Social media switches attacks to partner of MP, Kiwiblog prominent

Yesterday the social media bash wagon continued attacking Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, but also widened attacks to her partner Guy Williams, by dredging up historic tweets.

David Farrar chose to feed red meat to his baying crowd at Kiwiblog, further inflaming a nasty campaign against Ghahraman

Particularly this one.

Williams is a comedian, but that was a crap joke about Don Brash. Fair enough to criticise it.

But to bring it up nearly two years later to add to the Ghahraman pile on is also crappy.

Ghahrama’s past also keeps being dredged up and misrepresented (more than she misrepresented it herself) – for example I have seen a cropped photo of her and a criminal she was involved in defending as a lawyer.

David Farrar chose to include the two year old tweet in this post David Seymour on free speech – he claimed ” this tweet this morning” even though it is clearly dated September 11 2017, which was before Ghahraman became an MP.

Seymour used strong language about a political opponent (and they are not words I would use) but compare that to this tweet this morning:

Joking about running someone over because you don’t like their politics.

Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t have a problem with Williams’ tweet by itself. But I ask people to imagine this.

Think if the partner of a National MP tweeted about whether they should run over a Green MP. The media would be denouncing it as hate speech and inciting violence.

Ghahraman does have legitimate security concerns, based on the vile messages about lynching her on a private Facebook group. The people responsible should be held accountable.

I think it was particularly poor of Farrar to include this tweet in an op ed by David Seymour that he posted.  He would have known this would have fed Kiwiblog commenters already at times raging rampant over his revised site rules.

Comments on the thread include:

Brian Marshall:

She is a menace to freedom. Huge threat.
If anyone can’t see what David Seymour is referring to, then I suggest they don’t belong in a New Zealand Parliament.
The most disgusting thing is that David Seymour is described as some sort of Nazi, but those proposing Hate Speech laws are acting like Fascists of which Nazi’s are branch.

hullkiwi:

I am in total agreement with you Brian. Her utterances on this topic and other matters are an affront to democracy and with it, she is a menace to democracy.

David Garrett:

Yeah but did she actually get death threats?? Please refer to my comment above… In short, if the polis think you have been credibly threatened they are in there for you…some little snowflake who thinks she’s been threatened: Not so much…

alien:

It is interesting that in a week that a report on bullying etc in parliament we see some of these people and media bullying the leader of the act party. I’m sure we’ve all heard these green mps say far far worse about national mps and a prime minister.

Given the levels of vitriole directed at Gharaman on Kiwiblog over the last few days that’s rather ironic, defending Seymour and implying ‘green mps’ must be far worse (with no evidence given).

Lipo:

As the discussion on Free Speech is being had, I heard Peter Williams this morning say that he thought Hate Speech should be decided by (and only by) the recipient of the intended words. While this has some merit I think this is wrong.
Hate speech should only be defined as “Hate Speech” by the person speaking the words.
It is always what the words meant to say not on how the recipient received them

That’s a novel approach.

I don’t know if Peter Williams is being quoted correctly, but claims like that are ridiculous, and Isee no chance of the scaremongering claims getting anywhere near law.

the deity formerly known as nigel6888:

So a refugee politician who specialises in abusing and baiting anyone who doesnt share her communistic objectives has managed to get a few cretins to abuse her back.

and……….. trumpets……….. she’s the victim!

Utterly remarkable for its predictable banality.

I have seen quite a few cretins claiming to be victims in this debate. Seems to be a common approach these days (prominently used by Donald Trump) – attack, then claim to be the victim.

GPT1:

I do not understand the carry on re. Seymour’s comment. I guess it could be argued that he should have said “her position on this issue is a threat to freedom” but it seemed to be a robust political – rather than personal – rebuttal.

As it happens I agree that Ms Ghahraman’s attempts to regulate free speech have the effect of being an attack on our free society.

‘Attempts to to regulate free speech” have been grossly overstated in this debate. Ghahraman has expressed her opinion, as has Seymour. That is free speech in action.

There is a lot of hypocrisy on this, defending Seymour’s right criticise as he sees fit, but attacking Ghahraman for doing the same thing, trying to shout and shut her down.

Defenders of Ghahraman also come under fire. Wangas Feral:

That Collins and other National women MPs jumped in as White Knights to come to the aid of GG is the most upsetting thing in this whole affair. Making it a gender issue shows that they are no better than the professional victims of the left. Collins has really gone down in my estimation now.

