Discussion:
For the open-minded, Rich need not apply
(too old to reply)
Tony
2021-07-05 19:40:07 UTC
Permalink
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out. Oh I
know, Rich taught her.
John Bowes
2021-07-05 21:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out. Oh I
know, Rich taught her.
I find it curious that a recent Royal Commission and a special committee have both returned results that could have beeen written by the Labour/Green government. Rich will as usual tell us it's for our own good because only Labour/Green know what we want/need :)
James Christophers
2021-07-05 22:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out.
First, like you she is not a lawyer so she's inevitably getting or expressing the facts wrong. Second, she is on the defensive over myriad inter-related legislative proposals that have yet to be formulated (if ever) into a coherent whole - a minefield that the unwashed doorstepping gotcha brigade and the twitterati have instantly turned into into a feeding frenzy, further confusing and, inevitably, polarising the issue.

The proposed so-called "hate-speech"/freedom of speech law(s) might well have their superficial attractions but the potential complexities say otherwise. Lawyer Stephen Price's articles make a pretty good fist of the issue, but even he admits to some equivocation because he is unsure of the grounds on which he bases his own coolly considered views.

In fact, as things now stand, I doubt there is one single MP who could with a clear conscience confidently pass into statute law any bill or bills based on what is so far proposed by people whose hearts may be in the right place but who seem not yet to have thought through the real-world practicalities of so-called hate-speech legislation. Drafting and passing bills into law is all very well - that's the easy bit; putting them into practice is quite another matter, and this is where I reckon our treacle-slow judicial system will grind to a halt way before the first case even comes before the bench.

So as it stands, the proposal represents a monumental mare's nest incapable of any possible resolution and further enactment. If it were actually to be enacted, then I think it will either die or immediately fall into disuse, suffocated by its own hand.
Tony
2021-07-06 01:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out.
First, like you she is not a lawyer so she's inevitably getting or expressing
the facts wrong. Second, she is on the defensive over myriad inter-related
legislative proposals that have yet to be formulated (if ever) into a coherent
whole - a minefield that the unwashed doorstepping gotcha brigade and the
twitterati have instantly turned into into a feeding frenzy, further confusing
and, inevitably, polarising the issue.
That is no excuse for this government to put forward a proposal that they do
not understand.
Post by James Christophers
The proposed so-called "hate-speech"/freedom of speech law(s) might well have
their superficial attractions but the potential complexities say otherwise.
Lawyer Stephen Price's articles make a pretty good fist of the issue, but even
he admits to some equivocation because he is unsure of the grounds on which he
bases his own coolly considered views.
In fact, as things now stand, I doubt there is one single MP who could with a
clear conscience confidently pass into statute law any bill or bills based on
what is so far proposed by people whose hearts may be in the right place but
who seem not yet to have thought through the real-world practicalities of
so-called hate-speech legislation. Drafting and passing bills into law is all
very well - that's the easy bit; putting them into practice is quite another
matter, and this is where I reckon our treacle-slow judicial system will grind
to a halt way before the first case even comes before the bench.
So as it stands, the proposal represents a monumental mare's nest incapable of
any possible resolution and further enactment. If it were actually to be
enacted, then I think it will either die or immediately fall into disuse,
suffocated by its own hand.
James Christophers
2021-07-06 02:19:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out.
First, like you she is not a lawyer so she's inevitably getting or expressing
the facts wrong. Second, she is on the defensive over myriad inter-related
legislative proposals that have yet to be formulated (if ever) into a coherent
whole - a minefield that the unwashed doorstepping gotcha brigade and the
twitterati have instantly turned into into a feeding frenzy, further confusing
and, inevitably, polarising the issue.
That is no excuse for this government to put forward a proposal that they do
not understand.
A least both Ardern and government demonstrate a will, not just to acknowledge a clear and present need, but to go beyond mealy-mouthed tokenism to establish/confirm its bona fides in the matter. I look to both the the civil service's and the government's lawyers collectively to come up with a coherent plain-words approach. Until they do no one should expect a random soundbite moment or a haste-driven, once-over-lightly media interview from, by or for anyone, be it politician or commentator, to deliver anything palpably worth having.

That way only lies bad policy-making and it's spawn: bad law.

This is not a political issue per se, but a cultural/societal issue and therefore merits multi-party support and, ultimately, a free conscience vote to consolidate and enact.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
The proposed so-called "hate-speech"/freedom of speech law(s) might well have
their superficial attractions but the potential complexities say otherwise.
Lawyer Stephen Price's articles make a pretty good fist of the issue, but even
he admits to some equivocation because he is unsure of the grounds on which he
bases his own coolly considered views.
In fact, as things now stand, I doubt there is one single MP who could with a
clear conscience confidently pass into statute law any bill or bills based on
what is so far proposed by people whose hearts may be in the right place but
who seem not yet to have thought through the real-world practicalities of
so-called hate-speech legislation. Drafting and passing bills into law is all
very well - that's the easy bit; putting them into practice is quite another
matter, and this is where I reckon our treacle-slow judicial system will grind
to a halt way before the first case even comes before the bench.
So as it stands, the proposal represents a monumental mare's nest incapable of
any possible resolution and further enactment. If it were actually to be
enacted, then I think it will either die or immediately fall into disuse,
suffocated by its own hand.
Tony
2021-07-06 02:24:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out.
First, like you she is not a lawyer so she's inevitably getting or expressing
the facts wrong. Second, she is on the defensive over myriad inter-related
legislative proposals that have yet to be formulated (if ever) into a coherent
whole - a minefield that the unwashed doorstepping gotcha brigade and the
twitterati have instantly turned into into a feeding frenzy, further confusing
and, inevitably, polarising the issue.
That is no excuse for this government to put forward a proposal that they do
not understand.
A least both Ardern and government demonstrate a will, not just to acknowledge
a clear and present need, but to go beyond mealy-mouthed tokenism to
establish/confirm its bona fides in the matter. I look to both the the civil
service's and the government's lawyers collectively to come up with a coherent
plain-words approach. Until they do no one should expect a random soundbite
moment or a haste-driven, once-over-lightly media interview from, by or for
anyone, be it politician or commentator, to deliver anything palpably worth
having.
That way only lies bad policy-making and it's spawn: bad law.
This is not a political issue per se, but a cultural/societal issue and
therefore merits multi-party support and, ultimately, a free conscience vote to
consolidate and enact.
I agree that it is not a poltical issus. However commentators are allowed,
indeed expected, to ask the hard questions. An ill prepared government finds
them hard to answer.
That's it, nothing more here for me
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
The proposed so-called "hate-speech"/freedom of speech law(s) might well have
their superficial attractions but the potential complexities say otherwise.
Lawyer Stephen Price's articles make a pretty good fist of the issue, but even
he admits to some equivocation because he is unsure of the grounds on which he
bases his own coolly considered views.
In fact, as things now stand, I doubt there is one single MP who could with a
clear conscience confidently pass into statute law any bill or bills based on
what is so far proposed by people whose hearts may be in the right place but
who seem not yet to have thought through the real-world practicalities of
so-called hate-speech legislation. Drafting and passing bills into law is all
very well - that's the easy bit; putting them into practice is quite another
matter, and this is where I reckon our treacle-slow judicial system will grind
to a halt way before the first case even comes before the bench.
So as it stands, the proposal represents a monumental mare's nest incapable of
any possible resolution and further enactment. If it were actually to be
enacted, then I think it will either die or immediately fall into disuse,
suffocated by its own hand.
Rich80105
2021-07-06 04:03:52 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 21:24:59 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out.
First, like you she is not a lawyer so she's inevitably getting or expressing
the facts wrong. Second, she is on the defensive over myriad inter-related
legislative proposals that have yet to be formulated (if ever) into a coherent
whole - a minefield that the unwashed doorstepping gotcha brigade and the
twitterati have instantly turned into into a feeding frenzy, further confusing
and, inevitably, polarising the issue.
That is no excuse for this government to put forward a proposal that they do
not understand.
A least both Ardern and government demonstrate a will, not just to acknowledge
a clear and present need, but to go beyond mealy-mouthed tokenism to
establish/confirm its bona fides in the matter. I look to both the the civil
service's and the government's lawyers collectively to come up with a coherent
plain-words approach. Until they do no one should expect a random soundbite
moment or a haste-driven, once-over-lightly media interview from, by or for
anyone, be it politician or commentator, to deliver anything palpably worth
having.
That way only lies bad policy-making and it's spawn: bad law.
This is not a political issue per se, but a cultural/societal issue and
therefore merits multi-party support and, ultimately, a free conscience vote to
consolidate and enact.
I agree that it is not a poltical issus. However commentators are allowed,
indeed expected, to ask the hard questions. An ill prepared government finds
them hard to answer.
And commentarors / reporters / journalists should not always expect to
get an answer. Stephen Price has given a response and has raised some
good issues - we will not learn anything from a questions for which
there is no time to prepare a response. Even a prepared person can
have problems with questions in a corridor of parliament, and a valid
criticism of both the ledia and politicians ma be that both should
realise that some questions should not be either made or answered
immediately
Post by Tony
That's it, nothing more here for me
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
The proposed so-called "hate-speech"/freedom of speech law(s) might well have
their superficial attractions but the potential complexities say otherwise.
Lawyer Stephen Price's articles make a pretty good fist of the issue, but even
he admits to some equivocation because he is unsure of the grounds on which he
bases his own coolly considered views.
In fact, as things now stand, I doubt there is one single MP who could with a
clear conscience confidently pass into statute law any bill or bills based on
what is so far proposed by people whose hearts may be in the right place but
who seem not yet to have thought through the real-world practicalities of
so-called hate-speech legislation. Drafting and passing bills into law is all
very well - that's the easy bit; putting them into practice is quite another
matter, and this is where I reckon our treacle-slow judicial system will grind
to a halt way before the first case even comes before the bench.
So as it stands, the proposal represents a monumental mare's nest incapable of
any possible resolution and further enactment. If it were actually to be
enacted, then I think it will either die or immediately fall into disuse,
suffocated by its own hand.
Tony
2021-07-06 04:33:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 21:24:59 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out.
First, like you she is not a lawyer so she's inevitably getting or expressing
the facts wrong. Second, she is on the defensive over myriad inter-related
legislative proposals that have yet to be formulated (if ever) into a coherent
whole - a minefield that the unwashed doorstepping gotcha brigade and the
twitterati have instantly turned into into a feeding frenzy, further confusing
and, inevitably, polarising the issue.
That is no excuse for this government to put forward a proposal that they do
not understand.
A least both Ardern and government demonstrate a will, not just to acknowledge
a clear and present need, but to go beyond mealy-mouthed tokenism to
establish/confirm its bona fides in the matter. I look to both the the civil
service's and the government's lawyers collectively to come up with a coherent
plain-words approach. Until they do no one should expect a random soundbite
moment or a haste-driven, once-over-lightly media interview from, by or for
anyone, be it politician or commentator, to deliver anything palpably worth
having.
That way only lies bad policy-making and it's spawn: bad law.
This is not a political issue per se, but a cultural/societal issue and
therefore merits multi-party support and, ultimately, a free conscience vote to
consolidate and enact.
I agree that it is not a poltical issus. However commentators are allowed,
indeed expected, to ask the hard questions. An ill prepared government finds
them hard to answer.
And commentarors / reporters / journalists should not always expect to
get an answer. Stephen Price has given a response and has raised some
good issues - we will not learn anything from a questions for which
there is no time to prepare a response. Even a prepared person can
have problems with questions in a corridor of parliament, and a valid
criticism of both the ledia and politicians ma be that both should
realise that some questions should not be either made or answered
immediately
Oh the poor little diddums, can't answer questions in the corridors of
parliament? Any such minister is laughably incompetent.
Just one more for the bin.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That's it, nothing more here for me
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
The proposed so-called "hate-speech"/freedom of speech law(s) might well have
their superficial attractions but the potential complexities say otherwise.
Lawyer Stephen Price's articles make a pretty good fist of the issue, but even
he admits to some equivocation because he is unsure of the grounds on
which
he
bases his own coolly considered views.
In fact, as things now stand, I doubt there is one single MP who could
with
a
clear conscience confidently pass into statute law any bill or bills
based
on
what is so far proposed by people whose hearts may be in the right place but
who seem not yet to have thought through the real-world practicalities of
so-called hate-speech legislation. Drafting and passing bills into law is all
very well - that's the easy bit; putting them into practice is quite another
matter, and this is where I reckon our treacle-slow judicial system will grind
to a halt way before the first case even comes before the bench.
So as it stands, the proposal represents a monumental mare's nest
incapable
of
any possible resolution and further enactment. If it were actually to be
enacted, then I think it will either die or immediately fall into disuse,
suffocated by its own hand.
Rich80105
2021-07-06 03:55:37 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 20:56:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out.
First, like you she is not a lawyer so she's inevitably getting or expressing
the facts wrong. Second, she is on the defensive over myriad inter-related
legislative proposals that have yet to be formulated (if ever) into a coherent
whole - a minefield that the unwashed doorstepping gotcha brigade and the
twitterati have instantly turned into into a feeding frenzy, further confusing
and, inevitably, polarising the issue.
That is no excuse for this government to put forward a proposal that they do
not understand.
I doubt there has been much if any legislation put forward int eh last
50 years that is understood by all politicians before anything has
been put to the House - this a response to a public service report for
discussion purposes. The Prime Minister in particular will seldom
fully understand all detail of many aspects of proposed legislation at
this stage - the aim is to generate open discussion - it would appear
you have a problem with that, Tony.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
The proposed so-called "hate-speech"/freedom of speech law(s) might well have
their superficial attractions but the potential complexities say otherwise.
Lawyer Stephen Price's articles make a pretty good fist of the issue, but even
he admits to some equivocation because he is unsure of the grounds on which he
bases his own coolly considered views.
In fact, as things now stand, I doubt there is one single MP who could with a
clear conscience confidently pass into statute law any bill or bills based on
what is so far proposed by people whose hearts may be in the right place but
who seem not yet to have thought through the real-world practicalities of
so-called hate-speech legislation. Drafting and passing bills into law is all
very well - that's the easy bit; putting them into practice is quite another
matter, and this is where I reckon our treacle-slow judicial system will grind
to a halt way before the first case even comes before the bench.
So as it stands, the proposal represents a monumental mare's nest incapable of
any possible resolution and further enactment. If it were actually to be
enacted, then I think it will either die or immediately fall into disuse,
suffocated by its own hand.
Tony
2021-07-06 04:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 20:56:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out.
First, like you she is not a lawyer so she's inevitably getting or expressing
the facts wrong. Second, she is on the defensive over myriad inter-related
legislative proposals that have yet to be formulated (if ever) into a coherent
whole - a minefield that the unwashed doorstepping gotcha brigade and the
twitterati have instantly turned into into a feeding frenzy, further confusing
and, inevitably, polarising the issue.
That is no excuse for this government to put forward a proposal that they do
not understand.
I doubt there has been much if any legislation put forward int eh last
50 years that is understood by all politicians before anything has
been put to the House - this a response to a public service report for
discussion purposes. The Prime Minister in particular will seldom
fully understand all detail of many aspects of proposed legislation at
this stage - the aim is to generate open discussion
The failure is to prevent open discussion just like Ardern is doing.
Post by Rich80105
- it would appear
you have a problem with that, Tony.
Only to a myopic little twit like you.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
The proposed so-called "hate-speech"/freedom of speech law(s) might well have
their superficial attractions but the potential complexities say otherwise.
Lawyer Stephen Price's articles make a pretty good fist of the issue, but even
he admits to some equivocation because he is unsure of the grounds on which he
bases his own coolly considered views.
In fact, as things now stand, I doubt there is one single MP who could with a
clear conscience confidently pass into statute law any bill or bills based on
what is so far proposed by people whose hearts may be in the right place but
who seem not yet to have thought through the real-world practicalities of
so-called hate-speech legislation. Drafting and passing bills into law is all
very well - that's the easy bit; putting them into practice is quite another
matter, and this is where I reckon our treacle-slow judicial system will grind
to a halt way before the first case even comes before the bench.
So as it stands, the proposal represents a monumental mare's nest incapable of
any possible resolution and further enactment. If it were actually to be
enacted, then I think it will either die or immediately fall into disuse,
suffocated by its own hand.
John Bowes
2021-07-06 06:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 20:56:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out.
First, like you she is not a lawyer so she's inevitably getting or expressing
the facts wrong. Second, she is on the defensive over myriad inter-related
legislative proposals that have yet to be formulated (if ever) into a coherent
whole - a minefield that the unwashed doorstepping gotcha brigade and the
twitterati have instantly turned into into a feeding frenzy, further confusing
and, inevitably, polarising the issue.
That is no excuse for this government to put forward a proposal that they do
not understand.
I doubt there has been much if any legislation put forward int eh last
50 years that is understood by all politicians before anything has
been put to the House - this a response to a public service report for
discussion purposes. The Prime Minister in particular will seldom
fully understand all detail of many aspects of proposed legislation at
this stage - the aim is to generate open discussion - it would appear
you have a problem with that, Tony.
Yet Ardern and her minister displayed a total lack of understanding of the bill. Now THAT hasn't been seen till now Rich!
Tony
2021-07-07 07:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 20:56:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out.
First, like you she is not a lawyer so she's inevitably getting or expressing
the facts wrong. Second, she is on the defensive over myriad inter-related
legislative proposals that have yet to be formulated (if ever) into a coherent
whole - a minefield that the unwashed doorstepping gotcha brigade and the
twitterati have instantly turned into into a feeding frenzy, further confusing
and, inevitably, polarising the issue.
That is no excuse for this government to put forward a proposal that they do
not understand.
I doubt there has been much if any legislation put forward int eh last
50 years that is understood by all politicians before anything has
been put to the House - this a response to a public service report for
discussion purposes. The Prime Minister in particular will seldom
fully understand all detail of many aspects of proposed legislation at
this stage - the aim is to generate open discussion - it would appear
you have a problem with that, Tony.

Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
The proposed so-called "hate-speech"/freedom of speech law(s) might well have
their superficial attractions but the potential complexities say otherwise.
Lawyer Stephen Price's articles make a pretty good fist of the issue, but even
he admits to some equivocation because he is unsure of the grounds on which he
bases his own coolly considered views.
In fact, as things now stand, I doubt there is one single MP who could with a
clear conscience confidently pass into statute law any bill or bills based on
what is so far proposed by people whose hearts may be in the right place but
who seem not yet to have thought through the real-world practicalities of
so-called hate-speech legislation. Drafting and passing bills into law is all
very well - that's the easy bit; putting them into practice is quite another
matter, and this is where I reckon our treacle-slow judicial system will grind
to a halt way before the first case even comes before the bench.
So as it stands, the proposal represents a monumental mare's nest incapable of
any possible resolution and further enactment. If it were actually to be
enacted, then I think it will either die or immediately fall into disuse,
suffocated by its own hand.
John Bowes
2021-07-07 08:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 20:56:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out.
First, like you she is not a lawyer so she's inevitably getting or expressing
the facts wrong. Second, she is on the defensive over myriad inter-related
legislative proposals that have yet to be formulated (if ever) into a coherent
whole - a minefield that the unwashed doorstepping gotcha brigade and the
twitterati have instantly turned into into a feeding frenzy, further confusing
and, inevitably, polarising the issue.
That is no excuse for this government to put forward a proposal that they do
not understand.
I doubt there has been much if any legislation put forward int eh last
50 years that is understood by all politicians before anything has
been put to the House - this a response to a public service report for
discussion purposes. The Prime Minister in particular will seldom
fully understand all detail of many aspects of proposed legislation at
this stage - the aim is to generate open discussion - it would appear
you have a problem with that, Tony.
http://youtu.be/SXmk8dbFv_o
Very appropriate both for Rich and the clowns he believes know what they're doing :)
Crash
2021-07-06 00:18:53 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 14:40:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out. Oh I
know, Rich taught her.
To be fair I think the whole scenario arises from a personal
conviction on the part of Ms Ardern (and many others) that the
sentiments expressed by Brenton Tarrant leading up to the March 15
massacre should in some way be as illegal as the taking of lives that
ensued. People should be prosecuted for saying such things on the
basis that verballising such ideas increases the possibility of
incitement to commit a crime. Ergo, making it illegal to say such
things helps prevent the violence that Tarrant unleashed.

However hate-speech is extremely difficult to accurately define. The
connection between publishing hate and those using that hate to
justify mass-murder is equally tenuous. The PM though must be seen to
do something to prevent another such event. The fact that we cannot
predict if or when another event like this might happen is a political
inconvenience - something must be done - hence the hate-speech
proposals.


--
Crash McBash
James Christophers
2021-07-06 00:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 14:40:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out. Oh I
know, Rich taught her.
To be fair I think the whole scenario arises from a personal
conviction on the part of Ms Ardern (and many others) that the
sentiments expressed by Brenton Tarrant leading up to the March 15
massacre should in some way be as illegal as the taking of lives that
ensued. People should be prosecuted for saying such things on the
basis that verballising such ideas increases the possibility of
incitement to commit a crime. Ergo, making it illegal to say such
things helps prevent the violence that Tarrant unleashed.
However hate-speech is extremely difficult to accurately define. The
connection between publishing hate and those using that hate to
justify mass-murder is equally tenuous. The PM though must be seen to
do something to prevent another such event. The fact that we cannot
predict if or when another event like this might happen is a political
inconvenience - something must be done - hence the hate-speech
proposals.
In this sense the government and whoever heads it collectively become "the conscience of the nation"; a conscience that must demonstrate atonement and redress towards both victim and nation for the unspeakable horror committed and experienced. The greater the horror, the greater the urgency to bring that "conscience" into play and, as you say, "do something". A nation expects nothing less. As for "doing something", the question lingers, exactly how?

Thus Ardern's conundrum, a near-impossible conundrum that the numberless hordes of captious easy-talkers and mouthy disavowers demand she resolve with all the range of skills, experience and aptitude that they themselves know full well they themselves lack.

As Gordon says, "Everything is easy when you don't have to do it (yourself)".
Tony
2021-07-06 01:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 14:40:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out. Oh I
know, Rich taught her.
To be fair I think the whole scenario arises from a personal
conviction on the part of Ms Ardern (and many others) that the
sentiments expressed by Brenton Tarrant leading up to the March 15
massacre should in some way be as illegal as the taking of lives that
ensued. People should be prosecuted for saying such things on the
basis that verballising such ideas increases the possibility of
incitement to commit a crime. Ergo, making it illegal to say such
things helps prevent the violence that Tarrant unleashed.
However hate-speech is extremely difficult to accurately define. The
connection between publishing hate and those using that hate to
justify mass-murder is equally tenuous. The PM though must be seen to
do something to prevent another such event. The fact that we cannot
predict if or when another event like this might happen is a political
inconvenience - something must be done - hence the hate-speech
proposals.
--
Crash McBash
Crash,
It is a bit like banning all traffic in Auckland because one pedestrian gets
tragically killed. Too far maybe?
They do not understand what they are proposing and therefore are incapable of
explaining it. Best to drop it until there is clarity.
Rich80105
2021-07-06 03:57:54 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 20:59:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 14:40:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out. Oh I
know, Rich taught her.
To be fair I think the whole scenario arises from a personal
conviction on the part of Ms Ardern (and many others) that the
sentiments expressed by Brenton Tarrant leading up to the March 15
massacre should in some way be as illegal as the taking of lives that
ensued. People should be prosecuted for saying such things on the
basis that verballising such ideas increases the possibility of
incitement to commit a crime. Ergo, making it illegal to say such
things helps prevent the violence that Tarrant unleashed.
However hate-speech is extremely difficult to accurately define. The
connection between publishing hate and those using that hate to
justify mass-murder is equally tenuous. The PM though must be seen to
do something to prevent another such event. The fact that we cannot
predict if or when another event like this might happen is a political
inconvenience - something must be done - hence the hate-speech
proposals.
--
Crash McBash
Crash,
It is a bit like banning all traffic in Auckland because one pedestrian gets
tragically killed. Too far maybe?
You are the only person making such a suggestoin, Tony, and of course
it is nothing like suggesting that perhaps our laws need some
adjustment for those that incite illegal actions against others. So
yes, too far.
Post by Tony
They do not understand what they are proposing and therefore are incapable of
explaining it. Best to drop it until there is clarity.
It appears you know even less, but are proposing that discussion by
others be stopped - what are you trying to hide, Tony?
Tony
2021-07-06 04:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 20:59:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 14:40:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out. Oh I
know, Rich taught her.
To be fair I think the whole scenario arises from a personal
conviction on the part of Ms Ardern (and many others) that the
sentiments expressed by Brenton Tarrant leading up to the March 15
massacre should in some way be as illegal as the taking of lives that
ensued. People should be prosecuted for saying such things on the
basis that verballising such ideas increases the possibility of
incitement to commit a crime. Ergo, making it illegal to say such
things helps prevent the violence that Tarrant unleashed.
However hate-speech is extremely difficult to accurately define. The
connection between publishing hate and those using that hate to
justify mass-murder is equally tenuous. The PM though must be seen to
do something to prevent another such event. The fact that we cannot
predict if or when another event like this might happen is a political
inconvenience - something must be done - hence the hate-speech
proposals.
--
Crash McBash
Crash,
It is a bit like banning all traffic in Auckland because one pedestrian gets
tragically killed. Too far maybe?
You are the only person making such a suggestoin, Tony, and of course
it is nothing like suggesting that perhaps our laws need some
adjustment for those that incite illegal actions against others. So
yes, too far.
Post by Tony
They do not understand what they are proposing and therefore are incapable of
explaining it. Best to drop it until there is clarity.
It appears you know even less
Only to you, dumbo.
Post by Rich80105
, but are proposing that discussion by
others be stopped
Only you do that, and often,
Post by Rich80105
- what are you trying to hide, Tony?
Nothing to hide here, you?
Another Rich nonsense.
You know that I was suggesting that the government should seek clarity before
going down the "hate speech" path.
After all they would then know what on earth they are taliking about, unlike
you.
Crash
2021-07-06 08:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 20:59:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 14:40:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out. Oh I
know, Rich taught her.
To be fair I think the whole scenario arises from a personal
conviction on the part of Ms Ardern (and many others) that the
sentiments expressed by Brenton Tarrant leading up to the March 15
massacre should in some way be as illegal as the taking of lives that
ensued. People should be prosecuted for saying such things on the
basis that verballising such ideas increases the possibility of
incitement to commit a crime. Ergo, making it illegal to say such
things helps prevent the violence that Tarrant unleashed.
However hate-speech is extremely difficult to accurately define. The
connection between publishing hate and those using that hate to
justify mass-murder is equally tenuous. The PM though must be seen to
do something to prevent another such event. The fact that we cannot
predict if or when another event like this might happen is a political
inconvenience - something must be done - hence the hate-speech
proposals.
--
Crash McBash
Crash,
It is a bit like banning all traffic in Auckland because one pedestrian gets
tragically killed. Too far maybe?
You are the only person making such a suggestoin, Tony, and of course
it is nothing like suggesting that perhaps our laws need some
adjustment for those that incite illegal actions against others. So
yes, too far.
While Tony's example is a point too far, so is the corner that Ms
Ardern has painted herself into in respect of hate speech law.
Inciting others to break the law is already illegal. In her reaction
to the horrors of the March 15 massacre, Ardern seeks to make
published hatred illegal but clearly this is very difficult to define
such that honestly-held opinions can still be published.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
They do not understand what they are proposing and therefore are incapable of
explaining it. Best to drop it until there is clarity.
It appears you know even less, but are proposing that discussion by
others be stopped - what are you trying to hide, Tony?
Rich how do you fail to understand that hate speech is difficult to
define without suppressing the right to free speech?


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2021-07-06 10:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 20:59:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 14:40:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out. Oh I
know, Rich taught her.
To be fair I think the whole scenario arises from a personal
conviction on the part of Ms Ardern (and many others) that the
sentiments expressed by Brenton Tarrant leading up to the March 15
massacre should in some way be as illegal as the taking of lives that
ensued. People should be prosecuted for saying such things on the
basis that verballising such ideas increases the possibility of
incitement to commit a crime. Ergo, making it illegal to say such
things helps prevent the violence that Tarrant unleashed.
However hate-speech is extremely difficult to accurately define. The
connection between publishing hate and those using that hate to
justify mass-murder is equally tenuous. The PM though must be seen to
do something to prevent another such event. The fact that we cannot
predict if or when another event like this might happen is a political
inconvenience - something must be done - hence the hate-speech
proposals.
--
Crash McBash
Crash,
It is a bit like banning all traffic in Auckland because one pedestrian gets
tragically killed. Too far maybe?
You are the only person making such a suggestoin, Tony, and of course
it is nothing like suggesting that perhaps our laws need some
adjustment for those that incite illegal actions against others. So
yes, too far.
While Tony's example is a point too far, so is the corner that Ms
Ardern has painted herself into in respect of hate speech law.
Inciting others to break the law is already illegal.
Not to the extent that many think - see
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/30-06-2021/everyones-confused-about-the-new-hate-speech-law-heres-what-it-actually-says/
and from that article:
"The opposition also hasn’t helped clarify the situation, claiming the
law will “restrict and regulate the words that come out of our mouths”
(as a reminder, the law already exists in regards to racism and in an
arguably looser form). Judith Collins claimed it is already a crime to
incite violence and “these draconian proposed laws” won’t plug a hole
in the law.

However, University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis says that’s
not entirely true. While it is already a crime to incite specific acts
of violence (like calling on people to torch someone’s house) and it
is a crime to threaten to kill specific individuals, he says it is not
currently illegal to threaten to kill members of a general group.

“We saw this play out very recently in relation to a YouTube video
where a guy threatened to ‘slaughter Maori people’,” Prof Geddis says.
“The police initially couldn’t arrest him for this, until the
Classification Office deemed the video to be ‘objectionable’ – then
they could arrest and charge him for making an objectionable
publication.

“This approach is a bit of an end-run around the limits in the Crimes
Act, but it depends on the speech in question being a ‘publication’
(i.e. not simply verbal in nature) and rising to the level of being
‘objectionable’ under our censorship legislation.”"
Post by Crash
In her reaction
to the horrors of the March 15 massacre, Ardern seeks to make
published hatred illegal but clearly this is very difficult to define
such that honestly-held opinions can still be published.
Yes I believe this is a very difficult area to draftlaw that delivers
what is wanted, which is why balanced and informed discussion is
needed - the article I posted above ends with some words on why
legislation does need to bereviewed -

"Ironically – tragically – the debate about the proposed law may be
generating the kind of behaviour it is designed to stop. Islamic
Women’s Council spokesperson Anjum Rahman says she is concerned debate
about the proposal will see the Muslim community subject to further
abuse.

“There is a danger that people will be unhappy with the law and then
they will blame the Muslim community for it,” Rahman says. “One of our
primary concerns is our community’s safety, just because of this
debate. We’ve seen material, I’m not going to say who it was from,
blaming the Muslim community for ‘trying to silence us’ and ‘stopping
us from criticising their religion’. There were photos of victims’
families from Christchurch associated with that material. Like, people
who had lost loved ones in the attacks. It’s very real.”

Despite this, she says she wants to see a “healthy debate” over the
proposed changes.

“People have concerns. I think we should talk about them. We should
see if this is the best wording… I think we can come to some sort of
understanding, but it would be really great if we didn’t have this
kind of politicisation of this and, again, the notion that people are
just trying to silence criticism or offensive language.

“We know that hate speech can turn into hateful actions…
Criminalisation is not going to solve all of that by any means, and it
would be ridiculous to say these law changes are going to have a huge
impact on the whole of the problem. But what I’m saying is it’s one
tool and there should be some legal redress for the worst cases.”

But Rahman says she is still hesitant to have her say.

“It’s a conundrum for me. If I speak up about it then people will
deliberately make it a Muslim issue, and if I stay silent then I don’t
get to have my voice heard.”

And this goes to the heart of why the royal commission proposed the
changes in the first place – to make New Zealand a more cohesive
society “to help all people feel safe and welcome”. To create a
society where people aren’t afraid to speak up because they will be
targeted for their religion. To create a country where the kind of
hate that led to March 15 will not be allowed to grow again."
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
They do not understand what they are proposing and therefore are incapable of
explaining it. Best to drop it until there is clarity.
It appears you know even less, but are proposing that discussion by
others be stopped - what are you trying to hide, Tony?
Rich how do you fail to understand that hate speech is difficult to
define without suppressing the right to free speech?
One of the fundamental issues is where the concept of free speech
comes up against other freedoms. The right to free speech should not
ignore other freedoms, as the article above makes clear. Having to use
a classification from the Classification Office for a You Tube video
does not prevent exactly the same objectionable statements being made
verbally - it is an anomoly that needs to be fixed though legislation.

Those changes however do need discussion; dropping proposals and the
recommendations of the Royal Commission will not give that clarity.
Yes it is difficult, and we almost certainly will not get what
everyone wants, but just as the 'anti-smacking' legisation (which did
not actually stop smacking) has introduced penalties for some clear
child abuse that was previously unable to be prosecuted through an
anomaly in the law.
John Bowes
2021-07-06 10:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 20:59:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 14:40:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out. Oh I
know, Rich taught her.
To be fair I think the whole scenario arises from a personal
conviction on the part of Ms Ardern (and many others) that the
sentiments expressed by Brenton Tarrant leading up to the March 15
massacre should in some way be as illegal as the taking of lives that
ensued. People should be prosecuted for saying such things on the
basis that verballising such ideas increases the possibility of
incitement to commit a crime. Ergo, making it illegal to say such
things helps prevent the violence that Tarrant unleashed.
However hate-speech is extremely difficult to accurately define. The
connection between publishing hate and those using that hate to
justify mass-murder is equally tenuous. The PM though must be seen to
do something to prevent another such event. The fact that we cannot
predict if or when another event like this might happen is a political
inconvenience - something must be done - hence the hate-speech
proposals.
--
Crash McBash
Crash,
It is a bit like banning all traffic in Auckland because one pedestrian gets
tragically killed. Too far maybe?
You are the only person making such a suggestoin, Tony, and of course
it is nothing like suggesting that perhaps our laws need some
adjustment for those that incite illegal actions against others. So
yes, too far.
While Tony's example is a point too far, so is the corner that Ms
Ardern has painted herself into in respect of hate speech law.
Inciting others to break the law is already illegal.
Not to the extent that many think - see
<garbage snipped>
The law covers it Rich. Your PM and her front man for justice didn't know what the hell they were talking about. The proposed law isn't needed unless you're planning a totalitarian takeover of ALL speech!
George Black
2021-07-06 20:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 20:59:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 14:40:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out. Oh I
know, Rich taught her.
To be fair I think the whole scenario arises from a personal
conviction on the part of Ms Ardern (and many others) that the
sentiments expressed by Brenton Tarrant leading up to the March 15
massacre should in some way be as illegal as the taking of lives that
ensued. People should be prosecuted for saying such things on the
basis that verballising such ideas increases the possibility of
incitement to commit a crime. Ergo, making it illegal to say such
things helps prevent the violence that Tarrant unleashed.
However hate-speech is extremely difficult to accurately define. The
connection between publishing hate and those using that hate to
justify mass-murder is equally tenuous. The PM though must be seen to
do something to prevent another such event. The fact that we cannot
predict if or when another event like this might happen is a political
inconvenience - something must be done - hence the hate-speech
proposals.
--
Crash McBash
Crash,
It is a bit like banning all traffic in Auckland because one pedestrian gets
tragically killed. Too far maybe?
You are the only person making such a suggestoin, Tony, and of course
it is nothing like suggesting that perhaps our laws need some
adjustment for those that incite illegal actions against others. So
yes, too far.
While Tony's example is a point too far, so is the corner that Ms
Ardern has painted herself into in respect of hate speech law.
Inciting others to break the law is already illegal. In her reaction
to the horrors of the March 15 massacre, Ardern seeks to make
published hatred illegal but clearly this is very difficult to define
such that honestly-held opinions can still be published.
And that is going to come back and bite them.
Ever listened to Parliament and heard the vindictive ugly lies that come
out of there ????
Mallard better duck
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
They do not understand what they are proposing and therefore are incapable of
explaining it. Best to drop it until there is clarity.
It appears you know even less, but are proposing that discussion by
others be stopped - what are you trying to hide, Tony?
Rich how do you fail to understand that hate speech is difficult to
define without suppressing the right to free speech?
Its never entered the empty space between his ears.
There you are . Hate speech if you're rich.
Comedic comment to the rest of us
George Black
2021-07-06 02:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 14:40:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out. Oh I
know, Rich taught her.
To be fair I think the whole scenario arises from a personal
conviction on the part of Ms Ardern (and many others) that the
sentiments expressed by Brenton Tarrant leading up to the March 15
massacre should in some way be as illegal as the taking of lives that
ensued. People should be prosecuted for saying such things on the
basis that verballising such ideas increases the possibility of
incitement to commit a crime. Ergo, making it illegal to say such
things helps prevent the violence that Tarrant unleashed.
However hate-speech is extremely difficult to accurately define. The
connection between publishing hate and those using that hate to
justify mass-murder is equally tenuous. The PM though must be seen to
do something to prevent another such event. The fact that we cannot
predict if or when another event like this might happen is a political
inconvenience - something must be done - hence the hate-speech
proposals.
We should then immediately ban all religions and religious writings.
The Koran (for example) would have all here thrown into the depths of
Hades for being unbelievers
James Christophers
2021-07-06 03:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Black
Post by Crash
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 14:40:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out. Oh I
know, Rich taught her.
To be fair I think the whole scenario arises from a personal
conviction on the part of Ms Ardern (and many others) that the
sentiments expressed by Brenton Tarrant leading up to the March 15
massacre should in some way be as illegal as the taking of lives that
ensued. People should be prosecuted for saying such things on the
basis that verballising such ideas increases the possibility of
incitement to commit a crime. Ergo, making it illegal to say such
things helps prevent the violence that Tarrant unleashed.
However hate-speech is extremely difficult to accurately define. The
connection between publishing hate and those using that hate to
justify mass-murder is equally tenuous. The PM though must be seen to
do something to prevent another such event. The fact that we cannot
predict if or when another event like this might happen is a political
inconvenience - something must be done - hence the hate-speech
proposals.
We should then immediately ban all religions and religious writings.
The Koran (for example) would have all here thrown into the depths of
Hades for being unbelievers
During all my years in the various Gulf countries[1] I was never once shown even the faintest hint of disrespect for not being a muslim. To them I was not a infidel Christian as such but a "Nazrani", meaning a follower of the Man of Nazareth, that same man being much revered throughout the muslim world and ranking second only to their prophet Mohammed (the final and therefore - to them - only valid prophet). Furthermore, the only-too-common name for muslim sons is عيسى (Issa) - arabic for Jesus.

[1] the Saudi-Arabians are without doubt the most austere and unyielding in just about everything, being guardians of the Holy Places, Mecca and Medina. Even so, I was invariably extended every courtesy, aid and tolerance , way way beyond expectations. As in every one of those countries, respect shown was without fail respect returned - in full and then some.
Crash
2021-07-06 08:45:33 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 20:23:02 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by George Black
Post by Crash
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 14:40:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out. Oh I
know, Rich taught her.
To be fair I think the whole scenario arises from a personal
conviction on the part of Ms Ardern (and many others) that the
sentiments expressed by Brenton Tarrant leading up to the March 15
massacre should in some way be as illegal as the taking of lives that
ensued. People should be prosecuted for saying such things on the
basis that verballising such ideas increases the possibility of
incitement to commit a crime. Ergo, making it illegal to say such
things helps prevent the violence that Tarrant unleashed.
However hate-speech is extremely difficult to accurately define. The
connection between publishing hate and those using that hate to
justify mass-murder is equally tenuous. The PM though must be seen to
do something to prevent another such event. The fact that we cannot
predict if or when another event like this might happen is a political
inconvenience - something must be done - hence the hate-speech
proposals.
We should then immediately ban all religions and religious writings.
The Koran (for example) would have all here thrown into the depths of
Hades for being unbelievers
During all my years in the various Gulf countries[1] I was never once shown even the faintest hint of disrespect for not being a muslim. To them I was not a infidel Christian as such but a "Nazrani", meaning a follower of the Man of Nazareth, that same man being much revered throughout the muslim world and ranking second only to their prophet Mohammed (the final and therefore - to them - only valid prophet). Furthermore, the only-too-common name for muslim sons is ???? (Issa) - arabic for Jesus.
[1] the Saudi-Arabians are without doubt the most austere and unyielding in just about everything, being guardians of the Holy Places, Mecca and Medina. Even so, I was invariably extended every courtesy, aid and tolerance , way way beyond expectations. As in every one of those countries, respect shown was without fail respect returned - in full and then some.
Would that same respect and tolerance by shown now? How do you think
those involved in the Yemen think about this?


--
Crash McBash
James Christophers
2021-07-06 22:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 20:23:02 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by George Black
Post by Crash
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 14:40:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out. Oh I
know, Rich taught her.
To be fair I think the whole scenario arises from a personal
conviction on the part of Ms Ardern (and many others) that the
sentiments expressed by Brenton Tarrant leading up to the March 15
massacre should in some way be as illegal as the taking of lives that
ensued. People should be prosecuted for saying such things on the
basis that verballising such ideas increases the possibility of
incitement to commit a crime. Ergo, making it illegal to say such
things helps prevent the violence that Tarrant unleashed.
However hate-speech is extremely difficult to accurately define. The
connection between publishing hate and those using that hate to
justify mass-murder is equally tenuous. The PM though must be seen to
do something to prevent another such event. The fact that we cannot
predict if or when another event like this might happen is a political
inconvenience - something must be done - hence the hate-speech
proposals.
We should then immediately ban all religions and religious writings.
The Koran (for example) would have all here thrown into the depths of
Hades for being unbelievers
During all my years in the various Gulf countries[1] I was never once shown even the faintest hint of disrespect for not being a muslim. To them I was not a infidel Christian as such but a "Nazrani", meaning a follower of the Man of Nazareth, that same man being much revered throughout the muslim world and ranking second only to their prophet Mohammed (the final and therefore - to them - only valid prophet). Furthermore, the only-too-common name for muslim sons is ???? (Issa) - arabic for Jesus.
[1] the Saudi-Arabians are without doubt the most austere and unyielding in just about everything, being guardians of the Holy Places, Mecca and Medina. Even so, I was invariably extended every courtesy, aid and tolerance , way way beyond expectations. As in every one of those countries, respect shown was without fail respect returned - in full and then some.
Would that same respect and tolerance by shown now?
(New thread?)

That was 40 years ago, so I can't say, however:

"We do not hate the British - only their governments" - Najdat al-Mouteseb, one of the countless thousands of displaced,and stateless Palestinians who was my right-hand man and mentor in Kuwait. He and his Lebanse wife regularly entertained me in their modest apartment in Kuwait city. They couldn't do enough the ensure all hosting obligations were met. Remember, these were people with no country to call their own, but their dignity, self-esteem - even hope - remained 100% intact. In every way exemplary human beings if ever there were.
Post by Crash
How do you think those involved in the Yemen think about this?
First, what do you or anyone else on this group think about these?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/9/uk-approved-1-4bn-of-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-post-export-ban

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56253360

Even taking these obscenities into account, knowing arab culture and custom as I do, I'm pretty confident the same inter-cultural courtesies would still apply today, no matter what.
Gordon
2021-07-06 09:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by George Black
Post by Crash
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 14:40:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out. Oh I
know, Rich taught her.
To be fair I think the whole scenario arises from a personal
conviction on the part of Ms Ardern (and many others) that the
sentiments expressed by Brenton Tarrant leading up to the March 15
massacre should in some way be as illegal as the taking of lives that
ensued. People should be prosecuted for saying such things on the
basis that verballising such ideas increases the possibility of
incitement to commit a crime. Ergo, making it illegal to say such
things helps prevent the violence that Tarrant unleashed.
However hate-speech is extremely difficult to accurately define. The
connection between publishing hate and those using that hate to
justify mass-murder is equally tenuous. The PM though must be seen to
do something to prevent another such event. The fact that we cannot
predict if or when another event like this might happen is a political
inconvenience - something must be done - hence the hate-speech
proposals.
We should then immediately ban all religions and religious writings.
The Koran (for example) would have all here thrown into the depths of
Hades for being unbelievers
During all my years in the various Gulf countries[1] I was never once shown even the faintest hint of disrespect for not being a muslim.
To them I was not a infidel Christian as such but a "Nazrani", meaning a follower of the Man of Nazareth, that same man being much revered
throughout the muslim world and ranking second only to their prophet Mohammed (the final and therefore - to them - only valid prophet).
Furthermore, the only-too-common name for muslim sons is عيسى (Issa) - arabic for Jesus.
[1] the Saudi-Arabians are without doubt the most austere and unyielding in just about everything, being guardians of the Holy Places, Mecca and Medina.
Even so, I was invariably extended every courtesy, aid and tolerance , way way beyond expectations. As in every one of those countries, respect
shown was without fail respect returned - in full and then some.
If one respects the other as a human, including their beliefs they are far
more likely to live and let live.

Problem comes when people use religion as a cause for bloodshed.
JohnO
2021-07-07 00:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 14:40:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.nzcpr.com/muzzling-free-speech/
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out. Oh I
know, Rich taught her.
To be fair I think the whole scenario arises from a personal
conviction on the part of Ms Ardern (and many others) that the
sentiments expressed by Brenton Tarrant leading up to the March 15
massacre should in some way be as illegal as the taking of lives that
ensued. People should be prosecuted for saying such things on the
basis that verballising such ideas increases the possibility of
incitement to commit a crime. Ergo, making it illegal to say such
things helps prevent the violence that Tarrant unleashed.
However hate-speech is extremely difficult to accurately define. The
connection between publishing hate and those using that hate to
justify mass-murder is equally tenuous. The PM though must be seen to
do something to prevent another such event. The fact that we cannot
predict if or when another event like this might happen is a political
inconvenience - something must be done - hence the hate-speech
proposals.
--
Crash McBash
Inciting harm and violence is already a crime.

There is absolutely no need for so-called hate speech laws. The only thing they offer is the potential for abuse and suppression of speech.
Loading...