"Magnificent Pandemonium"—Linz vs Muslims and Their Enablers

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Wed, 2016-08-17 03:12

This is the speech I delivered almost in its entirety in my capacity as special commentator, along with Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy, at Monday night's semi-final in the intra-university Next Generation Debates series at Auckland University. I say "almost in its entirety" because a gaggle of Muslims became very vocal near the end of my speech and demanded, successfully, I be stopped at once for having gone over my allocated time. The point at which I was shut down is noted in the text below.

What a member of Young New Zealand First called "magnificent pandemonium" followed, with epithets flying back and forth, Dame Susan waiving her right of rebuttal and storming off from the table we were both sharing.

**************************************************************************

“That this House would ban religious symbols in public.”

I’m a libertarian. As a rule I don’t believe in banning anything ... except banning. I don’t believe in banning religious symbols in public, even though I’m an atheist. [At this point the lights went out, and I declared myself a Believer. Then they came back on.] I often repair to the immortal maxim derived from Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it.”

What a magnificent sentiment!

Article 13 of our Bill of Rights says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.

Article 14 says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

Article 15 says:

Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief, in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.

I agree with all that.

Unfortunately Article 4 makes it clear that this Bill of Rights can be trumped by legislation contrary to it, meaning the whole thing is a sham!

So that’s the first thing I’d do before worrying about the display of religious symbols: remove Article 4 from the Bill of Rights so that it really is a Bill of Rights.

Second, I’d abolish Dame Susan. Nothing personal! I’d just abolish the office of Race Relations Commissar and with it, the entire Human Rights Commission, to which I routinely refer as the Human Wrongs Commissariat. This cossetted coterie of taxpayer-supported fascists of the left just want to impose their precious, prissy, puritanical Political Correctness upon all of us. They’re our Thought Police, prattling on about diversity when they’re attempting to outlaw the most important diversity of all, ideological diversity and make their Political Correctness compulsory. Everything in their universe would be either illegal or compulsory. In my universe they’d have to find real jobs and the legislation that set them up would be repealed.

You see, that legislation already contains provisions that violate our Bill of Rights.

Article 131 of our Human Rights Act says you can go to jail for making insulting comments about someone’s race or country of origin!

So there was this Irishman, Englishman and Scotsman … oh wait, we can’t go there.

So there was this Iraqi, Iranian and Pakistani … oh my, we most certainly can’t go there!

So much for: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression ...

I hate to break it to you, but there is a right to insult. The way to deal with a racist is to shame him with reason, not to jail him. Freedom of expression includes the right to say offensive things. It doesn’t include a right never to be offended.

There is certainly a right to say things that will be construed as insults by those intent on being insulted even though they’re not intended to be.

And this gets us close to the nub of the issue.

This is the Age of Umbrage, the Age of Offence-Taking. All chance of debate on any matter of substance is instantly closed down nowadays as soon as some two-bit totalitarian, some shrieking Social Justice Warrior, some pompous PC Thought Policewoman whines, “I find your statements offensive.” For these latter-day Inquisitionists, the only thing that gets them out of bed each day is to find something to be offended by and be a victim of. Racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, White Privilege , income inequality … you name it. To them, the best response I know of was uttered by comedian Stephen Fry, who said, and I shall quote him exactly: Quote—“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what!" Unquote.

The stifling pervasiveness of this infantilism, the mindless absurdity of campus “safe zones” where one’s “sensitivities” won’t be “triggered” by “micro-aggressions,” is such that free speech is all but dead. It has been killed above all by those institutions that once were its proud bastions, the media and the universities. Here I want to salute as noble exceptions the students at Otago University who just voted down a ban on “offensive” costumes at their annual party by their purported representatives, the Otago University Students Association. The OUSA had issued a list of forbidden apparel, including anything depicting Nazis, Arabs, Bill Cosby or Caitlyn Jenner. The students rebelled. A referendum was held and 67% of participants voted against the prohibitions. Congratulations, Otago students. But look out. Big Sister Susan is watching you!

We all know what the real moot is here tonight. Not the generic banning of religious symbolism in public, but the specific banning of Muslim religious symbolism. There’s no issue with Christians or Buddhists or Sikhs or Hindus or Jews wearing their drag and bling in public. There is an issue, because of everything that’s going on in the world, with Muslims covering up their faces. But had the moot been, “That this House would ban the burka,” this debate would not have been allowed to proceed. Muslims would have taken offence, Dame Susan, even though Islam is not a race and hence not within her purview, would have instigated prosecution proceedings against NZ Initiative, and we’d be having to launch a campaign to “Free Oliver Hartwich!”

But we should be able to debate banning the burka. What’s going on in the world does make it an issue.

Ordinarily, as a libertarian I’d say wear whatever drag and bling you want; just don’t force me to wear it.That’s my default position. In the case of Islam, however, there’s one significant consideration that might cause me to depart from that position. That is, elements of Islam have declared war on us, in accordance with their Holy Book, and are waging that war with a brutality we never expected to see revisited in the twenty-first century. These are sub-human barbarians who want to take us back to the stoning age. They want their evil superstition to be mandatory for everyone in a world-wide caliphate. In free countries they take advantage of freedom of speech to hold up signs saying, “Death to the Infidel!” “Freedom of speech go to hell!” "Man-made law go to hell!" “Massacre those who insult Islam!” “Behead those who insult the prophet.” Like the Human Wrongs Commissariat, they don’t believe in the right to insult, and they behead away with impunity.

In war, all bets are off. You don’t have to extend peacetime freedoms to those you’re at war with. In WW2 England people were not free to wear Nazi regalia in public, or hold Nazi demonstrations, or advocate publicly for Nazism, and neither should they have been. We’re not obliged to extend freedom of expression to any enemy who is seeking by violence to take ours away, and to kill us. We must not assume that because no Muslim in New Zealand has ever committed a terror attack, none ever will. I would hope that “reasonable” non-violent Muslims are cooperating with authorities in monitoring for signs of violent ones. My contention, though, is that “non-violent Muslim” is a contradiction in terms, given the number of injunctions in the Koran along the lines of “slay the infidel wherever ye may find him” and the odious violence that is Sharia Law. My position is that “non-violent” Muslims are by definition not Muslims at all, even if they consider themselves to be. [At this point, shouting by Muslims got very loud, and they demanded I be silenced at once since I had gone overtime. Unfortunately the organisers capitulated, and asked that I stop immediately, notwithstanding my protestations that I was almost there. The following lines of my speech were not delivered.] Now I wouldn’t put any bans or restrictions in place just yet, except one: on further Muslim immigration while Jihad is going on anywhere in the world. I would put Muslims on notice that I reserve the right to put other bans or restrictions in place, and expect them to understand that and cooperate.

So, ban the burka? Not right now—there'd be no particular point as best I can tell—but we'd be within our rights to do so and there could be a point quite soon.

The over-arching thought I want to leave you with is that we should be able to at least debate this matter without the spectre of the Human Wrongs Commissariat hanging over us.

PS: If there’s anyone I haven’t offended here tonight, I apologise.


Terrorist threat

Andrew Atkin's picture

How many Islamic murderers does it take to scare a leader out of speaking his mind? Not many, I'm sure.

Someone correct me if my concern is misplaced, but the thing that worries me the most about importing terrorists is that they can achieve serious power so easily, due to their willing use of brutality and a lack of regard for their own lives.

Maybe this is, in part, how France was able to achieve the mess it's got today? Too many people in power too afraid of going down like Charlie Hebdo?

Neil

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Alex Jones is not as crazy as he's made out to be. Ryan Dawson overdoes his criticism of Jones. And the other link you gave earlier to radio Derb... Derbyshire is really smart and eloquent. Even if a person disagreed with Derb's race realist positions, it wouldn't matter. By that I mean, Derbyshire is so far superior a cultural commentator than any Objectivist out there its not even funny. And he has a significant libertarian streak to him. And Lindsay would love his excellent vocabulary combined with proper grammatical execution. Compare that to listening to Yawon Bwook's lispy voice or Amy Peikoff's California airhead voice. No contest.

Cowardice ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... has never been as rampant in my lifetime as it is now. It's not only pervasive, it's admired as "cool." Who in public life currently displays courage? You can list them on your fingers. In NZ politics, absolutely no one.

MBA weasel-worders and kumbaya-spewers have won the day. Meaning, ISIS will win the day, because it meets no moral resistance.

There's a phobia we need much more of: evilophobia. A consuming hatred of evil (such as Clinton, Obama, Islam, HillARIans, the media and appeasement). Bring on the evilophobes!

Terrorism makes people too afraid to oppose.

Neil's picture

Yes, Andrew but sadly it is possible (even normal) to instill paralysing fear in more subtle ways for example by simply threatening exclusion from the/or a group. The age old means of social control do not require terrorism but as you point out can facilitate it by closing down opposition.

Alex Jones

Neil Parille's picture

I was told that he was a nut. I'm listening to him daily and he seems very reasonable:

http://www.infowars.com/

Thanks Lindsay,Yes, you

Andrew Atkin's picture

Thanks Lindsay,

Yes, you basically did give it. I just liked the idea of spelling out the dynamic I referred to more explicitly. To make the point I might say something like...

Imagine if Susan Devoy and her gang wrote a letter to the New Zealand Initiative, stating something to the effect of:

"Warning: If you invite Lindsay Perigo back to your next event, we will openly accuse you of being Muslim-haters by giving this obvious bigot a voice. Be assured that our assertions would almost certainly be made public and in turn damage your organisations image".

But they don't need to write that letter because the New Zealand Initiative, like everyone else, already knows that that is the deal. This is how the regressive Left works. They fire a defamation gun at anyone who dares speak or even facilitates others to speak a non-politically correct dialog.

Curiously this is how terrorism itself works. Terrorism makes people too afraid to oppose. [ends]

....or something like that, anyway.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the FB question, here it is:

Lindsay,

Have you thought about having another go at politics? I can see how if the MSM sees you as a pariah (in the past), then that can eliminate you from the game as they are, or have been, the gatekeepers of potential political parties...but not so much now, I don't think?

I get the impression that evolving modern politics may have more to do with your ability to pop up on people's cellphones!

You're the only person I can see around who has the potential to hit the scene like Donald Trump (assuming that's not an insult) - an intelligent persona who so obviously is not a tedious career politician, or gutless flake.

Outstanding

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Outstanding speech by Lindsay! Smiling Immensely intellectually and rhetorically powerful. Unbelievably fine stylistically. I don't see how anyone can answer or refute it without looking pitiful or absurd. Wish we could see a video of it!

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... after reading your speech again I can't imagine any high profile Objectivist giving it (with the exception of Peikoff). Yawon Bwook could never give it (but he could give a speech about bombing Iran). It is exactly the type of speech we should have been hearing now for years. And the NZ O'ists should be ashamed for not supporting you. Cowards.

That they are. I have a new name now for OrthOist Hillary-enablers: "HillARIans." I place HillARIans on a moral par with scum, except that that's unfair to scum, since scum can't help it.

Andrew

Lindsay Perigo's picture

If I'm right then we need a speech on it, maybe!

Isn't that the speech I just gave? Smiling

Welcome aboard, btw. Something popped up on my screen saying you had asked me a question on Faecesbook. I hate going there, so ask it here. Smiling

Insular is an understatement

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

who even the Objectivist expert on economics is

Outside of George Reisman Objectivism does *not* have a good economist, and Reisman is basically retired. He also is part of the Austrian economic tradition. And that is the thing, most O'ist economists reject all of or significant parts of Austrian economics because they don't like Von Mises' Kantian foundation or they don't like the subjective view of value, etc. Well, imo without Austrian economics there is little of substance to free market advocacy.

What I see O'ist economists do, most recently in M. Northrup Buechner's book "Objective Economics", is ignore the Austrians entirely and instead try to rely on the Classical Economists. That is wrong in so many ways. That would be like trying to defend state of the art physics by relying on Newton and totally ignoring Einstein (which incidentally is what Peikoff does to an extent in DIM).

You see similar things with Richard Salsman. His entire analysis of the 1920s boom was that it was legitimate productive expansion under capitalism that was destroyed by economic interventionism. That's a crap analysis. Rothbard's analysis has proven to have been the brilliant one: the Great Depression was fundamentally the product of inflationary measures enacted by the central bank worsened by interventionist policies (largely wage and price controls combined with trade restrictions) put in place by FDR.

Rothbard's book came out in 1964, the same year Friedman's book on the subject came out. But Friedman's book puts the blame on the FED for keeping interest rates too low!!! (He doesn't question the existence of the FED itself, no Chicago School economist does.) When push came to shove Friedman was still a neo-classical Positivist (just like the Keynesians). It was the Austrians that rejected Positivist epistemology and it was the Austrians that figured out money and credit, and business cycles, and marginal utility, and time preference, etc, etc, etc.

See, that's what pisses me off about the Objectivist movement. Its become a cult of personality worship; the personality in question being Ayn Rand's. Sadly, it started out that way and has never changed. Which is why I say that even despite the anarchism, the Austrians have a better product and a better organization. They sell a legitimate *tradition* of liberty. OrgOism is selling the deification of one woman. That was bound to fail.

Can you imagine Brook interviewing Charles Murray and trying to make sense out of the implications of contemporary theories in genetics and psychology?

This is basically a reducto ad absurdum of how infantile and shallow Objectivism has become. Brook could not have a mature conversation on the subject. I can't think of one Objectivist who could. That's how bad the movement is right now. It really is a cult for teenagers (or psychologically arrested adults) in many ways. Although I realize that there are some notable exceptions.

Just cut and paste the speech

Richard Wiig's picture

Just cut and paste the speech directly into Faecesbook.

The Clintocalypse

Neil Parille's picture

John Derbyshire on the election and other things:

http://www.vdare.com/radios/ra...

Compare the Derb's cultural analysis with Brook's. Well, there is no comparison.

Organized Objectivism

Neil Parille's picture

Objectivists tend to be very insular. There are Objectivists who have expertise, such as Alex Epstein on energy and Tara Smith on ethics. However, I'm sure who even the Objectivist expert on economics is.

There is no one in the Objectivist world who seems particularly knowledgeable about social theory. It's unconcieveable that an Objectivist would have a podcast like Molyneux has and inteview non-Objectivists. Can you imagine Brook interviewing Charles Murray and trying to make sense out of the implications of contemporary theories in genetics and psychology? Either Brook's head would explode or he'd be reduced to screaming about "determinism" or "racism."

But Linz

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

But make no mistake, Faecesbook is as much the enemy of Western Civilisation as ISIS and the ARI.

Corporations have free speech!! And Zuckerberg is a value creator!!!!

I can only assume racism.....

Seriously though, after reading your speech again I can't imagine any high profile Objectivist giving it (with the exception of Peikoff). Yawon Bwook could never give it (but he could give a speech about bombing Iran). It is exactly the type of speech we should have been hearing now for years. And the NZ O'ists should be ashamed for not supporting you. Cowards.

It looks a lot like the

Andrew Atkin's picture

It looks a lot like the 'power of accusation'.

I could imagine the New Zealand Initiative, for one, not wanting you back for no other reason than they will be afraid of being accused of endorsing and promoting an anti-Muslim guy.

Even if the accusation is bulls*t and unfair and they know it, it wouldn't matter. The accusation alone could hurt their image and that is what they might be afraid of. In the same way that the Dominion Post refused to publish John Ansell's ads, probably out of a fear of looking like Maori bashers.

This is probably how political correctness and the screaming regressive-left win. Through what is basically just the threat of defamation.

If I'm right then we need a speech on it, maybe!

Faecesbook ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... just refused another site's link to my speech here, on the grounds that the content didn't meet Faecesbook's guidelines. A bit late, since various people on Faecesbook have already linked to it. But make no mistake, Faecesbook is as much the enemy of Western Civilisation as ISIS and the ARI.

Hillary Clinton has vowed to shut down Breitbart. I don't doubt Dame Susan and her Muslim allies will try to get me shut down after the other night. All countries still enjoying a modicum of free speech have to be ready for civil war in the attempt to preserve it. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and martyrs."

banning burqa's

Andrew Atkin's picture

Just a thought.

From my outlook the hallmark of a cult is it isolates itself from the wider society, as a specific policy (implicit or formal) of the exo-group (eg. Jehovah's witness and exclusive brethren). The Burqa to me looks like a gross mechanism for achieving exactly that - it interpersonally (and ruthlessly) cuts Muslim women off from the rest of society.

I don't think we as a society should tolerate cults. If people don't want to be part of our society, then fine, but in those circumstances they should isolate themselves properly and basically split from us entirely. And bugger off.

So banning the burqa sounds good to me in that it helps to halt the cult of Islam, in New Zealand, as it makes it harder for Muslim women to not chat to 'outsiders' in the street.

It also sounds like a good idea if it helps to disincentivise people who believe in Sharia law from coming to New Zealand. Do we really want to be another France!?

And also it just looks horrible. Humans instinctively don't trust people who try to hide their faces. They make us feel uncomfortable. Hoodies actually have a similar effect...and to a subtle degree, even caps do.

Whether she has a legitimate

Richard Wiig's picture

Whether she has a legitimate concern or not is irrelevant. The burqa is the uniform of the enemy, so it would be entirely appropriate to ban it.

You wrote: 'Susan Devoy has

Neil's picture

You wrote:

'Susan Devoy has been handed a bum rap on this thread.' She has? Where? You don't say.

For example, she was called a shill (meaning paid to say/do things) and IMHO she has an honest intent and has been hampered and undermined by unfair constant personal criticism (as opposed to criticism of her office and its purposes).

'Do you have a problem with the content of Lindsay's speech?' No, I'm a fan and a Linz groupie from way back. 

'What I'm saying is she is there already and the question is how to get something worthwhile from the sunk cost.'

I suggested mentoring so that she can avoid the unhelpful abuse and do/say stuff Libertarians might be able to agree with. Thus justifying a call forAn effective How? You offer nothing. 'OK, her office should be abolished but that is not going to happen through hurling abuse nor through cool reasoning which is mostly undone by high emotion from every side.' So, what is your solution?

"You offer nothing. Apart from whinging here on the sidelines."

Fair enough Smiling but what I offer is just a contribution to debate, not the  ultimate solution.

'"...she needs no further qualifications to start on what is a difficult PR exercise.' What does that even mean?"

Here, I am suggesting that the respect she has from sport will help her communicate/influence a general public (not necessarily the political blog chatterati). What you are speaks more loudly than what you say; that kind of idea. Respect is huge in terms of making progress and more applicable than academic qualifications or perfectly crafted reasoning that has no 'cut through'.

@ Richard Wiig

J Cuttance's picture

OK. A fellow journo reported on a pakeha woman who donned the Muslim garb, along with the rest of the religion, because she did not want to feel above or unequal to her fellow women (she was by his account drop dead gorgeous).
That is a legitimate stance. She can protest and act against prejudices about appearance in whatever way she wants.
She is not the enemy and does not deserve a sniper's bullet.
The sentiment and the expression of it is fine. She can even back it up intellectually.
We might argue with her that what she does implies horrible things about men, who are presumed to be incited into a somehow legal sexual fervour upon catching a glimpse of any exposed hair, ankles or neck.
Or we might say that the cover-up does, perversely, sexualize such female body parts by their covering - they're sexually provocative bits and even those Western women wearing sensible shoes etc. are sluts just asking for it.
We can also suggest that she is, by submitting to an obviously sexist regime, no better off, mentally, than a dog on a chain.
But she has volunteered for this stuff.
The only constructive thing we can do in response is to do what comes naturally, i.e. try to get into her knickers.

J Cuttance

Richard Wiig's picture

The burqa is the uniform of the enemy, so it'd be appropriate to ban it right now. If any woman is forced to be under one, then that law would liberate them from it. Any woman who is donning one voluntarily is a woman who is truly the enemy, so deserves to be made uncomfortable.

Well, I don't know what's

Richard Wiig's picture

Well, I don't know what's been done to poor Susan that someone is standing up for her, but a great speech. A real shame that the ending wasn't delivered. Imagine if it had been broadcast across the nation.

Banning the Burqua

Neil Parille's picture

The problem I have with it is that implies the problem is we are doing enough to assimilate Muslims.

