Lauren Southern to speak in NZ

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Lauren Southern to speak in NZ

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 26

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2069655 8-Aug-2018 08:50

Kryptonjohn, you might like to know that you are about a week late for joining Lias’ silly shtick of pretending that if you bark loud enough about some unfettered right to free speech, it would somehow come true. Go and have a read of the Human Rights Act and then come back. And given that Southern was previously barred from entering the UK, it is difficult to understand why she was allowed to enter NZ under the Immigration Act, as being banned from similar countries usually is highly indicative of not meeting the required character requirements.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2069660 8-Aug-2018 08:55

kryptonjohn:

Lias:

I don't agree that she is a racist or a fascist, but even if she is, she has EVERY right to come here and say her piece. You don't have to like her views, and you are absolutely entitled to repudiate them and decry her saying them, but she has the right to hold them, and to talk to others about them. If you believe someone should be prevented from expressing their opinion, no matter how much you dislike it, then I'm afraid YOU are the fascist.

Agree with Lias and would extend further that it is *essential* that people like Southern & co be allowed to speak. That way we get to decide for ourselves whether they're racist idiots instead of having someone like Fred99 decide that for us. It also keeps the actual dangerous people visible rather than underground. If there are hateful dangerous people preparing for war I'd like as many people to be aware of this as possible.

The danger of having others control our freedoms is far, far worse than the danger of some idiots coming here and spouting nonsense from a soap box. Nobody should get to say who I can listen to and who I cannot.

Do you have the right to tell someone who comes onto your front lawn spouting things to disagree with to bugger off?

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2069662 8-Aug-2018 09:03

MikeB4:

kryptonjohn:

Lias:

I don't agree that she is a racist or a fascist, but even if she is, she has EVERY right to come here and say her piece. You don't have to like her views, and you are absolutely entitled to repudiate them and decry her saying them, but she has the right to hold them, and to talk to others about them. If you believe someone should be prevented from expressing their opinion, no matter how much you dislike it, then I'm afraid YOU are the fascist.

Agree with Lias and would extend further that it is *essential* that people like Southern & co be allowed to speak. That way we get to decide for ourselves whether they're racist idiots instead of having someone like Fred99 decide that for us. It also keeps the actual dangerous people visible rather than underground. If there are hateful dangerous people preparing for war I'd like as many people to be aware of this as possible.

The danger of having others control our freedoms is far, far worse than the danger of some idiots coming here and spouting nonsense from a soap box. Nobody should get to say who I can listen to and who I cannot.

Do you have the right to tell someone who comes onto your front lawn spouting things to disagree with to bugger off?

Silly straw-man argument. I have the right to tell someone on my front lawn to bugger off regardless. I don't have the right to tell someone on *your* front lawn to bugger off and I don't have the right to tell someone on the footpath to bugger off. *That* is the point.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2069664 8-Aug-2018 09:09

dejadeadnz: Kryptonjohn, you might like to know that you are about a week late for joining Lias’ silly shtick of pretending that if you bark loud enough about some unfettered right to free speech, it would somehow come true. Go and have a read of the Human Rights Act and then come back. And given that Southern was previously barred from entering the UK, it is difficult to understand why she was allowed to enter NZ under the Immigration Act, as being banned from similar countries usually is highly indicative of not meeting the required character requirements.

"Go read the human rights act"? Perhaps you could be a little more specific. I don't have time to waste on diversionary, appeal-to-authority errands.

As to banning entry - being "indicative" doesn't actually meet the bar. Until pointed out otherwise, I would assume due process was followed and it was found they met the criteria to be allowed entry. Perhaps with your towering legal knowledge you could point out specifically which parts of NZ law show they should not be allowed in nor allowed to speak their views out loud?

I don't believe that individuals like Goff and Thomas should get to decide who gets to speak. Being objectionable idiots shouldn't get people silenced because nobody gets to be the arbiter of "objectionable idiots". We can make our own call on that one.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2069670 8-Aug-2018 09:31

A good, and reasonably recent discussion on what qualifies as hate speech here: -

https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/news-and-communications/latest-news/news/when-is-it-hate-speech

The Human Rights Act define hate speech specifically in relation to racial disharmony. It doesn't mention sex, sexuality, gender, religion.

However some of the law society examples are about sexuality and religion. So perhaps there is case law that includes these as well.

Mike

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2069673 8-Aug-2018 09:41

kryptonjohn:

Silly straw-man argument. I have the right to tell someone on my front lawn to bugger off regardless. I don't have the right to tell someone on *your* front lawn to bugger off and I don't have the right to tell someone on the footpath to bugger off. *That* is the point.