Kiiwiblog has always had a smattering of worthwhile comments amongst the noise. Fentex:

Finding someone representative of something relevant is needed to make the point – ideally DPF wants to find a quote by Golriz Ghahraman representing the position he wants highlighted.

And wouldn’t finding quotes from her supporting Seymour’s position she’s uniquely dangerous go some way to that?

This is what she’s quoted saying…

“it is vital that the public is involved in a conversation about what speech meets the threshold for being regulated, and what mix of enforcement tools should be used.”

…and I think she’s been vilified because that statement takes the implicit position there is speech that must be regulated.

While I beleive people do accept incitement to riot or murder is a crime and is properly outlawed and punishable I think some, and clearly Seymour, suspects Goriz means something altogether more oppressive and intrusive which constitutes a “menace to freedom.”

After all what we all broadly accept as improper speech (incitement to commit crimes etc) is already illegal, so therefore any conversation about new restrictions must be about something else – something not yet illegal.

I think I understand his point, and I suspect many objecting to his attitude misunderstand the subject and have interpreted it in a different context (i.e if they already suspected Seymour of racism they may see different implications and meaning in his statement).

If you keep your eye on the subject and don’t let identities distract you there’s a continual ongoing debate about hateful speech and discussion of what might be done to avoid dangers it engenders*, but please don’t go haring off on tangents about different issues – it doesn’t help and only emboldens those who wish to use tactics of distraction and tribalism.

Maggy Wassilieff:

Ghahraman has made her position clear…
she believes our law does not protect groups identified by gender, sexual orientation, religion, or disability.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/112708601/we-need-laws-with-real-teeth-to-protect-our-online-safety

Ghahraman has stated what she believes, and we should be debating things like that. But we are nowhere near any sort of  legal clampdown on ‘free speech’ that some are claiming.

 

 

Leave a comment

59 Comments

  1. Trevors_elbow

     /  24th May 2019

    Soooo…. Ghahraman is dangerous in the political sense if you believe in western democracy. She is careful with her words but makes it clear she wants to suppress views she doesn’t agree with…..using intersectionality arguments to cover her authoritarian intent… just another Marxist in designer clohhes

    Seymour has used political hyperbole to have a crack at her and predictably the small but extremely vocal and connected leftie activists have tried to scream Seymour down and smear him by associating him with the alt right crazy tag….

    And of course Pete runs with it….

    Free speech is important. The media fully reporting what Seymours position is would be very helpful… but I wont hold my breathe on that…

    Reply
    • “the small but extremely vocal and connected leftie activists have tried to scream Seymour down’

      I have seen a lot more of extreme vocals directed at Ghahraman than at Seymour. With claims that Seymour as the victim – when all that’s happened is that some have criticised what he said, as is their right in a free speech society.

      Reply
      • Trevors_Elbow

         /  24th May 2019

        Pete. Here is the thing. Ghahraman being abused and threatened is not on. Its wrong.

        But the Left in this country are very organised in terms of making noise – calling for boycotts – making assault seem ok (Joyce struck with a dildo what a LAUGH!, Paul Henry physically accosted resulting in a person being charged and convicted – he deserved nasty Tory…contrast that with the react to that nutter attack James Shaw) – organised little pile on’s on to anyone who disagrees with them publicly

        Most righties just don’t bother with the village square shouting machine i.e. twitter. its pointless. We sit back and just think what the….

        On Seymour – he can handle been attacked in the various media channels – but its the right of reply that is missing, its the normal name calling and shaming the left practice that makes people stand up and say back off.

        Seymour is no victim – he isnt claiming to be – he is pushing back on being misrepresented…

        DPF’s post contained this:

        [To recap, I was asked about Green MP Golriz Ghahraman’s stance on free speech. In her own words “it is vital that the public is involved in a conversation about what speech meets the threshold for being regulated, and what mix of enforcement tools should be used.”

        I believe that such an idea, and by extension politicians who promote it, is a danger to our free society. When asked about Ghahraman’s position, in the middle of a 15-minute radio interview, I responded that I thought she was a ‘menace to freedom.’]

        The left and their media runners have linked that to Golriz needing protection… what utter bs.

        Reply
    • Maggy Wassilieff

       /  24th May 2019

      The media fully reporting what Seymours position is would be very helpful… but I wont hold my breathe on that…
      That was the reason David Farrar posted Seymour’s Opinion piece… The MSM would not run it.
      As various media outlets have refused to run an op ed from David Seymour defending himself, I have agreed to run it.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  24th May 2019

        Two years ago is not historic.

        I think that it is all right to bring this up. If David Seymour’s partner had said it of James Shaw, he’d never be let to forget it.

        Reply
  2. Alan Wilkinson

     /  24th May 2019

    Intent is frequently a legal factor. I don’t see why you call it a novel approach.

    Reply
  3. Corky

     /  24th May 2019

    ”Ghahraman has stated what she believes, and we should be debating things like that. But we are nowhere near any sort of legal clampdown on ‘free speech’ that some are claiming.”

    No, but it should be obvious we have started down that road. And if we don’t rubbish nuts like
    Ghahraman, then what’s the point of democracy ( or what’s left of it)? The time for discussion is past. Her and people like her have had too much input into the legislative fabric of this country, much to our detriment in my opinion.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  24th May 2019

      Do something about it, then. Vote for their opponents.

      Reply
  4. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  24th May 2019

    I was shocked when I saw the visual connected with Guy Williams tweet… much more powerful than the tweet itself… as it shows the target and the means to harm/kill the target.

    So I had other postings up on Kiwi blog:

    How on earth has the MSM kept the wraps on William’s tweet for the last 2 years?

    Imagine that tweet being placed on the front page of every newspaper in the country.

    and in reply to someone commenting:
    Lots of folks aren’t on twitter…

    but it rather spoils the narrative that it is just the Right-Wing that are abusing/threatening folk in our little land.

    Not the sort of thing the MSM wants to run with at the moment.
    Remember we are meant to believe that it is Don Brash that threatens our Freedoms, but clearly the man is subject to unconscionable threats.

    Reply
    • Kimbo

       /  24th May 2019

      Humour is personal. Personally I thought Williams’ tweet was quite humourous and would be equally applicable for any politician of any stripe or gender. But that’s just me.

      I’d suggest the issue is one of hypocrisy – in the light of the abuse Golriz has suffered, and by the standards that she seems to be demanding should be imposed to stop what she deems hate speech…her partner engaged in it. So, contrary to Pete George, it is relevant to highlight his tweet, irrespective of its age. Hence many are claiming Golriz’s intent, if put into action will criminalise political opinions she does not like, and reimpose blasphemy laws by stealth.

      Reply
      • Maggy Wassilieff

         /  24th May 2019

        Humour is personal.
        Fair enough.
        I’ve never been amused by folks who want to hurt/harm others.

        Reply
        • Kimbo

           /  24th May 2019

          Fair enough, although I think you mid-represent Williams’ intent. His explicit musings may have said and/or implied therwise, but then that is why it is…a joke. The reversal of expectation thing, but then explaining the joke ruins it.

          Maybe what you meant was you do not like any comments about hurting or harming others, jokes included whether in light-hearted jest or with barely-concealed malevolence. For my part Williams was light hearted, hence I found the gallows humour amusing. Like I joke to my wife about suffocating her in her sleep with a pillow if she vexes me too much. Clearly I have issues. 😳😂

          Reply
        • Kimbo

           /  24th May 2019

          You know, like the famous Lady Nancy Astor/Winston Church exchange, where she blurted out in exasperation:

          LNA: Winston, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!

          WC: And, Lady Astor, if you were my wife I’d gladly drink it! 🤣🤣🤣

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  24th May 2019

            I remember when Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer were married. the IRA had supposedly sent them a clock for a present…this was obviously what was in the parcel. because it was ticking.

            Reply
    • Fight4NZ

       /  25th May 2019

      Seeing it now for the first time i find it funny.

      No surprise to confirm the more one invests themselves in right wing politics to bolster their egos, the more the subtleties of humour go over their heads.

      Reply
  5. Tony Stuart

     /  24th May 2019

    I wonder what Ghahraman and Williams would think about an elderly ex-serviceman wearing a Brexit Party rosette having a milkshake thrown at him.

    Reply
    • Trevors_Elbow

       /  24th May 2019

      Exactly what they thought about Joyce being struck by a flying dildo, or the collective orgasm on the Left over Anning being egged in Aussie.

      Its speaking truth to power and its the means justifying the ends in the glorious revolution

      Lefties are so convinced of the rightness of their cause nothing is off the table – in NZ it is mostly contained but it simmers just below the surface

      Reply
      • Patzcuaro

         /  24th May 2019

        The dry cleaning bill is a lot lower when hit by a dildo.

        Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  24th May 2019

      I liked the Matt cartoon that showed the Conservative Party pouring a milkshake over its own head.

      Reply
    • He’s an “old white man” so they would applaud.

      Reply
    • He’s an “old white man” so they would applaud.

      Reply
  6. Pete seems to have missed out Williams’ tweet from 2016, where he boasted that he was going to “cyberbully the shit out of” Don Brash.

    Reply
  7. Blazer

     /  24th May 2019

    Williams is not Gharaman…just a comedian who admits he made a joke in poor taste.

    A quick perusal of Jimmy Carr or Frankie Boyle’s lines will show how lame his attempt was in comparison.

    Joyce thought being struck by a flying dildo was funny…as did most…people.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  24th May 2019

      I doubt it. Probably found it as funny as you would if someone did it to you.

      No fan of Joyce. But likely more accurate to say he laughed it off, rather than whine about it. The sheila who threw it was an immature fruit cake.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  24th May 2019

        Joyce laughed about it and said …send this off to John Oliver….immediately.

        What physical damage could a soft flying dildo…inflict?

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  24th May 2019

          Well, If one hit you square in the eye, what do you think it could do?

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  24th May 2019

            Not much, I hope.

            Laughing at these things makes the doer look like the fool they usually are and makes the gesture fall flat.

            It must be maddening when the person who’s on the receiving end just laughs or ignores it.

            Reply
    • Trevors_Elbow

       /  24th May 2019

      how quickly you excuse a call to violence Blazer – not surprised but Williams is an idiot and its telling he published something like that and it just was never surfaced by the media. Any rightie with a profile like Williams would have been outed immediately and harassed to give an apology…

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  24th May 2019

        Williams is a comedian.

        I doubt you are ever amused or posess a SOH.

        Reply
        • adamsmith1922

           /  24th May 2019

          A comedian!,

          Reply
          • Corky

             /  24th May 2019

            And a closet sociopath.

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  24th May 2019

              Psychologist are you ?
              Even non psychologists like me can do a quick check and see that you are totally wrong.

            • Corky

               /  24th May 2019

              As a matter of fact you are right, It’s the nearest I could get to something simpletons like you could understand. If you haven’t read Joe Navarro you are behind the eight-ball. 😃✔

        • Trevors_elbow

           /  24th May 2019

          Got anything…anything remotely intelligent to say blazer? No thought not. As usual diversion and deflection followed by a little personal attack surfaces as your preferred response.

          I laugh regularly… normally at Gezzas musing or watching Twyford explain his bumbling…. and occasional at your unintentional hilarious offerings…

          Reply
    • sorethumb

       /  24th May 2019

      I don’t think he’s a comedian?

      Reply
  8. Tom Hunter

     /  24th May 2019

    There are two central tenets of the woke philosophy. The first is feigned fragility. The second is angry intolerance. The union of fragility and intolerance has given us that curious and malevolent hybrid, the crybully, a delicate yet venomous species that thrives chiefly in lush, pampered environments.

    Reply
    • That is by no means confined to the ‘woke’ or the left. Also applies to the right and the ‘alt-right’.

      I also see plenty of angry intolerance and crybullies at Kiwiblog. And right wing angry intolerance and crybullies on Twitter.

      I think that the biggest Kiwi crybully and hypocrite of all has to be Cameron Slater.

      And the most prominent crybully of all has to be Donald Trump.

      Reply
      • adamsmith1922

         /  24th May 2019

        Agree

        Reply
      • Kimbo

         /  24th May 2019

        All true, Pete. Nonetheless there is the incongruity (a fancy word for hypocrisy) that those criticising and shaming Seymour’s clumsy choice of phrase are doing so in the context of a “conversation” Golriz sought to initiate because she claims it is necessary.

