The Atlas aligned Free Speech Union takes on a number of interesting issues.
A look at their website suggests that campaigns chosen tend to align with right wing talking points.
They object to police being taught how to detect hate speech and hate crimes. They are wanting to protect the ability to abuse trans gender people and are opposed to transgender people receiving the right to not be discriminated against. Yep it sees the ability to be a bigot about gender is a right that needs to be preserved.
Weirdly they are trying to get submissions made to the Covid Inquiry and in particular are asking people to comment on whether existing legal protections were sufficient for people who faced repercussions for their opinions held on the COVID response. Cookers are obviously welcome.
Paul Goldsmith aka Goldie is praised and thanked for canning hate speech laws. And the FSU asks the Christchurch Call not to silence kiwis.
They state that we must preserve tolerance and speech in debate over the Israel-Gaza conflict without once even hinting at the genocide that the Israeli forces have committed on Palestinians or attacks on UN Peacekeeping forces or UN Aid workers or Press reporters. A commitment to free speech should include a commitment to protecting the Press.
Instead the reference is to “a Member of Parliament required Police protection to leave a protest in Auckland Domain because he expressed an unpopular opinion”. The reference is to Phil Twyford and I was present at the protest where this occurred. He was booed by some in the crowd when he made a statement criticising Hamas as well as Israel. There was no violence and although police were present he did not need police protection.
Only the Free Speech Union would essentially criticise upset Palestinians while completely ignoring the egregious breaches of human rights being conducted against the Palestinian people.
About the most significant local freedom of speech issue, the banning of gang insignia the Free Speech Union has put out a couple of press releases and made a submission on the bill but there is no sign of the FSU making it into a campaign.
It is clear that the FSU is a front for supporting right wing ideas and to attack progressive ideals. And the more dissent they cause the better.
And their views are so simplistic.
The latest campaign is their support for Candace Owens to be allowed to enter the country. I am sure that it is not a coincidence that they should take this stance because Young Labour has urged the Government to not allow her to come here.
From Radio New Zealand:
Young Labour has published an open letter urging the government to follow Australia’s lead, and stop Candace Owens entering the country.
The conservative US commentator and Trump supporter has caused controversy with her views questioning the holocaust, and criticising feminism, the Black Lives Matter movement, and trans people.
She is booked to deliver a speech in Auckland next month – and had been expected to continue to Australia until she was refused entry. Tickets were selling for between $95 for general admission and $1500 for a VIP package with a pre-show dinner, champagne reception and meet-and-greet.
Australian Immigration Minister Tony Burke said the country’s national interest would be best served with Owens somewhere else, as she could “incite discord in almost every direction”.
In a statement, the Free Speech Union lobbying group said New Zealand should not “commit the same blunder”, as “provocative or unpopular opinions are not a reason to deny someone’s entry into a country”.
Young Labour president Ethan Reille disagreed, and called on the coalition government to deny Owens entry to New Zealand.
“Her views are not merely just controversial, but they are dangerous. So we do have an obligation to be protecting our communities from that kind of rhetoric that empowers divisive movements. So it is our view that allowing her a platform would fail to uphold our core values.”
Free Speech Union member Dane Giraud said it was far better to have all ideas out in the open.
“Bad ideas are beaten by good ideas, and good ideas can only rise to the top in a robust and open debate. Listening to views that go against established opinions is simply an opportunity to make your own argument stronger. If you disagree with Owens, her tour is an opportunity for this. Equally, if New Zealanders don’t want to engage with Owens, they don’t need to attend her events.
“Those pushing for Owens’ visa to be denied should stop to recognise that censorship doesn’t get us anywhere. Take Australia’s decision as an example: denying Owens’ entry has simply created more interest in Owens and her views than there otherwise would have been.”
Giraud’s comments miss the point. She seems to be saying that Owens has a right to visit which she does not. She also appears to concede that preventing Owens from visiting does not prevent people from finding out what her views are. If so then it makes you wonder why the Free Speech Union should be interested. If Owens’ ability to disseminate her views is not being affected then why should it worry?
Owens is the latest in a line of right wing shock jock commentators who seek fame through notoriety.
Her views are typical of that type.
She thinks that Black Lives Matter protestors are “a bunch of whiny toddlers, pretending to be oppressed for attention”.
She thinks that the US left (presumably Democrats) are “destroying everything through this cultural Marxist ideology.”
Abortion is according to her “a tool for the extermination of black babies”.
