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.

 

 

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.

 

MP requires protection after escalation in death threats, but abuse continues

Greens MP Golriz Ghahraman now requires a security escort after an escalation in threats being made against her.

She has attracted a lot of attention in social media, and some of it from bad to despicable. I get it that some people don’t like some of what she champions and proposes, but there is no excuse for the levels of abuse she has been subjected to.

Even after the police protection was publicised there were people on Twitter blaming her for attracting abuse, and making excuses for abuse.

RNZ: Green MP Golriz Ghahraman gets security escort

Greens MP Golriz Ghahraman will have a security escort with her whenever she leaves Parliament after her security risk was escalated by police.

Ms Ghahraman said it came after a Newshub story about white supremacy revealed she was being talked about in a dangerous manner.

Her safety was put at further risk after comments made by the ACT leader David Seymour that she was a “real menace to freedom in this country”, she said.

“As you can imagine, it’s distressing to have secret white supremacist groups talking about you and to have that escalated to the level of the mainstream and I think it kind of gives us all a feeling of how those targeted communities feel.”

However, Mr Seymour disputed her safety was put at risk by his comments.

“She’s someone who gives back as good, if not a lot more, than she gets in political debate.”

Seymour has got himself into a precarious situation with this. He has helped feed to abusers and conspiracy theorists.

But he said nobody in this country deserved to be threatened with violence and no MP should have to shrink from political debate because some people were thugs and bullies.

He should take a good look at the rhetoric and escalating abuse that he has become a part of.

Scott Hamilton RTM @SikotiHamiltonR:

Seymour’s words about resonated with a conspiracy theory that’s been growing amongst conservative Pakeha since March the 15th. Visitors to the popular facebook page of former Act adman John Ansell can see the conspiracy in full bloom. Ansell & co believe that a slow moving coup d’etat began on March the 15th.

As bizarre as it sounds, they consider the atrocities of that day a ‘false flag operation’, designed to legitimise the elimination of democracy by Ardern’s ‘communist’ government. Ansell & co think they’re targets.

When Seymour called a menace to freedom, b/c she has been advocating law changes after March the 15th, his words were treated by Ansell & his fellow paranoics as further evidence of a coup d’etat & coming civil war. Seymour’s feeding some worrying delusions

There are already claims that Ghahraman requiring protection is a set up as part of a conspiracies that have been spreading – for more see Wacky conspiracies being pushed at Whale Oil.

@fhill16n Twitter:

Just to build on the conspiracy angle I see there’s a theory going around that Golriz’s need for security is being faked / overstated and is being driven by the “left-wing media” and our “communist government”

If anyone tries any of that sort of ‘speculation’ or conspiracy mongering here without any evidence to back up what they claim they will find they are not welcome here.

Since 15 March there has been a noticeable lift in abuse and making excuses for abuse.

Ghahraman has brought some criticism on herself with some of what she has claimed and proposed, but that is no reason to excuse an escalation in abuse. This is a worrying  in New Zealand politics.

 

Ghahraman: “laws with real teeth to protect our online safety”

Green MP Golriz Ghahraman is active online, and is a frequent target of abuse and threats that go well beyond what is reasonable and acceptable for an MP or for anyone, which includes death threats (something I have also been subjected to in a more limited way). See Online threats against Ghahraman continue.

One of the biggest problems is attacks on people who identify themselves by people hiding behind anonymity.

This context should be kept in mind when reading her say “We need laws with real teeth to protect our online safety”.

We have seen all over the world that free speech, equality, and democracy are not bulletproof. These pillars of society are easily threatened by the incitement of hatred against targeted groups. We know that speech, fake news, and abuse lead to very real violence and sometimes death. Everyone has a huge interest in ensuring harmful and abusive content is appropriately regulated.

Not everyone – what I believe is a small minority seem to think they have a right to be as abusive as they choose online, without limitation or repercussion.

