Last night the Maori academics came out in force to defend the Human Rights Commission -- who had used taxpayers money to pay "koha" to the Mongrel Mob. I grew up avoiding the Mob. I'm not Maori, and if I walked into one of their pubs (cannot remember if they ruled in the Star or Criterion pubs in Otahuhu -- Black Power were in the other one and you entered neither) or clubrooms I would not be able to crawl out. They run a fair amount of the drug trade. But saying this is wrong offends Maori. The Veteran puts it this way.
Woke thinking that would have you believe that the Mongrel Mob is just the Maori equivalent of Rotary or Lions. They’re not. They are a criminal gang who would have no compunction in ‘dealing’ to you should you cross them.
Judith Collins and David Seymour are right to call for the Human Rights Commission to be shut down (at least in its present form). By their actions you shall know them and in giving taxpayer money to a criminal organisation they have helped dig their own grave.
To the Maori academic (so called) who said ‘The day Maori people take advice from Judith about what is tikanga Maori is the day we will have entered to twilight zone’ I say mouthings like that undermine your own mana. Defending the indefensible behind the smokescreen of tikanga Maori is never a good option.
Well, that's true. It's also true that our government is trying to weasel out of pushing through a hate speech law, but they are as usual shortening the time one has to comment, and they are approaching the usual suspects.
On the campaign trail last year, Ardern raised eyebrows when she blithely told journalists she expected “wide support” for expanding existing hate-speech laws to include religion. When asked whether sexual orientation, age or disability could be included, she said, “Yeah.”
The Prime Minister, who had just unveiled a memorial plaque at Christchurch’s Al Noor mosque, added that she couldn’t understand why there would be resistance from other political parties. “I don’t see why there should be, and so that’s probably a question for every political party, but that’s certainly our view.”
After a firestorm erupted last week with the announcement of a new hate speech offence to be included in the Crimes Act that carries a maximum penalty of three years’ jail and a $50,000 fine, her display of confidence last September seems not so much naive as completely deluded.
The fiery reaction was entirely predictable for anyone who understands New Zealanders’ passive-aggressive relationship with authority. While most will tolerate stringent restrictions on their freedom in times of emergency — such as during war or at the height of a pandemic — a marked hostility to being told what we can say or how to behave lurks not far beneath. The furious opposition to Helen Clark’s anti-smacking law in 2007 should have given Ardern at least a tiny clue as to how her hate-speech proposals might be received.
Firm opposition to the proposed changes — which would expand the list of protected groups to include not only religion but possibly also sexuality, gender, age, disability and employment status — has come from across the political spectrum, ranging from John Minto on the left to Richard Prebble and Family First on the right and numerous other critics in between.
The fact that the opportunity for public comment is so short — and indeed that the public has been kept in the dark for so long — appears to be no accident. The Ministry of Justice has obviously not been as sanguine about the popularity of a law change as Ardern professed to be when campaigning.
The ministry has been quietly consulting “affected groups” — including the Muslim community — for some time, in a process driven behind the scenes by the Human Rights Commission, which has long been in favour of more restrictions on speech.
As the Ministry of Justice put it: “In 2019, the Ministry of Justice and the Human Rights Commission met with groups that are most likely to be targeted by hate speech to better understand their experiences and views.” Of course, they are the very groups most likely to be firmly in favour of a law change.
Graham Adams, The Democracy Project
I am aware that the woke and their Maori wedge activists would say "Nah, that's Pakeha. Those rules are colonailist". That is wrong, clearly wrong, and obviously wrong.
Only through hate can we understand the profundity of love. Only through love can we grasp the fury of hate.
Asking to give up hate is to give up your humanity, to strip love of all its force and make it no more important than a preference.
Without room for hate you have no reason to love. Without love, you aren’t human.
The Bible exhorts Christians to pray for our enemies, to not hate our brothers and neighbors.
We’re also told we will be hated by the world.
Biblical, sound hate isn’t aimed a specific person but at concepts. The Lord has called us to hate sin, hate wickedness, hate all the works of the Devil and his followers but to not hate specific people.
Those who would regulate hate speech do not want us to be human. The want us as zombies, slaves.
And that will not go down well here.