Peters, Bridges support free speech

Both acting Prime Minister Winston Peters and national leader Simon Bridges have spoken in favour of free speech after Auckland mayor Phil Goff banned Canadians Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux from speaking at an Auckland City Council owned venue. Southern and Molyneux subsequently cancelled their New Zealand visit.

Concerns were initially raised by Auckland peace action – Auckland ‘alt-right’ event cancelled due to ‘health and safety’.

“Auckland Peace Action (APA) called on the Government to not allow the speakers entry to New Zealand.” The group also threatened to disrupt the event, saying: “If they come here, we will confront them on the streets. If they come, we will blockade entry to their speaking venue”.

Goff:

Views that divide rather than unite are repugnant and I have made my views on this very clear. Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux will not be speaking at any council venues.

1 News: Winston Peters would have let far-right commentators talk at venue on ‘basis of free speech’

During a press conference today, Peters said if it were up to him he would have let the Canadian pair talk, after Auckland Mayor Phil Goff said he would not let any Auckland Council venue to be used by them.

The Acting Prime Minister said “despite the fact that what they might have to say is a very antithesis of what nearly all of us believe here, we still believe in their freedom and their right to express it in free speech.”

He said if it had been up to him, “we’d have allowed them to come on the basis of free speech”.

“We should be very careful who we expel on that cause because the downstream historically record on that has been just disastrous,” Mr Peters said.

Good to hear him saying this.

He also questioned whether the mayor had made the decision alone or with council approval.

Fair question…

Auckland Live, who run the Bruce Mason Centre where they were to speak, tweeted the cancellation was due to “security concerns around the health and safety of the presenters, staff and patrons”.

This came after Mr Goff tweeted the pair would not be speaking at Auckland Council venues last Friday.

…that will probably go unanswered by Goff.

Simon Bridges backs free speech for far-right writers banned from Auckland Council venues

National leader Simon Bridges says two Canadian far-right writers should be able to come to New Zealand and speak, even if people disagree with their views.

Bridges told TVNZ’s Breakfast show today he strongly disagreed with the pair’s views but freedom of speech was important.

“I disagree strongly with what these activists are saying but I think it’s a dangerous thing to say ‘because we don’t like what you’re saying we won’t let you in’.

“I can see how [Goff] made his decision but I wouldn’t have banned them from coming to New Zealand. We should allow people we strongly disagree with to come. We’re a mature, liberal democracy.”

With some of the comments made over the cancelled visit of Southern and Molyneux, and a lot political commentary and debate, I would question how mature our democracy is.

In contrast Green co-leader Marama Davidson backed Goff’s decision:

Good to use our freedom of speech to say your racist bigoted views aren’t going to be catered for here. Thanks Phil. These two can get out.

It wasn’t ‘freedom of speech’ that Goff used, it was abuse of mayoral power to suppress free speech at a council owned venue.

Green MP Golriz Ghahraman‏ also backed the Goff/Auckland Council ‘public safety’ excuse for not allowing the Canadians to use the North Shore venue.

I haven’t seen anything from Auckland Live or Ghahraman‏  that backs up their concerns about public safety.

Penny Bright responded to Ghahraman‏ on Twitter:

I have a proven track record in defence of freedom of expression (particularly under former Auckland City Council at Town Hall and the former Ak City Council Building). I don’t accept Mayor Phil Goff has the lawful right to decide who has access to Ak Council venues.

Rogan Mortimer has started a petition Protect Lauren Southern Event but it has just 145 ‘signatures’ in four days.

Juana Atkins also has a petition: Defend Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux’s right to freedom of speech in New Zealand.

This petition is to send a strong message that we will not allow people who are scared of criticism of their ideas to silence their critics and to prevent those who want to listen to them from attending the events of their choice.

When we book tickets we expect the venue to not be cowed by bullying groups who are NOT their customers into cancelling the event.

That includes a stupid photo of Southern holding two firearms – it has more signatures (currently 1204), presumably promoted on Whale Oil, but that won’t make many free speech waves.

It’s always funny to see people from Whale Oil promoting free speech when it suits them, given their history of banning many people trying to speak freely there.

