Seymour and ‘alt-right’ versus female MPs

Act MP David Seymour was stronly criticised – and supported – for comments he made about Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, in particular “she is a real menace to freedom”.

“I just think that Golriz Ghahraman is completely wrong, I don’t know if she understands what she’s saying, but she is a real menace to freedom in this country, whether or not she understands that she is, and I think that it’s important that all right-thinking New Zealanders say “the true danger ah… to any society is rulers who put in place rules and regulations saying you’re not allowed to express yourself” – that’s how tyranny begins.

And I’d just invite people to have a look at speeches that Xi Jing Ping gives and speeches that Golriz Ghahraman gives, and it’s actually very difficult to tell the difference. I actually looked at a couple of paragraphs – one paragraph from each – I tried to guess which was which – and ah… Xi Jing Ping actually looked like a more liberal ah guy on this issue than Golriz Ghahraman.”

It was claimed that this contributed to an escalation in online attacks against Ghahraman which led to Parliament providing increased security for Ghahraman after she got more death threats.

Seymour and Judith Collins were interviewed by Sean Plunket: Judith Collins labeled ‘ageist’ as David Seymour attacks her defence of Golriz Ghahraman

Collins:

He referred to her as being a menace to society. I don’t think she is a menace to society. I think her views are not ones that I agree with, and I would agree with him on that. And I think that she is very illiberal when it comes to people’s freedom of speech but that bit does not mean to say that he needs to put it in such a personal way that he did, against her personally.

And my view is that parliament is a very tough place, but actually for some people it’s a lot tougher and she is someone who gives a lot of stuff back to people but she also, I think at the moment, is getting a lot more than what she deserves. And I just think it’s time we calmed down in parliament, and outside of parliament, and remembered that she is just a human being.

I have no problem with David doing what he does, except that if he does then he can expect me to make a comment about it.

So, actually, just like he wants to express his free speech, I am expressing mine, which is that we need to be a little bit kinder towards each other even when the other person has views entirely different from ourselves, and we don’t need to always make it so personal. That’s my feeling.

Seymour was unrepentant:

If people think that me saying that a politician who wants to expand the powers of the state to decide what you’re allowed to say and when they hear me say it, think that the way I say it is more important than the issue of freedom of speech then I think that person has their priorities wrong.

And I do think that a politician who wants to put stricter boundaries around what people are allowed to say, when they genuinely believe it, is a menace, not to our society, but to give me my proper quote, to freedom in our society. Because that is how tyranny begins and I think we should be a lot more worried about that, than how exactly it is said.

The counter claim has been that stoking up abuse and attacks against an MP, deliberately or not, is also a menace to society.

Yesterday from 1 News: Speaker Trevor Mallard says David Seymour bullied Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman

When asked by TVNZ1’s Breakfast host John Campbell if the comments made by Mr Seymour on radio show Magic last week were bullying, he responded “yes”.

“In my opinion that did step over the line,” Mr Mallard says. “It’s not a breach of privilege because it didn’t happen in the House. It’s not a criminal offence but I think it showed poor judgement.”

He said bullying needed to be called out, and said it was leaders and senior staff who needed to step up against bullying.

Seymour responded: Free speech debate shows hate speech laws are a bad idea

The response to my recent comments on free speech proves we cannot trust government to enforce hate speech laws”, says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“Speaker Trevor Mallard is the latest to denounce my views and try to shut down any criticism of those who would take away our right to freedom of expression.

“Imagine if the state had even greater powers to punish speech at its disposal.

“The Government, emboldened by the Twitter mob, would now be using that power to investigate and punish a sitting MP’s genuinely-held views.

“Hate speech laws turn debate into a popularity contest where the winners get to silence views they don’t like by using the power of the state.

“We find ourselves in an astonishing situation: an MP can vigorously campaign to take away our right to freedom of expression, but, if another MP criticises them, Parliament’s Speaker says they are a bully.

“Freedom of expression is one of the most important values our society has. It cannot be abandoned because anyone, let alone Parliament’s Speaker, weighs in with accusations against anyone who defends it.

“ACT will continue to defend the critical principle that nobody should ever be punished by the power of the state on the basis of opinion.”

Calling out bullying speech is also free speech. As a number of female MPs have done:

Newshub: Women MPs urge David Seymour to apologise for Golriz Ghahraman remarks

A cross-party group representing women in Parliament has urged David Seymour to apologise for remarks he made about Green MP Golriz Ghahraman.

Signed by Labour MP Louisa Wall and National MP Jo Hayes – co-chairs of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians (CWP) New Zealand group – the letter asks that Seymour “reflect” on his “behaviour”.

“We ask that you reflect on your behaviour and consider offering a public apology to Golriz for the comments made, preferably in the House,” the letter addressed to Seymour reads.

The co-chairs said they’d received requests from members of the CWP group urging them to “take appropriate action” on their behalf in response to comments made by Seymour “in reference to a member of the House, Golriz Ghahraman”.

The letter acknowledged how Seymour didn’t make the comments in Parliament and couldn’t be held to account by Standing Orders – the rules of procedure for the House.

But it went on to tell Seymour: “We, as women MPs, consider your behaviour towards a colleague who has been under attack with death threats and is already in a vulnerable position is unacceptable”.

Again Seymour was unrepentant.

Seymour responded to the letter saying he was “disappointed” to receive it, and that the group “seem to believe that expressing a sincerely held view on an important topic makes me responsible for threats of violence”.

Seymour said the comments he made “do not come close to giving me such responsibility”, adding: “Your belief would absolve the real perpetrators, those making the threats, of responsibility.

“You also introduce a worrying implication that some MPs are unable to fully participate or be criticised because there are violent threats. You are effectively letting violent thugs set the agenda.”

No, they are trying to confront violent thugs from setting the agenda.

Seymour is getting into very risky territory here. He is appealing to the alt-right in social media but I think may be being fooled by how much voter support this might represent.

It has been reported that Act intends rebranding as a party this year. Seymour seems to be already attempting a rebranding.

But I think he would do well to consider the responsibilities of how an MP speaks in relation to free speech, especially when associated with hate speech.

For MPs, what they say can have consequences. They can give credence and support to abusive minorities. And they can also affect voter support. If Seymour lurches too far alt-right he risks becoming too toxic for National to make it easy for him in Epsom.

 

Leave a comment

69 Comments

  1. Corky

     /  23rd May 2019

    Not only is Green MP Golriz Ghahraman a menace to freedom…so is Louisa Wall.
    The only thing stopping Seymour being proven right is these women lack the power to legislate their visions into reality. I would love to wave a magic wand and make these women leaders of a major political party. I’m sure our conversation would be very different to the one we are having now.

    “You also introduce a worrying implication that some MPs are unable to fully participate or be criticised because there are violent threats. You are effectively letting violent thugs set the agenda.”

    Enough said…apart from the fact that ..one act..one thug….has complete control over this country.

    Reply
    • Zedd

       /  23rd May 2019

      OR are you just being a menace ? 😀

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  23rd May 2019

        Its exactly because Seymour is the leader of an insignificant group – not really a party anymore , just the plaything of the Gibbs’s, that he has raised these issues.

        When he had a tiny role in government , it was all about the Gibbs interest at the time Charter schools.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  23rd May 2019

          He’s hardly a plaything of the Gibbses; what nonsense.

          What possible interest could they have in Charter Schools (as in financial interest, of course) ?

          As GG was whining about being threatened long before he made these comments, it’s hard to see what effect he would have on those who supposedly make them. Louisa Wall et al are feeding an attention-seeker’s ego and also supporting the women as victims credo.They are distorting things out of all proportion, and giving him far too much power.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  23rd May 2019

            You said financial, I meant it as a political interest , its the sort of US fad that they would be interested in, certainly ACT had never mentioned it before the election ..you know when parties announce their future policies. Thats how ACT ended up with Hide , who was originally some sort of economic stooge for Alan Gibbs, taking his agenda and making a vaguely coherent policy, Im sure they ‘found’ Seymour as well ,and bought him out from whatever think tank he found himself in.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  23rd May 2019

              Dream on. That is so ridiculous that it’s not worth refuting.

              My husband was a founding member of ACT.

              I know Rodney Hide and David Seymour and have, I suspect, more inside information than you have. My husband was a board member and list candidate. At the time of the leadership change, we knew many things that were not in the press; he acted as a decoy for the press. Our phone rang nonstop – literally – we’d hang up and there’d be another one. The press tried to winkle information out of my husband but got nothing.

              Don’t tell me about ACT.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  23rd May 2019

              You must know that interest in the context in which you used it implies financial interest or gain rather than finding something interesting.

            • Duker

               /  23rd May 2019

              I said it was political interest, there is no money in charter schools anyway. Strange that you should think that.
              I don’t know how Hide became leader but he became involved with ACT through his connections with Gibbs…I had thought Gibbs didn’t know anything about formal economics, I was wrong he was far smarter than Hide and had the qualifications to match, maybe he was already thinking about who to replace Prebble

  2. FarmerPete

     /  23rd May 2019

    Unusually,I am with Seymour on this. Free speech is the cornerstone of our system of government. I don’t trust this lot (or any government for that matter) to decide what is appropriate or not.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  23rd May 2019

      “Free speech is the cornerstone of our system of government.”

      No it isnt and never has been in the way you describe.
      State Censorship of films and literature has existed for decades, is always there out of sight until very recently when it came into the public eye and was banned ( people will go to jail for distributing it)
      Media organisations have exercised their privileges of not publishing stuff they dont like for what ever reason since for ever.
      NZ only had a Bill of Rights as a project of Geoffrey Palmer , but it has a number of ‘exceptions’ like the Human Rights Act

      The orginal white paper from 1985 meant it could have been a constitution level law
      White Paper wanted –
      -The Bill of Rights was to become entrenched law so that it could not be amended or repealed without a 75% majority vote in the House of Representatives or a simple majority in a public referendum;
      -The Bill of Rights was to therefore have status as supreme law, thereby causing some erosion to the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty;
      -The Treaty of Waitangi was to be wholly incorporated within the Bill of Rights thus elevating the Treaty’s status to that of supreme law;
      -The Judiciary would have the power to invalidate any Act of Parliament, common law rule or official action which was contrary to the Bill of Rights.

      And people think recent different proposals for policy have back tracked! This was the Mother of all backtracks

      Reply
  3. Tom Hunter

     /  23rd May 2019

    No, they are trying to confront violent thugs from setting the agenda.

    They’re working with the NZ Police and also lobbying Facebook and Twitter to identify and/or ban these thugs? They’re readying legislation to help do that?

    No, they’re attacking a political party and politician whose ideas they’re all largely opposed to. How convenient.

    Calling out bullying speech is also free speech. As a number of female MPs have done:

    Yes it is and good on them. Let’s hope Seymour does not try and get into a contest for the Victim Stakes by complaining about all the abuse he’s receiving. I hate seeing that tactic rewarded but it seems normal now in the Age of Feelz.

    Again Seymour was unrepentant.

    Good on him. He’s learned the lesson from the likes of Trump, which is that these bullying mobs don’t want apologies or contrition; they want their opponents guilted and shamed into silence. I’ll guarantee that when Left-wing activists attack ACT or National politicians as being a “menace to society” (“racists”, “xenophobes”, “fascists”, etc) they’ll feel not the slightest guilt or shame in doing so – because they’re on the side of righteneous.

    Muldoon was regularly called all these things by his Left opponents back in the day, and they genuinely felt it was entirely accurate. If he’d had social media, an overwhelming sense of victimhood (“I’m powerless”), and the tactical desire to weaponise it, he could have played the same game as Ghahraman.

    If one were to predict between comity and authoritarianism in the coming years the odds would favor authoritarianism. Never has so much naked ambition disguised itself as virtue, and the more loudly political factions proclaim they’re out to save the world, the more ruthless they are likely to be. Liberty will come under assault from the banner of tolerance; fascism will advance in the guise of grievance.

    Reply
  4. Than

     /  23rd May 2019

    Put me down in the strongly supporting category. The word “menace” may have been poorly chosen, but the sentiment is 100% accurate. Golriz Ghahraman gives lip service to the notion of free speech, but at the end of the day her definition of hate speech will be “any political view I disagree with”. Seymour was completely right to call her out on it.

    And the claim that Seymour’s comment is what led to the escalation in online attacks is, well, extremely tenuous. If not flat out laughable.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  23rd May 2019

      I know David and will pass on the support when I see him next week !

      Dear Golriz was quite happy to be seen smooging up to someone who incited genocide and then lying about the fact that she was on the defending side, not the prosecution. One doesn’t normally take selfies with someone whom one is prosecuting and if I was the accused and a very junior lawyer suggested it, I would not be posing with that person and grinning at the camera.

      Reply
  5. david in aus

     /  23rd May 2019

    The Left including Labour is being defined by Golriz. Mallard is doubling down. The media in NZ, like Australia, are out of touch with middle-class values. The Nats, if they are smart, should exploit this. The implications for Religous communities, as in the Folau case, are significant.

    If Simon Bridges is not up to the culture wars, he should step down.

