Molyneux also talks up war

Stefan Molyneux has left New Zealand, grizzling on the way out.

Did he think he should be given VIP treatment and be able to bypass security? Not a very classy whine from Molyneux.

While he was still here he said some outlandish things. Like the business of war talk.

Newshub: Stefan Molyneux warns ‘war is coming’, asks for likes, shares and money

Mr Molyneux has now taken to YouTube, uploading a 12-minute video which oscillates between decrying the “demonic mob” that got their show cancelled, and asking for supporters to “like, subscribe and share” – and give him money.

“We lost a venue. Hundreds and hundreds of people who had come a long way and were very passionate to hear this conversation, to engage in what Lauren and I were going to discuss, we lost the venue and that’s costly. It’s very expensive, and I need your help”.

“I would really, really appreciate it.”

Both an attention seeker and a money seeker.

He said the funding is necessary for him to keep speaking out against the “encroaching mob and horde of mindless violence the left seems to want to unleash on the failing remnants of civilisation”.

He was relatively restrained in media interviews while in New Zealand. He tried to provoke reactions here, which successfully attracted opposition and media attention, but via Youtube he shows how dangerous he could be if he got more than fringe support.

Without more money, Mr Molyneux fears “self-contempt, self-hatred and possibly incarceration or death itself”, because “that’s what happens when the left gains power”.

He then took a shot at Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who at the weekend said Kiwis were “hostile” to Mr Molyneux’s views.

“The Prime Minister was the head of a youth socialist organisation not a decade ago, so that’s what you get.”

That’s a bit pathetic.

Mr Molyneux says unless “free speech” is kept alive, “we are going to end up with bayonets pointed at each other’s hearts”.

“I am trying with all of my might and all of my rhetoric and all of my energy and efforts to stop the war that is coming. This feral escalation of abuse and violence and threats and deplatforming is going to escalate into war. History is very clear on this point.

“I don’t know if the left knows how much it’s going to escalate, I don’t know if they want it, I don’t know what the hell is going on, but I’m telling you, it’s coming.”

He seems to be trying hard to make a left-right war come.

While general populations seem to be less and less aligned to left or right politics people on the fringes are having to go to extremes to get attention.

There is a risk, because if a few on the fringes turn to violence it could get very nasty.

It’s ironic that Molyneux is trying to talk up the sort of problems he claims he is warning against.

If a Muslim radical came to New Zealand (or spoke to New Zealand via Youtube) with language anything like what Molyneux is using the sort of person supporting Molyneux would be up in arms, metaphorically at least.

Molyneux’s visit has raised some important issues about free speech.

Through his speech, especially his orchestrated self edited speech via Youtube, he has shown how dangerous he could be if he managed to raise a rabble. Fortunately his Kiwi experience didn’t rise to much. I doubt he will be back. Good riddance to him.

Miriama Kamo explains Sunday coverage of Molyneux & Southern

An interview with Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern is scheduled to be shown on Sunday tonight (7:30 on TV1).

The controversial alt-right event is cancelled. But the issue remains.
This week SUNDAY examines free speech vs hate speech in NZ

Not surprisingly there is opposition to it going to air, with threats of boycotts (probably form people who don’t usually watch Sunday).

Miriama Kamo did the interview and is fronting it. Some have suggested she shouldn’t have anything to do wit  it. She explains (on Facebook):

There’ve been calls for Sunday to be boycotted this week, because we are airing a story sparked by the alt-right duo Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux. Even before the story airs, we’ve had extensive and quite astonishing commentary about the content of our story, when only a fraction of it has been seen in public.

Put that aside for now. Let’s look on why we’re doing a story. As journalists, it’s our role to examine our society, to canvas a diversity of views, and to reflect who we are and who we want to be. By demanding that we close down debate and discussion on what has been a huge story, we must then ask ‘what else should we ignore, what other views should we suppress, which other stories should we turn away from?’ You may not like what this controversial pair has to say, but it forces us to confront the very core of what free speech and hate speech is all about.

At the heart of much of this furious reaction, is decency. Many people are insulted, offended and disgusted by the views of the Canadian duo. I appreciate that. However, there have also been suggestions that I, as a Māori woman, should not front this episode. I reject that. Our story this week is told by reporter Tania Page, another Māori woman. The notion that we should distance ourselves from this story is patronising. It has dominated the news agenda for over a fortnight. As an experienced journalist and as a Māori woman, I do not need protection. And, if it is seen as some sort of race betrayal, I return to the notion that no-one has seen our story yet – watch it first, and then decide.

