Fascist death threats in New Zealand

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

Forums › Politics › Fascist death threats in New Zealand

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2051702 8-Jul-2018 20:28

JimmyH:

I don't like "alt-right" as it's more of a perjorative that's tossed freely around to discredit people than a meaningful description.

No, it's not a pejorative. It's a term that was adopted by white supremacists and nationalists.

JimmyH:

In any event neither the left nor the right, insofar as such labels still have meaning, has a monopoly on this type of despicable behavior. Bully-boy tactics, ranging from using physical intimidation and mob-violence disruption all the way through to death threats and actual killing, are regrettably standard techniques for political extremists. They have been since Og disagreed with Thrag about who should lead the tribe in the mammoth hunt, were documented feature of organised politics since well before Roman times, and are still with us today. Neither the left, the old right or the "alt-right" invented them.

Quite true. Extreme right dictatorships are no different than extreme left dictatorships. Any government that use power (in any form) to oppress their citizenry is not a valid government.

JimmyH:

If they find who made the death threats then they should suffer suitable judicial consequences. It is imbecilic, criminal and inexcusable behaviour.

Absolutely.

JimmyH:

Having said that, I am also appalled that Goff and Davidson have sided with people threatening violence and intimidation, rather than backing free speech. The correct response is to support free speech (even if you loathe the speaker and what they are saying) and then rebut them. In a liberal democracy, I would have hoped that politicians of all hues would have agreed on the importance of protecting free speech, and particularly political speech.

They don't have to provide or make available a platform for the speech though.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2051717 8-Jul-2018 21:06

freitasm:

They don't have to provide or make available a platform for the speech though.

Agree with this. But who gets to decide? In this case Phil Goff, and thats where I start getting uneasy.

Every New Zealander has the right to freedom of expression, religion and belief, and peaceful assembly.

Just because we don't agree with those views, it does not give anybody the right to try and shut it down. Is that itself not also bordering on discrimination? IMO shutting down freedom of expression has no place in a democratic society. As Everlyn Beatrice Hall one wrote, "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Edit: Comments are not relating to hate speech/death threats. Post is relating to Phil Goff view that the pair would be banned from be speaking at any council venues.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2051727 8-Jul-2018 21:29

I think in this case there was precedent based on pré ious speaking engagements from this people to br pretty sure the topic would be not in line with our views of human rights and equality.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2051731 8-Jul-2018 21:40

The free speech argument is a phony one. Some speech should never be free. People who respect civilised values play by the rules. Those who want to tear it all down do not. This is what is happening in America right now. People like these should not be given the same rights as others. They play the system, abuse the rules, and inject their venom like invading viruses. If sex-starved morons with tiny dicks want to listen to this kind of rubbish, there is plenty of opportunity on the Internet. We don't have to invite them in.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2051735 8-Jul-2018 22:04

Rikkitic:

The free speech argument is a phony one. Some speech should never be free. People who respect civilised values play by the rules. Those who want to tear it all down do not. This is what is happening in America right now. People like these should not be given the same rights as others. They play the system, abuse the rules, and inject their venom like invading viruses. If sex-starved morons with tiny dicks want to listen to this kind of rubbish, there is plenty of opportunity on the Internet. We don't have to invite them in.

However, to turn it on it's head, there are a number of examples in history where free speech has eventually changed regimes.

Likewise, humans are IMV cyclical. What you today regard as speech which should never be free could in 100 or 200 years or whatever be completely the status quo and what you now believe to be acceptable could be deeply unacceptable.

Personally I think people should be able to say whatever they like; nobody has to listen to them, take any notice of them or whatever. If people do respond positively to whatever it is that they are saying, however, surely that indicates that whatever it is (and I am not referring to the original subject of this thread when I say that, merely a generic 'thing' that a person might be espousing) is in fact more of a popular view than was originally thought to be the case.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2051736 8-Jul-2018 22:12

Rikkitic:

The free speech argument is a phony one. Some speech should never be free. People who respect civilised values play by the rules. Those who want to tear it all down do not. This is what is happening in America right now. People like these should not be given the same rights as others. They play the system, abuse the rules, and inject their venom like invading viruses. If sex-starved morons with tiny dicks want to listen to this kind of rubbish, there is plenty of opportunity on the Internet. We don't have to invite them in.

