Green MP Golriz Ghahraman has raised free speech eyebrows even higher after linking Nigel Farage to the murder of a UK MP in trying the fetter his free speech.
(fetter v. restrain with chains or manacles, typically around the ankles)
This follows her selective application of free speech to people she agrees with versus those she doesn’t.
But she was challenged on this:
Let’s see
@golrizghahraman appeal for Nigel Farage’s right to speak when he comes to NZ I won’t hold my breath
Her response:
Picking those she things ‘free speech’ and who’s tongues should be chained is controversial enough, but linking Farage to Cox’s death is just about jumping the shark territory.
Gharaman has become a bit of a loose cannon on Twitter, which doesn’t reflect well on the Green Party.
A comment from Missy (from the UK):
She shows her complete ignorance with that tweet.
She obviously believes the left’s spin on Farage, his Brexit campaign was not that much more dishonest than that of the Remain side, and since the referendum hate from the pro EU has risen more than the other way. As for hate crimes rising exponentially, they haven’t, many of the so-called hate crimes have since been proven to be either made up, or not so much hate crimes but normal criminal activity but because the victim was a migrant they were reported as hate crimes.
This is dishonest and misleading from Golriz.
I am not really a fan of Farage’s as such, but he is fair and he gives everyone a chance to air their views whether they agree with him or not – in fact on his show he regularly gets annoyed that no-one who disagrees with him calls in and constantly asks for those that disagree to call in. He is a believer in free speech.
This woman just keeps making stuff up to suit herself.
lurcher1948
/ 31st August 2018Free speech is great if ONLY it’s a rightly,right right
Corky
/ 31st August 2018No, Lurchy..if only they are not TRAITORS with a rap sheet longer than Labours misdemeanors.
Missy
/ 31st August 2018The argument for Manning being barred from NZ is nothing to do with free speech as much as you might want it to be, it is about the fact she is a convicted spy, a felon who has committed a serious crime.
Those opposing her coming to the country are not saying she shouldn’t speak, and have even said if people want to hear her then there is no reason she can’t speak via video link, the objections are based on her criminal record.
But if you are in favour of criminals doing a speaking tour would you like to let Josef Fritzel in? Roman Polanski? What about Radovan Karadzic? They can come and talk about their crimes too right? After all a spy should be allowed to so why not peadophiles, or those that committed genocide?
Blazer
/ 31st August 2018In NZ you would be outraged to learn we have a convicted felon who retains his knighthood-Sir Douglas Graham…you would want him stripped of that…wouldn’t you?
Missy
/ 31st August 2018Yes.
Corky
/ 31st August 2018That’s deflated your blimp, Blazer.
Blazer
/ 31st August 2018never fear Im pumping up ..another one.
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018Reading this will help your understanding:
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-chelsea-0
Missy
/ 31st August 2018Great, so lets open our doors to all convicted criminals and traitors into the country.
The problem with this whole argument is that the objections are not based on stopping her from speaking, in fact Michael Woodhouse has said there is nothing to stop her from doing what Snowden did and speak via video link, it is about upholding the law and not letting someone convicted of espionage into the country. She is a convicted felon.
But hey, the left say it is okay for criminals to come into the country, I wonder if they would have been happy for Milosevic to come into NZ and speak on genocide – free speech remember, or let’s have Roman Polanski in to talk on paedophilia, or what about Josef Fritzel to talk about his crimes???
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018Reductio ad absurdum
Blazer
/ 31st August 2018lets parachute former Communist spy trainers who falsify official residency documents into the N Z Parliament then…!
Missy
/ 31st August 2018She shows her complete ignorance with that tweet.
She obviously believes the left’s spin on Farage, his Brexit campaign was not that much more dishonest than that of the Remain side, and since the referendum hate from the pro EU has risen more than the other way. As for hate crimes rising exponentially, they haven’t, many of the so-called hate crimes have since been proven to be either made up, or not so much hate crimes but normal criminal activity but because the victim was a migrant they were reported as hate crimes.
This is dishonest and misleading from Golriz.
I am not really a fan of Farage’s as such, but he is fair and he gives everyone a chance to air their views whether they agree with him or not – in fact on his show he regularly gets annoyed that no-one who disagrees with him calls in and constantly asks for those that disagree to call in. He is a believer in free speech.
This woman just keeps making stuff up to suit herself.
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018Golriz isn’t barring anyone from entering NZ and she has every right to express her support for one and not the other. She’s making the point that where there is harm caused by what a person says, special conditions apply; you aren’t free to incite violence, etc. This post is whipping up emotion thoughtlessly. What’s your point, Pete?
Missy
/ 31st August 2018Where did I say she was barring anyone from entering the country, or suggest she had no right to express her support for one and not the other?
I pointed out her ignorance, and that she is making stuff up for her own political ends.
Please do not infer I have suggested or said something I have not.
And what harm has Nigel Farage caused? He has not incited violence, nor was he responsible for Jo Cox’s death, and most (if not all) of the alleged hate crimes post Brexit were bogus.
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018You said: “But hey, the left say it is okay for criminals to come into the country…”
But that’s not what the (mythical) Left is saying. There are rules around applications for entry to NZ by people with criminal convictions. They can be granted dispensation from the “no entry” rule and it’s not granted by a politician. That’s what the Left is saying.
Kitty Catkin
/ 31st August 2018It was certainly implied, but I didn’t infer it because it was nonsense.
Pink David
/ 31st August 2018“She’s making the point that where there is harm caused by what a person says, special conditions apply”
Yes that is exactly the point she is making. She is also the one who decides what ‘harm’ is, and also what the ‘special conditions’ are.
That is nothing more or less than a Fascist view of the world. The wonderful thing about the free speech that she is that we get to know this about her.
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018“She is also the one who decides what ‘harm’ is, and also what the ‘special conditions’ are.”
Bullsh*t, Pink. Golriz isn’t making those decisions; the conditions are already set down in law and the ‘deciders’ are not the politicians.
Pink David
/ 31st August 2018“Bullsh*t, Pink. Golriz isn’t making those decisions; ”
She most certainly wants too.
“conditions are already set down in law and the ‘deciders’ are not the politicians.”
Define harm under the law as it stands. Is that hurt feelings or murder?
Pete George
/ 31st August 2018Corky
/ 31st August 2018She’s been barred from Australia.
Missy
/ 31st August 2018Good, she is a convicted spy who put not only US troops at risk, but those of NZ and Australia at risk. She shouldn’t be able to profit from the crime, and she shouldn’t be allowed to enter countries that she betrayed, and she did betray us by revealing US classified information that would have also contained classified information about NZ troops in Afghanistan.
Blazer
/ 31st August 2018she certainly put them ‘at risk’…she exposed inhuman ,intolerable behaviour exhibited by western military that is anathema to any decent…person.
Corky
/ 31st August 2018Agree 100%, Missy. You know, even thirty years ago when we still had remnants of a moral compass and standards, we wouldn’t be having this debate. She would be reviled across the Western world. Shunned by most. Nowdays, many support her, they see nothing wrong with what she has done. Maybe because our generation and those who have come after us haven’t experienced the horrors of war, they have no context with which to form their judgments regarding idealism and reality.
sorethumb
/ 31st August 2018He has too (they both have).
Corky
/ 31st August 2018That’s so ”now” Thumbs.
Kitty Catkin
/ 31st August 2018I hope that the ‘we’ who no longer have moral standards and a moral compass was the royal or editorial we.
Speak for yourself, don’t tell the rest of us that we don’t have moral standards (I assume that you mean ‘good’ moral standards)
Kitty Catkin
/ 31st August 2018Those who use the royal or editorial ‘we’ use it of themselves, although they are an individual.
Kitty Catkin
/ 31st August 2018That long word means one person, Corky.
Corky
/ 31st August 2018Talking of long words, I see a paucity of such today.
Kitty Catkin
/ 1st September 2018One doesn’t use them for the sake of it. It’s supererogatory.
It’s flattering that you copy words that that I use. Your vocabulary has increased.
robertguyton
/ 1st September 2018“One doesn’t use them for the sake of it. It’s supererogatory.”
Oh dear!
Kitty Catkin
/ 1st September 2018Why ? Don’t you know what it means ?
Blazer
/ 31st August 2018So people from all sides of politics are in favour of free speech,only on a selective basis though.
‘ so lets open our doors to all convicted criminals and traitors into the country.’…the usual completely OTT rationale favoured by those who don’t really tolerate free speech at all.
Someone mentioned Jordan Belfort recently…in and out and doing the lucrative speaking circuit ,no problem at all.
admiralvonspee
/ 31st August 2018In the words of your hero Golriz… “it’s all about the risk”.
Belfort’s only risk is stealing your mrs Blaze, ergo, nothing to…fear?
Blazer
/ 31st August 2018don’t tell me you live under the sea in an …octopussys..garden…..Admiral… 😦
admiralvonspee
/ 31st August 2018Aye, a carbon neutral paradise courtesy of the ever-generous, bourgeois…left. Where comrades feast on impossible burgers from said garden, consume endless clean energy from wave-generators and toggle our genders from day to day. One should…join?!
Blazer
/ 1st September 2018too much toggling Admiral …watch out for…spoof.
admiralvonspee
/ 1st September 2018I’ll take your word for it Blaze, old fruit. Takes one to know one…after all?
High Flying Duck
/ 31st August 2018I wonder if Chelsea will get glowing reviews like this one for Jordan:
“Posted 26/06/2014 by LondonKiwi:
Poor. Jordan Belfort adapts his straight line method of high pressure selling from penny stocks to gullible audiences. No stories about Wall street or reformed ethics. Just 3 hours of hard sell on his motivational ‘products’ and him telling everyone how great he is. Dull….”
Kitty Catkin
/ 31st August 2018That sounds like a variation on that yob whose 7 points video was on YNZ the other day…preaching to the gullible and greedy, with large doses of self-praise.
Tipene
/ 31st August 2018Yes, ol’ Golriz Ghahraman is such a fan of free speech, she hired a QC to shut down an Australian author who called her sorry ass out on her multitude of lies.
I hope she’s saving her salary, because in the real world of employment, no employer of any significance is going to touch her after her one-term -wonder stint as a list MP.
An energy saver bulb has more intellectual wattage than this chick – her total lack of self and situational awareness is evidence of either a highly privileged upbringing, or a manifesting mood disorder.
lurcher1948
/ 31st August 2018“An energy saver bulb has more intellectual wattage than this chick”, rather sexist comment Tipene,standard knuckle dragging comment
sorethumb
/ 31st August 2018Here is the reality of diversity from Singapore
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/singapore/568567/
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018Pete – your write:
“Ghahraman fettering free speech…”
Whose “free speech” has Ghahraman fettered?
Your post is a nonsense.
Pete George
/ 31st August 2018She is a person in power trying to influence who should be able to speak in New Zealand, and who should have their speech fettered.
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018That’s not true; she’s describing existing laws that are in place to manage dangerous speech. Your headline makes a false claim. Is Woodhouse ” a person in power trying to influence who should be able to speak in New Zealand, and who should have their speech fettered.”?
Pete George
/ 31st August 2018Woodhouse is also a person in power, but as he is in oppositinn arguably less power than Ghahraman.
I don’t agree with what Woodhouse has said, nor what Ghahraman has said.
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018“No politician should express a personal opinion about anybody, anywhere!”
Pete “Freedom of Speech” George
Pete George
/ 31st August 2018By depicting that as a quote you’re deliberately misrepresenting me – and as it turns out, by a lot.
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018Satire, Pete. While I agree with some of what is said here about Golriz (I’d like it if she took more care with her public statements for a start) it does seem many of your readers enjoy a good ol’ pile on, especially when the receiver isn’t a big solid bloke like Gerry, and you appear to enjoy facilitating that (where is your “Woodhouse fetters free speech” post??)
Kitty Catkin
/ 31st August 2018Not satire, putting words in someone’s mouth, which is just bad manners.
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018Was Woodhouse “fettering free speech”?
I’ve searched for your headline, but couldn’t find it…
Pete George
/ 31st August 2018I’ve posted about Woodhouse previously, this post is about Ghahraman. I don’t use exactly the same words in every post.
Are you a dick, or do you just like acting like one?
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018Well, that’s unpleasant. I’m challenging your headline claim that Golriz fettered free speech – she didn’t and your defence is not strong, even to the point of personal insults aimed at a commenter. Or was it satire 🙂
High Flying Duck
/ 31st August 2018You appear to have missed the whole bit where GG actually says:
“It’s not about an unfettered right to speak. It’s about whether the person’s speech poses a risk” in her tweet – look at the post above if you want to see the whole tweet.
She definitely tried to fetter the speech of Lauren and Steve when they came, and now bizarrely has claimed Farage deserved blame for Jo Cox’s death.
If anyone should look at fettering speech, it is GG herself. She’s hopeless.
Kitty Catkin
/ 31st August 2018If she says that Nigel Farage was in some way responsible for the murder of Jo Cox, she is committing libel and asking to be charged with it. That is a very serious accusation.
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018“If she says…” Well, did she?
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018Golriz has not fettered anyone’s speech, as I’ve been trying to make clear to Pete, who made the erroneous claim in his headline.
Pete George
/ 31st August 2018I think she is clearly against Farage coming to New Zealand to speak.
She said “It’s about whether the person’s speech poses a risk” she refers to “Farage’s dishonest & callous Bexit campaign” and then dishonestly links that to “hate crimes” including “murder of a pro-diversity MP, Jo Cox”.
Do you think she would support the right for Farage speaking in New Zealand? Or try to fetter his speech like she tried to so with Molyneux and Southern, citing their ‘hate speech’?
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018Come off it, Pete: your headline claims Golriz is “fettering free speech”. Now you’re claiming, more accurately but less significantly, that she’s “against Farage coming to New Zealand to speak”. Ho hum; Golriz is against something but she’s NOT fettering free speech, is she!
Then you ask “would she” try to fetter his speech – good grief, Pete – earlier you were claiming she was doing that, at the present time, some wrong-thinking I’m endeavouring to get you to recognise. Are you now making claims based on what you think someone might do, maybe, in the future? If you are, perhaps you should make that clear to your readers. Your headline contains an untrue statement; very unprofessional, I felt. Golriz made it clear that there are rules surrounding visits by such people as Farage and Madding and that it’s with those rules that their fate lies.
Pete George
/ 31st August 2018“Are you now making claims based on what you think someone might do, maybe, in the future?”
I’m glad you brought this point up.
That’s the basis people (including Golriz) have used to oppose certain people coming to New Zealand and speaking – that they may something in the future that they or someone else may ‘hate’, or that it might incite someone to do something nasty or hateful.
“Your headline contains an untrue statement; very unprofessional, I felt.”
Do you think that linking questionable claims about Farage with the murder of an MP is professional for an MP?
I think that she is trying to fetter speech of people. That she is successful or not isn’t as important as her intent.
Kitty Catkin
/ 31st August 2018Are you a…..?
Both, I would say.
Gezza
/ 31st August 2018Still, it’s managed to attract quite a few comments, so it’s worked on that score.
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018Pete’s using click-bait techniques?
It’s worse than I thought.
Gezza
/ 31st August 2018He might just be after one particular snappy fish?
Kitty Catkin
/ 31st August 2018A piranha ?
sorethumb
/ 31st August 2018It seems that Golriz has got a QC to take down an immigration lawyers website which argues G is not really an R as they were on the side on the the new regime, had passports etc and so were not under threat. No rockets landed where she lived etc. Only truth is shes aGreen MP Paris Hilton of green Party. Abdel Mageed.
High Flying Duck
/ 31st August 2018So the person GG wants in country was thrilled to have “punched a lesbian in the face”…
And when it was pointed out to her by a Green member – he was blocked.
Blazer
/ 31st August 2018I have now ordained Golriz….’own Goal or Gol for short.
Own Gol Golriz…Greens need to find a muzzle for this liability.
Kitty Catkin
/ 31st August 2018I would want to have proof that she did actually say this; anyone can post this sort of thing and it wouldn’t be the first time that it’s happened.
Kitty Catkin
/ 31st August 2018I mean that Chelsea Manning said these things.
Pete George
/ 31st August 2018Pink David
/ 31st August 2018Truth to power? Does this woman get any more ridiculous?
What truth did Manning come up with and exactly what power will it be spoken too?
Trevors_elbow
/ 31st August 2018If Manning gets a visit. All good.
But Golriz is a prototype dictator the way she positions herself via her pronouncements and actions…hopefully she never has real power as those who oppose her or question her will suffer if real power ever resides in her hands…in my humble opinion of course
Gezza
/ 31st August 2018If she gets turned down all good too. I’d turn her down if it was up to me. Her motivation seemed to have a lot to do with not liking being a gender bender in the military. Dunno why she’s presenting herself as a crusader for truth & justice.
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018“Australia has not yet denied Manning entry despite many media headlines (and the one here on the post re this) stating that Australia has banned her.
What Australia has done was on Wednesday they issued a Notice of Intention to deny a visa, which allows Manning to put her case why she should be granted a visa despite her convictions etc. (ie the Good Character Test). Presumably she and her sponsors etc have done this and are now awaiting a final decision.
I suspect that Australia may take a harder line than NZ, but I am really pleased that NZ has gone ahead and now allowed her to apply for a special exemption to the conviction provisions that would normally prevent her getting a visa (according the RNZ because she has not offended anywhere that she has gone to on similar speaking tours).”
veutoviper@TS
High Flying Duck
/ 31st August 2018You are comfortable with people profiting from committing crimes?
Do you have any issue with her bragging about “punching a dyke in the face”? Does that trump “hurty feelings” speech by the right?
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018The brag may have been just that. I’d not ban someone because of puffery. Something a yoof said doesn’t meet the exclusion criteria, does it? I hope it’s not true. I don’t know the details of Manning’s crime, but I bet it needs some study and open-mindedness to make a decision on it, given its nature; that is, less clear-cut than say, drunk-driving. In any case, it doesn’t matter what I think. She’s passed the entry test and only those who wish to hear her speak need go.
High Flying Duck
/ 31st August 2018I have no great issue with her speaking. I don’t like profiteering from a crime that got her 35 years, but cest la vie.
I guess the wold of wall st did the same, although I think his was more on the reforms made and needed to prevent the same thing happening.
High Flying Duck
/ 31st August 2018*wolf
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018Fair enough. Whether or not we like these people and what they have been involved in is immaterial really; we have the choice to listen to them or be busy elsewhere.
Kitty Catkin
/ 31st August 2018It is against the law to profit from a crime.
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018“It is against the law to profit from a crime”
Then we can be assured that she isn’t, given the close attention her actions must be being given by authorities of some sort. You may think she is, but that’s of no consequence, unless somehow you have influence greater than you appear to have.
Ray
/ 31st August 2018No worries then unless someone pull the same stunts as the un-aptly named Free Speech Coalition, you know threats of violence, ticking devices they say aren’t bombs, that sort of shit.
Like I said the Left really, really don’t like hearing any narrative they don’t approve of.
Pink David
/ 31st August 2018“Dunno why she’s presenting herself as a crusader for truth & justice.”
I imagine because it gets the attention she wants, and there would be some profit in it too.
Kitty Catkin
/ 31st August 2018As you say that you don’t know what her crimes WERE, Robert, your opinion is meaningless.
alloytoo
/ 31st August 2018“Gharaman has become a bit of a loose cannon on Twitter, which doesn’t reflect well on the Green Party.”
Not well, but perhaps accurately.
Kitty Catkin
/ 31st August 2018Or both ?
Patzcuaro
/ 31st August 2018Ghahraman certainly knows how to keep her name in the news.
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018A bit like Bridges in that. She probably shares equal rankings with Bridges in the “preferred Prime Minister” stakes.
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018“However, Immigration New Zealand confirmed on Friday morning it had given Manning special dispensation to apply for a visa.
“While Ms Manning was convicted of a serious offence and sentenced to 35 years imprisonment, it was noted that her sentence was commuted by President Obama in January 2017,” INZ general manager Steve Stuart said.
“The likelihood of her offending while in New Zealand is considered low … (we) could see no reason to believe Ms Manning would not comply with the terms and conditions of any visa.”
Again, veutoviper@TS
Conspiratoor
/ 31st August 2018I despair. Very few folks will give a shit.
Let her/him come. She’s a harmless albeit bizarre oddity with a wierd attraction to the lunatic fringe of politics and media hacks looking for a story
Kitty Catkin
/ 31st August 2018Her.
She is quite a pretty girl, although she was an unattractive and odd-looking bloke.
robertguyton
/ 31st August 2018“This follows her selective application of free speech to people she agrees with versus those she doesn’t.”
This makes no sense at all. What is “application of free speech” – speaking freely perhaps? and how does one apply free speech to someone you agree with but not to someone you don’t? I wonder if anything in this post stands up to scrutiny. Certainly not the heading.
Pete George
/ 31st August 2018You keep going on about the heading. Have you commented on the key part of that yet?
How professional do you think “links Farage to UK MP death” was?
thesailor
/ 31st August 2018Everything about that tweet was almost as disgraceful as it was spiteful and ignorant. The woman is what my old Glasgow pals would call a bampot. She seems to be forever in the news spouting tripe and trying to cover up what seems a very dubious background. If her political bosses have any sense they will give her what my old English pals would call a P45. I’m sure the Guardian would have her.
I was reading about the Greens in Britain on a UK forum and someone described them as “like watermelons – green on the outside, red on the inside”. Rather apt, I thought. And how many times do people like her have to be told that any restriction at all on Free Speech makes it Controlled Speech. And who is to be the Fat Controller? Ghahraman?