By Olivia Pierson
​[First published on Incite Politics 24/7/18]

Now that Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux have been told by Immigration NZ that they will be given visas to come to New Zealand to speak if they can find a venue, Hazim Arafeh, President of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand, says that he is angry and that: 

This type of speech makes all Muslims of the world very, very angry! 

Arafeh also went on to say this: 

There’s a lot of tension in the community – there’s a lot of profiling of Muslims and that’s not conducive to the public good.

Has anyone asked this man if he thinks it is responsible as a leader of the Muslim community to incite Muslims in a western nation to be angry? Has anyone asked this man why tension in their community is not “conducive” to the public good? 
 
Those words make me very, very nervous. When Muslims, who are notoriously thin skinned about their savage superstition, get angry they have a remarkable and consistent tendency to commit atrocities which we have seen all over the western world, except New Zealand so far. Is this a veiled threat from Mr Arafeh?

When Southern and Molyneux do come to speak here, if there is any violence then be it upon Mr Arafeh’s and the Muslim community’s head.  If extra security is needed to curb Muslim violence if they protest in an unmannerly fashion, then that bill should absolutely be sent to FIANZ.

Has anyone ever heard Mr Hazim Arafeh unequivocally state that Muslims are angry about terrorism happening all over the world in the name of their religion? Has he expressed any anger over the estimated one million British girls who have been victims of the Muslim rape gangs of Rochdale, Rotherham, Oxford, Telford, Leeds, Birmingham, Norwich, Burnley, High Wycombe, Leicester, Dewsbury, Middlesbrough, Peterborough, Bristol, Halifax and Newcastle? 

If Mr Arafeh has condemned these disgustingly evil practices by his co-religionists, I’ve never heard it. Yet, he stands up now in New Zealand, a country of the British Commonwealth, and has the gall to say that Muslims are very, very angry about the views of Southern and Molyneux? What an utter human-rights hypocrite! 

When Theresa May was home Secretary, she appointed New Zealand High Court judge Lowell Goddard to lead the investigation into the Rotherham rape-gangs scandal that is still nowhere near close to being completed. Goddard has since quit.

United Kingdom policy analyst George Igler, who has analysed these sex scandals deeply, says: 

The thing you have to understand about this rape of children is it’s not just sexual abuse. It is unspeakable levels of violence, victims being raped with knives, victims being raped with bottles, victims having their tongues nailed to tables. These are sometimes girls who are picked up from a children’s home on a Friday, are being raped during the course of a weekend by hundreds of men and returned with bleeding groins back to the children’s’ home on a Monday morning and they don’t do anything about it at all.

The reason these brutal travesties were left alone to continue happening was precisely because free speech in the United Kingdom has been so squelched that even the social workers in charge of these female victims, as young as nine years old, were afraid to report them because they would be labelled ‘racist’ by those still waving the pathetic banner of multiculturalism. 

United Kingdom Labour MP Naz Shah retweeted a tweet, which she ended up deleting after she realised it was a parody by columnist Owen Jones which read: 

Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity. 
End of quote.
If Mr Arafeh wants to be taken seriously as any kind of leader of the Muslim community in New Zealand, while we alertly watch the sheer barbarism of what is taking place in the land of our Mother Country and the rest of Europe in the name of his co-religionists, then he should find it in himself to get angry – very, very angry – and show the outrage these atrocities committed by his Muslim brethren deserve, or else shut his mouth and resign.

Mr Arafeh is on record for perpetrating this doozy of a lie: 

As a matter of fact, Islam is the first religion in the history of humanity which gave women rights.

What a total croc of bollox on steroids!  Even Greek and Roman paganism gave women far more rights than Islam ever has, or will. Islam has never been able to even begin to compete with the high status of women under Old Testament Jewish law and its Christian counterpart, both of which have never incorporated the practice of eliminating female sexual pleasure by the removal of female genitalia, as Islamic practice does all over the world. Mr Arafeh is lying through his teeth when he says nonsense like the quote above, and he should be called out on it. All one needs to do to know that he is lying, is to read the writings of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was raised a devout Muslim girl and lived in the Islamic worlds of Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Kenya and knows full well that women under Islam’s tenets have no rights to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness as Westerners understand those rights to be. Her genitals are a testament to the fact that those “women’s rights” Arafeh speaks of do not exist within Islamic culture.

I, for one, will never tolerate the perfidy and hypocrisy of Muslims in my own country who get unduly upset over the allowance of others to exercise their right of free speech in order to criticise terrible and widespread Islamic practices. 

Mr Arafeh needs to understand that our Western countries have rights that in the country of his birth, Saudi Arabia, are utterly unheard of, like allowing homosexuals to live in peace rather than being publicly hurled from tall buildings to their deaths for the crime of nothing more than their sexual orientation.

If Hazim Arafeh cannot adjust his thinking to a Western paradigm, then he has no business being here, let alone being the leader of any group of Muslims who have a tendency to get violent when they get angry – very, very angry. If he cannot adjust his thinking, then he and his ilk are not conducive to the public good of our beautiful, free and liberal New Zealand!


If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer" ​ ​

By Olivia Pierson
[First published on Incite Politics 18/7/18]

“Your father did business with Hyman Roth. Your father respected Hyman Roth, but your father never trusted Hyman Roth,” said Frank Pentangeli in The Godfather.

Substitute the name Hyman Roth with Vladimir Putin and it might be a fair assessment of the kind of thinking that President Trump keeps in the forefront of his mind when dealing with this KGB operative and current President of the Russian Federation.

After this week’s summit between the two leaders, people seem to hold some kind of expectation that Trump should’ve lambasted Putin for everything under the sun, from civilian deaths in Aleppo, to the invasion of Crimea, to Russian meddling in the United States elections and beyond. I wager that had Trump conducted himself in that kind of fashion, the world would be hysterically screaming about his lack of professional diplomacy toward a first meeting with a leader who holds the major balance of nuclear weapons after America’s stockpile is accounted for.  

The point that seems to have provoked people into an all-out spiritual collapse is the fact that Trump isn’t taking his own intelligence agencies’ words about Russian meddling as gospel to berate Putin over the head with. Putin, of course, is vehemently denying knowledge about any meddling from the Russian side, but he offered Mueller’s investigation team access into Russia to be part of an investigation into the twelve people who have been indicted by the FBI from the safety, and irrelevance, of American soil.  If only the FBI had been as tenacious over Hillary Clinton’s emails and the DNC server, which still happens to be missing.

And who could blame Trump for ostensibly placing more stock in the word of Vladimir Putin rather than his own intelligence agencies, given that the intelligence agencies under President Obama, including the FBI, have been plotting his downfall since well before he even won the election? 

What’s particularly amusing is the great, virtuous display of outrage Chuck Schumer has shown today in a briefing: 

For the President of the United States to side with Putin against American law enforcement, American defence officials and American intelligence agencies is thoughtless, it’s dangerous and it’s weak.

Laughable when you consider that only last year Chuck Schumer ominously said this when Trump criticised the dealings of the intelligence agencies:

Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you… so even for a practical, supposedly hard nose businessman that’s really dumb to do this.
​
Does anyone else smell a mafioso-like threat in that warning?

Let’s not forget that swamp-swimmer Schumer supports athletes in not standing for the American anthem and flag, he supports Democrat protestors crying out for the total dissolution of Immigration & Customs Enforcement and also lends his support to black protestors all over the country protesting the police!

The stench of double-dealing hypocrisy is overpowering. 

President Trump, to my eye and ear, obviously has bigger issues on the table like confronting Iran on behalf of his allegiance with Israel – and this is something he desires Putin’s backing on. I would say that this issue is the main one that sent him on a mission to Helsinki to get to know Putin in this remarkable first summit between two powerful men. ​
​

If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer" ​ 

​

By Olivia Pierson
[First published on Incite Politics 12/7/18]

The response to the brand new NZ Coalition for Free Speech asking for donations to bring judicial proceedings against Auckland Council for denying Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern a taxpayer-funded venue to speak in has been surprisingly heartening!  The required 50k was raised in 24 hours (actually quite a lot more).

What this shows is how ready Kiwis are to literally put their money where their mouths are.

Almost nothing is as important as the law of free expression in our nation, for on it hang all our other freedoms. Free speech and free thought are inextricably bound; to censor speech legally by making certain views or utterances a crime is exactly the same impetus as seeking to prosecute citizens for thought crimes.  

The Englishman and political philosopher John Locke was the intellectual founding father of America’s founding fathers. America’s foundational documents are laced with Lockean language, and we know he was the great breeze of inspiration that filled the sails of Thomas Jefferson’s broad mind.

Locke and Jefferson, born a century apart, were the two men most responsible for bringing ‘liberalism’ to the modern western world. Liberalism equates to individual liberty, and should not be conflated with anything resembling ‘progressivism’ which always calls for more government interference around matters of personal liberty, not less.

When writing his “Act for Establishing Religious Freedom” for America, Jefferson explains the broader principle for freedom of speech, which he gleaned from Locke: 

Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
quote.
This is where Phil Goff and his ilk go awry in their thoughts and actions. They fear something they shouldn’t from views that they personally find repugnant, but instead of taking actions to intelligently counteract the views, they arrogate power to themselves to stop those views from even being expressed. Free argument and debate are the natural weapons we possess to fight error where it is exists. They are also the only method of opposing ideas without resorting to force or violence.

As an important side note, the couple who were shut down from speaking, Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, do not actually hold dangerous or repugnant views; they hold perfectly rational classical liberal views – and had they been allowed to speak that would have been made clear.

Goff & co, through their authoritarian opposition to the speaking engagement, actually managed to vilify and smear the duo in our press just because they happen to be provocative. Provocateurs are as meaningful in our modern civilisation as they were in France and England during Voltaire’s time, or in ancient Athens during the time of Socrates.

If they had any sense of honour, Goff, Seymour, Bridges, Davidson, the pathetically thin-skinned Muslims and all the other public figures who piled on to insult the duo, should apologise for seriously misrepresenting what the duo stand for. Lauren and Stefan hold views that are widely held by millions and millions of people around the western world – and this is the real reason why they are often so stiffly opposed by progressive globalists, for their views are becoming more paramount.

When Thomas Jefferson became president for the first time in 1801, and after a bitter election full of muckraking and slander between Republicans and Federalists, he spoke these words to the people in his first inaugural speech:

If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

That is the very spirit of true liberalism.

Let the benevolent principles of Locke and Jefferson guide us, not the small-minded authoritarianism of Stalin and Mao.
​

If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer" ​ 

​