By Olivia Pierson
[First published on Incite 27/3/19]
Freedom of Speech laws were first created for the sole purpose of protecting controversial speech. It became a civilisational hallmark of a free society and still is.
If all speech were harmonious, warm and fuzzy, there would be no need to protect it via the law. The use of controversial speech – speech that those who rule over us are now seeking to re-classify as illegal “hate speech” – is a fundamental right of people living within a country which values liberty.
Right now, prominent New Zealand bureaucrats are calling loudly for controversial speech to be reclassified as hate speech. Prime Minister Ardern, MP Golriz Ghahraman, Susan Devoy, Head Censor David Shanks, Race and Ethnic Relations expert, Paul Spoonley and many others are making this their urgent mission.
Paul Spoonley says:
“We have been complacent and a little naive to think we were exempt from this. We need now to have a debate about what constitutes hate speech in New Zealand and we need to act upon that definition.”
Jacinda Ardern and David Shanks have already enacted a ban on the Christchurch terrorist’s manifesto, which came into force on Saturday. Banning this manifesto will only mystify it and therefore increase its value. As the Free Speech Coalition of New Zealand stated in its recent press release, “For the same reason we don’t ban Mein Kampf, the manifesto should not be driven underground.”
But this is not primarily about the damned manifesto. It’s going to become about New Zealanders not being allowed to voice their views on Islamic immigration from the Third World into our country. Last week it was our gun legislation that was swiftly altered, this week it’s our online free speech rights; being informed that it is now illegal to view, download, quote from, or print the manifesto – and very soon there will be legislation against us being able to criticise our country’s immigration policies, including no criticism of migrants, their religious practices, culture or religion. That will be deemed racist hate speech, as it is by some already.
Green MP Golriz Ghahraman said in Parliament last week:
"It [the shootings] began with hate speech, allowed to spread here online. History has taught us that hate speech is a slippery slope to atrocity. We now know that New Zealand needs to address this…There sit among us those who have for years fanned the flames of division in here and out there. Blamed migrants for our housing crisis. There sit among us here who deliberately spread hysteria about the UN Migration Compact… We must change the way we do politics here. Our most vulnerable communities are hurt. We are scared. White Supremacists want us dead."
No, Ms. Ghahraman, only one “eco-fascist” from Australia did. Keep it real. Just as you like to argue that most Muslims are not terrorists, neither are most misguided eco-fascists.
Susan Devoy, who, in her previous role as Race Relations Commissar has been trying to shut down free speech in New Zealand for years, writes in the most smug tone imaginable:
"If you were one of those commentators: do not write an op-ed today crying about how shocking yesterday’s murders were. Because you helped make it happen. You helped normalise hatred in our country. You helped those murderers feel that they were representing the thoughts of ordinary New Zealanders." e
Helped make it happen? Helped normalise hatred?
Well, Ms. Devoy. I’ve actually heard you in conversation refer to men as “stale, pale and male” – exactly the sort of snide contempt that has become part of the toxic Left’s ugly rhetoric against white men. If you keep using that kind of terminology, then you may be contributing to pain, frustration and anger in young men. Would you like to then be held responsible when one flips out and kills innocent people in a world where he feels he is neither wanted, loved, nor respected? Perhaps you contributed to Brenton Tarrant’s frustrated views? Silly-bitch reasoning back at ya.
When Devoy refers to “one of those commentators,” I assume she means “hard right libertarian” (you can read her whole piece to fully understand her context).
I would like for these folks to pause for a moment and consider that the most bloody regimes of the 20th Century were the ones which carried out exactly this exercise, reclassifying speech as soon as they came to power:
Kim regime of North Korea
Khmer Rouge in Cambodia
Viet Cong of Vietnam & Cambodia
The GDR dictatorship of East Germany after WWII.
Saddam Hussein’s Iraq
The Islamic Republic of Iran
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
These regimes aggressively clamped down on free speech (some still do) in order to persecute any individual who critiqued their leadership, thus silencing dissent and opposition. This tell-tale sign of a lurch toward tyrannical authoritarianism casts a long, dark spectre over the freedom of human affairs.
Forceful speech is perfectly legitimate as a method of fighting back against bad ideas. The only thing forceful speech needs to be met with is more forceful speech. The line in the sand that needs to be drawn is people ought not to use freedom of expression to call for acts of violence to be perpetrated, like ISIS frequently does – and is doing now to avenge the deaths of Muslims in New Zealand. Never mind that ISIS itself murdered many, many Muslims (also Yazidis and Christians) while it took control of lands in its attempt to usher in a new Caliphate. Do you think the ISIS leaders allowed for freedom of expression? Fat chance. It’s not a common cornerstone of many majority Muslim countries.
In Hitler’s Wartime Conversations as recorded by Martin Bormann, Hitler said this about free speech:
"The organisation of our press has truly been a success. Our law concerning the press is such that divergences of opinion between members of the government are no longer an occasion for public exhibitions, which are not the newspapers’ business. We’ve eliminated that conception of political freedom which holds that everybody has the right to say whatever comes into his head."
Dictator of the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin, made this observation about free thought and speech during his brutal time as Killer-in-chief:
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"
Regarding free speech, Mao Tse-tung once stated in his own words:
"What should our policy be towards non-Marxist ideas? As far as unmistakable counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs of the socialist cause are concerned, the matter is easy, we simply deprive them of their freedom of speech."
The only slippery slope New Zealand happens to be on right now is the one leading to fascism: hate speech, thought crimes, firings from places of employment, doxing, arrests for disseminating ideas or opinions opposed to our government’s agenda. It’s our current Leftist leaders who are hurling us down this slope.
If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer"
It’s only fair to share! :-)
New Zealand Must be Better than Australia on Milo Yiannopoulos Issue: Press Release by NZ Free Speech Coalition
Ding, Dong, Devoy Is Gone—but Her Evil Flourishes Everywhere! (Free Tommy Robinson!) by Lindsay Perigo
Links to Other Blogs