democracy.
@7 – that is your interpretation of what is written. Above.
# 8,, holy hell where did you get that piece from??
Professor Andrew Geddis, from the Faculty of Law, University of Otago, disagrees. As do I. He says that New Zealand’s only specific “hate crime” provision in the Human Rights Act 1993, section. 131 applies to “racial hate speech” – but does not cover any other group. Although in this context racial hate includes ethnic hate.
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.” The NZ Bill of Rights Act 1993 (section 14).
So called “hate speech” should never been a crime in a democratic country.
You claim that it is “critical” to make a difference between free speech and “hate speech”.
Yet you offer no definition of what is “hate speech”. ALso no definition of what so called “hate speech” would be considered a legal definition to be considered a crime.
I suspect this is because you can’t provide a legal definition(or any definition) which would not be counter to free speech.
I absolutely hate traffic jams and I often disseminate hate of traffic jams to all who will listen. It’s just lucky I am anonymous or else I imagine you would have me arrested for my thought crimes.
Plenty of feminists have and continue to peddle hatred towards men. “#Kill All Men” ring any bells? I am yet to see a single one arrested for their “hate speech” crime. Therefore I conclude it is not a crime to disseminate hatred based on gender. (Plus I checked the law so I know it’s not a crime).
Then there is the dissemination of hatred based on race by certain Maori activists. Everyone remember the “kill a white before you die and become a hero” speech to first-year law students at Auckland University by Hana Te Hemara?
Although at the time section 25 of the Race Relations Act made it a criminal offence “to excite hostility or ill-will or bring into contempt or ridicule any group or people on the ground of colour, race, ethnic or national background” and although 74 official complaints were laid, the race relations commissioner dropped the charges against Te Hemara. The race relations commissioner did pursue a case against a newspaper for reporting Te Hemara’s words until there was such an outcry that he dropped that case also. The entire process and the Act was shown to be counter to free speech. The Race Relations Act was later repealed because it was unworkable. In other words it could not be applied because it was counter to free speech.
It has been replaced by the Human Rights Act part 6. The first part of which 131, sounds like the Race Relations Act. However section 132 then states; “No prosecution for an offence against section 131 shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General”.
Which is why it’s unlikely a case would even reach court.
Note also that you are free to express all the racial/other hatred you like. For it to be an offence under section 131. “The speech must be intended to excite hostility or ill-will toward the group in others. It doesn’t cover someone who is just expressing their own dislike of some racial group. [Also] You need the Attorney-General’s permission to bring charges under it.” – Professor Geddis.
There hasn’t been a single successful prosecution under section 131 of the Human Rights Act. In fact under any Act there has only ever been one successful so called “hate speech” prosecution and that was in 1979. Although that case was on “ethnicity” (Jews) not race per se, but let’s not quibble.
Chief Legal Advisor at the Human Rights Commission, Janet Anderson-Bidois said it is not time to update the provision yet.
“There is no right not to be offended.”
– Something today’s snowflake generation needs to learn.
In short you can’t criminalise so called “hate speech” and also have free speech. This is because it is a slippery slope. Always remember that the purpose of freedom of expression is to allow people to express views that most people would rather not hear. Freedom of speech IS the right to be offensive. That’s it’s purpose.
The no-platforming of these 2 Canadians was awful and reflects very poorly on New Zealand. It makes the country seem like a bunch of bigots.
Thanks for that fine analysis Vman @10.
We agree in general that free speech should only be curtailed when it crosses a limited range of clearly defined lines. There will be quite a lot of such lines such as encouraging people to commit serious criminal offending or suicide, telling children it’s good for them to drink antifreeze, and so forth. We would quite like there to be some law against deliberately claiming things in the knowledge those claims are false, but there seems no restriction on that except in laws governing advertising and trade. ‘Hate speech’ though, if defined as encouraging others to hate a particular group, would not cross our threshold for illegality any more than would ‘love speech’ encouraging others to feel supportive towards some group.
Just Curious @ 3
You think the saying ‘I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it’ is the dumbest quote ever heard and that it has no substance! Simple as it is, you obviously don’t understand it.
“my freedom stops where other’s start” is attributed to ‘Some old fool’ according to you!
