MENZ ISSUES

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

Hate Speech

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 8:20 am Sat 17th April 2021

I hate to say this but when we have modern left-wing governments in power there are always more detrimental consequences for men.

These changes often come dressed in disguise though, and we don’t see the ulterior motives intended by any proposed changes.

We don’t see much being written on menz these days either. It’s as if men have resigned themselves to civilized failure.

So, seeing the hate laws that are being proposed by the current government of New Zealand … how do you think they might affect us men?

4 Responses to “Hate Speech”

  1. Evan Myers says:

    You can guarantee the opportunity to hate men will be written in there somewhere but it will be as invisible as the as the best interests of the child principle and how that worked to the detriment on men but rest assured, no other success will compensate for the failure of men or their removal from the home.

  2. golfa says:

    There is a very big difference between hate speech and speech that you hate.

    It seems to me that people these days are offended by everything. I have no tolerance for the perpetually offended.

  3. DJ Ward says:

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/david-seymour-harsher-penalties-hate-speech-than-assaulting-women-children

    Forget the emotive language.
    “Women and Children”
    It should have said.
    “And way, way more for female assaulting males”

    So let’s look a little deeper.
    A comment.
    “legislation that stops hate speech from going into hate crimes“
    That was quick, lawyers making laws for lawyers.

    Who then is the decider on that.
    Someone has to be very wise to predict the future.
    In the future something “could happen” so your guilty.
    The decision can so easily become political.

    A little more than ankle deep now, so more.
    “current low standard meant that it was impossible to prosecute”
    What, nobody charged with offensive language?
    What, nobody charged with, threatening to kill?

    Knee deep in the, new, swamp of litigation.
    “Those folks are subject to much more violence than the rest of us, so we should be protected.”
    Geez that has to be a grammar problem.
    Now I don’t have any idea who it’s protecting.

    Sorry that was an error.
    Persecuting, not protecting.

  4. Evan Myers says:

    I choose to be offended.

    In politics we see it often. I will take that out of context because it suits me to do so.

    I’ll see that statement in isolation and be offended because it suits me.

    These become circumstances of persecution.

    We’ve learned many times in history already that it is essential to defend what we call free speech.

    Most certainly against the insecurities of those who become the illegitimate masters of power.

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