Should controversial Muslims be able to speak at an Auckland venue?

Should two international Muslim speakers be allowed to speak at Auckland city venue the Bruce Mason Centre?

If, instead of controversial Canadians Lauren Southern and Stefan Molynuex, a couple of controversial Muslims wanted to come to New Zealand to speak, would the reactions and the arguments be the same?

What if Donald Trump wanted to come and speak in New Zealand – would he get the same promises of demonstrations that are planned for his imminent visit to Britain?

What about two controversial Israelis? If, instead of a speaking event, what if they wanted to play an exhibition game of tennis?

Two Palestinians?

What if two international anti-TPPA speakers wanted to organise a protest in Auckland?

It would be interesting to see how many of the current free speech promoters took a similar stance, and how many of the ‘ban hate speech’ promoters took a similar stance.

 

39 Comments

  1. Missy

     /  July 13, 2018

    I don’t think anyone would care if two controversial Muslims wanted to speak, as I understand on Quds day a couple of speakers who are Hezbollah supporters spoke in Aotea Square. If this is the case then the Mayor has shown great hypocrisy and censorship in allowing speakers who support and possibly promote terrorism speak in Aotea Square but not allowing the Canadians.

    • Mefrostate

       /  July 13, 2018

      Do you think that cancelling a venue booking is equivalent to having people banned from a public park?

      • Missy

         /  July 13, 2018

        Yes, if the venue is council owned and there is a precedent for protestors being trespassed from the park. If the venue was a private venue then I would not think there was a comparison.

        The council could have stopped the speakers at the Quds day protest, they could have been moved on by security or police, they weren’t. The council let them speak freely in a place where they would probably reach more people than if they spoke in a venue but not letting someone else with controversial views speak in a Council owned property is hypocritical.

        Also, remember the Mayor said that council venues shouldn’t be used to stir up ethnic or religious tensions in a city that’s multicultural, inclusive and embraces people from all faiths and ethnicities. Aotea Square is a Council venue, Quds and Hezbollah stir up ethnic and religious tensions, he is a hypocrite.

        • Mefrostate

           /  July 13, 2018

          Banishing them from the park would obviously be an egregious attack on free speech in public, so I cannot accept that. By your standard, that would mean that the council are morally obliged to provide their venues to anyone now.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  July 13, 2018

            The venues are run on a commercial basis. You are arguing Goff’s point, which is that he has the right to determine what is and is not acceptable speech. Goff, and you are both wrong.

      • Gezza

         /  July 13, 2018

        No. I don’t. But Goff’s REASONS for denying these two access to a public venue where they would have preached to an incredibly tiny alt right audience & never be heard from again by the vast majority of people in NZ, whilst voicing no objection to meeting or hearing speakers representing Muslim organisations which are closely associated with terrorist activities or repressive leftist regimes are in stark contrast to the whole principle of free speech & the countering of misinformation & propaganda with rational discourse & debate – free speech.

        We don’t have an appreciablely influential far or alt right in NZ snd aren’t likely to. Their message resonates mostly with Canadians & particularly Americans, and the particular ignorant, ill-informed, low-IQ white Americans who’re “losers” in their parlance, or the politically-driven beneficiaries of capitalism & right wing libertarian policies.

        Nor, at the moment, do we have a large enuf fundamentalist Muslim community that is pushing for separate laws & special religious consideration (freedom from criticism of their religion). Banning “blasphemers” as the Islamic Federation wanted to do is obnoxious & ultimately dangerous for freedom.

        • Gezza

           /  July 13, 2018

          *appreciably

        • “Nor, at the moment, do we have a large enuf fundamentalist Muslim community that is pushing for separate laws & special religious consideration (freedom from criticism of their religion)”

          I think “at the moment” should be emphasised, given that not that long ago you could have said the same about Britain and Europe.

          • Gezza

             /  July 13, 2018

            I think “at the moment” should be emphasised…
            Absolutely. Islam is an entire culture, with an accompanying religiously organised behavioural & legal code that seeks exceptionalism initially & then domination when it can, within other cultures.

        • Richard

           /  July 13, 2018

          The audience would not be just so called “alt right”.

          • Gezza

             /  July 13, 2018

            No, but alt rightists would the ones they would resonate with, depending on their topics. They cover a gamut of issues, & link them all together under an anti-Democrat, Pro-Trump Pro-Conservative/Libertarian rightist banner, as always happens in the US, Molyneux especially.

            I listened to him describing me, an atheist, as a leftist, because all atheists are leftists. (The old “Stalin was an atheist/ Communists are atheists/ therefore all atheists are progressives & liberals & thus multiculturalists & Islamically naïve vulnerable deluded leftists” logical argument, presented as fact. Funny thing is, he’s an atheist, although he is now noticeably shifting towards Christianity because they are conservatives – he’s very plastic, ratings driven)

            • In fact, Islam is not all of a piece any more than Christianity or Judaism are, although; like them, it has a holy book.

              There is more than one branch of Islam. which seems to have escaped some people’s notice, and more than one train of thought.

