Paul Hunt is a Pom — but there are plenty of Poms who are good bastards. He was a good member of the Left Tendency of the Labour Party complete with their love of the Palestinians and their hate of free speech. He thinks the proposed hate speech bill is wonderful.
Never trust any commissioner appointed by tyrants.
Paul Hunt argues in his piece that hate speech is wrong because “it denies dignity and equality to individuals and communities”. Where is the dignity in the State sending police officers to knock at your door over opinions you’ve expressed? Where is the dignity for the family left without a father or mother while this parent sits in a prison cell, for up to three years, due to words they spoke? The freer the society, the more dignity. A society that censors speech to the degree we see in the proposed laws is a society with utter contempt for its citizens, and their dignity.
Hunt also talks of hate speech denying equality. But it is speech restrictions that deny equality. All you must do is think of the potential impact on feminists should laws be brought in that prohibit robust criticism of gender identity. The effect of such a law will unquestionably “stack the deck” against women and women’s issues. But these laws will go much further. They will very specifically violate the equality of minorities within our minority groups. Take, for example, anti-Zionist Jews within the Jewish community, minority Muslim sects like the Ahmadiyya community, and dissenting LGBT voices, such as lesbians who have all but been thrown out of PRIDE celebrations due to wrong- think. If international trends are anything to go by, nonconforming minorities have the most to fear from the proposed new laws.
Hunt writes in his piece “if you are powerful and privileged it is easy to dismiss the idea of boundaries indicating what is acceptable but if you are a member of a disadvantaged group or ethnic minority, faith community, sexual minority a woman or disabled person boundaries matter”. What Hunt is trying to say here is that minorities “get it” and that by promoting this illiberal policy he is somehow speaking for us. A recent poll commissioned by the Free Speech Union found that 42% of Muslims now oppose the proposed laws. The Jewish community was so split over them that many of the planned submissions were abandoned. Hunt is simply lying when he suggests minority groups are of one mind on this. The Human Rights Commission very carefully curates who it will speak to within our groups and simply ignores the perspectives that don’t bolster their arguments. This is a common talking point within our communities. This is seriously damaging to us because it denies us our diversity and sends a dangerous message to the public that the majority of us want to take our fellow New Zealander’s rights away. Be assured, this is simply not true.
The fact is, minorities know better than most of the importance of free speech – even nasty and truly offensive speech – because free speech was the central principle that delivered us full rights in the West. After claiming he is concerned about hate speech promulgating stereotypes, Hunt is trying to promote a picture of us to the public that is false.
Your average member of a minority group has far more to fear from the advocacy of individuals like Hunt and his speech restrictions than we do from offensive or even hateful speech.Dane Giraud, the BFD.
Giraud is Jewish. His perspective comes from having to deal with the suspicion of Christendom to the active persecution of the Jews — which is still happening in some places. The trouble is that we don’t have free speech. Try speaking against the need for COVID lockdown. Try saying that homosexuality was best described as a consequence of sin — citing Romans. Try quoting the Buddha against euthanasia.
You will find that the liberal woke have more stringent blasphemy laws than the inquisition.
You will find that when one produces data that does not fit the narrative the best you can do is get it into medarchiv, and if you do you will be damned by the vice chancellors, the ministers, the press and the twitter hate mob.
The NZ hate speech law is evil. You will get less time for assaulting a person than for offending them. It will be a disaster.
It’s worth noting that the same state is considering mandatory vaccinations. I find myself agreeing with Martyn Bradbury. Again.
Yes employers have the right to make vaccinations as part of a reason to hire someone, no employers can’t sack an existing employee for not being vaccinated, yes we should incentivize getting vaccinated, yes we need better community messaging no no no no no we can’t force mandatory vaccinations.
I know we want to, our fear of this damned plague bursting out and disrupting our lives again, getting us sick even after vaccination alongside our anger at the denial of science by these anti-vaxxers will propel us towards arguments and desires to enforce the vaccination on everyone but this is a direction all people of conscience, regardless of political perspective must avoid.TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The individual has intrinsic rights, we can’t force the individual to take a medicine they don’t consent to in such an invasive way, we simply can’t!
The type of State that would force an injection on an individual against their consent is no State to defend or support.
Right after getting the vaccination I’d be out protesting against forcing people to get the vaccination (while telling them they are fools to not get the vaccination!).
We have to win those who are vaccine hesitant over with good will while upholding our civil liberties!
I don’t mind incentives or exclusion as coercion to get people vaccinated but we can’t physically force people to get vaccinated.
Let’s just agree that we won’t and are not going to tie people down and force a syringe into their arm no matter how noble our cause because down that road lies a terrible darkness.Martyn Bradbery, the Daily Blog.
Hipkins did this by adjusting regulations a couple of days ago. This government is indefensible.