But, more importantly, I believe in the right to have a view and to back it vigorously. I believe in protest, so I also believe that when we are confronted by views we cannot accept, it creates a platform upon which we can crystallise and refine our personal position on issues; that we can decide where we fall on the question of free speech, where it starts and ends, and at what point we decide that it’s gone too far. Our opinions and our right to express them is at the heart of the democracy that we all enjoy. And, on Sunday tonight, we canvas a diversity of views.

Watch the story, and let us know what you think.

Good on Miriama for standing firm on this.  It could be an interesting and worthwhile interview.

 

Nonsense on ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘free speech’

I’ve resisted doing much on Southern and Molynuex, but some of their claims while in New Zealand are ridiculous.

From NZH: Andrew Little happy ‘insidious’ alt-right pair leaving the country as bomb threat claim emerges

Southern then said it was because people wanted to be involved in “their own civil rights movement” because “they have been told it is the greatest good to be involved in these civil rights movements”.

“And because there isn’t one in this day and age, there’s no real oppression other than … the only laws I can think of that are biased against a certain race in the Western world are ones that are anti-hiring men and white people because of affirmative action … these battles have already won. So they do have to create these villains.

What a load of barely coherent nonsense. Trying to claim they are victims of something or other.

The problem in New Zealand is not laws, it’s how laws are unevenly policed and applied that’s still a major concern. And why such a high proportion of those prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned are Maori. It’s a complex issue, but the application of laws rather than the laws themselves that are contentious.

She said protesters had not heard the pair speak and were “only repeating what the media have told them and the media are not a particularly clever lot, are they?”

More unsubstantiated bollocks.

It’s not the media who have been driving opposition to and criticism of Southern. They have actually had a go at giving her and Molyneux a say while in New Zealand, which is a good thi9ng, because it has enabled me to see how crazy they can come across.

Molyneux said the difficulty the pair had finding a venue was linked to multiculturalism and its impact on Western values such as free speech.

I don’t see that it had anything to do with ‘multiculturalism’, which has become a meaningless term a bit like ‘neoliberalism’.  Both are now used as labels of something thagt’s supposed to be terrible, but most of those who think they are virtual swear words seem to have little if an y idea what they actually meant, or might mean.

“We had free speech, now we have multiculturalism and free speech is under significant attack and it is crumbling, in particular, in places like New Zealand.”

When did we have ‘free speech’? And what of that has suddenly disappeared because he came to New Zealand?

I’m hearing him speak (via media reports and interviews), and he seems quite free to spout his nonsense.

There are threats to free speech in New Zealand, as there is elsewhere in the world, but it’s a potential threat only. It hasn’t suddenly changed since Molyneux arrived here on Thursday. What happens here is not all about him, it’s not all because of him.

Free speech is not ‘crumbling’ here, that’s a pathetic claim.

Southern added: “If we are to have multiple cultures involved in every facet of our lives does that mean we now need to have witch doctors at our medical conferences or in our hospitals because we can’t make Western medicine the supreme leading medicine in our society.”

Inanity overload there.

I doubt that Southern was forced to wear a grass skirt or kilt, eat fish and chips, fried rice  and mutton roast and sing our awful national anthem while she was here. I don’t think everyone is forced to consume maple syrup and eat seals when they go to Canada.

If Molyneux and Southern dare so averse to cultures mixing why did they come here? We might get tainted!

To me multiculturalism means allowing varied cultures to coexist, overlap, integrate and be enjoyed by anyone who wants to experience them.

That’s how New Zealand has been for two hundred years.

There will be few places in the world that can experience a monoculture frozen in some time warp (which would have to mean no contact with the rest of the world).

I’m glad that Southern and Molyneux had the freedom to be interviewed and to be reported on while in New Zealand. It has shown me how ridiculous some of their ideas are.

But they are likely to be forgotten fairly quickly by nearly all of New Zealand – back to their anonymity up until about a month ago. They won’t be missed.


Multiculturalism, the view that cultures, races, and ethnicities, particularly those of minority groups, deserve special acknowledgement of their differences within a dominant political culture. …

Most modern democracies comprise members with diverse cultural viewpoints, practices, and contributions. Many minority cultural groups have experienced exclusion or the denigration of their contributions and identities in the past. Multiculturalism seeks the inclusion of the views and contributions of diverse members of society while maintaining respect for their differences and withholding the demand for their assimilation into the dominant culture.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/multiculturalism

That’s a bit different to what I thought.It doesn’t mean that Italian immigrants will insist on crucifixion (except pretend once a year).

It still sounds like nothing to be worried about. That’s still how things have in Aotearoa for yonks.

A triumph of intolerance over intolerance

I don’t like what Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern stand for or do – they preach intolerance and promote division. I don’t think they would do any good coming and speaking in New Zealand.

Their on-off-on visit has been controversial, fueled by their own publicity to an extent but far more by opponents and critics who didn’t want them to speak here. Free speech is often overridden by  people intolerant of different views.

S&M were scheduled to speak at an event tonight, with ticket prices originally advertised ranging in price from $99 to $749. They claim they sold out for tonight’s event.

The venue was kept secret until this afternoon to supposedly avoid planned disruption, but that generated yet more publicity.

The venue was announced – the Powerstation in Mt Eden, Auckland. Before Helen Clark had a chance to complain others were far quicker off the mark with threats – the venue owner puled the plug on it.

Those who had organised protests cheered and claimed a win.

If this is the end result it looks like a triumph of intolerance over intolerance. I’m not sure which side of the opposing circuses is the worst.

Free speech is at risk of becoming a quaint historical ideal. It is becoming the survival of the loudest.

Of course people who feel strongly about negative things others might say should themselves speak up, but shutting others up is as problematic as it is futile.

Whether S&M speak anywhere tonight they have made themselves much better known than they ever would have without first Phil Goff and then their new-found critics stoking the fires of their frenzy.

But it is unlikely to be over yet. Tonight we are likely to see more intolerance preached, shouted, imposed, and there’s a planned TV interview in the weekend to keep the publicity alive and kicking.

Is Paddy about to be blacklisted or white anted?

‘Hate speech’ – hateful expressions, or knowingly stirring up hate

I’ve seen this term used a number of times: “You don’t hate people.”

I have always seen ‘hate’ as a very strong term, but there seems to be a lot of hate today, often for trivial things.

The Oxford dictionary tends towards it being a strong term:

hate (verb)

1 Feel intense dislike for.

   1.2 Have a strong aversion to (something)

Hate (noun)

1 Intense dislike

   1.1 Denoting hostile actions motivated by intense dislike or prejudice

People seem to have intense dislike of fairly trivial things these days. There was an item last night on Sunday on road rage which showed extraordinary and violent reactions to relatively minor incidents on roads.

‘Hate speech’ has been a big talking point lately.

Do people really hate things that others say?

Or do they just hate that people say things they disagree with?

I suspect there’s a lot more tendency towards the latter.

John Roughan: Forceful speech is not always hate speech

Some things a parent says to a child go in very deep and stay for life. I can still hear my mother telling me, “You don’t hate people.”

I quickly forgot who it was I’d just announced I hated because her reply was more interesting. “You hate what they say or do, you don’t hate them. You don’t hate people.” Her tone was matter of fact not moralistic, and I worked out what she meant. It was simply a fact, there was goodness in everyone.

I agree to a large extent, although I thing hate could be justified for some people. Despicable actions can be hated, and despicable people can also be hated.

Hate is a heavy word and I rarely use it…

Same for me, but I see and hear the term used a lot.

…but it is getting quite an airing in this very important debate we are having since Phil Goff closed Auckland Council venues to Stefan Moyneux and Lauren Southern. This week supporters of the mayor have decided “free speech is not hate speech”, which, on the evidence of the banned pair’s internet posts, seems unfair.

Southern hates Islamic attitudes to women and for that reason she hates Islamic immigration. I think my mother would permit that, probably agree with it. I’m not sure what Molyneux hates…

I don’t know whether Southern hates Muslims, Islamic attitudes to women or Islamic immigration. But she certainly seems to stir up feelings of hate, both in support and in opposition to what she says,

I strongly disagree with some aspects of the Islamic religion, but that’s in general terms. I strongly disagree with aspects of the Christian religion, and the Jewish religion, and other religions.

I strongly disagree with some Islamic attitudes to women  – and also to some Kiwi attitudes to women as expressed online.

However I don’t hate Islamic immigration, nor do I fear it. I have no reason to do so. I don’t hate Muslim immigrants, and I certainly don’t hate Muslim people I pass on the streets of Dunedin (that happens quite often). I have no reason whatsoever to hate these people.

But some people do seem to hate Islam, hate Muslims, and appear to hate Muslim immigrants.

If Southern and Molyneux play on some people’s hates and fears, if they provoke expressions of hate, then are they guilty of hate speech?

Or is it just speech that they know will provoke feelings and expressions of hate? Are they trying to generate and propagate a frenzy of hate?

It is possible to stir up hate without using specifically hateful phrases in their speech.

Perhaps that’s what others hate about Southern and Molyneux.

 

Molyneux and Southern in Melbourne

From Gezza:


Melbourne

The Hume Highway was closed after the protesters gathered at La Mirage Reception and Convention Centre in Somerton, the venue for a talk by Lauren Southern and spilled on to the road. Officers tried to subdue the crowd with pepper spray as they clashed with mounted and riot police.

The Canadian commentator, who is touring with her fellow countryman Stefan Molyneux, is expected to share her controversial views on multiculturalism, Islam, and feminism.

Right-wing activist Neil Erikson filmed protesters before being hauled away from police. He and two other men are charged with affray and riot over an incident outside an event by controversial commentator Milo Yiannopoulos last year.

Ms Southern was expected to cause trouble, with the alt-right YouTube star making headlines since she touched down in Australia. The 23-year-old arrived in Brisbane wearing an “It’s okay to be white” T-shirt, after warning news.com.au she would cause “chaos” with her notorious brand of “free speech”.

The right-winger earlier hit the streets of Melbourne to stir up controversy, although her efforts to generate outrage ahead of her talk tonight appear to have fallen flat.

Even those who bought tickets to the first event of her Australian tour were given minimal detail about where the talk is. In a message to participants, organisers of the event thanked people for their understanding and patience about the secrecy around the location. “The fierce opposition to this event by the extreme left elements of Melbourne has been breathtaking in their determination to make it as difficult as possible for us to bring this tour here,” the message said.

Complicated measures have been introduced to keep the location of Lauren Southern’s talk secret. Source:YouTube

Security around Ms Southern’s talk is reportedly costing organisers thousands with Victoria Police reportedly sending them a $68,000 bill to pay for resources to be used at her show. An email from Victoria Police quotes the total cost as $230,000 but said police would only charge her $67,842.50, News Corp Australia reported.

After violent activists turned Melbourne streets into a war zone during a talk by right-wing speaker Milo Yiannopoulos six months ago, he was also sent a $50,000 bill to cover the heavy police presence.

The Campaign Against Racism and Fascism has organised a protest in Melbourne to “show fascistic ideas will always lose in Melbourne” against Ms Southern’s show. It called her “a notorious racist and Islamophobe”.

On Saturday she appeared on Sky News, making it clear that she was “happy to be white”. “If I were black I could say I’m proud, if I were Asian I could say I’m proud, if I were any other ethnicity I could say I’m proud because that’s how our culture is, but if I’m white and I say I’m proud the media will go nuts,” she said.

More … includes embedded video of protestors swearing, banging on, & trying to stop the bus.

–  Protester rushes stage as activists clash with police at far-right Lauren Southern’s Melbourne event


My take:

She makes a good point & is likely to be sort of correct there, on that last bit about the media “going nuts” if she wore a ” Proud to be white” T-shirt in the US, Canada & Australia. But I don’t know if that’s necessarily true of the UK or New Zealand.

I think “the media” doesn’t actually much care one way or the other that she’d wear a T-shirt saying that. This is sensationalist stuff. It’s clicks and viewers. They are more interested in stirring up & then videoing & showing & reporting on the number & type of violent & abusive “liberal” left wing & Muslim young radicals who will straight away come out, gang up, scream slogans like “Nazis!” & cause mayhem because they hate her.

Because for such people whether all or any of it is true or not doesn’t matter. They don’t like it. They don’t agree with it. They usually can’t just calmly & intelligently dispute or refute it. So they have decided the only thing to do is try & ensure that people mustn’t listen it. That people who do are demonised or scared to do it in case they and/or their property are attacked.

What Southern is doing, like Jordan Peterson is doing, is raising issues like:

  • immigration & border control failures,
  • who should decide immigration policies,
  • what numbers are manageable, and what criteria should be required,
  • whether immigrants should assimilate or not,
  • whether religious or cultural behaviours, beliefs & values of some individuals or groups fundamentally clash with those of Western Europeans & eventually may – or already do seek – to replace Western liberal European values & laws in the areas they dominate
  • what are the costs vs the benefits to the host country of different types of immigrant categories (skills, family, guest workers vs locals)

*Are the increasingly strident claims of extreme, radical, or even now mainstream feminists (whatever that word even means now) that men are suppressing women’s career development & actively or covertly preventing them gaining positions of power & responsibility, access to high-paying jobs, and just basically fundamentally unnecessary as per the famous radical lesbian feminist adage “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” – actually even TRUE?

Increasing evidence now suggests not. And that this now-longstanding criticising & even demonising of “men” appears to be one cause of the growing incidence of confused, anxious & dysfunctional young men & women in places like the US.

As far as I can tell Southern hasn’t claimed that whites are superior to black or brown people.

She seems to saying that – in the face of now decades of constant criticism & verbal attacks on the ‘cultural domination’ of Western countries by white people (who have actually in recent decades been surprisingly ethnically, religiously & even culturally tolerant – compared to, say, the real, legalised, institutionalised, religiously-prescribed & indoctrinated patriarchal misogynism & intolerance prevalent among Muslim people in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia etc) – she is actually Proud To Be A White European – & she thinks approved immigrants should only be those who will contribute, not cost, & will assimilate into her own country’s prevailing culture of one law for all, free speech, & otherwise complete colour blindness.

She draws attention in her movie FARMLANDS to the ongoing & unreported anti-white discrimination, & murders & attacks on white farmers in isolated communities in South Africa.

Somebody should. Mandela would.

There’s no case for moral relativism such as “ha ha it’s their turn now” because Whites segregated & controlled the place for decades before they finally, for many reasons – including international sanctions & condemnation – accepted that it was morally wrong & surrendered power to ‘democracy’. A democracy which has rapidly became astoundingly, but not entirely surprisingly, corrupt under black majority rule.

Any government practicing or advocating discrimination, dispossession without compensation, ignoring, or condoning the oppression, repression, or murder of any group who are no threat to the survival or wellbeing of another group is just wrong. Whoever does it. Whenever they do it.

Molyneux is riding the same wave as Southern. However he is also a conspiracist & in my view a generally more suspicious sort of character because he also pushes false & misleading information. But many of his messages deal with the same issues.

They are all issues which I think DO need to be frequently discussed in a free, open, fair, & still-evolving, generally harmonious, democratic society like ours and other similar countries – which want to remain that way.

Southern and Molyneux can come to New Zealand

I think that the Minister of Immigration Iain lees-Galloway has correctly said that Canadians Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux are free to come to New Zealand.

This is a good decision for free speech.

I hope, if they aren’t too shell shocked by their Australian visit and come here, they are left in no doubt what that the majority of New Zealanders think of what they say.

If they try to stir up controversy as they have in Australia they may found out that free speech works both ways, and there is a lot of strong speech that contests their agenda.

From the little I’ve seen Southern may have bitten off a lot more than she can chew.

They could come here and be widely lauded and applauded, but i very much doubt that.

Should controversial Muslims be able to speak at an Auckland venue?

Should two international Muslim speakers be allowed to speak at Auckland city venue the Bruce Mason Centre?

If, instead of controversial Canadians Lauren Southern and Stefan Molynuex, a couple of controversial Muslims wanted to come to New Zealand to speak, would the reactions and the arguments be the same?

What if Donald Trump wanted to come and speak in New Zealand – would he get the same promises of demonstrations that are planned for his imminent visit to Britain?

What about two controversial Israelis? If, instead of a speaking event, what if they wanted to play an exhibition game of tennis?

Two Palestinians?

What if two international anti-TPPA speakers wanted to organise a protest in Auckland?

It would be interesting to see how many of the current free speech promoters took a similar stance, and how many of the ‘ban hate speech’ promoters took a similar stance.