              Muslims are from many countries and lumping them all together is foolish. It’s as senseless to say that they are all terrorists, when this is obviously not the case, as it would be to say that none were.

            • Gezza

               /  July 13, 2018

              The debate’s no longer about just terrorism, Kitty, it’s about immigrant numbers, & cultural & religious clashes, & increased pressures on resources, & demands for separatist societies & systems in formerly cohesive homogenous societies with their own national identity & culture with contrast & opposing societal norms, values & behavioural expectations.

            • @Kitty Catkin: Islam, for all its strands – each of which appears to hate all the others just as viciously as they all hate Infidels – is in my view a collective organism, and acts at all times as a single entity.

              While the various parts of that entity have various roles – killing, raping, terrorising, infiltrating, condemning, manipulating, complaining, breeding, immigrating, whipping the slacking strands into an orgy of hatred etc – the organism acts as one, utilising all those varied roles to further its sole reason for existence – to smother the Earth and all its inhabitants with itself. Any human that refuses to be absorbed into its body is killed.

              Unless the cowardly Western authorities address this issue, all the innocent people for whom they are responsible are doomed, like babies abandoned in front of an advancing Army Ant colony.

            • PartisanZ

               /  July 13, 2018

              I find it ironic and surprising that the threat of religi-cultural* colonization severely altering ‘our’ way of life, which is happening to Westernized post-colonial nations like NZ now, is more-or-less exactly what happened to hapu iwi indigenous peoples here when Pakeha arrived …

              “formerly cohesive homogenous societies with their own national identity” … unicorns … abominable snowman … and Loch Ness monster …

              Anyone seen one of these lately? When was this? The American Civil War? The ‘Wild West’? The Land Wars here?

              For almost twenty four months during the early 1960s?

              When was this homogenization exactly?

            • Gezza

               /  July 13, 2018

              I find it ironic and surprising that the threat of religi-cultural* colonization severely altering ‘our’ way of life, which is happening to Westernized post-colonial nations like NZ now, is more-or-less exactly what happened to hapu iwi indigenous peoples here when Pakeha arrived …

              Exactly. And there is the lesson for the society & national identity which has evolved in Kiwiland. We have enuf of a struggle with rebuilding a mutually respectful predominantly Western but bicultural society of Maori & Western European treaty partners & their descendants.

  2. Blazer

     /  July 13, 2018

    is there any value in practicing …’whatifism’?

  3. High Flying Duck

     /  July 13, 2018

    The only time objections have been made that I know of, is when groups have called for the destruction of other races or countries – as has happened in certain mosques.
    If the speakers do not breach laws, I do not think there would be any problem.

    • Indeed.

      Wouldn’t it depend upon what the Muslims were preaching ? It’s impossible to answer such a question otherwise.

  4. Blazer

     /  July 13, 2018

    who decides whether someone is…’controversial’?

    • Ray

       /  July 13, 2018

      Mayor Goff, first amongst equals or hand holder of murderous terrorists, depending on your point of view.

    • who decides whether someone is…’controversial’?

      In this Molyneaux/Southern case and that of David Irving…bourgeois Labour…of course.

      In Irving’s case, what his Canadian track record has done is disqualify him from automatic entry here. Under our immigration law, that places an onus on him to gain an exemption from the Associate Minister of Immigration, Damien O’Connor. At which point, as Radio New Zealand morning host 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 …

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

      • Blazer

         /  July 13, 2018

        barred from ‘automatic entry’…is apolitical…

        • admiralvonspee

           /  July 13, 2018

          Apolitical on his previous two visits to….NZ? bol

    • @Blazer: “who decides whether someone is…’controversial’?”

      The Law? I believe it makes a clear distinction between opinion and incitement to violence. The first should always be permitted, whatever the content and whoever the speaker. The latter should be dealt with impassionately by the law.

      The important thing is for the law to apply evenly to everyone, and not be seen to favour one political group over another. This is a huge problem in Britain today: Muslims screaming in public for the savage beheading of all Infidels are studiously ignored by the State, while those pointing out the wickedness and illegality of this are imprisoned. All that is civilised about such a community will inevitably collapse.

      Even the most cursory inspection of Islam’s MO up North will show that this confrontation in Auckland is an opening salvo in Islam’s campaign to conquer New Zealand, as it already has Britain, Europe, Scandinavia and Canada. It begins with an aggressively emotive campaign by its witless tools on the Left to browbeat the populace into not questioning its activities and motives, and ends with the whole country subject to the vile, backward savagery of Shariah Law.

      It does not require many brain cells to grasp the danger of failing to nip such a thing in the bud. Is this country up to facing it? Or will it cave in, like the cowards up North? And allow a pall of violence, hatred and darkness to descend over probably the greatest and most liberal civilisation the Planet has ever known. Then the squealing Lefties will find out what hate really means; and how it feels to watch your child’s hand being ceremonially hacked off for lifting a lolly from the dairy.

      • Fight4NZ

         /  July 14, 2018

        National’s lax immigration control let these people in. Aren’t they rightists?

    • High Flying Duck

       /  July 13, 2018

      If the person is not left wing, then their views are “far right” “alt-right” & racist.
      And that gives the “Peace Action Group” the right to violently protest.