Antifa are apparently more prevalent than the KKK.
George Soros apparently paid people to protest the murder of George Floyd. I must find out where to get my cheque from.
She once called the Walt Disney Company “child groomers and pedophiles”. And she has accused transgender people of “mass drugging children” and claimed the “LGBTQ movement brought with it a sexual plague on our society”.
She has also said that that “Europe will fall and become a Muslim-majority continent by 2050” and that “[t]here has never been a Muslim-majority country where sharia law was not implemented.”
The Christchurch murderer has said that Owens had “influenced [him] above all”
According to her global warming is not real, and she has called it a lie. And welfare is a Democratic Party tool to keep black Americans dependent upon the government.
About facism she claimed that “education about the Nazis was indoctrination comparable to “Soviet tactics”. Bill Gates is a “vaccine-criminal”. And the United States should “invade Australia” because Australia had turned into a tyrannical Nazi-style police state due to its public health precautions against COVID-19.
At least she has been a critic of Israel although she has questioned details about the holucaust.
And the Free Speech Union thinks that we should allow her to visit.
Their view is that not only should Governments allow unpopular speech to occur but it should actually promote this form of speech by giving the speakers the privilege of a visitor’s permit to enter the country and providing police to control the disorder that her speech will cause. And allow them to charge gullible fools huge amounts of money for the privilege of listening to them.
The event is scheduled for the Trusts Arena in West Auckland. I suspect Auckland Council will be having a good look at whether a venue that it supports should be used for this purpose.
Immigration New Zealand is considering Owens’ application and Immigration Minister Erica Stanford has chosen to duck the issue by saying it is an operational matter.
This should be a simple case of the Government telling Owens she is not wanted. I get the awful feeling it is not going to be that simple.
Let her visit Palestine.
I saw Bomber's criticism of Young Labour's stand on this calling it part of the culture war and saying "groan". Sometimes Martyn gets it so wrong. Go for it Young Labour. It's great you are part of a political party and are organising. I spent a lot of time when I was younger being told I didn't know shit by grumpy older people. Did I listen? Nope.
I don't think you got his point. I generally disagree with everything Mr Bradbury thinks but on this issue he raises a very good point. Young Labour by coming out with this view looks like it wan ts to shut down any ideas that they disagree with. That weaponises Free Speech for the right. When was the last time a major left wing political organisation stood up for people stating controversial views?
Maybe they do not want someone to come over here and stir up a load of trouble. She still has her well funded megaphone to use. She can do it from overseas.
"Do not want someone to come over here and stir up a load of trouble" – That's what conservative movements in various places used to think (some still do) about movements pushing for civil rights. Did you ever see the movie "Mississippi burning"? Now you can argue the cause was right but the sentiment expressed by those opposed to it was exactly as you phrased it.
So you seem from the above comment that it's ok for people to be abused and denied their rights as a human being, if it doesn't affect you in anyway. Have a think about what that says about you.
Human beings do not have the right to promote hatred. On the other hand when people are facing discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, and country of origin; where people have unequal voter registration requirements; where there is racial segregation in schools, accomodation and employment discrimination – they have a right to stand up to those abuses, and to express their frustration and dissatisfaction as loudly as as they want within the law, and if they are not being heard, unfortunately they will usually increase that protest until they are. So it is important for those of privilege to listen to the cries of anguish before things get out of hand. We have a war in Gaza that is a direct result of those in power not listening to the cries of the oppressed for 75 years.
Of course people have the right to promote hatred. I see it on this site alot with various people promoting hatred against landlords, capitalists, National party, imperialists, Trump, Israel, etc etc. You can choose to hate whoever you want and you can (or at least should be able to) try and convince others to join in your hate. What shouldn't be allowed to happen is for you to promote actions that are harmful based on that hate. For example you can hate that Israel is carrying out a war against the people in Gaza and even hate the very idea of Israel itself but if you then call for violence against Israelis then you have crossed the line.
Why am I not surprised you would think that.
Except…
1961 is a tad antiquated (Apologies to anyone in their 7th decade or older).
"..to excite disaffection against, Her Majesty, or the Government of New Zealand, or the administration of justice; "
This site is full of attempts to excite disaffection against the Government and "Shane Jones has described “elements of totalitarianism” in the justice system " sounds like an example of to excite disaffection in the administration of justice.
Your comment epitomises the irrevocable irony that so many dogmatic free speech crusaders often use slippery sloppy language and inconsistent or self-contradictory arguments to stake their claims.