    Reply
    • Tom Hunter

       /  23rd May 2019

      It’s interesting that Pete mentioned this:

      It has been reported that Act intends rebranding as a party this year. Seymour seems to be already attempting a rebranding.

      Given the success of parties overseas which have kicked against the “common wisdom” as espoused by most academics, media figures and mainstream political parties, and given that ACT has got nowhere trying to push Rogernomics 2.0, this would not surprise me in the least. How many traditional ACT principles – say on free trade – that might mean trashing, is hard to say.

      Whether that will work in NZ or not is hard to say. It is both our curse and our blessing that Kiwis tend to just trundle along, refusing to get too het up by activist screamers on any issue.

      But given that both Labour and National seem more intent on appeasing the concerns and worries of relatively wealthy folks in our pretty suburbs, than on the working class areas of the likes of South Auckland and the provincial areas, given that Winston First appeals to many of those voters but likely will be gone after the 2020 election and will certainly vanish with his death or retirement, ACT might be able to get them and be re-born as a “country” party, rather like in Australia.

      And of course this is without mentioning National’s very disturbing spinelessness when it comes to Communist China, as Michael Reddell has once again pointed out: National on international affairs

      Reply
  6. Patzcuaro

     /  23rd May 2019

    It appears to me that those that are claiming the “right of free speech” are predominantly from the most privileged group in society, ie European men. Those that are looking to temper the right, tend to come from less privileged groups in society that have faced discrimination and understand the effect of unfettered “free speech”. Is it “free” speech if someone else is paying a price for it?

    Reply
    • Tom Hunter

       /  23rd May 2019

      … the most privileged group in society,…

      And there it is, “fresh” from the academic world where it has bubbled away for at least three decades.

      Since coming to NZ as a refugee – allowed into this country by all those nasty Old White Men who controlled our society back then (as they still do apparently) – Golriz Ghahraman attended Auckland Girls’ Grammar School, has both an LLB and BA, with a Masters from Oxford. She has served on numerous international legal tribunals and practiced law in NZ as a barrister, which put her in upper levels of the legal world. Now she is an MP, with a significant income, influence, and likely a Green list seat for as long as she wants.

      At what stage do people like her drop the whole act of lacking power and privilege? At what stage in the rise to power and privilege do they stop pointing fingers at the strange forces that are still oppressing them?

      The answer is never! The practice was established decades ago when the definition of racism was modified to include the word “power”: you can be the most vicious racist around but if you have no power then you’re not a racist. The same formulation is now applied to every “ist” and “ism”, combined with the paternal excuse that even if you are now powerful and privileged, your’re speaking on behalf of those who are not.

      Clever. When Orwell wrote “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength” he missed a far better one:

      Power is Powerlessness

      Reply
      • Patzcuaro

         /  23rd May 2019

        Just because someone has risen through the ranks does mean that they haven’t face discrimination along the way, they have just risen above it.

        Reply
        • Kimbo

           /  24th May 2019

          Er, no chap/chapess, you are shifting goal posts. Indeed you’ve confirmed the point that Golriz is now in a group that is, by any reasonable definition (i.e., one that is not determined by identity politics) “most privileged”.

          Reply
    • Pink David

       /  23rd May 2019

      “It appears to me that those that are claiming the “right of free speech” are predominantly from the most privileged group in society, ie European men. ”

      Can you please explain how you manage to define ‘European men’ as the most privileged group in society?

      Reply
      • David in aus

         /  23rd May 2019

        Divisive aren’t they?

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  23rd May 2019

          I am not convinced that men are privileged per se.

          Men do almost all the heavy, dirty, dangerous jobs.

          Men die younger than women.

          Men can be legally forced to go to war. I was astonished to hear this being described as women not being allowed to go to fight in WWII. Men had no option.

          Men can be forced to support children who are not theirs, even when DNA proves this. The law has always supposed that Mr Smith is the father of Mrs Smith’s children. George Eliot’s partner knew that his wife’s children were not his, but let his name go on the birth certificate…which meant that when the marriage broke up, he couldn’t divorce her because, in law, he had condoned her adultery !

          Mr Bumble’s famous words ‘The law is a ass – a idiot’ (usually misquoted as ‘an ass. an idiot’) were in the context of his being told that because ‘the law suppose(d) that his wife act(ed) under his direction’, he will be charged as well for a crime committed by her.

          Prostate cancer kills about the same number of men as breast cancer does of women, but has nothing like the funding (or didn’t; and I bet that it hasn’t now)

          Reply
      • Patzcuaro

         /  23rd May 2019

        He is a list of the most privileged groups in US society, the more you belong to the more privileged you are:

        White people;
        Able-bodied people;
        Heterosexuals;
        Males;
        Christians;
        Middle or owning class people;
        Middle-aged people;
        English-speaking people.

        From that an able bodied white, Christian, heterosexual, middle aged, middle class, English speaking male hits the jackpot.

        Reply
        • Patzcuaro

           /  23rd May 2019

          It looks like David Seymour ticks most boxes.

          Reply
        • Tom Hunter

           /  23rd May 2019

          It’s rather amazing how many White, Able-bodied, Heterosexual, English-speaking, Middle-aged, Property-owning Males I’ve met who….
          ….
          didn’t seem to be very privileged compared to GG, and more-over, don’t feel very privileged compared to her.

          But I look forward to you and the rest of the Left telling such people to check their privilege and STFU.

          And don’t forget the White Woman: according to recent insanity out of the USA, they’re next in the firing line.

          Reply
          • Patzcuaro

             /  23rd May 2019

            There are exceptions everywhere but in general white males are a privileged bunch.

            Reply
            • Pink David

               /  23rd May 2019

              “There are exceptions everywhere but in general white males are a privileged bunch.”

              Because white males created the idea of free speech, capitalism, and almost all technological progress, or because they are just white men?

            • Patzcuaro

               /  23rd May 2019

              @ Pink David feeling a bit sensitive about being a white male, even ever so slightly discriminated against, welcome to the real world.

            • Pink David

               /  23rd May 2019

              Once again, you have failed to provide any argument other than regurgitating intersectional bullshit.

              The only privilege that I have is that I’m me, which is much better than being you. Behold my privilege and weep!

            • Patzcuaro

               /  23rd May 2019

              @Pink David I have all the above privileges but I’m not so blinkered that i cant see that not everybody else has them.

            • Pink David

               /  23rd May 2019

              “I have all the above privileges but I’m not so blinkered that i cant see that not everybody else has them.”

              What now? You have realised there are people in the world who are not white?

        • Pink David

           /  23rd May 2019

          “He is a list of the most privileged groups in US society, the more you belong to the more privileged you are:

          White people;
          Able-bodied people;
          Heterosexuals;
          Males;
          Christians;
          Middle or owning class people;
          Middle-aged people;
          English-speaking people.
          .”

          I ask you again, on what criteria do you judge this privilege? This is just a list of inter-sectional bullshit. I will give you example;

          “From that an able bodied white, Christian, heterosexual, middle aged, middle class, English speaking male hits the jackpot.”

          Intersectional bingo.

          This person can also be a meth addict, and poor, and in prison, yet you have decided he is more privileged than, say, Salma Hayek, who is by any reasonable measure one of the most privileged people to have ever lived.

          How do you judge such things?

          Reply
          • Patzcuaro

             /  23rd May 2019

            As a group white males are more privileged, within that group there will be some that are more privileged the others, also some that aren’t, even white males aren’t perfect.

            Reply
            • Pink David

               /  23rd May 2019

              “As a group white males are more privileged”

              By what measure? How do you define privilege? If a white male lives in Japan, is he more or less privileged than a Japanese male?

              “within that group there will be some that are more privileged the others, also some that aren’t, even white males aren’t perfect.”

              Doesn’t that go completely against your entire bloody point?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  23rd May 2019

              White males are not a group. Privilege is multifactoral, relative and weightings of each factor are arbitrary. You stereotyping is obviously and stupidly ridiculous.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  23rd May 2019

      Impeccable logic, Patz. White men want free speech so it must be bad.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  23rd May 2019

        We don’t live in the US and are not a clone of them.

        The idea that simply being a white man means privilege is absurd. If anything, women are more privileged than men. Whose medical conditions have more spent on them ?

        Reply
      • Patzcuaro

         /  23rd May 2019

        @Alan no but white men rarely face the downside of free speech.

        Reply
        • Pink David

           /  23rd May 2019

          Demonstrably untrue.

          Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  23rd May 2019

          Considering 90% of your comments are anti-Trump cartoons you have done your best to refute your own absurd claim.

          Reply
          • Patzcuaro

             /  23rd May 2019

            You are both in denial about being white privileged males.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  23rd May 2019

              I grew up in a city where half the city was white and male. Are you saying we were all privileged? Because if you are you are just idiotic.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  23rd May 2019

              I take it the other half were white and female.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  23rd May 2019

              Yes, and as mixed a population of privileged and unprivileged as the white males, though generally living a bit longer.

