Shameful, disgraceful attack on Golriz Gharaman by ‘David Hughes’

Green MP Golriz Gharaman has been the target of frequent attacks in social media. She highlighted this one that combines an attack on her with an attack on Muslims posted on Facebook yesterday:

The whole image (from Facebook):

That’s bad, and it’s sad to see this sort of thing continuing. Members of Parliament (or anyone) should not be targeted with this sort of scurrilous misinformation and abuse.

Ghahraman confronted him on Facebook:

Golriz Ghahraman Given you know I’m not Muslim and my family had to leave Iran due to persecution by a purportedly Islamic regime, this is both a lie and hate speech. Be ashamed.

But he seems far from ashamed. He also posted further accusations, plus this:

As to your moronic charge of “hate speech”, fiddlesticks, you don’t even know what that might be beyond some infantile catch cry for your sycophants.

But I do love that we live in a liberal Democracy where we can have this discussion confident that we have the right to freedom of expression and the exchange of ideas enshrined in some of our most important legislation whilst being very well protected from the excesses that occasionally raise their ugly heads (an example of one such lying excess is attached for your elucidation).

Our laws around freedom of expression are very comprehensive, allowing us to exercise our God given right to freely express our ideas (New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Sec 14 reinforced by Sec 5 & 6) whilst protecting people from ugly excesses (Human Rights Act 1993: Sec 61 etc, sec 131, etc and Summary Offences Act1981: sec 3 & 4 etc).

We also have a range of legislation to protect people from defamation and libel as well as a huge body of legal precedents to tell us exactly where the courts have ruled the boundaries are and what crosses them.

So he thinks he is legally justified in posting this sort of thing.

You perhaps need to spend some time reading through the relevant Law Reports. They are truly as fascinating as they are educational.

I will never be ashamed for speaking out against hateful people who would destroy my country and deliver us to our enemies.

And he thinks he is morally justified. I think it is morally repugnant from David Hughes.

This is a shameful and n insidious religious and political attack.

According to some comments it has been reported to Facebook, but as of now it is still up, and getting some support amongst the criticism.

There does seem to be hate in Hughes’ speech, and it is likely to encourage or provoke more intolerance and fear and hate – it has attracted some support.

This David Hughes (if that is his name)  deserves to be shamed.

I think that at times Gharaman has gone to far in what she has promoted, and what she has supported in controlling ‘hate speech’, but with ongoing attacks like this it’s understandable that she might get frustrated and may want something done to stem this sort of dirty politics.


Note: comments on this post should be confined to the Facebook post and what it means for politics, religion and free speech, whether this sort of ‘free speech’ is appropriate, whether it should be limited by law, and what should be done about it.

Please don’t divert into general or historic criticism or commentary on Ghahraman or Muslims.

 

Leave a comment

87 Comments

  1. David

     /  17th April 2019

    [Deleted, I asked not to divert onto other criticisms. What haas happened in the past is not excuse for this sort of ongoing attack. PG]

    Free speech should be absolute up to the point of inciting someone to violence, no one has the right not to be offended by hurty words and it clearly didnt bother her one iota she has used it for political advantage.

    Reply
    • So you think this sort of attack on an MP is fine?

      Reply
      • David

         /  17th April 2019

        Yup, comes with the territory and she should just ignore it or ridicule it which she has done. Its no worse than what gets thrown at Bennett, Collins, Ardern and many others and got thrown at Finlayson. It would be great if the world was full of politeness but its not, there are intemperate idiots with keyboards and I dont think we should be left with the coppers and the politicians telling us what we can and cant say…better to put up with a few morons than go down that slipeery slope.

        Reply
      • Grumpy

         /  17th April 2019

        This MP used her position to attack and denigrate Kiwis at every opportunity. [Deleted, outside topic range. PG]
        If her purpose is to goad people so she can use their response as an excuse for state imposed censorship, then she seems to be amazingly successful, even on a site such as this.

        Reply
  2. Corky

     /  17th April 2019

    [Deleted – claims like that require substantiation. PG]

    ”For the record I’m atheist and my family left Iran because of what that regime pretended was sharia being imposed on us) ‘

    Pretended? Allowing for maybe some cultural norms it seem to me a bog standard sharia regime.

    Reply
  3. Ray

     /  17th April 2019

    There are all sorts of things that Golriz could be criticised on but as she says she is an atheist and the type of sharia law that Iran regime enforced was a reason her family left, it sort of flogging a dead horse to lay the more extreme parts of the Koran her.
    There are of course just as extreme parts of the bible which are all about death and destruction on those who are not one of the chosen people!
    David Hughes should note the bible says bearing false witness involves a death sentence.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  17th April 2019

      Well, we’ve all got that sentence, so he’ll have it carried out one day.

      Reply
  4. artcroft

     /  17th April 2019

    As I read it he’s attacking liberals.

    Reply
    • With Ghahraman’s photo attached?

      Reply
      • artcroft

         /  17th April 2019

        true.

        Reply
      • PDB

         /  17th April 2019

        His error is in the last sentence as it wrongly implies Golriz lives by those beliefs rather than the common accusation that liberals ignore those beliefs as they don’t fit their agenda.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  17th April 2019

          His error is in forgetting that the Koran is online.

          As I thought, these ‘quotes’ are distortions, half sentences or complete fabrications.

          They are taken out of context, of course, that goes without saying.

          Making them c.21 slangy language was an own goal, as it makes it obvious that this is a distorted version of any Koran translation.

          Reply
  5. david in aus

     /  17th April 2019

    It is not clear whether the offense is due to the misattribution of religion, it has been clarified that David Hughes was incorrect in stating Golriz was Muslim. It seems that he does not have the decency to say he was wrong.

    Or is the offense stating someone is Muslim Hate Speech?