According to you, only positive, solution oriented contributions should be allowed. Who will decide what is positive and what is solution oriented? That is disturbingly close to ideas being resolved by consensus. So if the Catholic Church once again takes over all media and the Church (or their other Islamic branch) once again becomes the only official information source we will go back to the Dark ages, flat earth theory and consensus opinion will dictate that will all be OK, regardless of an underlying objective reality. Very troubling has been moves in the UN to make criticism of any religion a hate crime. Can you see where this is heading?
@12- Doug – This old fool may be Descartes or Jean paul Sartre, can’t remember.
The term “old fool” has not relevance except that like all philosophers, they die mad.
Whether it is absinthe or some other refined top shelf madness inducing form of stupefiant. Makes no difference.
Currently the media is owned – the word “independent” media is a joke. Not because that concept does not exist, it does. But because no one reads, listens to or follows them.
AS simple as that quote is that you state I do not understand; it means nothing. Just a slogan of positive nihilism. It means nothing and says nothing except to use words to mean nothing.
I remember as a child I used to be in love with quotes
Man is an apprentice, pain is his master.
My freedoms stops where other’s start
Do unto others as you would….
I spent years looking into each and every one of these and compiled thousands from all parts of the world. At times, they meant the world.
But over time, they have been used to simply brainwash the world.
In fact the people whom are most likely to use it are those who understand it least.
In a politico-democratic world, it may have some substance. I repeat “some.”
But in reality, and in fact it, means nothing but to state – “you have the right to insult me or instigate hate against me and I shall defend your right with my life.”
Ask the people victim of false allegation what they think of it?
Ask the victims of defamation what they think of it?
The reality of it is it means nothing and is not conducive to to problem resolution.
Solution seeking is stating what is wrong, understanding the causative agents and seeking remedies until one that applies is found. If more than one are found then test or evaluate each until the best one or least likely to cause further harm is found and implemented. Then test the solution against the goals or criterias.
This forum essentially give us a voice we would not normally have and like a pulse acts as a feedback agent as to where the state of men in general and in this country are.
In my mind – my opinion – bitching about what is wrong is simply a first step.
Using that bitching to disseminate hate and target other social or population groups does nothing to benefit NZ as a whole or the men in it. And does not give this site any credit.
So solution oriented is an invite to problem solving. How do we move from the bitching to practical actions which will essentially be of benefit to all NZers – Not just men nor women nor children. All beings within?
That is essentially what I find lacking here. Plenty of emasculated and castrated men with heaps of words and sad – bad stories – we all have them – but not concerted agreement, understanding or proactive steps to positive action.
Old Quotes are best seen in the context of who said it and the surrounding society that inspires the observation.
While they are valid in ones point of view and not in anothers is a similar situation.
You might ask though why in 350 BC did Cicero sat something along the lines of …
@10 VMAN – great analysis.
Well put and very enlightening. Actually learned heaps from it. Thanks.
There is a always the common sense approach as to what is hateful within free speech.
Not every word must be defined to give meaning exclusive of all other meaning in a general conversation and one that is not legal in nature – Here however, we mix the legal to english.
Wiki – english – definition of hate speech
I refer you to Human right act 1993 section 61
Here is a short excerpt _ legal aspects of hate speech as in regards to racial disharmony
The fact that prosecution is rare or unheard of does not mitigate the fact that certain speech can be harmful and aimed to instigate hate among the population.
@15 – any quote is best looked at within its context, history and environment.
Whether your quote can be attributed to Cicero is however another story entirely as per this following link and what meaning must be given to it is entirely up to your investigation
Curious @ 13 wrote that the saying ‘I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it’ means “… in reality, and in fact it, means nothing but to state – “you have the right to insult me or instigate hate against me and I shall defend your right with my life.”
It does not mean that and you are grouping all discussion and debate into defamation. What it does mean is that open debate and discussion is essential for a better world. This does not include slander. A recent example was in the USA where speakers at a university were exposing the feminist lie that one in four girls are sexually abused by their fathers. The feminists demanded that those exposing this statistic were rape apologists and that this “hate speech’ should be removed from campus.
@18 – you can chose what you want it to mean. Fair enough.
