Post by James Christophers Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 28 Dec 2020 14:07:29 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes Post by Firu Post by John Bowes Post by Firu
As far as totalitarian paradise...you don't need a Marxist or a
socialist or a commie to do that. Check out the nationalist parties in
Poland, UK, Turkey or the USA. None of those are vaguely to the left.
And any comparison to us shows NZ is a paradise of freedoms.
I'm perfectly aware you don't have to lean left to be a
totalitarian government! Hell Adolf Hitler and Stalin practiced the same forms
of repression and looking at the history of the 30's and what is coming out of
arderns government they are showing all the symptoms of being a totalitarian
government. make the most of the so called freedoms in this country before they
go ahead with the bullshit of "hate speech" laws that they're hell bent on
foisting on us from before the idiot Iman in Christchurch got agreement from
Ardern that they'd be enacted this term!
One of mankind's least lovable traits is a propensity for tribalism and
hatred. Hate speech legislation sets limits and rules for those who need
guidance, not everyone is as open minded and enlightened as you and I.
It's arguable that Hitler is one of the reasons we have hate speech
we have perfectly good laws that cover so called hate speech. Anything
that Ardern and company force on us will just be another useless piece of
legislation wasting more of governments time in an effort to control us even
A significant concern from many New Zealanders was the ability of the
Christchurch shooter to live stream his crimes. Jacinda Ardern has
raised ths internationally as an issue, and we are starting to see it
being raised with various international companies that have the
ability, at some cost to themselves, to resolve the issue, with the
threat that they could be charged for "hate-crimes" if they do not
prevent such objectionable material being aired.
It's not exclusively about "hate speech" as such, and really never has
been. It's about **incitement** to hatred and the public dissemination and
fomenting of such hatred through its inevitable exponential dissemination. This
is what gives cause for alarm and concern right across the board.
This worldwide concern embraces the entire gamut of "disharmony", from the
Christchurch gunman to the cyber-targeted schoolkid bordering on suicide. In
this respect there is little difference between Trump with his calculatedly
targeted fomentings and any iPhone-toting malcontent from some badged and
burnished secondary school in Ponsonby. With all its gratuitous abuse and
degeneracy ("I do it because I can"), today's " universally accepted social
media militates against any form of moderation that must now include banning
and/or criminalising in some form or other. Hence both our local and worldwide
polarisation of the issue.
Again, any new or revised laws, here and globally, must cope with the
imponderable conundrum inherent in the requirement to define and legislate what
is, and is not, "hate" - itself an abstraction based largely on the visceral "I
know it when I see it" - yet do so without materially infringing on the
hard-won civil liberties we hold so dear.
Wherever it may be enacted, it will take the Judgement of Solomon to make
such new or revised legislation not only just and equitable, but to the
satisfaction of all.
This is also largely why there can be no satisfactory conclusion to this
thread, however well-intended.
Post by Rich80105
Perhaps you could outline the "perfectly good laws" that could have
prevented those live feeds, John . . .
Probably not Keith. however it'll achieve nothing but the stifling of views