Will someone think of the poor landlords and capitalists. What a tough time they are having!
Worse than the Muslim community in Christchurch on 15 March 2019, in my mind…
Or Israelis calling for violence against 'Hamas' where they define Hamas as any Palestinian killed or injured by obvious indiscriminate bombing, snipers or by IDF unethical induced outbreaks of disease.
I regularly see that in Israeli news. I also see it whenever I look in the shitpits of the right like X or Kiwiblog.
That is actual promotion of hatred.
Quite possibly true. If you are in agreement on that point then you should be happy to restrict actions against people to that and not merely expressing or promoting "hateful" views.
//—
Warning: That sounds perilously like you are trying to put words in my mouth. But also worded to be ambiguous as it doesn’t appear to differentiate between me and my role in the site. I’d strongly suggest that you don’t try either tactic. Because it makes it so easy for me to to pick how I choose to view it. It pays to not be ambiguous when addressing moderators.
//—
You are aware of our policies.
The site (and I) draw the line about people who advocate or incite violence. Which is why much of the crap in right wing shit holes doesn’t happen here. That has been our policy for a long time.
We follow NZ law on this site along with our general policy rules about leading to robust debate. We only have to constrain occasionally on things that would violate NZ law, probably because we tend to hand extremely long bans for anyone who is trying to cause the site to deal with courts.
We do wind up spending quite a lot of time dealing with people making unsubstantiated assertions of fact, lack of clarity of why they hold an opinion, just plain boring repetitions, and simple hypocrisy (see the policy for the ‘Gosman’ rule).
//—
The problem with Candace Owens is that in NZ her expressed views from afar have directly promoted extreme violence and murder towards NZ citizens and residents. Even more so for those who have proven that they been successful in inducing some deranged and now convicted idiot to go out and kill 50 odd people.
Personally I’d let Owens in. I’d like her to be arrested at the border under sections 66 and/or 70 of the Crimes Act 1961. She, according to the perpetrator of the terrorist attack in Christchurch, effectively incited him to do that heinous crime.
I would like to see her charged for that. Then properly let the courts decide if it is substantiated. A campaign to lay complaints with the police, with preparations for a private prosecution if they don’t act immediately would be interesting to pursue.
I'd love for someone to try and prosecute her under those laws. It would be hillarious as there is ZERO evidence she has called for anyone to commit heinous terror crimes against anyone. Merely expressing views against certain groups is not the same thing.
They're not controversial views she's spouting – they are hateful. There is a huge difference. But I guess from your position of entitlement you are blind to that.
Are her views actually hateful, or do you feel they are hateful because you disagree with them. It seems to me you feel offended because someone is defying you, by having what you view as the wrong opinions.
Explain how the views are hateful?
If you can't see why her views are hateful, eg “a tool for the extermination of black babies”, then I am sorry for the pair of you.
Meanwhile..
A Texas woman died after the hospital said it would be a “crime” to intervene in her miscarriage. “Doctors said it was “inevitable” that Josseli Barnica would miscarry. Yet they waited 40 hours for the fetal heartbeat to stop. She died of an infection three days later.” (ProPublica)
What are her hateful views?
I keep hearing about certain people who have “hateful views”, I never hear what their actual views are. I do hear plenty about counter protesters, who threaten violence to shut down anyone who dares to utter these so called hateful opinions.
You have Google.
Surprising to see you on here defending anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial … or pretending you don't know because you deliberately don't want to know, just to "score a point".
Observer, I do believe you are indulging in “gaslighting”, if you are going to accuse me of Holocaust denial, I would like you to provide evidence, which you can’t.
It seems to me that you just want to suppress any one who has ideas or opinions that are contrary to yours.
Suppress? The opposite. I want you to know who Candace Owens is, and what she has said. Read more, learn more.
You said you don't know her views, but that's easily fixed. You can know with a few easy clicks. You don't seem to want to know.
https://forward.com/fast-forward/637413/trump-fundraiser-drops-candace-owens-after-backlash-over-her-embrace-of-antisemitism/
https://www.mediamatters.org/candace-owens/holocaust-denier-nick-fuentes-celebrates-candace-owens-she-has-been-full-fledged-war
This …
https://x.com/admgoldman/status/1823843836877009313
They're not controversial views she's spouting – they are hateful. There is a huge difference. But I guess from your position of entitlement you are blind to that.
Thanks MB. To make things even worse these views are motivated by money and greed and the desire to get really stupid people to pay her money to trot these views out. And she wants to come over here to do it.
Like a confused moth to a flame, ACT apparatchik trots out the well worn line about shutting down ideas they disagree with.
But reading general discussion on Candace Owens over the years, and increasingly recently, nearly everyone disagrees with her except the Christchurch murderer and similar, so why not crush it?
Precisely.
Agreed Darien. Good on Young Labour for standing up on this.
Yes I hope the wider Labour party takes up this cause. It will be of great benefit to the Right.
I can't see the down side. Party advocates that we do not allow into the country the person who the Christchurch shooter says was his biggest influence?
I am happy you see no down side. Will you be pushing for this to be a policy of the Labour Party then?
Yep we're so much better off now that Trump and others opened the door for racist people to feel free to spout their vitriol, for cookers to spout their conspiracy bull-shit.
It used to be I never got invited back when I challenged sexist and racist views (as a older white male often the truth came out when only older white males were left in the room).
Now I sometimes get invited back as some form of blood-sport I suspect.
The thing is it isn't about what she says at the end of the day – anyone can read that on the internet. It's about the ability to emotionally support and encourage vulnerable people into particular thinking and behaviour. Just like cult leaders and church leaders and other scoundrels they are coming to press emotional buttons.
Poster needs updating as Oz banned her but they've got Pauline Hanson and the equivalent of fox news kinda occupying that space.
Sure, as long as bad ideas aren't amplified by a global, right-wing propaganda machine aimed solely at generating outrage that can be weaponized by its masters. Or aren't articulated by a class grifters who aren't here for a robust debate: simply to spew their poison in bad-faith, take a fat fee, and then run crying to their mates on the right about their "oppression"
New Zealand has never had an absolute right to free speech similar to what's offered by the 1st Amendment to the US constitution. We've always accepted there are some forms of speech so outrageous, so vile, or so plain toxic, they shouldn't be given the space and oxygen to spread.
The problem for you is you can't really define what speech is allowed and what isn't. This leads to situations where people like Jordan Peterson are included in the group of people that should be denied a platform.
Yes, but Gosman, did you not support the visits to NZ of the Chilean torture ship Esmeralda?
I have no idea what you are meaning here?
Was it being used as a torture ship at the time it came to NZ or was this at some stage in the past? In which case lots of ships would be denied entry to NZ waters for what they were used for in the past.
"In which case lots of ships would be denied entry to NZ waters for what they were used for in the past."
Or currently, if modern slavery in the fishing industry is a concern to anyone.
Alwyn, are you sure that's not (also) your problem? Unless, of course, open slather (free-for-all) is your cuppa.
Imho, that Guterres quote is relevant to a point in Micky Savage's excellent post:
Candace Owens may well be a lovely person, but clearly some of her influence has been malignant in the extreme. Better safe than sorry?
The 1st amendment relates to government shutting down media and individuals, with some exceptions related to criminal activity and to incitement to violence.
" The Court has used this exception to justify prohibitions on distributing and possessing child pornography, on soliciting crime, and on announcing discriminatory policies. Lower courts have used it to justify restrictions on speech that informs people how crimes can be committed;….[and] on intentionally distressing speech about people." Wiki US Free Speech.
If Australia–that could not vote yes–has asked this wind up merchant not to come…doh…it could be an indicator. Let her visit I say but it is hard to tolerate with Incel Dave into banning gang patches.
Owens is only popular because she is a beautiful afro american woman.
We have had 185 years of Right wing bigots in all the power positions in this country.
Wiston Peters John Banks Norm Jones Lockwood Smith 40 years of ZB hosts who are old White Right wing male curmudgeons.
David Seymour Invasion denier is just the lates in along line of White Right Wing backside lickers. The pay is great though it is an aquired taste napparently.
And this is why calls for people like Candice Owens to be denied a platform to speak in NZ are a slippery slope. You seemingly are now including people like Winston Peters and David Seymour in the same category as Owens which then begs the question – Why not ban them as well?
When did winny or rimmer say anything in relation to blood libel?
Or mocked the Holocaust, Or said Judaism is a religion of pedophilia?
And if they did…
It’s not principle your standing on Gossy, you standing with the far right loony squad.
The "Free Speech Union" is remarkably selective in their causes to support.
NZ citizens and residents (and media) should indeed have as much free speech as possible, but that basic principle doesn't interest the Fake Speech Union.