    Listing commandments of the Koran is not Hate Speech.

    I suspect the attempted association of Golriz and Islam was not placed for edification but rather to ‘smear’ her. At least that appears to be Golriz’s interpretation. It is a worry that if someone thinks they are considered Muslim is enough to be considered Hate Speech. I don’t think most Muslims feel that way. From my experience, most Muslims are proud of their religion and being known as followers of Islam

    Can I ask, if a Minister of Religion or politician preached the Ten Commandments but were shown behave otherwise, would listing the Bible’s Ten Commandments, showing hypocrisy, be considered Hate Speech?

    Reply
    • david in aus

       /  17th April 2019

      There is nothing wrong with being Muslim.

      Being considered a Muslim could never be considered Hate Speech.

      Likewise, Is being considered Homosexual, Asian, Maori, etc……..Hate Speech, even if people are mistaken?

      There should be No Shame associated with someone’s identity.

      Reply
      • Jacqueline Walter, Makarewa, Southland

         /  17th April 2019

        The Bible does not teach to cull out un-belongers. This is where I get frustrated. What on earth have those with the privilege of higher theological education been teaching?

        The Bible is God’s story of love and acceptance. It’s also God’s story of desiring our love in return.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  17th April 2019

          How can you believe in this claim of his love for humans when he kills and maims thousands of innocents, even children, every year – or he allows it to happen & does nothing to prevent it?

          Reply
        • Kimbo

           /  17th April 2019

          But parts of the Bible do specify that unbelievers were to be culled out, eg., the Old Testament book of Ezra, and in the New Testament, I Corinthians chapter 5 with apostates.

          But either way, quoting the Bible or the Koran is not hate speech. That’s the one thing Brian Tamaki got right about Israel Folau’s recent twitter of a biblical text.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  17th April 2019

            Quoting it isn’t hate speech, but the actual content quoted appears to be.

            Reply
            • Kimbo

               /  17th April 2019

              Not sure how you reconcile those two statements as, in theory and in practice, they seem to contradict.

              The Koranic or biblical text is what it is, like Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, or Hitler’s Mein Kampf. May have been hate-speech by our laws and standards when they were given (although that is an anachronism), but now they are historic text. Is opening a very dangerous censorship door to view and treat them otherwise.

              Don’t get me wrong. David Hughes is a tool, and a deceitful propagandist. For example, his implication is that all NZ Muslims will implement those aspects of Koran as part of a nationally-imposed sharia and Golriz Ghahraman is unwitting or otherwise facilitating that.

              And like Israel Folau what David Hughes said, in the way he said it, and in the context he said it is arguably in bad taste and offensive. But credit where it is due, Folau is not deceitful like Hughes. And neither were engagin in hate speech, IMHO.

            • Gezza

               /  17th April 2019

              This is what the book says is one thing. That is hate speech against non-Muslims at the time it was written.

              Saying that this is what all Muslims are therefore still required to believe, so they obviously must still think that, is another matter. We know that some Muslims do & have savagely displayed & advocated those beliefs.

              I don’t see how that is a contradiction.

              I have heard no Muslims here advocating these views, Kimbo, although the Muslim leader videoed blaming Mossad for being behind Tarrant’s monstrous crime, got very close to it, or at least can be seen that way.

              And at least one those two young Muslim men who ended up in Court for sharing IS propaganda & hate speech may well have been using hate speech in his comments to the Court.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  17th April 2019

              You can have hate speech without censoring it. You seem to assume otherwise.

            • Kimbo

               /  17th April 2019

              Saying that this is what all Muslims are therefore still required to believe, so they obviously must still think that, is another matter.

              Um, by that definition David Hughes is engaging in hate speech because….that’s what he is saying/implying NZ Muslims should and will do with the texts he quoted.

              Amusing to see one person on Ghahraman’s twitter feed call Hughes hateful, and then ask rhetorically “surely he is quoting the Koran out of context”. Not trying in that debate/context to try and argue the Bible is superior (that can wait for a different time if the matter arises), but like the Bible, the answer is almost certainly…no!

            • Kimbo

               /  17th April 2019

              @ Alan Wilkinson

              No, I have no problem that you can have hate speech without censoring it. My problem is that NZ law does…or likely very soon will.

            • Gezza

               /  17th April 2019

              @ Kimbo

              Um, by that definition David Hughes is engaging in hate speech because….that’s what he is saying/implying NZ Muslims should and will do with the texts he quoted.

              No, I’m not prepared to go that far because for all I know DH (unfortunate initials) really believes that one day, when their number are big enuf, they will, or they may defend or not prevent others who will persecute or attack infidels or those who “insult Islam or the prophet” as in the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Or at least kick up merry hell when someone publicly tells them Islam’s claim that God gave his rules to Muhammad is not true.

              DH’s posts also may be a call to others to know what the Quran says & avoid this religion, or to persuade Muslims to leave it. Or just a provocation to stir up GG & see if she goes off the planet or off the rails somewhere.

              I cannot read his mind, nor can you. Whatever the law might say, intent should be clearly established & isn’t obvious to me from what I’ve read above in PG’s post exactly what his intent is.

              He no more knows her intentions than she knows his. This is why I want more public discussion about religions and their validity or otherwise, not less. If the Quran still says this & I think it does, & Muslims treat the Quran as Allah’s command then there needs to be a fronting up to say what parts of it are now wrong, for life in today’s world.

            • Kimbo

               /  17th April 2019

              He no more knows her intentions than she knows his.

              No, I think actions and words reveal intentions.

              This is why I want more public discussion about religions and their validity or otherwise, not less. If the Quran still says this & I think it does, & Muslims treat the Quran as Allah’s command then there needs to be a fronting up to say what parts of it are now wrong, for life in today’s world. (my emphasis).

