Wednesday, July 11, 2018

A QUESTION THAT NEEDS AN ANSWER.



Phil Goff or as an Australian journo recently suggested more accurately Phil Cock, the Gauleiter of the City of Sails has a date with destiny.

The lifelong supporter of socialism even though never backward in enjoying all the benefits capitalism has bestowed on him whether earned or not,  has taken a "captains call" and banned a scheduled meeting at a north shore Council controlled venue that Herr Goff sees as his domain,  for two Canadians to hold a public meeting.

Now a man(advisedly) who saw fit to spit on and disrespect soldiers who had done their duty in a conflict that the youthful idiot saw as against his belief system, walks all over what many saw as a core reason those soldiers went to South Viet Nam to oppose militarily, a regime intent on denying such an act of expression that was in effect exercising "free speech".

Lauren Southern and Stephan Molyneux described in fake news sources as 'Far Right' a catch all phrase socialists employ to denigrate and hopefully silence anyone who dares to oppose all that the socialists hold dear, were scheduled to address a gathering at the small city owned and controlled venue.

In a city that hosts many venues where far mire disgusting views are promulgated on a regular basis, this is one terrible megalomaniac decision that might find favour with Nero, Pol Pot or Ceasceau,  but to many New Zealanders with a regard for the freedoms hard won and dearly held, it finally roused some disquiet.
Even Chris Trotter a widely read columnist from the political left was sufficiently moved to express his dismay.

Well the sudden appearance of a group  who decided to take action, launched an appeal for the fifty thousand dollars they were advised they would need to oppose The Cock in the courts.
Twenty four hours later they had the money and the bunch of legislation so admired by the luvvies will now be used to challenge that god awful act of high handed suppression of the basic right of free speech

The Cock suggests he has not banned them from speaking but when were things changed that a bunch of citizens who probably  fund much of  the wasted spend that the Council consumes on a daily basis, are to be denied by the Gauleiter  from hiring a venue for a lawful exercise.

I hope Mr Cock ends up with lots of egg on his face, after all there will be some Karma involved from his shameful efforts over half a century ago when he finds himself in the courts trying to defend what I and mmany others regaard as indefensible.

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nah twas a little deeper than that.
https://vietnamwar.govt.nz/sites/default/files/documents/manila-summit-communique.pdf

David said...

Now a man(advisedly) who saw fit to spit on and disrespect soldiers who had done their duty...

Fake news, urban legend, no truth to your fatuous claim. I wasn't in NZ at the time, but the same lies were told in Oz. As far as "disrespect" for the losers on their return from Vietnam goes, the Oz RSL was far worse, refusing to accept them as members.

Lauren Southern and Stephan Molyneux described in fake news sources as 'Far Right' ...

No, that is an accurate description of them. The only fake news is that somehow they are being denied their right to freeze peach because they have been denied venue hire. People get denied venue hire all the time for all sorts of reasons.

Friends don’t let friends listen to Stefan Molyneux.

No surprise that you worship a white supremacist. What are you going to do when the Maori come back?

Psycho Milt said...

Now a man(advisedly) who saw fit to spit on and disrespect soldiers...

This is one of those things right-wingers repeat to each other as though it were a fact, simply because they'd like to believe it's true. If I'm wrong about that, feel free to point out the compelling evidence for it and I'll apologise for suggesting it's just malicious bullshit peddled by the ill-informed.

Lauren Southern and Stephan Molyneux described in fake news sources as 'Far Right'...

...and also described, quite accurately, in regular news sources as 'far right.' That's because they're far right. White supremacist views are a known feature of the far right, and these two publish plenty of white supremacist views, albeit concealed to the extent a person can conceal their argument being that the White race is superior to others.

Goff has been very stupid about this. He clearly doesn't care about freedom of speech, but that's no different from the majority of people. Worse is that he's managed to make these racist fucks look like victims, which suits their business interests just fine.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

What marvelous witnesses lefties make.

One wasn't in the country at the time and the other wasn't even born but they'll both stand up in court and swear on a dog eared copy of Das Kapital that something which happened didn't happen.

The Veteran said...

I have no reason to be fair to Phil Goff but I don't think there is any evidence that he himself spat on returning Vietnam veterans. Some of his fellow travelers in the Progressive Youth Movement may have done so but not him. All that aside and Phycho Milt nails it in his final paragraph when he said that "Goff has been very stupid about this. Clearly he doesn't care about freedom of speech".

