MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Disrespect for Free Speech

Filed under: Gender Politics,General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 12:41 pm Sun 8th July 2018

Free speech, a prerequisite for democracy, is under attack by the self-proclaimed ‘social justice’ warriors. In this last week we have seen two appalling examples of disrespect for free speech.

The first example was regarding the recently-appointed Commissioner of Police, Wally Haumaha. He was said to have expressed an opinion to colleagues in 2004 that he believed Louise Nicholas’ allegations against three policemen were untrue. He also expressed positive comments about his colleagues accused of rape and he made a comment about police needing to stick together. In each case, his comments were made to other police colleagues.

Ms Nicholas and others have now expressed outrage that Mr Haumaha was appointed to a top police role given his comments which she claimed made him unsuitable for the role.

It seems to us that Ms Nicholas and her supporters fail to recognize that free speech is much more important than their disagreement with what was said. Police Minister Stuart Nash has made the same error in calling for an enquiry into Mr Haumaha’s appointment, with the implication that he would not have been appointed if his comments had been considered. Mr Nash could instead have been morally strong by announcing that freedom of speech is more important than the ‘triggered’ feelings of a few people, and that our citizens will be protected from punishment for exercising their right.

Mr Haumaha’s historical comments in no way condoned rape, sexism, poor policing, social disorder, immorality or anything undesirable. His personal experience of colleagues had led him to respect them despite the fact they were accused of rape. His belief that Ms Nicholas’ allegations were untrue was eventually vindicated by a jury after a careful investigation and a full trial. His belief that police should support each other when falsely accused was a commendable one for a team player.

The complainants’ rights people wish to punish people for holding and expressing opinions contrary to their preference even when those opinions present no threat to law or public order. This attack on free speech is biased and political. We are sure the same people wouldn’t raise any objection to the many occasions when police say to their colleagues “I’m sure that accused guy is guilty”. No, the feminists’ aim is for police to always believe any female who alleges sexual (or other) offending. Any other opinion is unacceptable to hold or to express.

The next attack on free speech concerned a planned visit and public lecture(s) by controversial Canadians Stefan Molyneaux and Lauren Southern. They are both described as ‘right wing’ even though that concept has become useless over time. We agree with a few things Mr Molyneaux says but disagree with most of it, and we see him as bombastic and not a good thinker or philosopher. From what we have seen Ms Southern seems to be a careful journalist who provides facts and opinions about history, race and immigration that are uncomfortable to the social justice warriors who are the fashion of the day. However, what we think about these speakers’ opinions is of little relevance to their right to hold and express those opinions, in our opinion, as long as they don’t deliberately encourage violence, disorder or law-breaking.

However, former Labia Party leader Phil Goff, now Mayor of Auckland, also showed utter contempt for free speech when he announced that the speakers’ booking of the Bruce Mason Centre had been revoked and they would be banned from every other Auckland Council venue. Mr Goff claimed the reason for this was security but his further comments made it clear that the real reason was that he disagreed with their opinions and politics.

In a tweet, Auckand Mayor Phil Goff said venues should not 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… Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux will not be speaking at any council venues.”

Come now Mr Goff. You wouldn’t maintain this position regarding any of the numerous feminist speakers who constantly divide nations along gender lines by blaming and demonizing men. Or the numerous Maori speakers who stir up ethnic tensions and seek to divide our nation along racial lines. No Mr Goff, you mainly seek to shut down these Canadian speakers because their political views differ from yours.

If security considerations played any real part in this corrupt management of public facilities, to that extent Mr Goff and the Council have allowed threatened disruption by Muslim and feminist activists to override our right to exercise and to hear free speech. Mr Goff and the Council could instead have chosen to protect the most important rights in this situation by ensuring there would be sufficient policing to maintain order.

12 Responses to “Disrespect for Free Speech”

  1. Downunder says:

    If they had written a book which included a list of 2819 feminist sympathizers along with Phil Goff who should be immediately arrested for what they represent that might be a different story … we don’t want a witch hunt, but I guess that fear is very real to them.

  2. Evan Myers says:

    Tis nothing unusual in a country where opinions about women are forbidden, and what of patriotism in the face of such oppression when it is easier to leave the country than change the regime – how many men are left.

    Perhaps they forgot to count us in the recent census.

  3. Doug says:

    MOMA, you make excellent points in a well written dialogue. Europeans are the only people in the world who have ever achieved free speech and because of it we are waking up fast. Many past decisions that have led to our current decline and coming European extinction could have been avoided if they had been openly discussed. I hope all races do well but it is ours that is in trouble. The global elite have chosen Islam because it will give them back the oppressive, tyrannical control they used to have. This is what ‘hate speech’ is about but it didn’t fly because people realise that no-one has a right to never be offended. Defamation is there as a good protection against people who make untrue comments.

  4. Evan Myers says:

    I spent time in the Australian outback in the 1970s and I think it’s fair to say that the Aborigines had a had a pretty good system of free speech – being polite and waiting your turn was probably the harder part.