You bordering on hate-speech Rikkitic. Attacking a person, or group on the bases of gender, or even a disability, "small dicks". Also can only mean "Men". Sometimes I dont know why I even bother replying to you? There is no need to swoop this low, we should try and keep it clean to prevent this thread becoming like the others.

Besides you doing a good job contradicting yourself, your argument against free speech "some speech should never be free" certainly takes full advantage of your right to exercise free speech.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2051741 8-Jul-2018 22:24

Geektastic:

However, to turn it on it's head, there are a number of examples in history where free speech has eventually changed regimes.

Likewise, humans are IMV cyclical. What you today regard as speech which should never be free could in 100 or 200 years or whatever be completely the status quo and what you now believe to be acceptable could be deeply unacceptable.

Personally I think people should be able to say whatever they like; nobody has to listen to them, take any notice of them or whatever. If people do respond positively to whatever it is that they are saying, however, surely that indicates that whatever it is (and I am not referring to the original subject of this thread when I say that, merely a generic 'thing' that a person might be espousing) is in fact more of a popular view than was originally thought to be the case.

I don't live 200 years from now. I live today and I don't want this kind of crap in my world. I don't want to have to close my ears to it. I don't want it in my environment at all.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2051742 8-Jul-2018 22:26

Rikkitic:

I don't live 200 years from now. I live today and I don't want this kind of crap in my world. I don't want to have to close my ears to it. I don't want it in my environment at all.

Perhaps its easier to practice tolerance.

There are people in this world with very different views to our own. Its how the world works. It's not all about you, and what you want. Deal with it.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2051745 8-Jul-2018 22:46

Wiggum:

You bordering on hate-speech Rikkitic. Attacking a person, or group on the bases of gender, or even a disability, "small dicks". Also can only mean "Men". Sometimes I dont know why I even bother replying to you? There is no need to swoop this low, we should try and keep it clean to prevent this thread becoming like the others.

Besides you doing a good job contradicting yourself, your argument against free speech "some speech should never be free" certainly takes full advantage of your right to exercise free speech.

As @Fred99 pointed out, the Barbie chick is designed to appeal to certain men. I merely provided a description of incels, who are most likely to be the ones she attracts. I have zero tolerance for these vermin, especially when they start anonymously threatening rape and murder, and I make no apologies for belittling them. If I could think of anything stronger, I would say it.

Apart from that, I don't feel a huge need for your replies, so you are welcome not to bother if you prefer. Free speech is like the freedom to bear arms. If used irresponsibly, it can do incalculable damage. Impassioned debate is not the same as unbridled demagoguery. There is far too much tolerance for those who pervert the ideals others try to live by.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2051746 8-Jul-2018 23:17

Wiggum:

Every New Zealander has the right to freedom of expression, religion and belief, and peaceful assembly.

Just because we don't agree with those views, it does not give anybody the right to try and shut it down. Is that itself not also bordering on discrimination? IMO shutting down freedom of expression has no place in a democratic society. As Everlyn Beatrice Hall one wrote, "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Edit: Comments are not relating to hate speech/death threats. Post is relating to Phil Goff view that the pair would be banned from be speaking at any council venues.

If you're going to quote legislation, please do the rest of us a favour and (1) have the intellectual honesty to quote other relevant parts of the legislation and (2) understand the legislative context. For those of us who care about facts, let me perform this task for you.

Justified limitations

Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Here's a suggestion for you, go read the NZBORA from beginning to the end and then note section 5. Absorbing the lesson that it is most advisable to understand something properly before blathering on will prevent embarrassment and, more importantly, the reasonable suspicion that you're cherry-picking your arguments, especially when you miss something blatantly obvious. And in case you're tempted to cherry-pick again, don't for one moment think that s 4 will help your argument. It won't.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2051748 8-Jul-2018 23:24

Geektastic:

Personally I think people should be able to say whatever they like; nobody has to listen to them, take any notice of them or whatever. If people do respond positively to whatever it is that they are saying, however, surely that indicates that whatever it is (and I am not referring to the original subject of this thread when I say that, merely a generic 'thing' that a person might be espousing) is in fact more of a popular view than was originally thought to be the case.

Another terribly flawed argument from you. Just because lots of people believe in something, it doesn't make the belief morally justifiable.

Are you trolling?

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2051796 9-Jul-2018 08:56

@dejadeadnz

Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Here's a suggestion for you, go read the NZBORA from beginning to the end and then note section 5. Absorbing the lesson that it is most advisable to understand something properly before blathering on will prevent embarrassment and, more importantly, the reasonable suspicion that you're cherry-picking your arguments, especially when you miss something blatantly obvious. And in case you're tempted to cherry-pick again, don't for one moment think that s 4 will help your argument. It won't.

Perhaps you can care to explain how a free and democratic society can co-exist with denying a gathering of those with different viewpoints? Perhaps you should be questioning your belief of that free and democratic society. Is it really free if we want to suppress the thoughts or gatherings of certain individuals? Freedom means the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.

On what grounds is this pair being banned from speaking? Perhaps you can point out what laws their speeches will be breaking here.

"Hate speech is just a fancy word to describe speech that is unpopular during that day and age," she said.

"A few hundred years ago, I wouldn't be able to question the divine rule of whatever god is in my land, I wouldn't be allowed to be pro-gay or pro-mixed race marriages, today it's you're not allowed to be anti-mass migration, you're not allowed to question crazy LGBTQ politics."

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/361220/far-right-pair-banned-from-speaking-at-auckland-council-venues-phil-goff

dejadeadnz:

Just because lots of people believe in something, it doesn't make the belief morally justifiable.

What defines that "morally justifiable"? What are you basing it on? What is morally justifiable? Its different all the time and is never set in stone. Your morally justifiable is different from everybody else's.

As already mentioned, what is "morally justifiable" today, may not be "morally justifiable" in 25 years from now. You can't suppress people because their beliefs are different to your own, that's very dangerous territory. IMO Free speech means people can say what they like, nobody has the right to get offended. Its a different discussion on whether we have free speech in NZ, I don't believe we do anymore.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2051797 9-Jul-2018 08:58

Wiggum:

Perhaps its easier to practice tolerance.

There are people in this world with very different views to our own. Its how the world works. It's not all about you, and what you want. Deal with it.

In the particular case this is about, those people aren't just "calling me names" because of my skin colour or whatever, but advocating and endorsing fundamental change to society so that I can be singled out and persecuted and denied individual rights. Rights that you enjoy - and I'm sure you'd expect that government should act to protect you from threats to those rights - even at the point of a gun if it ever came to that.

It is personal. It actually is about you and me.

Tolerating intolerance always leads to slaughter. (Source = human history).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2051799 9-Jul-2018 09:05

Wiggum:

Its a different discussion on whether we have free speech in NZ, I don't believe we do anymore.

Dead right we don't. Bob Jones threatened to sue the individual who launched a petition to have him stripped of his knighthood.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2051800 9-Jul-2018 09:05

Rikkitic:

As @Fred99 pointed out, the Barbie chick is designed to appeal to certain men. I merely provided a description of incels, who are most likely to be the ones she attracts.

OK so is this what its about then? Perhaps she appeals to certain women too. Now you judging her on her looks.

Rikkitic:

There is far too much tolerance for those who pervert the ideals others try to live by.

Probably not enough tolerance IMO. We should not judge others, we need to accept anything another person believes. Don't need to believe it ourselves. Telling them they wrong is being intolerant.

I'm out of this one....

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7