              Sorry, what sort of “fronting up”. At whose behest? A legally-required one? And by whom? A few/some/many/all Muslims, their leaders, whom? Not sure you’ve thought that through, especially as it seems to encroach on freedom of religion…and we already have laws to deal with alleged or potential security threats.

            • Kimbo

               /  17th April 2019

              @ Gezza

              Put it this way, Gezza. If it’s David Hughes asking the Muslim community, and setting the agenda, then he deserves nothing but a f*&% you!” from them.

            • Kimbo

               /  17th April 2019

              And apologies for using the unnecessary personal criticism, “Not sure you’ve thought that through… “. Could have phrased it without making it sound like an ad hominem.

            • Gezza

               /  17th April 2019

              No apology needed Kimbo, I think I know you well enuf now to know neither of us ever intends to offend the other.

              The difficulties of choosing the right words when trying to have a 2-way discussion via public blogs.

              I just meant that people are taking strong positions on issues that have to do with verses in Holy Books that are the acknowledged Word of God/Allah & the most important governor of their lives & relationships with others. And they know fukawl about what is even in them, let alone the famous “nuances”.

              These religions need to be being discussed more openly.

              You are not afraid to explain what you think yours is actually about, & what it requires of humans – even though more humans are now plainly seeing it as based based on largely on legends & the scientific ignorance of its origins, and, as a piece of “literature” maybe of interest to scholars, but as a manual for living – confusing, contradictory, well in need of an edit to makevit a more punchy, clear read, & a complete update to remove everything that no longer applies – but hardly worth the bother as the God claims just don’t stack up for most people in the West today.

              The same thing needs to happen with Islam’s scriptures.

            • Kimbo

               /  17th April 2019

              …people are taking strong positions on issues that have to do with verses in Holy Books…These religions need to be being discussed more openly

              Sounds like you are primarily wanting that for your reassurance and on the assumption others will change. Put it this way, you are still using that word “need”. And let’s face it, as Israel Folau tweeting from the rooftops and the ensuing reaction has confirmed, there is only one religion that is allegedly not discussed openly. By either some of its adherents or, based on self-censorship of stuff like cartoons of the founder, the media and many of the public.

              Either way, I can understand why members of the Muslim community don’t want to submit to what amounts in some cases to an interrogation by people like David Hughes who are motivated by bad faith.

              For example, it seems to be the standard gig on Whale Oil whenever a jihadist committed some terrorist action to ask indignantly and disingenuously, “when are Muslim leaders going to condemn this?” (with bugger all if any effort to find out if they have) and when they do, “Ah, yeah, but Muslims are allowed to lie/engage in taqqiya to fool infidels”. Make up your mind!

              Bottom line: while in some ways it will help with social cohesion if Muslims (like any new relative arrivals in the community ) speak with candour and are listened to with respect, in the light of a March 15 I can understand why they are reticent. The best way to know what anyone thinks is gain their friendship and earn their trust.

              In the meantime no one is obligated to discuss, explain or justify their views in the public square, be they religious, ideological or whatever. Instead it is a courtesy on their part and a privilege to you if they choose to speak, let alone answer you directly and fully.

            • Gezza

               /  17th April 2019

              What drives religious separatism & fanaticism is of value for discussion. Especially when it is based on Holy Books. And when millions of Muslims live under repressive regimes that forbid the public practice of other religions, punish apostasy, & “insulting Islam”, or blasphemy, & sanction or exact other cruel & inhumane punishments, like amputation of hands for theft, we should be able to raise these questions with Muslims & question why on earth they go along with a religion that includes this kind of code – when there is no reason to believe Allah exists.

              I’m not asking them to get up & publicly explain & apologise for & decry every Islamic terrorist attack or inhumane penal or justice codes by their co-religionists around the world. They’d never get a day off.

              I’m saying when this kind of GG/DH issue blows up, accusations fly, you are hateful, racist etc. But this is in their Book. It’s never going to go away. That Book, like yours, can never be changed. And it’s wrong.

            • Kimbo

               /  17th April 2019

              Irrespective of whether the content of the Koran causes “religious separatism and fanaticism”, so too does scape-goating. No matter what Golriz Ghahraman might get wrong, on that mattter she is correct.

              Speaking of which, when you say

              …there is no reason to believe Allah exists…That Book, like yours, can never be changed. And it’s wrong

              …you’re not really demonstrating the open-minded attitude that would induce others of religious faith to invest time in discussing what they believe with you, especially to allay your concerns. Irrespective of the fact you may be right. Indeed, I could see why your attitude would piss a few people off, so they would steer clear of you, especially with that stated agenda. Me? I don’t have a problem with it, but just saying…

              Personally, rather than what seems your crusade against religion and its many alleged failings, it is better not to assume what the contents of a holy book must or might mean to believers, much less how they will apply them. Including and especially if the text is unchangeable.

              Why (rhetorical question) should David Hughes be allowed to set the agenda, much less get anything back other than scorn and contempt? Or the media be indulged in its need to fill the news-cycle with drama and strife?

              If people want to know the multiplicity of applications for today from Koran, then let them invest the time in the reputable and considered sources that exist both in favour of, or critiquing the Koran, or how it is applied by 1.4 billion followers. Spoiler alert: that will involve reading and considering the writings of theologians 😀

            • Gezza

               /  17th April 2019

              You already know it’s wrong, because yours is right. But yours is wrong too.

              However, you can’t explain why theirs is wrong because doing that will expose to the light of reason & fact all the reasons yours is wrong too.

              I don’t need theologians to explain why yours is wrong. You need theologians to complicate a relatively simple matter with their increasingly desperate attempts to find ways in which to justify why against all the evidence yours is not credible yours is right.

              That is not to say the parts that deal with the nature of humans & the past remarkably successful attempts in the New Testament to amplify the teacher / philosopher Jesus’s recommendations for better behaviour are wrong. They are mostly good.