A "prominent political figure" has been found guilty of serious crimes, but in NZ we are still not allowed to know his name. Anyone who supports free speech believes the guilty party should not have name suppression. And yet … the Fake Speech Union has had little to say on the matter.
No need to wonder why.
On the provenance of Owens and co.
https://allhiphop.com/rumors/candace-owens-exposed/
http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=815
Nice to see my initial suspicion, grifter, confirmed.
A young female version of Clarence Thomas.
Sure it’s now an organised part of right wing politics – rich men creating all these fronts, including influencers.
Back in the day grifting was of ones own initiative. Use affirmative action to get a place at a prestigious law school and then oppose it after graduation. And become a GOP mouthpiece on Capitol Hill and get onto SCOTUS on “merit”.
Didn't the wolf pack killer in Christchurch jerk over her?
Most of the shit I heard about her, was rape fantasies from the misogynist crowd.
She claims Moslems invented slavery, clearly she has not read either the OT or NT, both mention slavery.
A silly way to play nice with the Old South, just because one is financed by right wingers. It's so dumb, it's like being at one with them – without actually "wench bedding" with them.
Is she, the black "Charlie Kirk"?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/27/australia-rejects-visa-application-by-rightwing-us-pundit-candace-owens
She founded an organization in 2018 called the “Blexit Foundation” to encourage Black people to leave the Democratic party
https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/1588924658640097282
A right wing talking point sums up the career of Candace Owens.
She wrote a book claiming the path to prosperity was via right wing politics (like get in on this pyramid selling operation early).
She works for Turning Point.
She is married to George Farmer – UK Turning Point (celebrity Catholic; ex Bullingdon an invitation only club at Oxford Cameron and Johnson etc), whose father is in the House of Lords and they apparently engaged within weeks. So no, bed wenching
https://people.com/who-is-george-farmer-candace-owens-husband-8386561
https://neverdaunted.net/the-problem-with-political-bed-wench-candace-owens
She has been on campaign for women to be mothers (pre the cat lady comments this year).
https://nwlc.org/right-wing-group-tells-young-women-that-marriage-and-children-are-all-that-matters-heres-why-we-should-be-relieved/
Her relationship with ADL.
Their take.
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/candace-owens
In the tweet shared by Owens, Blumenthal had written that “White American Jews are living through a golden age of power, affluence and safety,” and that “Acceptance of this welcome reality threatens the entire Zionist enterprise, from lobby fronts like the ADL to the State of Israel, because Zionism relies on Jewish insecurity to justify itself.”
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-721591
She clearly has no idea of actual history or the bible. Obviously the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians merely assisted the residents of Judea to go to work in exile in their cities.
/sarc
If you want to know the more extreme stuff.
1.German fascism was only a problem when it went extra territorial.
2.
3.
4.This
https://x.com/admgoldman/status/1823843836877009313
'Bad ideas are beaten by good ideas, and good ideas can only rise to the top in a robust and open debate'.
Not only do Giraud’s comments miss the pont. They are like the nonsense usually spouted by Seymour… Simplistic parroting of a radicalised mind.
The best ideas will rise to the top more quickly and more easily if bad ideas are not around in the first place. Debating bad ideas just takes up resources. We don't owe a non-resident any of our resources.
How do you decide if an idea is bad or not?
Values, empathy, a moral compass are a must. So, very challenging for some to be able to work out…
51 dead people
+1
Fark I don't know why we have to argue this.
We don’t and we shouldn’t [waste our time on this]; it’s sealioning, IMO.
She didn't kill 51 people nor did she advocate for the killing if 51 people nor did she say they killing of 51 people was a good thing.
Owens courts controversy to monetise her views, and it's not like she builds leaky homes, but clearly some of her influence has been extremely malignant.
If our CoC govt sees fit to approve Owens’ visit to NZ, then maybe she'll punch (down on) a few Kiwis – not that we need to the shown how it's done.
https://www.keepitrealonline.govt.nz/parents/illegal-material/what-is-violent-extremism/
https://www.keepitrealonline.govt.nz/parents/illegal-material/recognising-the-signs-of-radicalisation/
Please explain why Giraud’s comments are not correct. Merely stating they are is not a very convincing argument.
Use your imagination.
Somebody with a megaphone on a stage is always going to win the ‘debate’ and you wouldn’t recognise and accept a ‘good’ idea if it didn’t fit into the narrative inside your little head that’s already quite clouded with biased nonsense.