The Human Rights Act already makes “threatening, abusive or insulting words … likely to incite hostility or contempt” unlawful against racial, ethnic, and national groups. This is not about whether anyone is offended, or disagreement with given points of view. It is an objective standard of harm, as it should be.

Freedom of expression is protected in our Bill of Rights Act, together with freedom from discrimination, freedom of thought, culture and religion, and the rights of minority groups to enjoy their culture. These rights are mutually supportive in a democracy that values freedom and equality, and can only be subject to limits that are “demonstratively justified in a free and democratic society”.

Last year, knowing the experiences of vulnerable groups, threatened and silenced by hate speech, I began the call for an independent review of our laws. Now, the Green Party is proud to support the review of hate speech laws initiated by Justice Minister Andrew Little, conducted by the Human Rights Commission and Ministry of Justice.

We do not want a change to the current definition, or to lower the standard in our existing law. What I see as a shortfall is that our law does not protect groups identified by gender, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. Including these groups would bring our law in line with the European Union and Canadian hate speech laws.

I have a bit of a problem with the focus on specific minority groups. We are all members of various minority groups. Laws should apply to any sort of unacceptable behaviour, regardless of who it is aimed at.

I’m seen as a member of a currently much maligned large minority, white male, and a smaller group, older white male. I have been the target of despicable abuse online.

I should have the same legal protections that anyone else has. In my experience these protections have been inadequate.

My other concern is that our enforcement mechanisms are insufficient, especially for online content. Protection against hate speech is currently enforceable through challenges brought by victims to the Human Rights Tribunal, the only recourse being mediation. That’s fairly impractical and unsafe for most victims or victim groups – and it does nothing to broadly curb violent radicalisation on fringe online platforms.

It’s far too slow. It can take months to go through the Human Rights Tribunal, which makes it far too late (and too little).

Governments need to take responsibility, set clear standards, and enforce them. We need laws to protect online safety with some real teeth. In Germany, that means online platforms like Facebook are treated like publishers and fined billions for allowing dangerous unlawful content. Germans know where hate speech leads.

Germans also know what can happen when good speech is suppressed and punished.

It is a proud moment for New Zealand to see the commitment of our prime minister to lead on the issue of online regulation. The Paris forum must ask how the global community can best respond to the growth of online platforms that promote extremism or abuse against women and minority groups, spread mistruths that undermine democracy, and inspire violence.

This is an important issue for our democracy, and 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. It’s a matter of acknowledging that online spaces are where we live our lives now, and that the forces threatening our security, global and local, are already there. Turning a blind eye is no longer an option.

I agree that we can’t turn a blind eye to online abuse and attacks, and neither should the Government.

But it will be tricky getting the right balance.

I mostly agree with what Ghahraman says here. I have had my doubts that she was a good MP to be campaigning against online hate and abuse, and her experiences mean she is personally involved and not unbiased, but her experiences are also valuable in trying to work out how to deal with online abuse.

 

Online threats against Ghahraman continue

Patrick Gower has done an investigation of ‘white supremacy’ in New Zealand – Christchurch attack: The new face of white supremacy in New Zealand

In this he details:

Newshub has been leaked details of a closed Facebook group that has Kiwis chatting to each other about white supremacy.

Newshub has decided not to name them for legal reasons, but have published a snippet of their chat – and it is confronting content.

Newshub contacted the person being written about – Green MP Golriz Ghahraman – and she consented to the conversation being published in the interests of exposing it.

Warning: This content is distressing.

It starts with one user saying:

“Ask yourself: What have I done today for White well-being?”

The chat then turns to:

“Golriz.”

“What a smart mouthed Hua.”

“I know. It’s just nice to put them in one basket. Plus I don’t have a rayciss (sic) word for Iranians anyway lol.”

Then they start joking about hanging her like a lynch mob:

“Get the rope lol.”

“She’ll make a fantastic chandelier.”

“I need a new lamp.”