 

‘Free speech’ versus ‘hate speech’ (or intolerance of the intolerant)

The ‘free speech’ debate continues.

‘Free speech’ is not entirely free, and it is far from equal, some people have far more opportunity and power than others to be heard. How free speech should be is a contentious issue.

‘Hate speech’ is harder to define, but someone at Reddit attempted:

“Hate speech” has simply become “Things we hate hearing you say.”

What a weak, feckless, emotionally hysterical culture we’re encouraging.

A quote from Golriz Gaharaman:

“Freedom of speech, like most rights, is not absolute. It’s subject to the rights of others, to safety, freedom, equality. Our gov must balance the right of right wing hate mongers against the greater interests of public safety in NZ. Just as Aus has done in denying their visas.”

I got involved in a discussion on all this on Twitter yesterday (I usually avoid it, it’s difficult to debate well when dabbling while multi tasking). It started with this:

Marianne Elliot: I’m taking notes on who stepped up to support Renae vs who is supporting this lot.

John Hart: The Venn diagram will be two non-intersecting circles I suspect.

PG: I have spoken up for Renae and against Jones’ legal action, and also support free speech at Auckland council venues. You don’t? (I didn’t support Renae’s petition, nor do I support what Southern & Molyneux say).

Sarah Jane Parton: Did you donate to both Renae’s legal fund and Brash et al’s $50k? Are you the ∩?

PG: I’m not cool with him at all. But like many people I have serious concerns about the growing tendency to try to shut down speech people don’t agree with. Have you read this?
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-cost-of-free-and-democratic-society_9.html

Sarah Jane Parton: WRT to the “legality”, I point you to section 61 of the Human Rights Act,

Sarah Jane Parton: And then there’s the costs of security, policing, damages, etc etc.

PG: Should street protests be banned? There are costs of security, policing and risks of damage with them.
Or a protests a valid form of free speech important to a democracy?

Marianne Elliot: The critical line in that piece is this: “It’s perhaps all too easy to proclaim the general need for tolerance and acceptance of “offence” by others when you’re in a privileged and protected social position.”

PG: As important: “But, if we are going to mark out some social groups as requiring greater protection from the effects of speech, how do we do so, and who gets to decide just who they are? And how do we stop… expanding to capture expression we might think ought to be allowed?”

Marianne Elliot: Those are not simple questions, but with a clear power and risk analysis, nor are they impossible to resolve. The point is that we need someone other than the people who have always been in charge to be leading that conversation.

PG: It’s a growing issue that should be talked about be people other than those in power like . But one of our big challenges is how we do that without being it being trashed by abuse and by polarisation.

Marianne Elliot: Or maybe the biggest challenge is that the people at least risk from hate speech are used to being in charge of our laws and in control of debates about them.

PG: Some of the biggest targets of ‘hate speech’ and abuse and threats and defamation are those most prominent in power.

Marianne Elliot: Defamation is an important legal issue & is also very different hate speech. Calling one powerful white man racist has a very different power & social impact to someone saying “blacks are collectively less intelligent”, or invoking a “quick, decisive, and brutal” white backlash.

PG: It’s different again including many non-powerful white men in general condemnation. I think there needs to be a significant shift, but care has to be taken not to take rights of some when giving them to others.

Marianne Elliot:  Maybe instead it’s time to sit back and listen to the people being harmed by this speech? To listen to their very real and reasonable fears, and resist telling them that they don’t understand what is really at stake?

PG: We should always take time to sit back and listen, but that shouldn’t silence us either. I don’t know who tells others they don’t understand. Attempts to understand should work in all directions. As Andrew said, it’s very complex.

Sarah Jane Parton: I’d like to hear ’ take on this piece.

Eddie Clark: Some differences at the edges maybe, but pretty much agree with Andrew. Anyone who tells you this is simple probably doesn’t understand it well enough.

Marianne Elliot:  It’s not simple. I haven’t heard many say that it is. What many (including me) are saying is that it is time for the people at least risk of harm from harmful speech to listen to people at most risk, and to resist telling them that they don’t understand what’s at stake.

Marianne Elliot:  There are difficult balances to be reached. But for that balance to be fair, what has to change is the make-up of the people who get to dominate the process of reaching that balance.

PG: “what has to change is the make-up of the people who get to dominate the process of reaching that balance” – by suppressing the speech of whom? You can’t easily shut up those you don’t want to hear, nor make those speak who you want to hear.