  7. Alan Wilkinson

     /  23rd May 2019

    Well said, most of the above commenters as applauded by upticks. On this topic it seems few agree with our host.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  23rd May 2019

      GG is an annoying drama queen as well as being a proved liar. She’s probably revelling in all the attention, being a professional victim.

      Reply
      • Patricia

         /  23rd May 2019

        Well put Kitty. Couldn’t agree with you more.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  23rd May 2019

          I bet that she was a ghastly child, a telltale and troublemaker.

          I found her speech after the Massacre appalling. A few token sentences about them and then it was all about her.

          Reply
          • Maggy Wassilieff

             /  23rd May 2019

            I wonder if that is why she went into politics… no mates to hang out with.
            Last thing I would have wanted to be doing in my 30s.

            Reply
            • I think the greens may have lured her. They certainly promoted her up the pecking order. May be one of their biggest misjudements (mistakes).

              She sounded like she could be a good addition to the Green mix but she has been a negative influence so far.

              However I don’t think any of her inadequacies as a politician are an excuse to harass her as much as is happening. On it’s own what Seymour said was minor, but in the context of everything else going on around her Seymour must have known what he said would encourage those obsessed with trying to destroy her political career.

              She isn’t in a position of much influence so I think she should be ignored unless she can come up with some worthwhile iunput.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  23rd May 2019

              @PG I think the Greens have done better out of Chloe Swarbrick, less razzle dazzle and more substance, Swarbrick reminds me of AOC well prepared when see goes into action.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  24th May 2019

              She may charm people at first, then turn them off. We all know what sort of person does that.

  8. Tom Hunter

     /  23rd May 2019

    Well, well, well – David Seymour on Free Speech in Kiwiblog.

    The start from DPF is both interesting and disturbing…

    As various media outlets have refused to run an op ed from David Seymour defending himself, I have agreed to run it here.

    Can’t wait to throw this one back at the next telemarketing phone call I get from the sad bastards at the NZ Herald begging me for a subscription.

    It will also be interesting to see if the usual stock boilerplate abuse turns up: that RWNJ’s are just whinging snowflakes, etc, etc. After all, when you’re dealing with privileged pricks like Seymour, why should he be allowed to defend himself with OpEds: just another example of the sheer, arrogant cheek of the man and what he thinks his “rights” are! Let him buy an advertisement. He’s rich!

    Reply
  9. NOEL

     /  23rd May 2019

    Comparison between NZDF and Hager s viewpoints catalogued in 17 May analysis at
    https://operationburnham.inquiry.govt.nz/news/

    Reply
  10. slinkypress

     /  23rd May 2019

    How is saying someone is “a menace” hate speech. I am not “alt right” . I have been an Act (Party Vote and National (Electorate) vote for some time and see no reason to change (presently) if I change it will be because there is little to choose between National and labour and I will be looking for an electorate MP who better supports my views of self help, not state help.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  23rd May 2019

      It wouldn’t be if GG had said it of DS, of course.

      The offensive implication in the heading of this post that David Seymour and ACT are alt-right is scurrilous, slanderous and ignorant. It shows a woeful ignorance of the fact that people of all races are ACT members. The current president is, I think, Sri Lankan racially. He is dark brown, not white.

      Alt-right implies white supremacism. To imply that anyone is that unless they are known to be shows that either the person doesn’t know what it means or is being deliberately offensive.

      Reply
  11. Trevors_elbow

     /  23rd May 2019

    What is Mallard doing commenting? He is Speakervof the House… impartial….what am I saying he is a partisan prat playing political games.

    Golriz is a dangerous ideologue… authoritarian to the core. Exactly the person not to be setting a free speech agenda…

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  23rd May 2019

      ‘Golriz is a dangerous ideologue’…..calm down Trev….

      Reply
  12. Pink David

     /  23rd May 2019

    Sums it up to me…

    Reply
  13. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  23rd May 2019
    Reply
    • Pink David

       /  23rd May 2019

      “Research has established that people of colour are “experiencing micro aggressions in a way that’s causing us mental health harm to the same level as soldiers who are based in combat zones””

      There is also significant research that has firmly established that the entire concept of micro aggression’s is utter bullshit.

      Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  23rd May 2019

      I can reassure the lady that whether she is Green, white or brown most people will have judged her daft, precious and dangerous to common sense based on her words and actions. If she fixes that problem most of her other problems will probably evaporate too.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Maggy Wassilieff Cancel 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