It ends with:

“I can’t wait to see her on the streets.”

Threats and attacks against Ghahraman continue on Twitter. While criticism should be expected by MPs who are active online, and Ghahraman attracts plenty of criticism, she also attracts some of the worst of social media.

Comments like this one from Pauli84842812 are abhorrent and should be dealt with by Twitter – if allowed to go unchecked they encourage more despicable online behaviour.

Ghahraman also tweeted:

This is very difficult to deal with.

It is possible to challenge politicians and debate what they say robustly but respectful of decent standards of behaviour.

UK Labour policy to trial Universal Basic Income if elected contrary to research

Labour (UK) is promising to Introduce trials of a Universal Basic Income, but recent research concludes: There is no evidence that the project can meet its goals while being economically viable at the same time.

Golriz Ghahraman responded:

Yes! Two things:

1) There’s enough longitudinal research around the world to prove UBI works. No need for a ‘trial’. Let’s just pick the most effective version and apply it.

2) UKGreens had this policy first, but nice to see the big parties following the Green movement
💚😊

The most effective version? I don’t know of anywhere that a country-wide UBI has been tried successfully.

From the Green Party Income Support Policy

Specific Policy Points

  • Work with other parties and the public to develop a proposal(s) for the introduction of a UBI and the changes needed to fund and implement it.
  • Set benefit amounts at a level sufficient for all basic needs of the individual/family.

I don’t know whether any work is being done with Labour towards introducing UBI.  I would be very surprised if the Greens are doing anything with NZ First on one.

Last week from Stuff:  Universal Basic Income is a failure, new report says

A new study on universal basic income (UBI) is challenging the central claim used to promote the scheme: that, if done right, it can help alleviate poverty.

Proponents of the basic income argue that it will help those below the poverty line pay for essentials like food, housing, and healthcare, according to the assessment by the New Economics Foundation (NEF) in the UK.

The NEF reviewed 16 real-life UBI trials to see whether a basic income can really bridge the inequality gap.

Its conclusion: There is no evidence that the project can meet its goals while being economically viable at the same time.

I wonder what Ghahraman’s “There’s enough longitudinal research around the world to prove UBI works” is based on.

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.

 

“Stop infantilising us. I personally hate the Rainbow whanau/family nonsense.”

Some sensible words from @aniobrien on the Israel Folau fallout, and some strong words to Green MPs, who are politicising lesbians and gays, on their “Rainbow whanau/family” nonsense.

Just as there are diverse gender and sexuality preferences, there are diverse views within the LABC…XYZ – everyone who is not purely heterosexual (if that exists) – groups, communities and individuals.

I’m not a lesbian or gay but I agree with what Ani says about Israel Folau’s insistence that anyone who doesn’t ‘repent’ follow his beliefs will go to some sort of hell.

Dismissing Folau is entirely the decision of Rugby Australia and it is likely that he breached his contract with them by bringing the sport into disrepute. This is simply Folau reaping the consequences of his actions. This isn’t the first time he has courted controversy.

Folau has rightly been publicly condemned, however I don’t think his speech should be subject to legal measures. It is not illegal to be offensive. It is not illegal to practice religion. Nor should it be.

Just as I have a right to call Folau a religious nutbar with a habit of hypocrisy who is reaping what he has sowed, he has the right to say I am going to hell for being a total homo. Hilarious because hell doesn’t exist!

Hell is a threat rather than a place. It’s been used as the ultimate bogeyman, a place equivalent of Knecht Ruprecht just as heaven is a place equivalent of Saint Nicholas/Santa – age old threat/reward trick.

Ani then lays into politicians who are politicising homosexuality.

There has been a lot of pearl clutching by heterosexual politicians invested in portraying lesbians and gays as fragile and on the precipice of suicide. I really wish they would cut it out. We are one of the most resilient groups of people on the planet.

I have a few messages for NZ politicians who’re politicising me & other lesbians and gays:

  1. Stop with the irresponsible suicide rhetoric. All research shows that this creates a self-fulfilling prophecy and risks contagion. You can support us without invoking dodgy suicide stats.
  2. Stop infantilising us. I personally hate the “Rainbow whanau/family” nonsense. Partly because our “community” has never been so divided & partly because it sounds like a kindergarton play group.
  3. Stop conflating transgenderism with homosexuality. Folau didn’t even mention trans people. We are not synonymous. We are very different & piggy-backing them on to all of our issues is unhelpful.
  4. Stop hyperbolising what hate speech is. 50 people were massacred in Christchurch & when you lump in offensive speech with the hate & violence of the man responsible for the terrorist attack you insult their memory.
  5. Stop undermining free speech principles. When you censor & restrict speech it is those in power who dictate acceptability. This means minority groups & those challenging systems of oppression are the first to be silenced.
  6. Stop virtue-signalling & playing identity politics & for the love of goddess please focus on the policies that acutely affect us – you know like our planet becoming rapidly uninhabitable. I’m looking at you
  7. Start listening to all of your constituents – even those you don’t agree with.
  8. Start basing your policy decisions on science and fact not the ideology of a small minority. Most of us do not want to be governed by the religion or belief systems we don’t subscribe to. We are a secular nation.
  9. Start leading by example. Divisive messaging does not solve anything. Your mates in your (not so) secret Facebook groups might cheer you on, but it is not smart politics or good for NZ.
  10. Start speaking up. I know a great number of you can see the harm that comes from this brand of silencing, divisive identity politics. It’s time to get brave and say something.

Divisive messaging does not solve anything. Can you take that on board Marama Davidson? Golriz Gharaman?

Franks v Ghahraman, free speech v hate speech

Lawyers Golriz Ghahraman and Stephen Franks debated free speech versus hate speech on Newshub Nation yesterday.

Ghahraman wants laws to address hate speech (there are dangers with this if it is poorly defined or speech is restricted too much. She as asked “how do you determine that, when these things are actually often in the eye of the beholder”?

So the definition of hate speech is a little bit like definitions of other limitations of free speech that already apply in our law to protect individuals. Defamation exists for example, and it’s about harm. So you can’t lie about a person to damage their reputation, make them unsafe, make them unemployable for example, those are very real harms that can come from speech and we have legislated against that for individuals.

Those laws haven’t protected Ghahraman from hate tweets, or hateful comments on Facebook, Whale Oil and Kiwiblog.

What we’re saying is the same type of thing should apply to groups. In France they actually define hate speech as very similar to defamation as they do in other parts of Europe.

So it’s about whether a third party would be moved, and this is the standard in New Zealand in terms of our jurisprudence, whether a third party would find this speech to be such that they would become hostile toward that group.

It’s not about how the group feels.

Inciting hostility in a third party.

Franks:

It’s an objective view of how they would feel. It’s putting yourself into their shoes.

The essence of what’s missing is that truth is no defence.

In defamation truth is an absolute defence, and that’s because of the view that we all ought to be able to challenge and be offensive, and call out beliefs and views that are bad.

There’s absolutely no doubt that for many Catholics, exposing priest pederasty has been offensive, under all the tests of hate speech, it’s hate speech, because it makes them feel bad and it ought to make them feel  bad.

He believes that all speech should be allowed, including hate speech which should be combated by ridiculing it (I think there are flaws to this).

The power of bad religion has only been defeated by satire, by ridicule, by exposure.

A major problem though is when all members of a religion are ridiculed due to the bad application of that religion by a small minority.

Seymour, Ghahraman, identity politics, white supremacy

Since the Christchurch attacks there has been a lot of diversions into allegations and debates over white supremacy and identity politics, two quite vague terms.

Twp MPs, Act’s David Seymour and Green Golriz Ghahraman had this exchange on Twitter.

I don’t think these sorts of discussions are very productive but they probably need to be aired.