              Theologians aren’t of any use. It is what individual believers themselves think & believe that are important when talking with them. Many will just put their fingers in their ears & go la la la la can’t hear you. It’s the ones who can think & are allowed to I think it’s good to talk to.

              This is my view I am expressing. Not anyone else’s. Not anyone’s Book’s turgid say-so. Although I have found that others agree with me.

              Just out of interest over the years I have also speculated internally (& sometimes thinking, foolishly, as I know so little about so many things) on what else the universe might be & how it might function in ways we don’t yet understand. Only later did I discover there are whole religions built around the (arrogant) ideas I came up with.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  17th April 2019

              @kimbo, the good bits don’t worry me, only the bad bits. I don’t need a theologian to read about them..

              As for refuting the fantasy worlds of gods and prophets, i suggest most of those with the requisite knowledge and intelligence have already done that for themselves but say nothing lest they disturb the control of the masses.

            • Kimbo

               /  17th April 2019

              However, you can’t explain why theirs is wrong because doing that will expose to the light of reason & fact all the reasons yours is wrong too.

              Wow, you sound so dogmatic, and presumptuous. No, as I explained to you last night, I don’t “know” Islam is wrong, much less anything is wrong. Like a whole bunch of things which I currently treat as false, or likely false, I think the data at my disposal provisionally indicates Islam is wrong – including that it purports to inherit key and indispensable ideas from Christianity, and according to Muhammad allegedly stands in an unbroken sequence with the ministry of Christ. Yet Muhammed got some of those key and indispensable Christian ideas badly wrong. I mentioned what those ideas were yesterday, so I’ll work on the assumption you are taking the time to think about what I post and you can recall or readily find what those are.

              Anyway, as a result of that incongruous discontinuity with Christianity, as far as I can tell, provisionally at this stage, Islam fails one of my tests for truth:

              1. Internal logical consistency (i.e., as I explained to you yesterday, the Koran is ultimately irreconcilable with the Old and New Testaments, yet it also claims those too are also part of the Muslim canon)

              My other two tests, btw are:

              2. externally verifiable (as per above, and as per my explanation to you yesterday, there is no external archaeological textual evidence to support the Muslim apologetic claim that the Old and New Testament were altered after Muhammad to try and falsify his claims about what was originally in them), and

              3. existentially viablilty

              What are your tests, btw?

              And I find it fascinating that, yet again you feel the need to take the well-worn detour/irrelevant sidetrack and dismiss theologians. Fair enough, but then you were the one who said there is a “need” for “these religions to be discussed more openly…you are not afraid to discuss…the same thing should happen with Islam’s Scriptures”. Ok. So don’t take my advice on where you may find some/much of the information you claim you “need”. Much less modify your approach in a way that would encourage the religious to dialogue with you. If you wanna criticise them, knock yourself out. But don’t then complain, in effect, “I’m not getting my needed questions answered” because religious people decide they have better things to do.

              Either way, based on what you’ve presented thus far, including the Matt Dillahunty video which you posted yesterday (through which I sat saying to myself, “yep, yep, agree, yep, correct, absolutely” and “why did Gezza want me to watch this when it doesn’t address anything of what I believe and why?!”, I’m not too concerned that you think I’m wrong. Just as I’m sure you reciprocate.

              So…, just out of interest, why do you think an ordinary Muslim, likely already wary due to March 15 and David Hughes’ effort would invest time answering what you claim “needs” to be discussed about their holy book, and how they interpret and apply it?

            • Kimbo

               /  17th April 2019

              @ Alan Wilkinson

              Fair enough, Alan. Maybe you need to have a word with Gezza then, because for some reason he insists repeatedly there is a “need” for others to discuss with us, the public, what they think, believe and do. Me? Unless they are infringing of my freedoms, they are entitled to ignore Gezza’s spurious need. Or if they are less polite, (and at this point I quote Christopher Hitchens) tell him to f#@$ off! 😀

            • Gezza

               /  17th April 2019

              @ Kimbo

              Quite a bit to plow through & respond to there. Have posted into iNotes. Will take a wee while to format (all that goes), consider & reply.

              Meantime, just on my allegefly sounding “dogmatic”:
              dogma
              noun
              a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
              “the dogmas of faith

              I don’t have a dogma. I don’t see anyone as an authority laying down a set of principles for my views. Nor do I have a religion. I just don’t believe your God or Islam’s really exists, nor do I believe Jesus was divine, or is God, or that your God has all the “all” properties it is claimed to possess.

              “and presumptuous”.

              I don’t think I am. I am happy to keep explaining over & over again that I am giving personal viewpoint only. Others may share it, but I may not agree with all others. If for the sake of these discussions we have, I can momentarily borrow your concept – your God gave me a brain & the capacity to use it to think & express those thoughts. My own. And anyone can disagree.

            • Gezza

               /  17th April 2019

              Maybe you need to have a word with Gezza then, because for some reason he insists repeatedly there is a “need” for others to discuss with us, the public

              Oh, I see. I don’t think there’s an enforecable “need” for the public to discuss these matters. Perhaps I should stop using that term to prevent any misunderstanding or misreresentation of my meaning.

              I, personally, think it would be a good thing if more did, & there were opportunities for people interested in considering these issues to have more forums to do so, publicly, should they wish to explain why others who make claims that their religion is hateful is not.

              And why they believe it anyway. I am hoping that the education system will eventually persuade more people out of them, but this might leave us with the problem of how do you define & enforce a moral code for those who need religions to give it to them.

            • Gezza

               /  17th April 2019

              *who make claims that their religion is hateful are wrong.

            • Kimbo

               /  17th April 2019

              Er, no chap.