Marianne Elliot:  Oh lord. I’m not sure there’s much point continuing this conversation if you think that changing the balance of who holds power in setting and interpreting law is about suppressing speech. Over and out.

PG: Oh lord, you’ve jumped to a bit of a conclusion there. I don’t think that.

Sarah Jane Parton: If you are not the people who will be harmed by this stuff then maybe it IS time to be quiet. Goff’s call has not been met with criticism from former refugees, transfolk, or Muslims, which is noteworthy. The ethnic and gender make up of Brash’s “coalition” is also telling.

PG: Are you suggesting that only former refugees, transfolk, Muslims and you should say anything about this? If that’s the case the issue would never have been raised or discussed to any noticeable degree.

Sarah Jane Parton: I’m saying that if you use your privilege to support and amplify the voices of other privileged people whose very aim is to trample on marginalised people, maybe it’s time to be quiet.


That’s more or less how it ran – Twitter threads can get a bit convoluted.

It evolved from debating whether free speech principles overrode claims of hate speech or not, to suggesting that people ‘in privileged positions’ should be quiet and let others speak about the problems with hate speech.

I’m sure no minds were changed in the conversations, but this illustrates some of the issues around complexities of free speech versus hate speech’

It is more an issue of how much intolerance of intolerant speech should limit the freedom to speak.

The Molyneux-Southern Australasian speaking tour

The speaking event involving Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern was quickly canned in Auckland after mayor Phil Goff decided that he not only didn’t want to listen to the two Canadians, but he also didn’t want anyone else listening to them at council owned venues.

But it looks like the Australian leg of the tour is still on – with tickets ranging between $79 and $749  – the top price for ‘a once in a lifetime opportunity to break bread at an intimate function prior to the main event that evening with not one but two of the most influential Alt Media personalities of our generation’.  I’d never heard of them so don’t know how influential they are.

The tour blurb at Axiomatic Events:

“Australia is at a crossroads…”

Axiomatic is proud to bring Alt Media commentators and conservative activists STEFAN MOLYNEUX & LAUREN SOUTHERN to Australia and New Zealand in 2018 for a free speech evening of stories, opinions, inspiration and Q&A.

Stefan Molyneux is the host of Freedomain Radio, the largest and most popular philosophy show in the world, with half a billion views, downloads and book sales. He is an in-demand public speaker, best-selling author and incisive interviewer. Stefan Molyneux has hosted many public intellectuals and debates on his show, from Noam Chomsky to Jordan Peterson.

Rejecting left/right political clichés, Stefan Molyneux builds rational arguments from first principles, combining a respect for self-ownership with the morality of the non-aggression principle to build a truly peaceful vision for humanity’s future. From peaceful parenting to politics, from objective ethics to emotions, Stefan Molyneux brings the clarity and passion of philosophy to a wide variety of personal, political and social challenges.

Lauren Southern is a Canadian journalist, political activist, documentary filmmaker and best selling author. She is well known for her commentary on feminism, free speech, and immigration.  Whether it’s the riots in Berkeley, Slut Walk in LA, Black Lives Matter uprising in Milwaukee, and most recently the farm murders in South Africa.

In 2015 Lauren ran as a Libertarian Party candidate in the Canadian federal election. Soon after, she was hired by Rebel Media, where she worked until March 2017. Since then, she has been working independently through her YouTube channel which has over a half million followers. Known for her fearless reporting, she  tackles stories that the mainstream media refuses to cover.  She is a lover of freedom and hedgehogs.

Tickets:

  • $79 general admission to “hear speeches by world leading commentators and justice activists”
  • $99 early admission (a few minutes early to get better seats)
  • $199 meet & greet ‘strictly limited to 40 people at each event for half an hour backstage access prior to the show’
  • $499 VIP meet & greet “10 people will get to spend an extra 15 minutes in the Meet & Greet, plus get a swag of personally signed, awesome merchandise”
  • $749 dinner and early admission “opportunity to break bread at an intimate function prior to the main event that evening with not one but two of the most influential Alt Media personalities of our generation”

I wouldn’t be surprised if ticket sales were a factor in the quick cancellation of the Auckland event.

But if you really want to listen to them live you can book tickets for Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Sydney or Brisbane for later this month.