        Hence the justiable cynical suspicion that Golriz and those who share her views have no intent to engage in a genuine conversation, but rather manipulating it to a predetermined conclusion, all the while doing the thing they claim to want to stop – I nitiimdating into silence those with alternate views.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  24th May 2019

          I agree. She certainly comes across as a prime manipulator and professional victim.

          Reply
  9. duperez

     /  24th May 2019

    I saw Ghahraman speaking in Parliament, early this week I think it was. Maybe my memory’s shot but I can’t remember seeing her before and thought, “Oh, that’s her, that’s the one who gets all the attention.”

    I don’t know what she was speaking to but a brief view was enough for me. I wasn’t impressed in the moment and my shallowness had me instantly making a judgement about her mannerisms.

    However, Ghahraman has done brilliantly. I’m not talking about major achievements, I’m talking attention and focus on her and what she wants people to talk about. I can’t remember a far back bench first-timer getting as much focus on them. She must be quoted and disparaged and talked about and defended to a greater extent than anyone ever sitting in that seat.

    Her good fortune might be due to being of generation of the social media world but nevertheless, there it is, she’s being talked about in places like this constantly. Obviously those showering the attention on her think it is more important to give her that gift rather than the one of the blind eye and the deaf ear.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  24th May 2019

      I agree and have wasted few words on her.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  24th May 2019

        What has she actually achieved as an MP ?

        It’s impossible to imagine that she hasn’t revelled in the attention and manipulated it.

        Reply
        • sorethumb

           /  24th May 2019

          She’s helped turn the tables on MMP?

          Reply
        • duperez

           /  24th May 2019

          Here’s the class of 2019. What have they each individually achieved?

          https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/house-seating-plan/

          Not defending Ghahraman, but each is a part of a process and system. Because they are not all listed in headlines with major achievements doesn’t mean they haven’t achieved anything or have done nothing.

          Ghahraman gets more attention than most because she ‘sells copy’ for the media. There are plenty in forums who are intent on seeing that continue. And its not fans.

          Reply
      • Fight4NZ

         /  25th May 2019

        Nup. Can’t think of a topic where you haven’t wasted words.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  27th May 2019

          Should have ended your sentence at “think”.

          Reply
  10. harryk

     /  24th May 2019

    ‘But we are nowhere near any sort of legal clampdown on ‘free speech’ that some are claiming’

    But some of Ardern’s fellow non-binding signatories at the Paris meeting are, and you have media boasting of patriotic self censorship. Who needs a ‘legal clampdown’ when certain subjects are taken out of circulation voluntarily?

    There are riots in Jakarta. The Govt blocked all social media for a day. It didn’t prevent anything.

    Reply
  11. Pink David

     /  24th May 2019

    “But to bring it up nearly two years later to add to the Ghahraman pile on is also crappy.”

    Outrage archaeology is standard practice for the left, seems perfectly valid to follow there crappy lead.

    Reply
    • Have you told the snowflakes at KB?

      I don’t like what Williams tweeted, but the furore looks much ado about something historic involving the partner of a now MP (who wasn’t then) designed to keep ramping up attacks against the MP (who I don’t rate as an MP but think shouldn’t have to put up with so much shit throwing).

      It was fairly obviously a poor taste attempt at a joke and not a threat.

      Reply
      • Maggy Wassilieff

         /  24th May 2019

        Have you told the snowflakes at KB?
        I had posted the same information over there.

        Who are the snowflakes at KB?

        Reply
        • Trevors_elbow

           /  24th May 2019

          Got anything…anything remotely intelligent to say blazer? No thought not. As usual diversion and deflection followed by a little personal attack surfaces as your preferred response.

          I laugh regularly… normally at Gezzas musing or watching Twyford explain his bumbling…. and occasional at your unintentional hilarious offerings…

          Reply
        • Trevors_elbow

           /  24th May 2019

          Oooops…Sorry Maggie in the wrong place that is for blazer!

          Reply
  12. Dave K

     /  24th May 2019

    Absolute gold

    http://pc.blogspot.com/2019/05/he-said-she-said-david-said-g-said.html

    Although no doubt to be tut tutted here in the prefects room…

    Reply
  13. Dave K

     /  24th May 2019

    Absolute gold

    http://pc.blogspot.com/2019/05/he-said-she-said-david-said-g-said.html

    Although no doubt tut tutted here in the prefects room…..

    Reply

Leave a Reply to sorethumb 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