              Read again what I quoted of you that prompted me to use those descriptors – you are presumptuous about what I allegedly “know”, or claim to know and why…and what I can’t/won’t do, “explain why Islam is wrong”. Er actually I then proceeded to do that, or at least why – again contrary to your presumption – I think – not know! It is provisionally wrong. Or why (“that will expose to the light…why yours is wrong”)

              And I didn’t say you had a dogma. I said you sounded “dogmatic” (about what you presumed I “know”. Those are different things, irrespective of what your “brain” tells you.

              Sorry, Gezza, but I don’t care who you are, but when you start presuming, putting words in my mouth, and thoughts in my mind, and dishonest motives in my heart

              ..and can’t even follow the thread of a conversation (e.g., how I used “sound dogmatic” and “presumptuous” in context), then irrespective of what we are discussing, and your right to hold an opinion, it’s time to reach for the flusher.

            • Kimbo

               /  17th April 2019

              Non Muslims can talk about all they want, Gezza. But

              1. It’s not what’s in a holy book that makes the religion hateful

              2. It’s not what those in favour say the holy book means, and what the followers are obligated to do that makes the religion hateful.

              3. It’s not what those against say the holy book means, and what the followers are obligated to do that makes the religion hateful.

              4. It’s what the believers corporately and personally decide what they are going to do, whether motivated by the holy book, or 8n spite of it…that determines if the outworking of religion is hateful…or loving.

              So unless you are hearing from ordinary Muslims in the matter, you are speculating to a large degree. So again, why do you think a Muslim decide to spend his time discussing his faith with you? You in particular, I mean.

            • Gezza

               /  17th April 2019

              So unless you are hearing from ordinary Muslims in the matter, you are speculating to a large degree. So again, why do you think a Muslim decide to spend his time discussing his faith with you? You in particular, I mean.

              I don’t, Kimbo. But when someone quotes passsges of their Quran that do exist & say they show Muslims can’t be trusted because of them, I think it would be useful for someone orwho is a Muslim to explain briefly why those verses do not mean what they apoear to say, but are still there. Because they are Muslim.

              It’s 23.47 here. I’ll copy all your additional comments into iNotes & ponder & reply tomorrow sometime. With what a very quick skim read lodged you make some good points for me to ponder, & several of the things I asserted should have been posed as questions.

            • Kimbo

               /  18th April 2019

              Ok, good night. If they were meant to be questions about my thoughts/knowledge and motives, then fair enough…but the batsman can only play the ball as it is delivered. 🏏😀

              Will try and make time tomorrow to look out for your posts but I could be busy.

            • Gezza

               /  18th April 2019

              Yes, Kimbo, I concede there numerous errors in my approach to this conversation.

          • Jacqueline Walter, Makarewa, Southland

             /  17th April 2019

            Yes true, but I said the Bible does not ‘teach’ the culling….
            The present tense.

            When people quote parts as Kimbo did above, it can give strange credence to strange ideas (such as fiddling with hate speech law).

            We need good Biblical exegesis. The youth are needing this, including young GG. Who is there for her? She’s reacted to the mocking, but who is really there for her?

            Reply
            • Kimbo

               /  17th April 2019

              I Corinthians chapter 5 (removing apostates from the congregation, i.e., excommunication) is current applicable teaching – if not always practiced by many churches.

            • Kimbo

               /  17th April 2019

              …but I freely admit that since the PCANZ did not find in 1967 that Lloyd Geering had committed heresy by denying the bodily resurrection of Christ, that denomination no longer exercises what John Calvin described as the “third mark of the true church”, the application of “Church discipline”. Or at least not with the ultimate and unfortunate sanction of excommunication for heresy or consistent non-Christian conduct as taught by the Apostle Paul.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  17th April 2019

            I suspect that the verses quoted have been distorted; the words used are a real giveaway that this is a modern rewording, the equivalent of the Message which is a complete distortion of the Bible. (The stigmata in Micah are a bl black eye in The Mess, the woman in Proverbs makes knitwear for her boutiques; you couldn’t make this tripe up)

            GG is in her 30s, an adult. My mother was starting afresh with two children to support when she was in her 30s.

            Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  17th April 2019

      David, it would be offensive to take odd sentences from the Bible or any holy book and distort them to make them seem quite different to what they are.

      Reply
  6. Zedd

     /  17th April 2019

    same old.. same old : If your not.. white, middle-upper class, middle-aged, ‘right-leaning’ & staunch followers of ‘Rugby, Racing & Beer’.. you are open to to attack by the majority of so-called ‘mainstream, (narrow-minded) kiwis’ :/

    btw: also being ‘Greenie’ puts Golriz, in-the-sights of nonsensical; ‘loony left’ ranters !? 😦

    Reply
    • duperez

       /  17th April 2019

      There are probably those who don’t only feel more comfortable with, but absolutely only want, MPs who fit a certain profile. Preferably those who’d attended Southland Girls or Boys High Schools, had grandmothers and great-grandmothers who’d been active in the local Country Women’s Institutes and had well used Bibles in bedside drawers.
      Instead of the mentioned schools of course Christ’s College or Rangiruru would be fine.

      The men would be expected to follow the Keith Holyoake advice to breathe through their noses, for about six years. The women members would breathe through their noses for the length of their terms unless they are needed as for missions crashing, crushing and intimidating others. The bonus in that would be not just in goals achieved but in satisfying their titillation needs.

      Gharaman doesn’t fit any bill. Anything, everything, she says or does accentuates that. It could be that threat she poses to the world really is to the minds of a few people and the world order constructed there.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  17th April 2019

        It could be that both Hughes & Ghahraman are right in one way, and wrong in another. Hughes has fallen into the classic situation of thinking he can mind-read & this has led him to draw & false conclusion & publish an incorrect allegation, but I see no defence from Golriz against his claim that the Quran contains hate speech. To me, those passages clearly are.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  17th April 2019

          I’d like to read them in context and not in that bizarre version.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  17th April 2019

            I just have.

            In context they are quite different and a few seem to be inventions.

            Reply
  7. duperez

     /  17th April 2019

    There might be enough attention given by this for ‘David Hughes’ to come on here make himself clear. He has claimed the list given is Ghahraman’s daily code to live by.

    At the moment for him it’s a sort of ‘put up or shut up’ situation.

    Reply
  8. Dave K

     /  17th April 2019

    What, so we should ditch Section 14 just because this guy is a dick?

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225513.html

    No more hurty feelings…….is that really what next Thursday is about???

    Slippery, slippery slope……

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  17th April 2019

      Obviously the censorship of Tarrant’s manifesto and video is a flagrant direct violation of this section of the Bill of Rights.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  17th April 2019

        No it isnt .
        S4 Other enactments not affected
        S5 Justified limitations

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  17th April 2019

          Of course it is. Just because our Parliament is given a free pass to ignore the Bill of Rights doesn’t mean this right is not flagrantly and directly violated.

          Reply
    • Duker

       /  17th April 2019

      You havent checked on S3

      This Bill of Rights applies only to acts done—

      (a)by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the Government of New Zealand; or

      (b)by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law.

      ie ‘official bodies’. Your employer isnt bound by it ( the Israel Folau situation ) nor is say Twitter or Facebook or YourNZ!

      Reply
      • Dave K

         /  17th April 2019

        Meh…

        Its not the reason my grandfather and great uncle are baking in the sun in some North African shithole

        “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  17th April 2019

          Really? . Bill of Rights is very very recent . Didnt exist in 1939 .
          yes they died to prevent a nasty form of white Aryan supremacist ideology spreading.
          Are you resisting the white supremacists too ?

          Reply
          • Dave K

             /  17th April 2019

            The ideology they were fighting sought to exert control over people according to which box they were classified in…..much like intersectionality.

            I resist anyone seeks to control what I think, say or do…..how about the non-racial post heteronormative you?

            Reply
  9. Then why, Golriz, did you just amplify the contents exposure by 200x ????

    I know. Effects don’t matter to an ambitious politican. What matters is *you* looking good.

    You are so full of it. Just like phil Goff.

    Reply
  10. Alan Wilkinson

     /  17th April 2019

    a) The Koran contains hate speech,
    b) David Hughes is a dickhead,
    c) Golriz is milking him,
    d) She doesn’t have the right to suppress speech she doesn’t like,

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  17th April 2019

      I think that’s all that needs to be said. Case closed…except it’s not if Andy has his way.

      Reply
    • Gezza

       /  17th April 2019

      a. Yes it does.
      b. His head appears to a be bog standard normal human ape bonce to me.
      c. Seems that way (taken metaphorically, of course).
      d. No. Nor should she or others be given it.

      All in all, not a bad effort. Keep up the good work, Wilkinson. Try not to be disruptive in class when you become bored.

      Reply
    • Kimbo

       /  17th April 2019

      Disagree with a). If the Koran (or Bible, or Das Kapital or whatever) contains hate speech (and I don’t think they do, not in the ahistorical context in which their message now exists), then they risk being suppressed if we have hate speech laws. Which we currently do.

      Maybe I’m working back from the desired result and formulating my starting definitions accordingly, but there it is. 😀

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  17th April 2019

        Very embarrassing. I mis-read formulating as fornicating in my first speed-read of that. 🙄 😬

        Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  17th April 2019

        As I just said above, you are conflating hate speech with censorship. I don’t.

        Reply
        • Kimbo

           /  17th April 2019

          Yeah, I suspected that was the case. But under NZ law (genuine) hate speech is currently subject to censorship, is it not?

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  17th April 2019

            Extremely arbitrarily and inconsistently, yes. That shouldn’t be allowed to become our definition of it.

            Reply
  11. Gezza

     /  18th April 2019

    @ Kimbo

    Are you around tonite?

    Reply
    • Kimbo

       /  18th April 2019

      Sounds like you are looking for a bootie call. 😂😂😂😂

      Yes.

      Reply
    • Kimbo

       /  18th April 2019

      Lead on, Macduff…

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  18th April 2019

        Oh good, thanks. I found our discussion last night very useful, actually. I just wanted to tell you I will reply to the issues you raised, but I’m knackered tonite. I have taken on board some criticisms & agree, I need to change my approach, try to be more precise & check assumptions, ask questions if necessary.

        I’ve finally been given my operation date in two weeks time for an op to fix a fatal condition (an abdominal aortivpc aneurism -.It’s shot past the usual threshold for surgery) & am also looking after my 92 yr old ma who’s got terminal cancer & just had to come off chemo after a severe reaction put her in hospital for 2 weeks (we were at the hospital today to come up with a plan from here). She has to go into respite care when I have my op & I’m laid up for a week or two.

        I’m running between two houses with multiple medical appointments. I need to catch up on some sleep, I’m getting run down. But I would still like to have a decent discussion where I might think about all the reasons I think prove – on the blance of probabilities – that the Abrahamic God does not exist & Jesus was not divine.

        You’re right, our discussions to date aren’t focussed enuf. You seem to want to set parameters & I want to make a cogent, coherent list with reasons of all the factors /evidence that support my contention in some sort of logical order & see what we agree on & where we disagree.

        Even if neither of us is persuaded out of our view, it’s the discussion of them that matters & what I’m interested in.

        You’re also correct that of course I cannot simply dismiss ANY argument or evidence you wish to provide without examination & consideration.

        A balance of probabilities is all either of us can realistically argue, although I don’t think we can have a judge because we will end up choosing individually how much weight should be placed on any given individual factor or argument.

        Even if neither of us is persuaded out of our view, it’s the discussion of them that matters & what I’m interested in.