Banning can only be a last resort with the measure being 'is the activity planned likely to incite people to violence'. I have seen no evidence of that except perhaps for the usual rag tag bunch of protesters likely to turn up to the event and try to deny people wanting to attend right of entry (by whatever means).

That's a rather perverse argument. Because protesters are likely to want to stop people exercising their right of entry you ban the event. A more balanced response would be to request the Police to hold the protesters accountable for their actions.

Free speech comes with a price but it's a price worth paying if we are to live in a truly free society.

Noel said...

Goff claimed it was for security reasons. Given the chance of two sides with ultra views possibly getting at each other I can understand why he did it.
What's annoying with the threat to sue its the ratepayers that will have to mount the defence.

Psycho Milt said...

... the other wasn't even born...

That's very flattering, thank you!

...swear on a dog eared copy of Das Kapital that something which happened didn't happen.

Burden of proof. If I write that back in 1984 John Key put a turd in Jim Knox's letterbox, the onus is on me to provide evidence that it happened, not for other people to prove it didn't happen.

Psycho Milt said...

That's a rather perverse argument. Because protesters are likely to want to stop people exercising their right of entry you ban the event.

It's a very perverse argument. If Goff wanted to ban left-wing speakers because neo-Nazis might turn up and cause trouble, the same people currently praising him at The Standard would be frothing at the mouth with outrage. It's just a disingenuous figleaf for his real reason for banning it, that he finds the speakers' opinions offensive.

The Veteran said...

PM ... heh we agree to agree. This has to stop.

Anonymous said...

Under UK law he is within his rights to withhold council (govt) property to propagate hate speech from ANYBODY left right or centre under the "incitement to hatred act.

He is not banning free speech as they can stand on the corner of Queen street and talk their heads off but having heard them I personally find them liars and very offensive. As a taxpayer would you like to see your local hall used as venue to promote the views of the Nazi par?

Lord Egbut

paul scott said...

Pscho Milt calls the woman who went to South Arica to help white farmers a racist fuck.
Letters to the zombie Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway to boost the response of the Pretoria Office were met with disinterest.
PM is correct.
The fresh air which Molyneux gains from this exposure could not be purchased.

The hysterical left is losing voters steadily as the walk away tendency occurs all over the Western World, in response to reality, common sense, and evidence-based science.

David said...

Egbut, were such a meeting to be held, Adolf Scott would be in the front row chanting Blut und Boden

Psycho Milt said...

Pscho Milt calls the woman who went to South Arica to help white farmers a racist fuck.

I do, but that's because they're racist fucks. And if you think about it, you might figure out that citing their ardent support for White South Africans isn't exactly a compelling argument for them actually being anti-racist.

Anonymous said...

I think you have that wrong Psycho. There are many White Sth Africans, particularly in the lower socio economic area who were not even born in the apartheid era who are victims of racism......sins of the fathers perhaps. Being white in Sth Africa does not make you the bad guy or responsible for history which was beyond your control.

Defending the underdog on a individual basis does not label you a racist.

Lord Egbut

Psycho Milt said...

Oh, sure - there's nothing inherently racist about supporting White South Africans who are being discriminated against. I'm just saying that if someone's accused of being a white supremacist, pointing out how they went to great trouble to support white people isn't exactly a compelling counter-argument.

The Veteran said...

Milt/Egbut ... I am attracted to this comment from Noam Chomsky in relation to free speech ...

“It is a truism, hardly deserving discussion, that the defence of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of, and that it is precisely in the case of ideas found most offensive that these rights must be most vigorously defended.”

Censorship or punishment of hate speech often leads to repression of free speech – the equivalent of spraying the weeds and hitting the surrounding green grass. It breeds fear, conformity and reduces debate and discussion".

Egbut is probably right in arguing that Goff was acting lawfully (or perhaps better put ... not acting unlawfully)in denying Southern and Molyneux access to Council owned facilities but, in doing so, he was certainly striking a blow against free speech.

David said...

Veteran, Chomsky is correct; you are not.

Denying venue hire is not striking a blow against free speech. The two racists are still free to promulgate their heinous views. They have not been denied internet access. Their books have not been banned. They have not been jailed. They are not under threat of execution for their warped misuse of science. They have simply been told to look elsewhere for a venue to hold their torchlight rally.

As some may know, I run a Newsagency. That means selling, among other things, magazines. There are certain titles I will not stock, but that is not an imposition on the free speech of those authors, their work is available elsewhere. As repugnant as she is stupid, I do stock Pauline Hanson's collected speeches, not because I approve, but because of the LOLZs when customers pick it up. Lots of lolzs. No sales.

Were their books being banned, were they being imprisoned, simply for expressing their outdated, racists views, I would stand with them, but not over simply being told "Fuck off, spread your hate elsewhere".

But hey, if you want true entertainment look at all the racist snowflakes melting over at Blubber Boy's place. :-)



Tom Hunter said...

Denying venue hire is not striking a blow against free speech.

Thank goodness I'll never have to hear again from the Left all that moaning and bitching about....

The Hollywood blacklist – as the broader entertainment industry blacklist is generally known – was the practice of denying employment to screenwriters, actors, directors, musicians, and other American entertainment professionals during the mid-20th century because they were accused of having Communist ties or sympathies. Artists were barred from work on the basis of their membership, alleged membership in, or sympathy with the Communist Party USA, or their refusal to assist investigations into the party's activities.

Wonderful to now know that they were simply de-platformed. After all, they were still free to promulgate their communist beliefs through other means. :)

Psycho Milt said...

It has been a pretty depressing week. The arguments from leftist opponents of free speech have been mostly variations on "It's not restricting their speech because they could have used a different venue," which is right up there with "Putting a Whites Only sign on my restaurant is OK because there are other restaurants niggers can use," or variations on "but, but fascists," as though that were some kind of trump card that excuses you from needing an argument. Not chuffed.

David said...

jebus Milt, you're usually better than this.

Refusing to hire a venue to a person is in no way equivalent to refusing service to a whole class of persons based on attributes that are unchangeable, eg race. A nigger can not stop being a nigger (to use your term) but a racist CAN stop being a racist. Your restaurant analogy is closer to Little Red Hen refusing to serve Sanders, while happily serving other white women.

Just for argument's sake, what would be your attitude if Penguin declined to publish a book by this racist pair? Would that be an imposition on their free speech?

I am as close to a free speech absolutist as you will find, I believe everyone is entitled to free speech, but that does not make them entitled to a platform someone else owns. As I wrote above, restricting their free speech would be along the lines of book banning, imprisonment, etc., and were that to happen, I would be in their corner.



Tom Hunter said...

Oh don't be depressed Psycho. Just wait until hoardes of new fans turn up to hear these two - and find that Stefan Molyneux suffers from the worst sort of verbal diarrhea you can imagine. Now that will be drepressing.

Have you ever seen one of his YouTubes? I especially liked the ones from years ago when he was banging the Mens Rights drum, making multiple videos about how much he doesn't care about his mum, trashing his own family, trying to guilt his donating-fans (yes, they exist) into giving more money by taunting them about how small contributions told him that they'd had shitty childhoods with awful parents, etc, etc. One and half hours of free associative "thinking" uploaded to YouTube. The most incoherent, illogical pieces of shite you've ever seen.

Yeah - that's what the fans will be getting, but now on the new and fresh bandwagon of White Identity Politics. He'll still be just as boring and in love with the sound of his own voice.

Southern I can't say anything about, never having watched her, but I've seen the whole Pretty-Face-Shocking-People-To-Make-Web-Cash thing from others so...

Besides - she's hawt! :)

Psycho Milt said...

A nigger can not stop being a nigger (to use your term) but a racist CAN stop being a racist.

True but irrelevant. In both cases, it's denying access to facilities because you don't like the people who want access.

If it's OK for public officials to deny access to public facilities because the officials find your opinions offensive, good luck to anyone with fringe views trying to make use of public facilities. As someone with no shortage of fringe views, I can see why we shouldn't go there - what I can't see is why other people on the left want to go there.

Your restaurant analogy is closer to Little Red Hen refusing to serve Sanders, while happily serving other white women.

In this country, someone who did that would quite possibly have a Human Rights Commission case brought against her for discrimination based on political opinion, but that's something else I think is bullshit. I don't have a problem with owners of private businesses rejecting customers due to finding their political philosophies offensive, but that should be streng verboten for people administering public facilities.

Just for argument's sake, what would be your attitude if Penguin declined to publish a book by this racist pair? Would that be an imposition on their free speech?

It would be if Penguin were a public entity and advertised book publishing to anyone who was willing to put up some money for it.

I don't get this at all. It's not that Auckland Council is under the obligation to do stuff for anyone who asks, it's that you can't propose that an Auckland Council policy of "Not you, we don't like yer kind" is OK in this instance but not in other instances. It's either OK or it isn't.

Psycho Milt said...

Southern I can't say anything about, never having watched her...

I guess the main thing you need to know is that a cute Nazi is still a Nazi. Her business model is telling other white supremacists that Europe needs Whitey to stand up for his culture and stop the rot being caused by Muslim immigrants or the White race is doomed, doomed I tell ya!

Best rebuttal of her views I've seen was by YouTuber Shaun, from Liverpool. In a Scouse accent (paraphrased from memory): "What's actually brought Europe close to destruction during the last 100 years? Was it immigration and immigrants, or was it a nationalist identitarian movement concerned about the effects a minority group was having on their culture? Take your time..."

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Milt, so I guess your Prime Minister who is a cute Marxist is still a Marxist?

Psycho Milt said...

Having met many Marxists over the years, I can't see any basis for describing Jacinda Ardern as one. But, suppose she were one - that would still make her a far less unpleasant character than Lauren Southern. Marxists may have caused even more unpleasantness over the last 100 years than Nazis, but if you meet an individual Marxist you're meeting someone who hates the idea of the poor being exploited by the rich; meet an individual Nazi and you're meeting someone who believes in their racial superiority over other races, and in their right to use force to prevent other races diluting that alleged superiority. I know which one I'd rather see step in front of a bus.

Anonymous said...

I think that this forum is taking the idea of "free speech" too literally. There never has been completely free speech anywhere.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

I can only refer to you to the UK law on "incitement to hatred" and the French/German law on holocaust denial. Sometimes it is the public interest to restrict what propagated in public.

Lord Egbut

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

When you meet a Marxist you meet a chap who hates the idea of the poor being exploited by the rich so he shoots a few million poor people, steals their property and himself becomes rich.

David said...

As usual, so far off the mark, Adolf. You are describing a despot, rather like your BFF Donnie Two Scoops, who has made himself rich by stealing the labour and property of others, and is now using the US Presidency to further enrich himself and his hellspawn.

Egbut, on the money. At what point do we actively resist the racist hatred being spewed by these vile, disgusting, pretences to authority, Lauren Southern and Stephan Molyneux?

When Police are called on a black child selling lollies?

When Police are called on a black man mowing a lawn?

When children, who have not committed any crime, are locked in cages?

When the Police round up refugees and send them back to a certain death?

When refugee ships are denied port entry and sent back to the gas ovens?

Where is the line any of you will draw?

If you do not stand against evil then you stand for evil.

David said...

Lauren Southern and Stephan Molyneux at work.

Tom Hunter said...

They're time-travelling Police employed by the British State? It's worse than I thought.

What a pity that there weren't some Communist, or even Labour Party folk there to try and stop it.

Probably conducting a noisy protest elsewhere. :)

Anonymous said...

I see much slander and hatred expressed in these comments. I have yet to see it from their targets

Tom Hunter said...

I found Pyscho's "Scouser" Vblog on Ms. Southern. I wouldn't call her a Nazi - yet - but he demonstrates beyond doubt that she's pulling data from actual Nazi's, but his further points demonstrate to me that she doesn't read too deeply into her sources...

Shaun on Southern

Of course the one thing that "Shaun" is too relaxed about is the impact of Muslim immigrants not integrating/assimilating into Western societies, esp. Western Europe. I would have thought that events across the continent by 2017 might have led him to be a little less relaxed. If Lauren and compay are making the mistake of reading race into it all - so is he. Never mind, as events unfold we'll see how his arguments evolve.

Psycho Milt said...

I can only refer to you to the UK law on "incitement to hatred" and the French/German law on holocaust denial.

The French and the Germans have never placed any great value on freedom of speech, which makes them very poor role models on this issue. The British should know better.

There never has been completely free speech anywhere...

Sure. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, incitement to violence etc. Unpopular opinions, though? Seriously, what are people in western democracies thinking when they claim unpopular opinions aren't protected speech?

Psycho Milt said...

I see much slander and hatred expressed in these comments. I have yet to see it from their targets

Oh, take it from me, Marxists can get pretty stroppy...

Psycho Milt said...

Of course the one thing that "Shaun" is too relaxed about is the impact of Muslim immigrants not integrating/assimilating into Western societies, esp. Western Europe.

I think you're right. I can't see how a fascist revival might be an appropriate response, though.

Tom Hunter said...

I can't see how a fascist revival might be an appropriate response, though.

No. For me, this is where it gets depressing.