Another petition, this one opposing free speech: Stop Lauren Southern from entering New Zealand

We, the undersigned concerned residents of New Zealand petition the Minister Of Immigration of New Zealand to stop Laurence Southern from entering New Zealand.

Laurence Southern is a Canadian born far right political activist. She has blasphemous views on Islam where she has used terms like “‘Allah is gay God”. She also has very strong anti-cultural / multi-racialism views. NZ is a very multi racial country with a rich mixed cultural heritage.  According to section 61 of NZ Humans Rights Act, this is hate speech. Her visit to NZ and public appearances are conducive for upheaval in the tolerant multiracial New Zealand.

By allowing Lauren into the country can easily stir religious and cultural sensitivities. This can manifest itself chaos and disharmony within our peaceful community and country.

UK have banned Lauren Southern and we request that the New Zealand Government do likewise.

Currently 2,696 signatures.

And yesterday a fund raising campaign was launched to force Auckland Council to respect free speech

A crowd funding campaign has been launched to raise money to bring judicial review proceedings against Phil Goff and Auckland Council for their banning of speakers Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern at Council-owned venues.

New Zealanders who value free speech can pledge money to this cause at http://www.freespeechcoalition.nz.

Supporters of the group include:
Dr. Michael Bassett – Former Labour Party Minister
Dr. Don Brash – Former leader of the National and Act Parties, and former Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand
Ashley Church – Business Leader
Dr. David Cumin – Senior Lecturer University of Auckland
Melissa Derby – University of Canterbury Academic
Stephen Franks – Lawyer
Paul Moon – Historian and a Professor, Auckland University of Technology
Lindsay Perigo – Broadcaster
Rachel Poulain – Writer
Chris Trotter – Political Commentator
Jordan Williams – Lawyer

Mayor Phil Goff has opened Auckland Council up to judicial review, as it is likely breaching the Bill of Rights Act (freedom of speech), and potentially the Human Rights Act (freedom from discrimination on the basis of political opinion). The Council is subject to both Acts.

This is an all or nothing campaign. If the $50,000 is not raised by 5pm Friday, then all funds will be returned to donors, and the Coalition will not proceed with further action.

The Coalition’s intention is, firstly, to force Auckland Council to reopen the Bruce Mason Centre to these speakers by August 3, the date that had been scheduled for the event. Secondly, and most importantly, we aim to set a precedent demonstrating that government bodies will face firm legal consequences if they breach the rights to freedom of speech and freedom from political discrimination that are laid out in law.

The visit has already been cancelled – that happened quite quickly – so I think this is fairly futile.

However there does seem to be an important debate here – free speech versus ‘protecting’ people from hearing things they disagree with.

I note that attendance at the proposed event with Southern and Molyneux was not compulsory.

Leave a comment

74 Comments

  1. Blazer

     /  July 10, 2018

    Goff banned them from Council venues.Free speech is important and they should be allowed to be heard.
    They can’t have much stamina…plenty of other venues around.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  July 10, 2018

      I imagine anyone with a private venue available would be having to calculate the cost of security & the imaginable potential harm & harassment of anyone attending, & venue damage, from crazed & angry lefties accusing them of unspeakable vileness?

      Reply
    • admiralvonspee

       /  July 10, 2018

      Can they use a DHB if they get….attacked?

      Reply
  2. Grimm

     /  July 10, 2018

    Our left wing politicians have been appalling on this.

    Phil Goff has completely forgotten who actually owns the public buildings. Since when did a Mayors political views interfere with the use if public spaces?

    And since when did fringe Marxists and Muslims become the ruling junta in NZ? Democracy is rooted if we let these idiots decide who can and can’t speak.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  July 10, 2018

      have to agree with you on this.

      Reply
      • Grimm

         /  July 10, 2018

        I expect you won’t make a habit of it.

        It’s hard to believe that there is even a debate about this. But maybe there really is a generation that really doesn’t understand what free speech is, and how many fine young people have died in it’s name. When Goff protested the Vietnam War, you would think that his ability to do that as freely as he could, would have stayed with him for life. You would think he would be the last man standing, defending free speech.

        Reply
  3. Gezza

     /  July 10, 2018

    How did this silly Gharahman twerp get into bloody Parliament? Last night she was briefly on 1ewes saying the government shouldn’t be buying the P8’s because they have war-making capability. What the hell went wrong here??

    Reply
    • Grimm

       /  July 10, 2018

      This morning, she was ok with buying the planes, but not the missiles that they are capable of carrying.

      Because we should put our military personnel in harm’s way, with no way of defending themselves.

      Reply
      • Gharahman has very conflicting ideas with the inalienable right to freedom of expression on the one hand and and the right of all citizens to a defence on the other.

        She stretched credibility with a rose coloured interpretation of her Rwanda and other war criminal involvement and has done nothing subsequently to reassure me of her integrity. She has gone doen even further in my estimation by supporting Goff’s stance over Lauren Southern, In my opinion Southern is a deeply conservative woman with a few strident opinions on preserving the best of the west as she sees it. She’s only 22 fgs.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  July 10, 2018

          How old should she be before we start taking her…seriously?

          Reply
    • David

       /  July 10, 2018

      “How did this silly Gharahman twerp get into bloody Parliament?”

      Intersectional bingo.

      Reply
  4. Blazer

     /  July 10, 2018

    Golriz was making her case on RNZ this morning and pointed out the armament capabilities impacted on the price big time.
    The primary tasks of these craft is not meant to be military.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  July 10, 2018

      The primary role of the military is to have military capability. Our Defence forces are required to interoperate with other Defence forces to be effective in Defence. Their role in maritime surveillance is not just search & rescue. I think we should have gone with the P1’s but they had warmaking capability too.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  July 10, 2018

        Ron Mark was on checkpoint last night and came across as very knowledgable and made a compelling case for the purchase.
        NZ may be a bit late entering the ‘arms race’!

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  July 10, 2018

          Fair enuf. I didn’t see that. It would be good to get SOMETHING for our military that is fit for purpose after so many silly buys in the past.

          Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  July 10, 2018

      The planes are specced to the requirements of the buyer.
      Fur us:
      “P-8As with associated equipment and support, including engines, electro-optical and infrared sensors, radar, an acoustic system, electronic support measures, laser transmitters, missile warning sensors, embedded GPS systems, system processors and mission software, valued at US$1.46 billion.”
      No sign of missile delivery in that list.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  July 10, 2018

        I think including engines was a …good move.

        Reply
      • J Bloggs

         /  July 10, 2018

        It will fall under the “Mission Software” i.e. the weapons targeting and control package. The criterion of having inter-operability with the RAAF (who do have the actual missiles) means that we get the capability as well (This is a GOOD THING!)

        Given that the P-8’s will have hardpoints and weapons bays built in as part of the design, I suspect it would probably cost more to get a custom airframe version without them

        Reply
    • David

       /  July 10, 2018

      “The primary tasks of these craft is not meant to be military.”

      Why are they being bought by the air force then? Shouldn’t they be coastguard or something if they are just their for SAR?

      Reply
  5. Bridges said.

    “We should allow people we strongly disagree with to come. We’re a mature, liberal democracy.”

    No we’re not at all Simon. I vote National to ensure this central premise and I expect you to be far more fervent on this core principal of mine.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  July 10, 2018

      Would you welcome Professor David Irving an expert on WW2 to speak here?

      Reply
      • He’s not an expert, he’s a liar who’s been totally discredited. He’s a Holocaust denier who has not only no credibility now, he’s a rabid antiSemite,

        Isn’t he in prison ?

        Reply
      • Trevors_Elbow

         /  July 10, 2018

        I would, so his arguments could be deconstructed and he would be seen for what he is….

        Goff has vastly over reached in his decision. The venue is owned by the People of Auckland not by his voting base or political tribe. His bias is overwhelming on display and its a major mistake by him…

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  July 10, 2018

          I believe he was barred from entering NZ in 2004.

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  July 10, 2018

            Also under a Labour Government – I can see a trend emerging here.

            “Linda Clark asked Acting Prime Minister Michael Cullen, isn’t Irving’s viewpoint on the Holocaust what is really blocking his entry here? “Well, the nature of what he says is certainly part of it,” Cullen agreed. “How he says it, and what the likely reaction might be …”

            It is a political call, in other words. How much ruckus, how much offence to whom, may ensue – and even, how many diplomatic brownie points might the government regain by barring Irving, after its conflict with Israel about the recent passport scandal?”

            https://www.noted.co.nz/archive/listener-nz-2004/the-right-to-repel/

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  July 10, 2018

              Did you find any vigorous support from National M.P’s to allow Irving entry…?

            • High Flying Duck

               /  July 10, 2018

              I think National was still a minor party back then – just before the rise of Brash. I couldn’t find any mention of National.
              However most media, Universities and civil liberties groups were very upset with Cullen and Clark over the decision, much as he cut a ridiculous and discredited figure.

            • Blazer

               /  July 10, 2018

              ‘I think National was still a minor party back then’…oh yeah…14 years ago…no one had hardly heard of National then…very good.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  July 10, 2018

              They had reached the giddy heights of 21% in the previous election…hardly any MP’s in parliament (27 out of 120). They were still rebuilding and were hopeless until Brash took over and the numbers went up again.
              ACT, (9 seats) NZ First (13 seats), the Greens (9 seats), United Future (8 seats) and even the Progressives (2 seats) all had meaningful representation.
              No one wanted to listen to anything they said.
              But if you want to make stupid literal comments to misinterpret what I said…free speech is for all (except when Labour oppose it).

            • Blazer

               /  July 10, 2018

              National were still the main opposition party ,so to say they had nothing to say because no one was listening is ludicrous.Brash was grandstanding all over the place.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  July 10, 2018

              Well I could find nothing in the media that mentioned anyone from any party other than Labour – Clark and Cullen (who said Irving’s views were “vomit inducing”).
              Feel free to do some research yourself though.

            • Blazer

               /  July 10, 2018

              so you and National supporters would definately be in favour of Irving being allowed to talk here I take it.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  July 10, 2018

              I couldn’t care less if he speaks here. He’s just as wrong wherever he speaks, but I wouldn’t deny him that right.
              To my mind, people like Irving force high quality historical rigor to ensure the closest version of what really happened is revealed and promoted.

              I get a bit queasy around anti-vaxxers and the like as they do genuine harm, but stifling them just leads to conspiracy theorists banging on about corporates silencing dissent so on balance even they should be allowed to spout their nonsense as well..

  6. Zedd

     /  July 10, 2018

    I support Free speech, but Golriz makes good points; deliberately whipping up hatred & agendas threatening others.. avoiding a godwin.. again 🙂

    Reply
  7. J Bloggs

     /  July 10, 2018

    For once, I don’t have a problem with Goff’s decision. I support the right of venue operators to choose which acts can perfrom in thier spaces.

    And this narrative about preventing free speech is just bollocks. Goff can’t ban them from coming to NZ – he’s the mayor of Auckland, not minister for immigration. They are perfectly capable of coming to NZ and arranging a different venue to speak at – they have just chosen not to (Personally, I suspect the promoter realised this was going to be a loss making proposition, and has decided this makes a good excuse to cut and run).

    Nobody forced these people to cancel their trip to NZ. They chose to do so. And given they have done so in such a way as supports thier narrative as “speakers to power” and reinforce thier “brand”, I wouldn’t be surprised if they are not unhappy about the outcome.

    (Savings from cutting a small market (high cost, low income) leg from thier tour + increased media profile = win for them)

    Reply
    • artcroft

       /  July 10, 2018

      I wasn’t aware Goff owned all council property. Winning the mayoralty has made him a wealthy man.

      Reply
      • J Bloggs

         /  July 10, 2018

        Really???? That lame-ass strawman is the best you can do?

        Reply
      • Corky

         /  July 10, 2018

        Arty, Bloggs is ready for a good leading. Couldn’t happen to a nicer entity.

        Reply
    • Grimm

       /  July 10, 2018

      “And this narrative about preventing free speech is just bollocks”

      Except that in your first paragraph you’re happy for Goff to restrict it for those with different ideas.

      Ratepayers own the buildings. Politicians don’t get to decide the stripes of those that speak in them. Because if it comes down to a popularity contest, the Greens would never get access to a public building.

      Reply
      • J Bloggs

         /  July 10, 2018

        Except that Goff doesn’t control every possible venue in Auckland, or anywhere else in the country. There is nothing stopping the promoters from hiring a different venue, except that it suits their narrative (and thier wallets) to cancel the tour instead.

        That’s why the preventing free speech narrative is bollocks.

        Reply
        • Grimm

           /  July 10, 2018

          You seem master of the strawman yourself.

          Goff can’t restrict access to even ONE building. That’s the principle at play here.

          Reply
          • J Bloggs

             /  July 10, 2018

            You are saying that the person elected to be in charge of the organisation that owns the venue has no right to say who can or cannot use that venue. I disagree.

            I am saying that being prevented from using one venue doesn’t preclude the speaker from seeking out and using another venue, so the claim that free speech is being prevented is bollocks that suits the narrative of the speaker. You disagree

            I think we’re arguing different points here, and I don’t think we are going to come to agreement.

            How about we agree to disagree, and leave it at that

            Reply
            • Grimm

               /  July 10, 2018

              “You are saying that the person elected to be in charge of the organisation that owns the venue has no right to say who can or cannot use that venue”

              No. That’s another strawman.

              Goff is using his political opinion dictate who speaks at council venues.

        • MaureenW

           /  July 10, 2018

          Looks like Phil has taken it upon himself to be the gate-keeper of Auckland Council owned venues and to define what’s appropriate for people to talk about.

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

          Reply
          • Grimm

             /  July 10, 2018

            It’s a pity the objectors don’t get described as “far-left”.

            When all you have is a smear (far right) as your reason, you’ve lost.

            Reply
        • sorethumb

           /  July 10, 2018

          Just out of interest how many alternative venues are there?

          Reply
    • Trevors_Elbow

       /  July 10, 2018

      What bollocks Bloggs. The ACC vennues are owned by all the peoples of Auckland – Goff is merely a proxy for them. And not all the people of Auckland are Lefties.

      Goff has made a biased political call and misused his powers by doing so in my view

      Dressing up as a H&S issue because LEFTIE extremists are threatening violence is a piss poor excuse.. Put a decent police force in place and let the extremists protest – then everyones freedom of speech is protected..

      The straw man ‘there are other venues’ argument is bullshit as well… Goff has vastly overreached and discriminated on the basis of the venue hirer’s political beliefs… that may well be illegal under the BOR. The hirers had every rigth to hire the venue, Goff had no right to ban them because he disagrees with their views…

      You’re tribal bias is shining through your attempted argument

      Reply
  8. lurcher1948

     /  July 10, 2018

    I think the Canadian Alt Right Nazis should rent Edan Park, kiwiblog,whaleoil,the young nats the local feral white supremacists and chris trotter, should fill the place up,Complimentary Kiwi torches as used by the white supremacist KKK in Charlotville will be for sale to pay the local kiwiblog posting KKK who will be providing security

    Reply
  9. PartisanZ

     /  July 10, 2018

    Today, at least, I couldn’t give a stuff either way …

    The numbers are obviously huge judging by the petition signers … with those in favour of prevention more-or-less double those supporting the Alt-Right ‘cure’ …

    The latter comprise a whopping 0.038% of voting-age New Zealanders …

    I’ve encountered that number … roughly 1200 … and that percentage *elsewhere* …

    I wonder if its the exact same people?

    These ‘speakers’ probably just needed to hire a smaller venue?

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  July 10, 2018

      Lol..funny guy. But..what if being cool means being Conservative or Alt-Right, whatever that is?

      Don’t forget nowdays it’s all about being cool.

      You may not give a stuff..but be careful you don’t become stuffed.

      Reply
  10. lurcher1948

     /  July 10, 2018

    Wow,24 hrs to raise $50000, now they can take on the Auckland CC, then they can moan at the rates money been used to defend the mayors safety decision and then moan when the nazis cannot come into the country…the right are strange creatures

    Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  July 10, 2018

      Free speech is a very important issue that deserves to be fought over. It is Goff who is well out of line and should shoulder the responsibility for any cost.

      Reply
      • lurcher1948

         /  July 10, 2018

        BA HA HA HA that’s what you have ratepayers for

        Reply
        • High Flying Duck

           /  July 10, 2018

          Incompetent as our recent trail of left leaning councils has been – Auckland rates are still lower than most (thankfully).

          Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  July 10, 2018

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  July 10, 2018

        Question: Will a judge rule against a Mayor and an official regional government organisation?

        I doubt it.

        Rough twenty years ago the new photo driver license law was tested in court. While the judge agreed the appellant had a strong case he had to rule against him because it would cause too much bureaucratic trouble for the sitting government.

        WT.

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  July 10, 2018

          *ROUGHLY*

          Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  July 10, 2018

          Yes, I remember that disgraceful judicial capitulation to expediency. They have also repeatedly swallowed legislation to retrospectively legalise illegal bureaucratic actions.

          Reply
    • lurcher1948

       /  July 10, 2018

      Its freedom of speech you know, everyone sits down and talks, and there’s a squirrel quick look.

      Reply
    • sorethumb

       /  July 10, 2018

      I bet you can’t define Nazi?

      Reply
  11. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  July 10, 2018

    Have the cops been called in yet to investigate the death and rape threat(s) received by Marama Davidson?

    Reply
    • lurcher1948

       /  July 10, 2018

      Its good that you care about rape threats against Marama, Maggy Wassilieff,rape to real people is worse than death/murder to some female, she will feel the support radiating out of…you

      Reply
      • Maggy Wassilieff

         /  July 10, 2018

        I care about any type of threat against someone.
        But it hits at the very basis of our democracy if our MPs are being threatened.
        I’m not a Greens supporter, but where the heck does this end if a co-leader and her family is being threatened and no action is taken to locate the perpetrator of the threat?

        Reply
    • sorethumb

       /  July 10, 2018

      Stephan Franks pointed out that that is one thing MP’s are briefed on -you don’t publicize as it could lead to copy cats and you keep the evidence, Cathy newman used the same tactic after the Jordan peterson interview.

      Reply
  12. “I note that attendance at the proposed event with Southern and Molyneux was not compulsory.”

    Neatly noted, PG. The inability to attend, however, was compulsory. Is this really the sort of society that New Zealanders want? Perhaps attendance at a certain George Orwell novel should be made compulsory. Before the inability to read it is made compulsory.

    Contrary to what Golriz Ghahraman asserts, Freedom of Speech, unlike most rights, IS, and absolutely MUST BE absolute. Otherwise it is not Free Speech; it is Permitted Speech. And one would have to be a certified moron to not fear where that invariably leads. So what is Ghahraman’s motivation for peddling such an assertion?

    “Views that divide rather than unite are repugnant”, says Goff. Really? All of them? Saying that paedophiles should not be united with their victims is repugnant? And New Zealanders are being dictated to, censored by the spouter of such a fatuous platitude, identically and blindly regurgitated weekly by every witless babbling Lefty on the Planet?

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Indeed. I have chipped in to launch the judicial review proceedings against the Mayor. The opinions of people in a free and civilised country must not be silenced by arrogant, brainwashed Public Servants. Free Speech is the jewel in the crown of civilisation and we must protect it mercilessly; however much it may upset those that fear it.

    Reply
  13. Forgot to note Marama Davidson’s comment about “using our free speech” to ban that of others. To pinch a phrase from a much-loved Irish broadcaster now sadly gone from us: Is it me?

    Reply
  14. sorethumb

     /  July 10, 2018

    It’s always funny to see people from Whale Oil promoting free speech when it suits them, given their history of banning many people trying to speak freely there

    Ah! But that’s because “some posts are just stupid”

    Reply
  15. wooden goat

     /  July 10, 2018

    I *despise* Bridges. Seymour too.
    For “leaders” of supposed centre-right parties, they’re weaker than dishwater.

    At present, I’m leaning towards supporting the New Conservative party.
    They *can’t* be as insipid and as timid as the other two are.

    There is no other party that even comes close to the kind of hairy-chested testosterone-infused policies that I like. Every other party is hard-leftist. Even Act supports increasing the number of “refugees”.

    Reply
  1. Peters, Bridges support free speech — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition
  2. ‘Free speech’ group raises $50,000 to challenge Auckland Council | Your NZ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s