        One potential difficulty I alluded to some time back is different Christians define their God in terms of his properties. So I will set out what properties & claims I think are disproved & if any are not applicable to your beliefs no problem.

        This will need a lot more thought & organisation than just debating back and forward on an ad hoc basis. Give me a few days & I’ll see if I can put something worth reading that doesn’t take forever to get thru that pulls it all together somehow in a way that can isolate my specific issues.

        Then see what you think & whether we have a basis for a reasoned debate, point by point,, & what might be the best way to discuss those and any others you think musy be added.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  18th April 2019

          drat. aortic aneurysm

          Reply
        • Kimbo

           /  19th April 2019

          Sorry to hear about the issues you are juggling – similar thing happened with a family member last year at the same time I was undergoing chemo, so when it rains it pours. So pace yourself as and when you can.

          Sure, take your time. Did you want to consider swapping email addresses via Pete George, or do you still want to keep discussion in this public forum? Happy to do either.

          Might I suggest that, for me at least, the existence of the Abrahamic God is dependent on Jesus’ divinity…and his resurrection. That for me was what brought me to faith and has kept me there – I think and therefore believe he rose again. I’ve indicated elsewhere I don’t have much time for Aquinas’ 5 proofs for the existence of God, some of which get repackaged, especially as science discovers more complexity (and the propagandists for Creation Science go, “aha! Someone must have designed that…”).

          Am happy to discuss the purported attributes of Yahweh/the Father, and I’m guessing – but not assuming – you may like to demonstrate where they are either deficient for a supposed deity, or they are contradicted in the ways he is presented at times in Scripture, or they are unable to be reconciled in practice.

          For example, you’ve complained before about what you consider the deficiencies of progressive revelation. I’m not really swayed by your arguments, and I could throw some back at you. For example, the deliberate message of the Old Testament is that God’s chosen people seem like they will never obey him (so there is the hope and expectation God will intervene at some point in the future to transform them, see Jeremiah 31: 31-34)

          …so what makes you think God adding an 11th commandment outlawing slavery would be treated any differently to the prohibitions on idolatry, murder, adultery, stealing or lying?! 😀. Either way, I think we would just continue to talk past one another on a surface level.

          Also I’ve just seen a YouTube video of Matt Dillahunty refer to the doctrine of the Trinity (believed only by Christians among the three Abrahamic faiths) as “illogical”. Disagree. If Scripture presented God as three in the same way he is one, then yeah, sure, that contradicts mathematics. But we don’t believe that. Instead, he is three in one way and one in another. That may transcend logic (as many ways of knowing/experiencing truth do), but it ain’t illogical. You may find what theologians discuss about the matter, and other attributes or other alleged contradictions in Scripture a waste of time. Fair enough. But Christians, including historicallly, have found theology indispensable to try and understand what has been revealed to us means, and how. And irrespective of the fact you find no value in theology (as is your right), we don’t have to modify or change for you…and almost certainly won’t. And we don’t expect any different from you. I don’t, anyway. 😀

          But back to my point. Bear in mind that due to my starting point that the resurrection of Christ occurred

          …it therefore follows that there is indeed a God with all the attributes described in Scripture

          …including the capacity and desire to reveal himself, including most fully through Jesus Christ

          …and, as per the revelation attested in Scripture he did it progressively over centuries, starting with the formation of the nation of Ancient Israel, and culminating in Christ

          …and that a necessary, indeed logical response to such a deity’s revelation, is to exercise faith

          …including when our finite and fallible minds seek to reconcile the otherwise unknowable aspects of an eternal God beyond time and space, which he has revealed with earthly analogies.

          So I’m not sure chipping away at God’s attributes would cause me to reconsider much, nor elicit much of value for you. Usually most Christians have already considered the objections skeptics raise…because they read their Bibles and come across them anyway! 😀

          And we don’t have to apologise for exercising faith, anymore than, say, Matt Dillahunty (or you at one point) has to apologise for saying, “I don’t know” when asked beforehand “what specific evidence, if it were to be produced, would cause you to believe in God/the resurrection of Christ?”

          But I don’t think my faith is blind, nor is it the starting point. Instead, as above, I think my faith is a logical, indeed necessary response to what I think was an event that occurred in time and space. And the unlike Dillahunty (with whose brand of skepticism I take issue, especially when it comes to the tools and reasonable conclusions of historical research) I can detail beforehand some specific evidence, which, if it were produced would cause me to change my mind. As per Popper’s principle of falsification, if it can be shown that Christ remained dead, then yep, the game is up. Wouldn’t even waste my time trying to argue his attributes are contradictory. Would be as pointless as trying to do the same with Santa Claus to disprove (in practical terms) his existence. Or Zeus, or Rangi, or Ba’al, or…

          Hope you rest up well.

          Cheers,

          Kimbo

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  19th April 2019

            Good Morning Kimbo

            Easter has crept up on me without my really being aware of & it’s only just struck me how core it appears to be to your belief in the existence of the Abrahamic God & how much to me it is only a part of the reasons for my non-belief.

            It’s been years since I first encountered an often rather firebrand Matt. There are now a ton of Dillahunty videos I was not even aware of, & I am fascinated to see how many of the things I have considered & privately – personally – concluded, or considered at least as peripheral ideas for “alternatives” to the Christian God or a hidden the nature of universe that I wouldn’t rule out.

            I don’t agree with everything he says but he does turn out after some years of maturing & acknowledging errors in his earliest approach to arguing for the nin-truth of The Bible God, to now articulate better many of the reasons for my own personal rejection of this God as real. I’ve just this morning watched a 40 minute video where he has (politely, of course) demolished some of my notions on alternatives – at least from his standpoint.

            Also, interestingly, he explained quite lucidly, I thought, the same kind of thoughts as mine on why labels or categorisations don’t seem particularly useful to the question of whether the Abrahamic God exists & the Bible is true, if only “correctly” understood interpreted, given that there can potentially be a thousand different theoretical interpretations of various parts of what in total is a very complex Book.

            I certainly see him as a very good source for exploring & understanding better some of my own objections, often from more angles, & more detailed knowledge of the Bible than mine, although I don’t believe an encyclopaedic knowledge of it is necessary to reject it as key concepts don’t rely on every word or verse in there to be ruled out. I find much of the history of the Israelites i there interesting in itself because I like history.

            I don’t think I need to complete & post replies to your comments from the other day. It’s quite clear to me that we approach this issue from completely different viewponts & that as you have pointed out (& to my now embarrassment) it is simply not tenable nor possible for me to simply dismiss or ignore theology & philosophy as they are crucial to the whole argument. To dismiss them without attempting to consider & understand at least the essential argument for why any of these should be considered evidence is nuts. And means there is no possibility of debate unless each of us can explain WHY we reject an argument as either invalid or simply not determinative to us.

            I posted that video of Matt’s the other day to see if it could help ME get an idea of whether we can actually have a worthwhile discussion of this issue from such a divergent approach.

            I think we can. I think we CAN find a way to work out how to do this usefully on a public forum, because I think it’s a more important matter than many people would think but it is one where most people would rather not bother with. 50 completely innocent people just got murdered in New Zealand, & nearly as many maimed, because they believe in Islam, & that made them a target of a hatred I can’t even imagine ever feeling for anyone.

            But the gold standard of the Abrahamic God, to me, is The Christian one. Because to me It is the most complex, most-evolved, most conceptually developed one.

            I would love to swap email addresses & have done so with a very small number of people who post here with whom I am occasional “email friends” & who I have trusted to respect everything as between ourselves only. I have never regretted it. I regard them as good friends, even though we are all very different.,Mine doesn’t identify me. Will send confirmation of this to PG to on-send.

            All from me for now. And thank you.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  19th April 2019

              i look forward to resumption of the contest to see what it can reveal. For myself, I simply put the likelihood of a God interested and involved to the extent claimed in this infinitesimal point in the universe and to our single, temporal species on it as indistinguishable from zero.

            • Kimbo

               /  19th April 2019

              Sounds good – will pass on my email to Pete to pass on to you.

              Just a brief response to the “thousands of interpretations” of biblical passages, and that allegedly rules the Bible out as a satisfactory means of understanding God. Yes, we believe the Scripture is true, but interpretation of it, including and especially the labels and categories that God has used to reveal himself and his work, is provisional. At least it should be for Protestants, who, in theory acknowledge no Pope or other human authority or institution/church as an infallible Scriptural interpreter. And in practice we are led to a better (or degenerate to a poorer) understanding of that truth via a dynamic process known as “the hermeneutical spiral”. That should be whittling away the many possible interpretations and leaving what are then viable possibilities, which are then weighed and compared to ascertain the most likely.

              Sort of like how science never claims to have nailed down absolutely what is reality. But as linguistic and textual interpretation are a different discipline, the truth, or at least the original authorial intent of the text and meaning to its original recipients are (provisionally) ascertained by different tools and tests from science.

              I saw Dillahunty explain last night that science attempts to ascertain and work within the “rules”, both material and logical on which the known Universe operate. So in the same way, just as any discernible phenomena has its own reality and internal system that should be respected in determining what tools should – or should not – be used to understand it, Scripture, like any form of literature has its own internal and external tests.

              Doesn’t mean one has to agree with the literature- for example I don’t agree with much of the Koran that I can access via a translation – but I can to a satisfactory degree (I hope) understand what and why Muslims believe what they do about Allah. But if there is internal and external sufficient data, one can make a reasonable case, “this is what this purported revelation means, and this is what it is requiring as an appropriate response”. Then one can decide…is this sufficient to persuade me to believe?

              Put it this way, I’ve listened to many Muslims disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity, but I don’t think I’ve ever encountered one who has accurately relayed first what we as Christians mean (and don’t mean!) by terms such as “God is three” and “Jesus is Son of God”. There is a reason why – they are working primarily, maybe exclusively from the Koran’s definitions and rejections of those terms. Fair enough, and as that is their supposedly infallible source of authoritative revelation, not surprising. But unless they cross over and at least understand what Christians think and why, little real dialogue will occur as a straw man is the focus.

              Also bear in mind for the context of an atheist/Christian dialogue, Scripture doesn’t set out to “prove” the existence of God. Instead, it works from the starting point he has revealed himself through Ancient Israel and Jesus Christ, and this is what he says, and there is an invitation to trust him. What one does with that, including rejecting it because they consider it insufficient, is what it is…

              So yeah, I think the ability to be able to dialogue, without hostility, over differences in religion, ideology or metaphysics is an important civil activity.

            • Gezza

               /  19th April 2019

              In one way I can see a parallel of sorts. I am as you know a dedicated night sky watcher & I frequently find myself looking up at the rotating celestial landscape, moon, planets, visible galaxies & asterisms – knowing that a simple pair of binoculars immediately gets me lost because of the thousands more stars that immediately fill the view.

              And most of those are in our own Milky Way. Beyond that lies an unimaginable immensity of a universe. I always feel two emotions. First, as a Great Ape, I am awed by the fact I have the capacity to even apprehend this & that somehow makes me feel important & special.

              And secondly, I am struck by how absolutely insignificant I am in the overall scale of things.

            • Gezza

               /  19th April 2019

              Sorry, the above is a reply to Alan.

            • Gezza

               /  19th April 2019

              @ Kimbo

              Yep. Got all of that. Completely understand & agree.

  1. Shameful, disgraceful attack on Golriz Gharaman by ‘David Hughes’ — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

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