  5. mama says:

    “Defamation is there as a good protection against people who make untrue comments.”

    Yes, sure… if your not in the family court system and up against a golden lady.

  6. Vman says:

    I am appalled at the no platforming of these 2 Canadians in Auckland by the mayor.

    I am not an expert in the views of these 2 people. However I do know that Lauren Southern started off addressing the hypocrisies of feminism and gender politics. So she has my respect. Recently she seems to have focused more on racial, cultural and religious hypocrisies which are a bit off topic for this forum.
    I know less about Stefan Molyneux but I believe he was strongly exposing the hypocrisies of feminism since at least 2006. I am not familiar with his views on other topics.

    I am pretty disgusted that the media portray these people as ‘far right’. They must mean far right, compared to the Khmer Rouge. By portraying reasonable people of the right as “far right” the main stream media looses all credibility. They undermine their own validity.
    Lauren Southern has almost 600,000 subscribers and over 44 million views on YouTube.
    Stefan Molynenux has 800,000 subscribers and almost 250 million views of 3,000 videos.

    People are going to go and look at their channels for themselves and see that the media and Phil Goff were lying to them or at best misleading them.

    Since when did it become the function of the mayor of AUckland to determine what is “hate speech” and what is not? What speech is allowed in ratepayers premisses and what is not?

    In any case the logic of Phil Goff is completely flawed.
    1. There is no thing as hate speech unless you consider inciting violence as hate speech. Anything below that must be tolerated in a free society. The only exception are things of the nature of falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded cinema.
    2. By no platforming views he doesn’t like in the modern internet era, Phil Goff signals that he is a dinosaur with dinosaur intelligence. Experience has shown that usually this means the claims made about the person are false or exaggerated. A quick look on the internet conforms this suspicion. Phil Goff and his ilk are seen to be what they really are. Bigots enforcing totalitarianism.

    These two Canadians are right on the money with their criticisms of feminism. On that topic at least they are not ‘far right’ but simply objective. It’s most telling that wanting true equality is now considered by feminists, the media and the powerful as ‘far right’.

    No doubt there is plenty of other things these 2 say I wouldn’t agree with. As men we have the whole spectrum of views. That is no reason at all to call it hate speech and no-platform it.

    These 2 are coming to give a civilised talk to people who will pay to hear them.
    And NZ can’t tolerate that.

    Of most concern of all is the excuse that it is for “Security” reasons. What this says is that other people lack the tolerance to allow these 2 to speak. And these other intolerant people are probably going to get violent or at least disorderly to the point of disrupting law abiding people.
    The intolerant and potentially violent people are these feared protestors. Not the speakers or their audience. No one is seriously suggesting that these 2 Canadians or their audience are going to be violent or disorderly. It will be the potential protesters against them that are a security concern.

    And way would they think that would occur if Phil Goff’s premise that these divisions and disunity does not already exist? Surely Phil Goff can’t claim we are all united and then in the same breath claim talking about these issues is likely to set off violence? Phil Goff needs to be asked ; which is it? Both things can’t be true.
    And since when did suppressing expressions of view points lead to lasting peace?

    It is the violent intolerant mob who are being appeased by Phil Goff. His rhetoric is pure
    hypocrisy and bigotry that we usually see from feminists.

  7. Ministry of Men’s Affairs says:

    Well said vman. Thanks also to the other contributors.

    We have heard more from Stefan Molyneaux and admit we have done him an injustice. Mostly he is reasonable, inrtelligent and truthful in exposing b.s. especially concerning feminism and the war against men.

    We have donated to the Free Speech Coalition’s war fund against Phil Goff etc (see

  8. Voices back from the bush says:

    Goffs reasoning was that there might be violence by a peace group, I hope this spells the end for Goff and no one will try this again. Stefan And Lauren have been labeled dangerous far-right extremists for not subscribing to leftist ideals.
    When free speech is an enemy of the state we can be certain we have a totalitarian country. Winston has said he would have let them speak, isn’t he in charge ?

  9. mama says:

    It was quite a laugh at first, then it just shat me off….To see interviewed some of the protestors the day after Don Brashs’ ( the Don) free speech speech at auckland university.
    These so called protestors were young , possibly non gender specific types who thought it was cool to speak up against something publicly for the first time.
    I can not believe they were not removed for creating a public nuisance.

  10. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Notice how Haumaha is being attacked by various women. Firstly it was Louise Nicholas who wants him punished for daring to think his colleagues were innocent. Then it was three women who previously walked off in a huff rather than have a senior male police officer having any authority over their conduct on police premises, Although at the time these women didn’t make any formal complaint, now they decide Haumaha’s behaviour was harassment or some such thing. Meanwhile, someone has been leaking confidential employment-related information about Haumaha to the media.

    The whole thing looks more and more like feminist treachery to displace a male recently promoted to the second-to-top role in our police force. From the proportions of male and female superintendents and senior police, female police already seem to be promoted beyond their experience and merit. But that won’t be enough for the feminists.

  11. Downunder says:

    National Headquarters is police premises?

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar