Free speech is a white privilege?

A tweet from Annabelle Lee (@huihoppa) got Twitter twittering.

Free speech isn’t a human right it’s a white privilege.

Case and point – Mike Smith, Moana Jackson and Tame Iti don’t get ‘breaking news’ alerts alongside Mike Hosking because they don’t get given platforms in national publications.

Maybe you should form a coalition about that.

Lee is producer of The Hui, so has a bit of a platform herself.

Winston Peters seems to have a bit of a platform. So does Simon Bridges to a lesser extent. Are they white privileges?

 

Leave a comment

45 Comments

  1. David

     /  July 18, 2018

    As does Willie Jackson, John Tamihere, Paula Bennett and unfortunately Kelvin Davis.

    Reply
    • I have yet to hear Mike Hosking’s absurd views being called ‘breaking news’ .

      He did make news when he said that idiots caused crashes….a few days before he wrote off his own car.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  July 18, 2018

        Thus proving his own point. 🚙 🦃

        Reply
      • Alloytoo

         /  July 18, 2018

        On a race track under controlled conditions.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  July 18, 2018

          A crash is a crash, no matter where it happens. Needless to say that he was not heard to say that this one was caused by an idiot’s idocy, it’s only other drivers who are idiots.

          Reply
          • Alloytoo

             /  July 18, 2018

            Nonsense. Your assertion is spiteful and jealous.

            There are very significant differences between recklessly endangering the public at hugh potential cost to society on a public road and assuming the costs and risks on a private racetrack.

            If you can’t tell the difference then your values are seriously impaired?

            Reply
            • Jealous of that conceited, opinionated, arrogant fool ? Dream on. I wouldn’t want to be him, no matter what sort of possessions he has.

              He said that car crashes were caused by idiots, ergo anyone who has one is an idiot. The fact that a crash takes place on a racetrack doesn’t make it not one. Nor will the cost to the taxpayer for the medical expenses be any less because of this – or the higher cost of premiums as the insurance co. passes these on to everyone else.

              Why is a crash not a crash when it’s on a racetrack ?

            • Alloytoo

               /  July 19, 2018

              Not withstanding that the crash cost neither the health care system, nor the insurance, if you can’t understand the difference between a public and test environments then you really aren’t qualified to comment on anything.

  2. artcroft

     /  July 18, 2018

    Calm down Pete. You’re guilty of expressing an opinion while being white. That’s racist you know.

    Reply
  3. Corky

     /  July 18, 2018

    ”Free speech isn’t a human right it’s a white privilege”

    And people wonder why I’m a Rightie and avid Trumpy fan.

    The fact is Mike Smith, Moana Jackson and Tame Iti don’t rate high in the information and news stakes…except when they have a brain explosion and do silly things like chop down trees or steal paintings. Then they receive their own soapbox from MSM. Lol.

    Reply
  4. Alloytoo

     /  July 18, 2018

    Free speech guarantees Lee’s right to express this sort of nonsense. It remains as always the quality and content of her express which determine its impact.

    Reply
  5. sorethumb

     /  July 18, 2018

    Everyone should have a say but how do you pick and choose who gets the gold star treatment? it would be interesting to analyse the views of various panelists (Q&A; the Nation: Jim Moira) I’m picking not one nationalist, yet when I grew up almost everyone was a nationalist. Edit – [sitting around the campfire -world government must come one day]

    Reply
    • Patzcuaro

       /  July 18, 2018

      Weren’t there any Labourist where you grew up?

      Reply
      • sorethumb

         /  July 18, 2018

        I grew up in the shadow of WW2 – the guns faced outwards. From the 1980’s on the guns were turned around and faced inwards.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  July 18, 2018

          What a load of old cobblers.

          Reply
          • sorethumb

             /  July 18, 2018

            Globalisation of immigration made it necessary to suppress anyone who objected to rapid dilution of the national identity.

            For Example:
            John Carran 1996

            “Vehement opposition to immigration, particularly from Asian countries, in New Zealand from an ill-informed and xenophobic rabble persists despite overwhelming evidence that immigration will improve our long term economic prospects.
            //
            Of course there is more to life than attaining economic excellence. The social and environmental impact of immigration also needs to be considered. But here the reasons given for restricting immigration range from pathetic to extremely dodgy. Most of the accusations are barely disguised racist piffle backed by tenuous rumours and cloudy anecdotes. Winston Peters’ stirring of the masses has exposed the ignorance and racial biases of a small and distasteful section of New Zealand society. These people yearn for a cloistered, inhibited, white (with a bit of brown at the edges) dominated utopia fondly envisaged by racists and xenophobes everywhere.

            These views became institutionalised.

            Reply
          • Gezza

             /  July 18, 2018

            Those views are over the top & ascribe racist views to many folk who simply see potential issues with clashes of culture between the citizens of this country & new arrivals who may not choose to fit in eg with the existing common language & customs. These folk are reasonably common, but not unduly concerned, & they don’t collectively have an inbuilt racist program of hatred.

            The concern for most, where there is any, simply hopes to preserve what we have that we currently value – an existing, healthily reconciling, bicultural, Maori & predominantly European nation that welcomes immigrants from anywhere who want to assimilate.

            As they have traditionally done, since the time our forefathers, both Maori & European, came & then settled and then took over various places in it.

            And what the hell is there in that that suggests our army or police have, since WW2, had the population of New Zealand at the point of a gun?

            Reply
            • sorethumb

               /  July 18, 2018

              I was only speaking metaphorically.

        • Patzcuaro

           /  July 18, 2018

          I think the guns may have turned inwards a bit before that, around the time of the Viet Nam War, perhaps it took a little longer to reach here.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  July 18, 2018

            See above. You’ve lost the plot.

            Reply
          • Patzcuaro

             /  July 18, 2018

            In the case of the US civil rights movement, it would have been earlier, early to mid 60s. In NZ their would have been anti Viet Nam War protests in the late 60s and the All Black tour to South Africa in 1970 wasn’t All White.

            The guns all face outwards when you have a society where everyone is able to participate in it on a reasonably even playing field.

            Reply
  6. Gezza

     /  July 18, 2018

    Never mind that.
    The correct phrase is “Case in point.”
    And that’s the only point she made that’s even worth responding to.
    Everybody has the right to ignore silly speech.

    Reply
  7. sorethumb

     /  July 18, 2018

    Jan Thomas

    Let me be clear, hate speech is not free speech. Moreover, as Moana Jackson has eloquently argued, free speech has, especially in colonial societies, long been mobilised as a vehicle for racist comments, judgements and practices.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12089831

    Moana Jackson

    The right to free speech has often been similarly troubling, because it has too often meant the freedom to hurt, despise, and belittle Māori. Cartoons published a few years ago depicting fat and lazy Māori taking advantage of free school lunches were found by the court to be objectively offensive but protected by free speech and the fact that they weren’t offensive enough to incite a “reasonable person” to hatred or violence against our people.

    The reasonable person in the common law was for a long time described as the “man on the Clapham omnibus”, and while that fictional being is now genderless, it is still presumed to be some amorphous Pākehā.

    Rather, as the term “a trial by a jury of one’s peers” has a default meaning, where Māori can never be tried by a jury of Māori peers, so the reasonableness of a cartoon or speech is judged by the standards of an invisible and unnamed Pākehā.In the court deliberations, that invisible-ness was an unspoken given, and the question of whether reasonable Māori would feel that the admittedly offensive cartoons incited hatred against us, was never even considered.

    Freedom of speech, in effect, then became a shield for racist invective defined by those who were privileged by it, rather than those who were its objects and victims.

    It has become a political cliché to say that one person’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist. And, in the context of colonising violence, free speech for the colonisers has often been a terrorising instrument used against Māori.

    https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/moana-jackson-no-ones-exercise-of-free-speech-should-make-another-feel-less-free/

    I suppose his “eloquent” point is that fairness is in the eye of the beholder. You could apply that to Muslims who object to Molyneaux etc

    It’s a convoluted argument.
    Colonizers invaded. The colonizers culture dominated the indigenous one [neolithic period end 2000 BC in Britain – relevant]. The law recognises the colonists point of view. Hate speech should be defined from a Maori perspective. Which begs the question Alan Duff or Moana Jackson? What about the Islamic perspective? If Jackson got his way could we complain against the constant barrage against Pakeha (which often doesn’t pass the smell test)?

    Reply
    • sorethumb

       /  July 18, 2018

      Maori studies are proselytising the closed society where knowledge is tribally based and not subject to scrutiny. But so what if you’re a post modernist such that there is no objective truth anyway and scientific knowledge is just a way of exercising power over coloured folk?

      Reply
    • Gezza

       /  July 18, 2018

      Yep. There’s racism & revisionism on both sides. Extremists from both sides are just ignored by the millions of ordinary, rational, well-adjusted folk in our land just getting on with their lives, and thinking twice before buying in to any of it. It’s mainly politicians & media that give them a platform in order to attract attention. And we all know how much trust we have in both politicians and the media (and the blogs) to be ‘well-balanced’ and without their own self-serving agendas. None.

      Reply
      • That cartoon shows 4 Pakeha children in school uniform and four adults in school uniform trying to look like school pupils.

        Two are Maori., two are caricatured old Pakehas.

        The caption isn’t particularly clever or amusing, it’s rather laboured, but a cartoon where only two of the people trying to pass themselves off as school pupils being seen as racist when everyone in it is a caricature shows that racism is in the eye of the beholder.

        3/4 of the people in it are white.

        It would be surprising if the man in the Clapham omnibus wasn’t white. Nobody says omnibus now, and when they did, almost everyone in the UK was white. Moana Jackson can’t know where Clapham is.

        Reply
  8. artcroft

     /  July 18, 2018

    “Let me be clear, hate speech is not free speech. Moreover, as Moana Jackson has eloquently argued, free speech has, especially in colonial societies, long been mobilised as a vehicle for racist comments, judgements and practices”.

    And cars kill lots of people on the road so hence my demand that we ban cars.

    Such a spurious and weak argument. Lets just focus on the negatives and ignore the positives so that we arrive inevitably at a terrible solution.

    Reply
  9. Alan Wilkinson

     /  July 18, 2018

    Stupidity is a radical privilege.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  July 18, 2018

      And Trumpy is as radical a character as you can get.

      Reply
      • Trotter

         /  July 18, 2018

        You reckon??? Or maybe he is one of those odd ones that’s say “maybe that’s just me”

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  July 18, 2018

          radical
          ˈradɪk(ə)l
          adjective
          1.
          (especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.
          “a radical overhaul of the existing regulatory framework”
          synonyms: thoroughgoing, thorough, complete, total, entire, absolute, utter, comprehensive, exhaustive, root-and-branch, sweeping, far-reaching, wide-ranging, extensive, profound, drastic, severe, serious, major, desperate, stringent, violent, forceful, rigorous, draconian
          “radical reform is long overdue”
          2.
          characterized by departure from tradition; innovative or progressive.
          “the city is known for its radical approach to transport policy”
          noun
          1.
          a person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform; a member of a political party or part of a party pursuing such aims.
          synonyms: revolutionary, progressive, reformer, revisionist; More
          2.
          CHEMISTRY
          a group of atoms behaving as a unit in a number of compounds.
          Feedback

          Reply
          • Trotter

             /  July 18, 2018

            You of all people should know that a2 compounds with different adjectives can cause a variety of reactions leading to some that can be very unpleasant

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  July 18, 2018

              Um. Ok.

            • Trotter

               /  July 18, 2018

              Talk in riddles, speak in tounges, maybe this will get bumped but Putin wants his pineapple lumps

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  July 18, 2018

        Yes. He’s licensed to be stupid sometimes.

        Reply
  10. Callum

     /  July 18, 2018

    I thought Lizzie Marvelly got the same platform as Hoskings? Or is that only for her white views not her Maori views?

    Reply
  11. sorethumb

     /  July 18, 2018

    Reply

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 )

Connecting to %s