  5. Gezza

     /  July 13, 2018

    Caught my eye when out at North City Plaza, Porirua, yesterday, with ma, as we were heading for the Foodcourt to have lunch together.

    I just took the pics because these superhero guys looked cool & watching the kids going up to get their photos taken with them during their school hols made me smile. But viewing them today made me realise just how ethnically relaxed our country generally is.

    [deleted as requested]



    And that was a little Pasifika girl, out with her mum.

    There was a real ethnic mix of kids going up there, mostly non-European. These super heroes are all Caucasian. It didn’t matter to the mums or the kids. All I think that mattered was that they’re super-heroes – they’re good guys who fight evil.

    • Gezza

       /  July 13, 2018

      Oops 😀 Pic 1 is NOT a little Chinese girl! It’s a big Mayor Khan Blimp! 😬

      Hang on …

    • Gezza

       /  July 13, 2018

      The little Chinese girl & mum & brother

    • My experience growing up in a large, cosmopolitan seaport in England and sailing to various foreign countries is that most racism (and other assorted -isms) is created by screeching Lefties. Left to their own devices, ordinary folk tend to be quite tolerant of different others, unless those others exhibit intolerance towards them, as Muslims unquestionably do.

      So it seems to me that removing Lefties and Muslims from a society is virtually guaranteed to increase harmony within it. I may be wrong, but if it were down to me I would give it a try.

      • PartisanZ

         /  July 13, 2018

        Nah … Sailor … Yeah, nah … its a great idea … you could eliminate the crippled, mentally-ill, weak and certain other ethnic and religious groups at the same time … then you’d have a REALLY harmonious, homogenous, happy society …

        Well done for thinking that one up.

        • I don’t recall listing those. However, I do recall having my tongue somewhat in my cheek for the last paragraph, hoping a reader might ponder on the point. Perhaps I should have made that clearer, maybe adding “PS: my tongue is slightly in my cheek”. The result was still interesting, although I don’t agree with your suggestions.

          • PartisanZ

             /  July 14, 2018

            Just Muslims and Lefties then … FAIR enough …

            Freedom of speech … but only for Christians, Righties and, presumably, other non-Leftie, non-Muslim religi-ethnicities?

            Hard to tell when you Rightie extremists have got your tongues in your cheeks … or something else in your mouths …

      • Gezza

         /  July 13, 2018

        The only way to cure Islam is to educate Muslims out of believing the Quran. To do that, you also have to educate the Jews out of believing the Torah & the Christians out of believing the Bible. All of them derive their basis for belief from the first scribblings of unbelievable myth & bullshit in the Jewish Scriptures, & all are demonstrably false.

        All of them have become interwoven into the ethnic, cultural & national identities of scores of religious sects & diverse peoples throughout the globe. False beliefs lie at the very heart of most of the worst tensions & strife between nations & ethnic groups around the world today.

        Of them all, Christianity, while influential in the development of the better aspects Western civilisation, especially over the last century, has reduced in importance as secular morality (such as the abolition of slavery, still sanctioned by God & Jesus in the Bible, it is time people looked at from as an important historical factor in the development of Western Civilisation, but a collection of myths based on a savage, jealous, murderous, infanticidal, rape & slavery-condoning God who Christians pretend, because he ordered and committed these acts, must be good, because he is God – when they would NEVER do these things themselves because they are evil.

        I don’t hate these religions, per se, but I know they are false. And I hate how the distortions of these ludicrous scripts can be twisted in the minds of gullible people, who suspend their rationality & listen to preachers tell them what this obvious crap means, really, only out of fear of everlasting torture, or the need to deal with adversity today by believing in an glorious reward in an afterlife that isn’t going to happen – or if it does, is not going to be the one the muddled Abrahamic religions vaguely promise.

        Children should be taught first logical & reasoning, & science, then to forget their preachers, & their parents’ beliefs & to just read these texts, without reinterpretation, from start to finish, & then learn the history of the people who it is claimed wrote them.

        That would be the end of the religion & they can then focus on settling on establishing their ethnic cultures, borders, and relationships without the bloody things.

        • Gezza

           /  July 13, 2018

          A few proof-reading howlers in there sorry. Hope people can make sense of the missed edits. Trying to write & proof read read a screed of that length on an inch & a half of available screen defeated me. 😭

        • PartisanZ

           /  July 14, 2018

          I kind of agree with you Gezza, for the world to “come to good” we need to collectively abandon Church doctrines inimical to life and power politics or what we currently [loosely] call ‘democracy’ … in favour of superior, multi-faceted organisational models based on personal spirituality and natural ethics …

          Children shouldn’t be “first taught” anything much IMHO, other than self-and-other safety … They should learn through play …

          Logic, reasoning, science, art, technology, the humanities et al will be embraced by each person in their own ‘good’ time …

    • Blazer

       /  July 14, 2018

      were justice league figurines on special?
      Wheres Capt America these days?…retired!Bol.

  1. Should controversial Muslims be able to speak at an Auckland venue? — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition