When, on Saturday afternoon, my son mentioned that a National Front protest had been driven out of Parliament grounds I was a bit puzzled. “Do you mean in London?”, I asked.
But it turns out the event in question was here in Wellington. I wasn’t aware we had a National Front in New Zealand. They even have a website (which I am not linking to).
From various media accounts (Newshub, Stuff, Herald, Radio NZ), it seems that the National Front had, some weeks ago, sought and obtained permission to hold a rally in the grounds of Parliament on Saturday. So far, so unsurprising, All sort of groups hold rallies there. Understandably enough, as it is our Parliament. Some of those groups you agree with, some you disagree with, some are pretty odious, and some rallies you might even be tempted to join in (I never have).
But from the other side of the political spectrum – far to the other side – there was a group who didn’t just dislike the National Front, deplore their views, disagree with them about almost everything, but thought it was wrong that such people should even be able to hold a rally and express their views. And so out went a call to stop them. Not just to hold a parallel rally, in the hope (perhaps) of attracting more attendees than the National Front. No, the plan was to
We will stop their mobilisation
and
12-1pm: Blockade/stop the National Front
And, sure enough, they did. (And they got a lot more people along than the National Front did.) As the Dominion-Post story puts it
“Hundreds of anti-racism protestors chased National Front members from the grounds of Parliament on Saturday.
But this wasn’t just any group of thugs. This was a rally addressed by two MPs from a party that is now part of the New Zealand government: Marama Davidson and Golriz Ghahraman of the Green Party. There is no hint that these MPs stood in front of the rally and urged restraint, reminding the rally participants that we live in a free land, in a democracy, where the freedom to speak one’s mind, to protest – perhaps especially in the grounds of Parliament – is intrinsic to our liberty. Or to point out that freedom of speech – liberty – means something only if it applies to those with whom one disagrees, perhaps very strongly. The views might be odious, but the freedoms (should) matter a lot. But apparently not to these two MPs, both of whose Twitter feeds suggest they were proud to have been involved in this small scale thuggery.
And small scale apparently it was. At least according to the Dom-Post account, only about half a dozen National Front people turned up to their rally. Others were apparently “in the pub down the road”. Hard to imagine six of them would have got any media coverage at all, except perhaps a small, slightly derisive, note somewhere, without the efforts of the Green Party MPs and their fellow protestors.
About six National Front members made their way towards Parliament in pairs, at intervals. However, each time they did not make it to the gate because the rally of protestors moved them towards Wellington’s railway station [not exactly just over the road].
….. A few scuffles started but police intervened, surrounding the National Front members to escort them away.
This is our democracy?
Fortunately it was all on a very small scale, but it was disturbingly reminiscent of scenes in the US (and the UK) which have become increasingly violent. Out of curiosity, I tried to find out whether the Antifa (“anti-fascist action”) group(s) had come to New Zealand. There were a couple of Facebook pages, one of which was pretty vile indeed. I hope it isn’t representative of anyone much.
But it does leave questions for (a) the two Green MPs, (b) James Shaw, minister of the Crown and Green Party leader, and (c) the Prime Minister. Is the freedom to protest – without fear of a bigger group of thugs breaking up the protest – something they believe in? Does it apply even to groups you disagree with strongly, or only to those who support comfortable causes? And does the Prime Minister regard the involvement of members of Parliament, from a party whose votes she relies on to govern, in such disruptive rallies as acceptable conduct? In the grounds of Parliament no less? As a reminder, there is no merit in defending the right to speak or to protest of those ones happens to agree with, or whose views one is simply indifferent to. It only means something if you stand up for, and respect, the rights of those you strongly disagree with, perhaps even deplore.
These are, after all, MPs who should know better. Davidson herself participates in protests in support of overseas terrorist organisation. I count that as pretty despicable, but it is her right (at least in New Zealand). Ghahraman is apparently a “human rights lawyer”. I don’t put much stock by the New Zealand Bill of Rights myself, but it is an act of the New Zealand Parliament of which Ghahraman is now a member. It states, quite simply,
16 Freedom of peaceful assembly
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
Without being disrupted by thugs. Without being escorted off the premises by the Police (for their own protection?) And no matter how odious their views. Our system is supposed to work by airing and debating differences, and then respecting the rights of each others to hold, and express, differing views. The National Front is not a particularly sympathetic organisation, but in the famous words of the German pastor, Martin Niemoller, regretting, after the war, his own failure to take a stand earlier.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Who will Marama Davidson and Golriz Ghahraman, and their supporters, be coming for next?
As it is, Saturday’s affair looks like a win for the National Front and a loss for our democracy, aided – indeed egged on – by members of Parliament. That’s sad on both counts.
ADDENDUM: (Wednesday 1 Nov)
I’m hesitant about adding this material, but I had an unsolicited email out of the blue from someone who describes himself as chair of the National Front. These were the relevant comments.
However I would like to point out something that the media will not report even though they were informed.
The Flag Day attempt at 11:30 was a fake attempt to confuse the anti-White mob
Our actual event went ahead as planned a few hours later, once the mob had been satiated with a fake victory.
And perhaps more interestingly
We received our permit to assemble at Parliament around September 3.
We forwarded our intentions to the NZ Police as we do every year.
We contacted the Green Party before the date of the event to let them know we were receiving violent threats from the group that was going to be fronted by their MP’s.
We asked the Greens to please withdraw from the event.
If those latter comments are a correct description of what went on, they would appear to strengthen the argument that the Green MPs and the Green Party leader owe the public an explanation about their part in this.
If there is any further comment from any of them, I will link to it here.
croaking cassandra 
Well said! Freedom of speech is always tested by difficult examples, not the easy ones.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There are limitations to freedom of speech;
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304643.html
Not that I’ve looked up their website either, but I can’t imagine that the National Front would have had anything to say or display that didn’t breach these provisions.
LikeLike
Yes, there are limits (and should be, in some cases – eg actual incitement to violence), but those law don’t give people – let alone MPs – the right to take the law into their own hands, before any words were even said at the rally. if the rally had proceeded, and someone considered the words were in breach of the law they would, of course, be perfectly within their rights to report the matter to the Police.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Phil Twyford has just announced he will extend/abuse the Public Works Act to compulsorily force old people out of their homes, name call them landbankers and seize their properties. He is not even saying fair compensation. With a $2 billion budget which is clearly insufficient to meet his 10,000 house(which costs $6.5 billion) Kiwibuild target he is clearly going to go into Nazi style theft/seizure of private land perhaps with little or no compensation.
“New Housing Minister Phil Twyford has fired a warning shot at land bankers(old people), warning if they won’t give up land(family home) needed for housing developments, the Government could seize it. He says the law does not need to be changed to allow the agency to have that power – it already exists under the Public Works Act
The act contains a variety of special powers, currently used to get land that is, for instance, standing in the way of a motorway. That could be applied to KiwiBuild. The minister is hereby empowered to acquire, under this act, any land required for a Government work.”
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/10/government-prepared-to-seize-land-for-housing-projects.html
LikeLike
Oh for goodness sake, GGS, this is just plain silly stating, “…he is clearly going to go into Nazi style theft/seizure of private land perhaps with little or no compensation.”
Here’s the relevant section of the PWA;
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0035/latest/DLM45783.html
Hardly “Nazi style” (i.e., dispossession by force) with “little or no compensation”.
And moreover, a little old lady living on a 1200m2 section is so far removed from the definition/meaning of the target land banker as mentioned by Phil Twyford – that you are embarrassing yourself.
LikeLike
Actually I was going to use Israel’s illegal land seizures and complete disregard to Palestinian land rights instead of Nazi illegal land seizure but then that would invite immediate reply from the Israeli propaganda machinery monitoring all blogs around the world.
Frankly how many large plots are there left that can be categorised as land bankers other than the old folk sitting on their quarter acre family homes? I know of the Manukau Golf course owned by Fletcher Building but they are in no hurry after taking massive losses on their projects dealing with Maori and Nimby issues and the resignation of their CEO, market gardeners and farmers with whats left of Auckland’s green belt and produce land. Of course you have all the Unitary Plan Viewshafts due to Auckland’s 57 volcanos subject to a visual height limit from eye level from every public park.
The only people left is really only the old folk that Phil Twyford wants to exercise his abuse of the Public Works Act.
LikeLike
I’m assuming, GGS that the reference to land bankers refers to to the owners of those plots of land determined to be SHAs under that legislation for which no plans to subdivide and develop are lodged. That assumption is based on having read somewhere that the SHAs with no starts are to be canned.
LikeLike
Hahaha what a joke. Those SHA’s are mostly small plots of privately owned land. The 125 SHA is the early version of the Unitary Plan brought forward. That was Nick Smith forcing the Unitary Plan forward before public consultation was completed. I have one of those SHA properties. It is only 675 sqm.and under the original Unitary Plan brought forward, the zoning allowed for 6 levels of building. It was zoned for apartments. But it was very restrictive as it required 25m road frontage. There are very few properties in private ownership more than 15m road frontage. There was zero possibility to build. You had to buy your neighbour. So I have been waiting for my neighbour to sell me his property. He lives there. He does not want to sell. So he wants $1.3 million for his 675sqm in Otahuhu. Not possible to build at that price when the market price was $600k. Is that considered landbanking?
Today I can build under the revised Unitary Plan but the build costs do not stack up at $3000 per sqm for apartments. Although zoned for 8 level building my small plot can only accomodate a maximum of 9 units and I am stuck at 2 levels. There is still a 6m outlook requirement which limits the size and the height and my neighbour who lives in his property does not want to sell. So shall I apply to Phil Twyford to exercise his abuse of the Public Works Act so I can force my 60 year old neighbour out of his house so I can build 30 units?
LikeLike
Brian Rudman agrees with you:
“The report endeavours to sweeten the pill, as it were, by suggesting that as the 154 SHAs in theory contained “a total of 46,793 dwellings and sites” the Housing Accord target of 39,000 new sites and dwellings in three years had in fact been exceeded.
But with the SHA legislation now expired and only 3157 completed dwellings to show for it, this claim seems something of a bad joke.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11933914
So yes, lots of still vacant SHA land – enough, according to these numbers, for another 43,636 dwellings.
LikeLike
So you are happy for me to use Phil Twyfords abuse of the Public Works Act to force my aged neighbours out of their homes Nazi style so I can build 30 units? Anyway those SHAs are now called Terrace/Apartments suburban dwellings zone under the Unitary Plan. The joke continues under a different name.
LikeLike
You can’t use the PWA, only the government can. But, by the sounds of it you – even with the benefit of your neighbour’s section – the potential development would be of little consequence. Hardly the type of project that the government would bother negotiating for under the PWA for.
LikeLike
Wow it is taking a rather lengthy discussion to get across to you that most SHA’s are not large privately owned sections. This is the third time I am saying this. SHAs are just made up of thousands of tiny plots of land in private hands. Phil Twyford would have to abuse the Public Works Act in order to have a plot of land big enough to build 10,000 houses a year in any of the SHAs because SHAs do not exist any longer. They are the same plots of land that was and is the Terrace housing/Apartment dwellings zone of the Unitary Plan. All Nick Smith actually did was brought forward the original form of the Unitary plan when it was first issued by Auckland Council. This means that Phil Twyford would have to behave rather badly like any decent Nazi would. Beat up the old folk, tag them and name call them as landbankers and Nazi style drag them out of their homes and seize their family homes for the greater good of the Nazi empire.
LikeLike
Sure ‘most’ but I don’t imagine the rats and mice land holdings are the ones of strategic interest;
http://temp.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/ratesbuildingproperty/housingsupply/Pages/specialhousingareas.aspx#announcements
Calm down – I think you can rest assured that your little holding isn’t under threat of confiscation :-)!
LikeLike
Google it. Find for me land area and give me the addresses that you can build on in the ownership of land bankers that Phil Twyford can fulfilled his dreams of being a Nazi and seize to build his 10,000 houses. All talk is just typical of doogooders without a clue of the on the ground conditions. And actually I would love to have Phil Twyford try and and use the Public Works Act to acquire my land.
A mate of mine got paid out $5 million for his small shophouse in New Lynn blocking the Public Works Act with lawyers because he was the last property holding up the New Lynn train station from starting their build. He paid $100k in legal fees but worth the legal entanglement with a $5million pay out as the last man standing.
LikeLike
You’re a real comic, GGS – first accuse the government of Nazi-style land confiscation without compensation – and then hit us with a story about your friend the extortionist. Thanks, no, re the Google assignment – I think I can take it on trust that there are land bankers just waiting to extract such capital gains from the public purse based solely on your own attitude/commentary on such matters.
LikeLike
I see Katharine that you are not prepared to do the basic research groundwork to get any accuracy in your discussion points. Man up and do the ground work. Give me addresses that Labour can build 10,000 houses without abusing the Public Works Act and kick ordinary people out of their homes.
What I was highlighting to you that when you abuse the Public Works Act and use it in a fashion that was not intended by parliament, then lawyers are more than prepared to take you and a wannabe Nazi ie Phil Twyford to court and it will get rather costly. Face facts rather than tell lies.
LikeLike
ok, this exchange is descending to a level I’m not comfortable with. please exercise greater restraint, or comments will be edited or deleted
LikeLike
If the National Front has received all the relevant permits and is legally able to be on Parliament Grounds then The Green Party must be rebuked by Jacinda Ardern as the Prime Minister to clearly state that she does not condone such thuggery by the Green Party.
Why is NZF and Winston Peters so embarrassingly silent on this issue?? Looks like they have traded their principles to get into government. a complete sell out to Green Party thuggery.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I thnik that’sthe speakers job. Except that currently we don’t seem to have one.
LikeLike
The role of speaker is when parliament is in session when one is appointed. Not when thuggery incitement’s by the Green Party occurs with its MPs outside of parliament. That is the responsibility of James Shaw leader of the Green Party or the incumbent leader of the a coalition government Jacinda Ardern to get its coalition partners to behave in a civil manner.
LikeLike
It’s disgraceful. I would like to believe that James Shaw will condemn it without equivocation, and threaten their continued membership in the party should anything like it ever happen again. History, alas, suggests otherwise.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He won’t. He supported the thief Me Tu despite her admitting breaking the law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep that’s what I was thinking about. I’d love to be proven wrong.
LikeLike
The fact remains that there are still (even with “freedom” of speech) some uses of speech which remain (and should do so) a crime, such as sedition, and inciting violence towards others.
I don’t have to stretch my imagination much to consider some speech to be damaging to others. Racism is one, teaching people the earth is only 6000yrs old or that it’s flat is another.
All very well to allow people to hold views that are patently wrong, but to allow them to propagate them is not in the interest of decent society.
LikeLike
The only people engaging or inciting anything resembling violence were the Greens and their moronic friends.
Get a grip, ‘Adrien’, and don’t think you won’t ever be no-platformed yourself if these types take umbrage at you for whatever reason.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’d agree with your first paragraph – incitement to actual violence is, and should be, an offence. Yelling ‘fire” in a crowded theatre is another classic example.
But i disagree, quite strongly, with where you appear to draw the line. I happen to think many things that are themselves lawful are “patently wrong”.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m sure you’re right. Personally my guiding principle is “does it harm others?”, and if so it should not be permitted.
Teaching people lies I would argue does harm people (e.g. children). Western civilization has spent countless amounts of energy trying to un-teach people the things they used to believe (and many still cling to).
LikeLike
I suspect we differ on definitions of harm. Since abortion actually not just does harm but takes life, I’d argue that the Greens abortion policy (the only party to have one) directly facilitates and encourages harm.
But I wouldn’t seek to deny them the right to make their case, hold rallies, elect MPs etc to give effect to that harm.
Xi Jinping probably things that Western-style democracy etc would do demonstrable harm to the Chinese people.
30 years ago, most people probably thought promoting same-sex marriage was “promoting harm”. These days, the views are reversed.
It would be death of any sort of free and open society to allow govts – let alone mobs – to prevent people from advocating things that we, now, just happen to think might “hurt” others (as distinct from criminalising direct incitement to actual physical violence)..
LikeLiked by 3 people
people act according to their beliefs. Things you teach people therefore have consequences.
There are some cases sure that are hard to argue either way, others not so hard. For my own part, any action which directly or indirectly relies on the existence of a deity is therefore fundamentally flawed.
Humans are excellent at believing things that are false (even things other than religion) in spite of the evidence. The whole issue of “faith” (a.k.a believe things without question or justification) is problematic. We didn’t solve any technical problems by blind faith, rather by inquisition and experiment, which are things that many religions try to beat out of their victims in order to retain control.
LikeLike
“for my own part, any action which directly or indirectly relies on the existence of a deity is therefore fundamentally flawed”
And thus our views diverge, on this point irreconcilably.
Tomorrow is Reformation Day, the 500th anniversary of Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the doors of the church in Wittenberg. The first of them was
Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, in saying, “Repent ye, etc.,” intended that the whole life of his believers on earth should be a constant penance.
Christians try, falteringly, failingly, to live that out. It of course makes sense only in the context of a belief in a deity, specifically the God revealed in Jesus Christ.
That said, none of this do we regard as “blind faith” or even a stance adopted with question or justification. It is probabilistic, but Pascal’s wager backs taking the bet.
LikeLike
And you’re the one who will decide what are lies and harm, rather than let me hear and decide for myself. How arrogant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did I say I would decide? You said that then called me arrogant. That is jus idiocy.
LikeLike
Meaning it would be idiocy to put me in charge of that.
But it doesn’t help anyone’s argument to make a heap of assumptions about what I’m saying despite lack of evidence, then take the next step to retaliate on it.
There are some clear-cut things. Clearly the Earth is not only 6000 years old, and to teach a child that is just child abuse. I didn’t mention Christianity, and I don’t need to, there are plenty of other religions which prove my point without going there. Lie back and think about coming back as a humming bird while I cut your heart out.
Teaching people while you take their money that the world will end in 1878, oops, 1881, oops, 1914, oops 1918, er 1925, maybe 1975 etc is just abuse and frankly fraud.
Teaching people that God put the dinosaur bones here to test us is unconscionable.
These things are not the difficult topics like abortion, or what happens when we die.
And I don’t go around (unlike many evangelists) trying to persuade others to adopt my view, or killing those who don’t share it.
LikeLike
I guess the question is whether you think propogating those views – in public or in private – should be illegal. We all have things that we think it would be deeply damaging to teach our kids. But what, say, Marama Davidson would put in that category and what I might might not overlap very much at all.
LikeLike
It’s actually quite interesting how Catholics rationalise that 6000 time frame. M sister a catholic uses stone carvings of people together with dinosaurs as proof that dinosaurs existed only 6000 years ago and not millions of years ago rebuking the science of carbon dating. For me those carvings suggests humans were around millions of years ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
LikeLike
Is there not a minimum quorum requirement for a rally. 2 jerks on pass outs from the pub and from living in their mother’s basement does not count
LikeLike
I too was unaware of the existence of this group or this demonstation. Meanwhile there were newspaper reports over the weekend of speakers, including an Iranian diplomat, at a gathering in an Auckland mosque apparently urging hatred and violence against Israel and Jewish people. Not a peep from the Human Rights Commission, or indeed from the Foreign Minister about the incompatibility of the diplomat’s activities with his status in this country.
LikeLiked by 3 people
After the event Ghahraman tweeted: “Together we stood strong against hate and division”.
Earlier her speech about her experience as an Iranian refugee and not being Kiwi enough roused applause .
“I want to thank you all from the bottom of my Kiwi Iranian refugee heart for being here today and standing with the people who are voiceless, who have been silenced.
Who have all of that internalised self hate that comes with knowing you live in a community where race supremacy still exists, where people do tell us were not Kiwi enough,” she told the crowd.
…….
Which is the gist of the problem. When society transitions, (as has NZ) from one which was unashamedly 95% Anglo European to “multicultural”, societies un-mandated managers need to create a new (super ordinate) national identity. The problem is that the exsisting identity is the based on that (original) group.
Can we conclude that someone labelled “white supremacist” is meerly someone who clings to the old identity?
LikeLike
These comments reveal that Ghahraman and her ilk are a far, FAR bigger danger to our freedoms and democracy than a handful of National Front supporters, The irony seems to have escaped her that the “voiceless who have been slienced” are not the people she stands with, who seem to have a lot to say, but the people they evicted from parliament.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This sort of thuggery is common amongst Sunni Muslims and Shite Muslims in Iran, the country she is from. She is bringing her Muslim culture to New Zealand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I notice you have left out Marama Fox a Maori elite from being named and shamed but increasingly this tenuous link between Maori encouraging NZ plunging into multiculturism is holding true. Diluting pakeha majority is a clear objective.
LikeLiked by 1 person
GGS – I think you mean Marama Davidson, and she could hardly be referred to as part of the Maori elite (whatever it is you mean by that expression – and I’m not even sure Marama Fox fits that categorisation either).
LikeLike
Both Marama Davidson and Fox are in unique position to make clear that they do not support increasing levels of immigration. Both are considered Maori Elite due to their respective positions to influence decisions at the cabinet level. Fox perhaps not any longer but was a National support partner and was in a very strong position to influence decisions. It is clear that there is a strategic understanding that increasing multiculturism dilutes pakeha majority which assists greatly in moving the power base towards Maori.
LikeLike
Those last comments suggest anyone proud of having british ancestry is a white supremacist.? My family has been in nz since the 1860s. I’m proud of my ancestors and completely disagree with the National front.
However this green party mp I think she secretly desires the destruction of anglo culture and identity. Is iran going to imbrace diversity? This country actually opened their hearts to this woman and gave here the right to free speech. Something you don’t have in Iran.
Maybe she would do well to think about it? Secretly I just don’t think these pro diversity groups care about all society. I recently asked a question to a green party member, What is your policy on lowering male suicide and lifting boys education rates. It was a well mannered inquiry that was met with hostility and distain.
I think this green mp lass is a bigot and hates any free thinking anglo celtic kiwi.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good to see people here grasp what is really happening; the shutting down of any views not in line with the agenda that Ghahraman and her like espouses (muslim and left wing totalitarians). The UK is already sunk as is much of western Europe and Canada but there is a fight going on in America. Lets hope we do not give up so easily like so many have done. Sweden is a good case example of these people similar to Ghahraman and co. Since the 1970s they have steadily ruined a beautiful country that is now on the brink of civil war (https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/sweden-on-the-brink-of-civil-war-national-police-chief-help-us-help-us).
LikeLiked by 2 people
So the left seem to be saying the National Front doesn’t have a right to a peaceful protest outside Parliament. Yet a few months ago, Paula Bennett got into a lot of trouble (from the left in particular) for saying criminals had fewer rights than other people. Presumably, if she had said the National Front had fewer rights would that have been okay. Can anyone explain the difference to me because I can’t see one, but I may be missing something.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unfortunately there are people who only believe in the basic principles of human rights and democracy when it suits them. If they don’t agree with the message then forget about freedom of assembly, free speech or freedom of movement. I’m not surprised Ghahraman was involved, she is a vocal defender of human rights, but only when it suits her. As usual she is still playing up the refugee angle, I don’t want to get sued, but if you start to look into the facts around her family’s asylum claim – well there seem to be more than a few contradictions and things that don’t really stack up. However I don’t want to get involved in that kind of muck-raking.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Ref the last two sentences: from Google: “A weasel word, or anonymous authority, is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made, when instead only a vague or ambiguous claim has actually been communicated.”
LikeLike
Michael Reddell “…it was disturbingly reminiscent of scenes in the US (and the UK) which have become increasingly violent.”
Yes, I’d thought the same thing when I saw coverage of it; I did wonder if Antifa had had a hand in it, reminiscent as it was of recent overseas events, though on a much smaller scale. I wasn’t aware that those two Green MPs were there; most unfortunate. They need to be called out for it by both Shaw and Ardern. But I doubt it’ll happen; over many years a misconception has apparently taken root among lefties in particular, both here and elsewhere, that they’re entitled to use violence against people they see as right-wingers. The logic appears to be that “right-wing” is synonymous with violence, and “left-wing” isn’t. Yet violence is violence, whichever side uses it. And when was the last time the National Front violently disrupted a national rally here? I can’t think of any occasions.
Violent crimping of free speech in the US is being fomented by the Left. As an example, the violence in Charlottesville was instigated by Antifa; it doesn’t matter what the rest of us thinks of them and their ideas, the white nationalists had a permit to rally, and they marched peacefully – at least to begin with. Antifa didn’t have a permit, gate-crashed the rally and attacked the white nationalists, while the police stood aside and did nothing to prevent it. Many people may well think that the anti-fascists have right-thinking on their side; but that doesn’t give them licence to do what they did in Charlottesville.
Matt: ” The irony seems to have escaped her that the “voiceless who have been slienced” are not the people she stands with, who seem to have a lot to say, but the people they evicted from parliament.”
Exactly. I think the subtext here is that the “voiceless” are refugees and the like. I doubt it would have occurred to her that she was conniving at silencing people. Or if it did, she’d have justified it on the grounds that the silenced ones are white supremacists and therefore don’t deserve to have a voice.
Ethnic chauvinism and identity politics seem to be both at play in the left-wing movement; and here was I thinking that we’d got rid of identity politics with the voting out of the Maori party at this election!
LikeLiked by 1 person
This comment: “…in Charlottesville… the white nationalists had a permit to rally, and they marched peacefully…”
marching peacefully with burning torches.
To me, being from the US, I found that extremely sick and offensive and was very surprised that such an “accessory” was allowed by law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My first question was: “who are these people?”. It seemed to me the media are looking for Nazis, where Nazis represent a sort of home base that settles the argument (the media reacted to some students at Canterbury University who wanted to start some sort of white ethnic interests group the same way “when the light comes on the rats scurry away” said Duncan Grieve on The Project).
It seemed to me they are trying to discredit a whole movement.
After Mitt Romney’s 2012 loss to Barack Obama, the Republican establishment undertook a rigorous postmortem and, looking at demographic trends in the United States, determined that appealing to Hispanics was now a nuclear-level priority. And yet their successful candidate in the next election won by doing precisely the opposite. The Trump strategy looked an awful lot like the Sailer Strategy: the divisive but influential idea that the GOP could run up the electoral score by winning over working-class whites on issues like immigration, first proposed by the conservative writer Steve Sailer in 2000, and summarily rejected by establishment Republicans at the time. Now, 17 years and four presidential cycles later, Sailer, once made a pariah by mainstream conservatives, has quietly become one of the most influential thinkers on the American right.
Sailer, a California native and the son of a Lockheed engineer, became a journalist in his mid-30s, starting his career contributing to National Review in the 1990s. His specialty was a plain-spoken form of science journalism, numerate and clued-in to developments in genetics and evolutionary theory, but also infamous for applying, often in a blunt and inflammatory manner, such methods to alleged racial differences in intelligence and behavior. Indeed, Sailer popularized the term “human biodiversity” (HBD) — now a mainstay on the alt-right — to describe his field of interest, which, despite winning a few lonely adherents in the academy, has been dismissed by critics as pseudoscience at best and eugenics at worst.
…
Perhaps the Sailerist idea most closely echoed by the Trump movement is “citizenism,” which he describes as the philosophy that a nation should give overwhelming preference to the interests of its current citizens over foreigners, in the same way as a corporation prioritizes the interests of its current shareholders over everyone else. Effectuating this philosophy — putting “Americans First,” as he put it in 2006—would, according to Sailer, require a draconian reduction in immigration levels.
Most liberals would take issue with citizenism as reactionary, and perhaps see it as a closeted form of the white nationalism openly championed by many bloggers on the alt-right. Yet Sailer describes citizenism as the best possible bulwark against ethnonationalist impulses. In Sailer’s view, people are naturally inclined to pursue “ethnic nepotism” — that is, to help those like themselves at the expense of those who are not. The goal of citizenism, therefore, is to redirect these energies by providing a more expansive definition of “us” than the race or tribe.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/steve-sailer-invented-identity-politics-for-the-alt-right.html
I’ve watched Charles Murray on Youtube and he makes a lot of sense: “you may have a high IQ and you go to this university (MIT) but you’re the dumbest in the class etc, etc so maybe you should be here or here or make a good income in a trade”.
Johnathon Haidt thinks that in the future racial differences will be explained by geography (cold climate) and rapid evolution (and so what?).
Frank Slater (sociobiologist) says that there is evidence of non European Australians holding invidious attitudes towards legacy Australians and their culture. That fits with evolutionary psychological theory.
I like this quote from Victor Davis Hansen on Two Californias: “Elites are not subject to the consequences of the utopian dream”.
Utlimately (I think) we are seeing a clash between social constructionists (blank slate) and evolutionary psychology.
LikeLike
“who are these people”?
Well, the banner that they bring to each of these annual Flag Day events reads: “Diversity = white genocide” – I suppose that speaks best to who they are.
LikeLike
Reading 28 comments in one sitting. Not particularly satisfying. It really needs intelligent left wing comments to give it balance.
I find very little that will persuade the numerous people who sacrificed their Saturday to counter the National Front rally – even if wrong headed they have energy and passion. Surely we should be trying to persuade them to change their way of protesting. Maybe the leaders were trying to develop a political base and there might have been some trouble makers looking for a fight but most would have been reasonable human beings open to a well presented persuasive argument.
LikeLike
Yes, it would be interesting to hear a thoughtful perspective from someone who supported the actions of the “counter-protest” on Saturday. I’d happily have such a comment here, but it would also be interesting if the media had subjected the MPs (in particular) to more questioning, asking them to explain and justify their stance/conduct.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Such argument might claim a right to counter protest and that it merely got out of hand because of the powerful feelings involved. Or the counter protest was hijacked (but that would require some admission that driving the Nation Front away physically was a mistake).
They could argue the symbolic significance of the location: that the Beehive represents the blood and tears of all Kiwis who have fought for our political freedom in the past. The same way that a pigs head is not offensive in my kitchen but would be in a Synagogue or Mosque.
My favourite example of a provocative act is that when I was a student carrying a union jack to a Rangers Celtic soccer match was accepted by police and magistrates as an act of provocation [it was linked to Rangers and Celtic supporters carried Irish flags].
Interesting to note that the frenzied violence of those Glasgow games subsided by the simple act of the police arresting anyone acting aggressively and then the courts issued small fines. It was just too embarrassing having to take time off work to attend court and the last I heard the games are now safe with families and courting couples going to watch the local derby.
Maybe rather than spending their effort protecting the National Front some of the police should have arrested those who blocked the public right of way. This followed by a minimal fine might be the best solution.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I fear these people are not too interested in seriously debating their views but only imposing them because they are authoritarian at their core and feel free expression should be subject to their (self appointed) moral authority. Dissenters can generally be silenced with cries of “racist!” or some other “ist”, overpowering pleas to free expression.
Economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo touches on some of the political underpinnings of certain leftist ideologies we associate with political correctness (e.g. cultural Marxism), and has some disturbing things to say about trends in academic freedoms in the US even within the Economics faculties as a result of these ideologies.
LikeLike
Adrien: “And I don’t go around (unlike many evangelists) trying to persuade others to adopt my view, or killing those who don’t share it.”
Johnathan Haidt claims that humans bond around sacred ideas and objects but these do not stop at what we might see as conventional religion.
Haidt based this thesis on three observations. First, social psychologists have sacred values that are neither empirical nor methodological dogmas. These values take the form of taboos that constrain thinking. Secondly, they have created a homogeneous society. There is almost no moral or political diversity within the discipline. While conservatives outnumber liberals 2-to-1 in the general U.S. population, they are outnumbered 200 or 300-to-1 within social psychology. Haidt managed to locate only one declared conservative social psychology academic. Finally, social psychologists have created a hostile environment that suppresses and discourages non-liberals, such as libertarians and conservatives. He gave examples of how conservative students are intimidated into not pursuing social psychology for fear of the social environment in the discipline and the taboo-breaking results they might find. The situation described by Haidt is a microcosm of the soft totalitarianism that a radicalised intellectual elite has imposed on Western societies since the Second World War.
The taboos identified by Haidt concern race and sex differences, blaming the victim, stereotype accuracy, and nativism. The lack of political diversity hurts the discipline because different points of view lead to the discovery of novel phenomena. What Haidt found in social psychology also exists in the liberal social sciences. Haidt’s report agrees with Hiram Caton’s article discussed earlier about the importance of political correctness in selecting personnel in the social sciences and how it shapes research agendas and chills creativity from student times onwards.
http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2012/6/the-war-against-human-nature-in-the-social-sciences/
Deafening silence from RNZ, except for this whitewash The police quickly surrounded the smaller group and escorted them away for their own safety, although both sides remained peaceful.
although the title says Counter protesters turn away National Front?
LikeLike
Don’t expect any support for free speech from out news media – they have fully lost any sense of it’s importance. Here’s a recent outburst from the dangerous lightweight Jack Tame in the Herald.
” I’m delighting in an Internet witch-hunt.
Overwhelmed by the power of Twitter and however many thousand photographs of the protests, the racists who marched in Charlottesville are one-by-one being picked off by the Internet. It’s online bullying for good.
There were hundreds of white, angry men, all cocky and empowered as they marched with burning torches and their proud Nazi mates.
But as photos of their faces are being disseminated across dedicated websites and Twitter accounts, many of the white supremacists are being pathetically exposed.
One outspoken leader suffered the humiliation of being publicly turfed off Tinder. A crowdfunding campaign offered $30,000 for the identity of a violent attacker in the Nazi ranks.
My favourite story – per Twitter – was that of a marching Nazi promptly identified and fired from his job, who then complained his employer was being intolerant of different opinions.”
We now have mob rule; folk being hounded out of their jobs, humiliated, and harassed – a genuine witch hunt just for protesting over a statue and our half witted MSM are applauding? Dangerous Times!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11909362
LikeLike
The one person no one seemed able to identify was the individual with the Nazi flag
LikeLike
I noticed yesterday that there is a Isreal/Jewish Star of David flag flying atop the multimillion dollar new apartment conversion of the Old Mt Eden Post Office/Fire Station on Sherbourne/Valley Road corner replacing a previous NZ flag. Wondering about the significance of that??
LikeLike
I honestly don’t think folk, generally, have any idea how important free speech it is for the continuation of free society. That is a huge problem; here’s Jordan Peterson to remind us;
LikeLiked by 2 people
Adrien, legal limitations on free speech (and consequently, free listening) require someone to decide the boundaries of what is permissible to say and hear, and to enforce those boundaries.
Opponents of free speech seem to think the decider/enforcer will always be someone who shares their own views, will always act benevolently and will never be tempted by mission creep. However, as we’ve seen with hate speech laws elsewhere, and are starting to see in NZ, the line between protecting people from hurtful comments and suppressing views unpopular with those in power is rather blurry.
My two cents worth: when tempted to give people the power to control speech, always assume that the decider/enforcer will be someone with an authoritarian personality whose opinions and beliefs are diametrically opposed to your own.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Katharine Moody
Well, the banner that they bring to each of these annual Flag Day events reads: “Diversity = white genocide” – I suppose that speaks best to who they are.
……….
Given the scale of migration into Western countries who could blame them?
LikeLike
To be clear, as host of this blog, I am not getting in to any sort of defence of the National Front’s view, only (and solely) their right to hold them and to conduct lawful rallies and protests in peace.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Given the scale of migration into Western countries…”
I read somewhere that within 18 years of signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Europeans outnumber Maori. So historically, the scale/rate of change to the ethnic diversity of Aotearoa in its second hundred years is nothing in comparison.
I never lose sight of the fact that migration of humans around the globe is by no means a new thing – we’re a young and immature species on this planet. I was really delighted, with a renewed sense of hope, when I arrived here from the US decades ago to see that intermarriage between our diverse local cultures was commonplace and that social egalitarianism was a nascent reality, as opposed to a utopian ideal.
I feel we are drifting a bit backwards in that regard and so regaining that aspect of the fabric of NZ society is something I think a lot about.
LikeLike
Indeed, the Treaty of Waitangi was originally intended to pacify Maori and then to overtake by peaceful subterfuge ie white man speak with forked tongue. The treaty was a means to an end ie pakeha domination. Maori proved themselves in battle and was able to hold off British artillery and the might of the British empire with the largest contingent of soldiers at the time to quell Maori warring rebellion which resulted in the British suing for peace after losses started to mount against the British treasury.
All credit to the Maori today to take this same document intended for pakeha domination and now to force compensation and the returns of confiscated crown lands to Maori which was never the original intent.
LikeLike
1. Except that when you use colonisation to justify immigration you are ignoring the fact that Maori and Pakeha co exsisted and inter married since 1840 and that Maori (on the whole ) are the group most opposed to immigration.
2. I can’t find the article but an Indian ethnic leader relates how , when he first moved into his street a neighbour would come home drunk and curse and spit at him (and how things have changed). I don’t think that (unreferenced quote) is representative at all. I had an Indian neighbour myself and I found him quite interesting. I think normal people like having guests and showing them around their country. Likewise they (as a society) absorb difference slowly. They prefer people like themselves but that is mutual. The problem is that the new ethos is to try to disregard the natural inclinations of the population and bring diversity by the truck load. After all, without governmemnt pro activity people were bringing back wives or husbands from throughout the world and there would have been migration based on genuine needed skills.
That elite ethos has created a situation where the government and their institutions lie, omitt and missrepresent because one half does not share the goals or values of the other half.
Eg
New Zealanders value a strong multicultural society
https://www.victoria.ac.nz/cacr/about/diversity-issues/corruption-drops-as-incomes-rise-say-victoria-researchers
Spoonley
and the context is that we are growing at 2.1% which is high. If you look at the numbers of Asians they are growing at 3.5% , So that’s why the’re contributing.Pakeha are growing at less than .5%
So that’s why we are seeing this diversification.
Ryan
and it’s also in some ways the argument for immigration isn’t it
Spoonley
Hmm
Ryan
because in some ways your gonna need taxpayers, especially as that baby boomer demographic retires. We know there are some big issues coming upn there.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018617301/the-changing-face-of-new-zealand
LikeLike
jh, I don’t use colonisation to justify immigration at all – quite the opposite – I think the Crown/Government has unjustly ignored Te Tiriti and its partner’s right to be consulted on this aspect of that agreement as per the argument/analysis put forward by Ranginui Walker and linked to by Michael before;
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0402/article_316.shtml
LikeLiked by 1 person
Left wing facisists are not much different from right wing facisists they are all extremists who would be easily corrupted if they gained power.
LikeLike
Exactly!
The lessons of the 20th century should not be forgotten; the regimes of Stalin,Hitler and Mao led to unimaginable suffering and 100 million people murdered or starved to death. They had in common the cultivation of victimhood (identity politics) and the denial of free speech.
There are good people but, among them are highly dangerous power seeking zealots using the “oppressed” as their vehicle to power.
The men on the right are being portrayed as evil oppressors but, if the level of self harm and depression is any indication, many of them see themselves as victims – hence the chest beating. I think that portrayal has gone too far. God help us, the last thing we need is another lot of “victims” out to even the score through a charismatic but malevolent leader.
LikeLike
Having looked at their website they say “Open your eyes. Immigration. Repatriation now” and “White people pride”
I see no need for intervention. Maybe the “anti racists” misjudge “the right” to the degree that they think these are dangerous ideas?
In fact it became an excuse for Golriz Ghahraman to complain that as a refugee in [Japan] she is made to feel she isn’t [Japanese] because those selfish Japanese have a pre existing identity.
……….
A controversial activist who was hit with backlash over an Anzac Day post has opened up about being labelled Australia’s ‘most publicly hated Muslim’.
Yassmin Abdel-Magied said she felt ‘betrayed by my country’ following the reaction, which resulted in her receiving death threats and being forced to move house.
The 26-year-old has been ‘recovering’ following the incident, with PR companies telling her no one will employ her while she is so controversial, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4804316/Yassmin-Abdel-Magied-discusses-hated-Muslim-label.html#ixzz4x7W6rQpC
………
Which is what Johnathon Haidt predicted when he said societies are bound by sacred symbols and ideas. Golriz Ghahraman’s sacred idea may be universalism – (and she may have been making a good living at it) but to others all it means is cultural intrusion (like you’re making a movie and someone starts making a different movie in the same space).
With all that taking a knee at the NFL etc diversity seems to be the inverse of national cohesion (as well as social cohesion)?
LikeLike
This speech by a Rita Panahi in Australia talking about racism sums up a lot of the arguments. She quotes Rowan Atkinson in 2004 when the UK was passing some legislation that may have prevented satarizing religion and he said when a society “cease[s] to permit “open and vigorous” debate and they will end up adopting “a veneer of tolerance concealing a snakepit of unaired and unchallenged views”.
LikeLike