No it is not. They were declined permission to speak at locations by the owners. They were not denied permission to speak. They could have sought venues that were prepared to give them permission to lawfully present.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2069675 8-Aug-2018 09:46

The owners of Bruce Mason Centre are the residents of Auckland, not Phil Goff. Jan Thomas is not the owner of Massey University.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2069680 8-Aug-2018 09:51

kryptonjohn:

The owners of Bruce Mason Centre are the residents of Auckland, not Phil Goff. Jan Thomas is not the owner of Massey University.

The Auckland CC has been given powers by the electorate to mange the resources. The Vice Chancellor has been given delegated powers to manage the University.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2069682 8-Aug-2018 09:56

Open to interpretation as to whether you can go from there to making judgements about what's acceptable for us to be hearing. In particular WRT Massey University, you appear to be the only friend Jan Thomas has in this argument. The unified outcry against that decision from all sides of the spectrum has been remarkable.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2069713 8-Aug-2018 11:05

kryptonjohn:

Open to interpretation as to whether you can go from there to making judgements about what's acceptable for us to be hearing. In particular WRT Massey University, you appear to be the only friend Jan Thomas has in this argument. The unified outcry against that decision from all sides of the spectrum has been remarkable.

Whatever Don Brash is, he can hardly be accused of inciting public disorder. If I read correctly even the PM has criticised Massey. I've pulled the pin on a couple of minor business connections I have with Massey this morning. My actions are hardly going to scratch such a large business, but it's something I can do.

It's a disturbing trend to deny people venues to speak at because of the possible behaviour of demonstrators (whether for and/or against).

On that basis if you oppose anything/anyone you simply need a mob to make a scene outside and that will be the last time they speak anywhere. Even better, opposing mobs to square off.

Mike

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2069719 8-Aug-2018 11:29

MikeAqua:

kryptonjohn:

Open to interpretation as to whether you can go from there to making judgements about what's acceptable for us to be hearing. In particular WRT Massey University, you appear to be the only friend Jan Thomas has in this argument. The unified outcry against that decision from all sides of the spectrum has been remarkable.

Whatever Don Brash is, he can hardly be accused of inciting public disorder. If I read correctly even the PM has criticised Massey. I've pulled the pin on a couple of minor business connections I have with Massey this morning. My actions are hardly going to scratch such a large business, but it's something I can do.

It's a disturbing trend to deny people venues to speak at because of the possible behaviour of demonstrators (whether for and/or against).

On that basis if you oppose anything/anyone you simply need a mob to make a scene outside and that will be the last time they speak anywhere. Even better, opposing mobs to square off.

Yep it even has a name - "the heckler's veto".

What we've seen is a couple of unintended consequences - one is the granting of power to censor to the mob via this veto. The other is that people like these Canadians have been given a vast amount of free publicity. Thanks to the likes of Phil Goff, instead of talking to an audience of a few hundred at the Bruce Mason theatre, they got to have prime time TV spots on TV1 and TV3 and would have been delighted to have aired their possibly offensive views to millions. Without Goff's intrusion into the natural order, most people would never have heard of them.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2069722 8-Aug-2018 11:33

The Massey campus is huge, the P/North campus is the size of a small town. To secure the campus would have been very difficult and expensive. Why go through all that expense and risk to allow an irelevent failed politian to desperately try to get attention. His timing in my opinion is dubious as is his motives.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2069725 8-Aug-2018 11:38

MikeB4:

The Massey campus is huge, the P/North campus is the size of a small town. To secure the campus would have been very difficult and expensive. Why go through all that expense and risk to allow an irelevent failed politian to desperately try to get attention. His timing in my opinion is dubious as is his motives.

Because the alternative heckler's veto is repugnant and wrong. Let's not have a small minority ruling who gets to do what.

As to Brash's timing and motives? He was invited to speak. The text of his speech has been released - have you seen it? It was about life in politics. Nothing whatsoever that would incite anything. Yet you're suggesting some vast conspiracy here?

Good grief.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2069726 8-Aug-2018 11:42

kryptonjohn:

MikeB4:

The Massey campus is huge, the P/North campus is the size of a small town. To secure the campus would have been very difficult and expensive. Why go through all that expense and risk to allow an irelevent failed politian to desperately try to get attention. His timing in my opinion is dubious as is his motives.

Because the alternative heckler's veto is repugnant and wrong. Let's not have a small minority ruling who gets to do what.

As to Brash's timing and motives? He was invited to speak. The text of his speech has been released - have you seen it? It was about life in politics. Nothing whatsoever that would incite anything. Yet you're suggesting some vast conspiracy here?

Good grief.

Nope but I would suggest you are

I will leave to your views .

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2069741 8-Aug-2018 11:48

What does "His timing in my opinion is dubious as is his motives. " if it's not suggesting a conspiracy?

... Given that a) he was invited and b) his speech was not controversial?

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 26