I referred to speech and gave examples of defamation and slander, you interpreted it as debate and discussion
I agree with you above.
But then you gave an example that seems to defeat your own premises
speakers giver of speech. So this was not discussion and nor a debate. Maybe it did end up in a hot debate but initially, it was a speech
#19 I don’t agree with your thinking.
The speakers (noun) describes the persons speaking not the person’s speech.
As they were responding to something that had previously been stated, albeit at a later date, they are disagreeing.
That represents some form of discussion or debate.
The attempt to have that discussion shut down to preserve a desired position is zealotry.
This is something similar to the religious confrontation that engulfed Darwin’s science.
I see this example along the same lines as what I posted about during our last election campaign; Feminist development of religious aspects as a step past their ideology.
Just Curious @13
That’s incorrect. The saying’s original form referred to freedom of thought and opinion and that is still the meaning taken from it by most people, well beyond your “nothing but” claim.
The saying is of great value in reminding people to respect others’ right to think for themselves and to say things that one might disagree with. Sure, it’s only a short sentence without qualification and some possible examples its meaning can be said to extend to may be wrong or absurd. As you pointed out, very few if any sayings or one-sentence quotes will be absolutely valid across all of their possible meanings and implications. However, that doesn’t mean they don’t provide a worthwhile role. Language is always limited in its validity because it is only symbols standing for complex reality which in itself can only be subjectively known and even then across a very limited spectrum for any human.
Few would dispute the need to place some limits on speech. Only zealots seek to place limits on thought. (Some thoughts that predict increased risk of harmful behaviour are disallowed to the point of being forcibly medicated or electrocuted away, something that deserves constant scrutiny and ethical testing.) The feminists and other modern Social Justice Warriors have no qualms about disallowing or punishing thought inconsistent with their own, as shown for example by Louise Nicholas regarding Wally Haumaha’s right to have believed his colleagues were innocent of what she accused them of. For many feminists it’s simply not acceptable for anyone to think that a woman’s allegations aren’t true or don’t describe a real criminal offence.
is said to have been authored in 1906 by Evelyn Hall (writing under a male pseudonym) to summarize an aspect of Voltaire’s beliefs. Voltaire wrote (translated):
@ 20 – you perfectly entitled to disagree but go back and read the example presented
It does appear it was a speech hence speakers.
Then it was followed by a vicious argument (not debate)over not whether the speech was fact based but whether the label “hate speech” applied and demands that speech much be abandoned or the speakers forcefully ejected.
So a logical speech got turned into an emotional and vitriolic argument.
I like how you apply the term zealotry and in any case usually means war of ideas/propaganda as opposed to sensible open debate and discussion
Just Curious @16:
The rest of S61 gives better context, as follows:
You correctly point out the lack of prosecutions under this section. That lack probably reflects the legal weakness of the section. For example, ruling out all speech that might be subjectively experienced by a group or any members of that group as ‘abusive’ or ‘insulting’ would directly contradict our rights to freedom of expression under other legislation.
However, we agree that there is justification for some limits on speech that is likely to stimulate violence or unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex, race and perhaps some other inherited characteristics. We would like the law to restrict people from making claims they know, or should reasonably be expected to know, are false about groups or individuals. We believe defamation laws are inadequate and financially unrealistic, and we would like the state to prosecute defamation when initial evidence seems strong.
Just Curious @14 : Your accusation that there are no proactive steps to positive action disrespects the tireless efforts of some posters here who contribute to select committees and reviews considering law changes, who participate in meetings with the Human Rights Commission and other important organisations, who organize and work to support New Zealand conferences regarding men’s issues, who protest outside Courts, parliament and some male-abusing judges’ homes, who support men going through a hostile Family Court and so forth.
Let’s turn the debate around the other way and look at the Hate Speech aspect of the example above.
The speakers spoke words.
These words rejected an established position.
The automatic conclusion without debate (and there is a word for that, I don’t recall at this time) … we hate you because you did this.
We are entitled to hate you because you did this.
We will call what you said ‘Hate Speech’ because we are politicaly charged to shut down any discussion about this.
This scenario has very little to do discussion or reason and more to do with indoctrinated behaviour.
A robotic preprogrammed entitlement to a position and this is being looked past by us to unfortunately give an assumption of reason and understanding.
Any reason and understanding was in the minds of a few influential manhaters who gave this behaviour credibility.
@21- I accept that is your point of view and respect it.
Your interpretation is good but sadly lacking in depth.
It’s basically the same as:
No point complicating it any further with
@23 – well researched and good conclusions. IN fact Vman @10 made those assertions which you are agreeing to.
@24 – I intend no disrespect. I am aware of the good efforts being put out there even though I disagree with some of the forms of actions being undertaken by some of us men.
I do however refer more directly to the state of some men on here so focused on feminism they would be better off building a bomb shelter to hide from the feminist nuclear war they are forecasting rather than be posting here conspiracy theories and fallacies against women. Remember Every man comes from a woman so it pays to be discerning.
Is this a war against women or a drive to seek equal rights for all members of this population?
And if it is so; then how can we be part of the solution?
~~~~~~~~ The initial poster here is concerned about free speech~~~~~~~
It appears certain people with very dubious agendas were disinvited to hold speeches in NZ –
Shall we continue to digress over a quote attributed to Voltaire and which is not his?
Or look into why these guys speech was banned?
Curious @ 26 – you are twisting the meaning. Having opinions and discussing issues outside of the orthodoxy of the churches and universities does not mean abuse as you put it. You think you are smart but you are not clever enough to work out whose opinions you are spouting. It is way past time that feminist BS and the feminist / Marxist connection was discussed. You resort to the conspiracy label for things YOU don’t agree with. I prefer to hear all points of view
@27- It’s amazing how silly people can be.
They invite you to an open debate or sensible discussion and then try to emotionally wrap their psyche into your words and then blame you for saying what their own minds are projecting.
Looking at your post, I am impressed at the bold words. My comments in parenthesis.
I prefer to at least decide for myself rather than have someone like you decide if it is even allowed. You accuse other people of making the statements you have been making yourself! Well meaning ignorance may be bliss but it allows evil to thrive
Fair enough! the question is “What control do you have? and what decision are you allowed to make?“:-)
Oh – The illusion of choice and free will.
Legally , hate speech is not allowed even though, as Vman has pointed out, not enforced really.
Agreed – if anyone can make you believe in absurdities – they will convince you to commit atrocities.
@ Doug – This is what you may have interpreted as conspiracy theory claim.
or is it here?
Interesting how people only pick what they want out of any sensible discussion:-)
curious @ 30 – it is your left wing, the Nazis (or National Socialists) and the Socialists who committed mass murder in Russia after 1917 who commit the atrocities. I’m not a right winger either. I don’t fall for those terms your masters created. And I don’t believe in absurdities as you say. that’s why I’m not a misinformed feminist bigot.
@30 – true – I wonder if they used free speech or Hate speech to achieve such aims?
Or is it all the same?
I am however certain they did not use open debates and discussions.
curious – everything you say is so twisted around. Open debate and discussion is free speech. The Nazis, communists, marxists all prohibited free speech.
What Marx advocated was one class ruled over by people who rule by birthright. He advocated destroying the middle class. The lower class and the middle class are natural. It is the ruling class who have never allowed anything but one impoverished class under their tyranny.
I think you may not know what Marx stood for.
For God’s and truth sake , please leave Marx out if any connection with feminism. Extreme, aggressive feminism or any other extreme aggressive group are mostly consisted of deluded people who have not any family/children or who have dysfunctional family life plus a desire to be part of the group plus voids in their lives or they just bored.
They are just useful idiots to the expanding consumerism and stupefying people . But the damages they are inflicting to teh families i.e men are tremendous .
# I AGREE… in my experience these types of people are takers out to get all they can for themselves and do not mind at all destroying or defaming others along the way.
Free speech is being put into question loudly lately,,, are we heading down this track,
Maybe this is what our trains will be handy for.
What you’re seeing there mama is a threat against the individual’s financial integrity to enforce an outcome.
Nothing new to men here having been through the family court or child support system.
It’s close friend is illegal pursuit of a claimed debt in the hope that a person will feel intimidated and pay up.
This is a minor aspect of what is happening in China and should be seen for what it is rather than a free speech issue.