Parotting the ARI line

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Doug—the leading NZ Obleftivist has pronounced me "unhinged" on the subject of Islam. He parrots the ARI line on everything. No reason given for the boycott, but not hard to figure.

I take it that means they argue we should bomb Iran and Saudi Arabia while simultaneously allowing only "good Muslims" in. Which is to say they have done no quality thinking on the subject.

New Zealand has 4 - 5 million people. Would New Zealanders be safer if the government decided to allow another 5 million people, all Muslim, to enter over the next generation or two? Would the culture not change? And what of the prospects of liberty?

That the Objectivist movement has not considered these things is disturbing.

'Susan Devoy has been handed

PhilipD's picture

'Susan Devoy has been handed a bum rap on this thread.'

She has? Where? You don't say.

Do you have a problem with the content of Lindsay's speech?

If so, you don't state the problem.

'What I'm saying is she is there already and the question is how to get something worthwhile from the sunk cost.'

How? You offer nothing.

'OK, her office should be abolished but that is not going to happen through hurling abuse nor through cool reasoning which is mostly undone by high emotion from every side.'

So, what is your solution? You offer nothing. Apart from whinging here on the sidelines.

'IMHO she needs no further qualifications to start on what is a difficult PR exercise.'

What does that even mean?

@ Neil, yeah I get your point

J Cuttance's picture

@ Neil, yeah I get your point now.

I'd say this stir-up did add value, as much as it's possible to when people are talking (and walking!) past each other.

The money is to compensate

Neil's picture

The money is to compensate for the shit job. Wingeing from the sidelines is not a value-adding contribution. What I'm saying is she is there already and the question is how to get something worthwhile from the sunk cost.

Sorry about the repeat. I

Neil's picture

Sorry about the repeat. I failed to save my edits and SOLO did the rest. Needing practice or mentoring maybe :-} Can't argue with the rest of your comments. Just hope some positive steering would avoid her reign degrading into a bigger mess.

Bum rap

gregster's picture

Neil, you repeat yourself. Susan has had much mentoring. So much so that she no longer resembles her former self.

Perhaps Susan was genuinely fearing for her safety on Monday night, or she has a particularly keen sense of smell (despite her years in courts bashing around small black balls)? We ought to remember when she was appointed Race Relations Commissar she had already earned some stripes: “including concern over prior remarks by Devoy. In particular, references were made to her criticism of Waitangi Day as a national holiday, and those who wear burqas in New Zealand” Good girl! Obviously since then she’s had a little prodding by John Key so as to spout unending anti-Western egalitarian propaganda to keep the ‘slime off her back.

Btw, while I carried out this background check on Ms Devoy I gleaned from her Wikipedia page a description of one of her sons as “a flannel mess.” I admit to not knowing what that means but it doesn’t sound complimentary. Have muzzies attacked her page? If so, and considering their predictably uncivilised behaviour, this further demonstrates their unsuitability for settlement.

Streuth Neil, she's paid well

J Cuttance's picture

Streuth Neil, she's paid well into six figures but she still needs a mentor?

That came straight after saying she 'needs no further qualifications'...

...qualifications you describe as respect earned in the sporting arena, yep the kind of deep thinker we need in a position of arbitrary power.

Then you say the orifice should be abolished, presumably because you don't have a lot of respect for it.

You're correct in the sense that respect is earned.

Well she could have earned some by standing up and speaking out for her position, whatever it was. I suppose we'll never know.

Susan Devoy has been handed a

Neil's picture

Susan Devoy has been handed a bum rap on this thread and has been poorly treated just about everywhere else.
She has respect earned in the sporting arena but few if any have figured out that this respect can be useful in communicating with the public. IMHO she needs no further qualifications to start on what is a difficult PR exercise.
OK, her office should be abolished but that is not going to happen through hurling abuse nor through cool reasoning which is mostly undone by high emotion from every side. So far reason has been far from the main feature of criticism which has been mostly aimed at embarrassing her and if not booting her out or causing her to give up (or disengage as we saw at Lindsay's pandemonium festival). Her departure will not bring the office closer to closure it will only open the way for another much less honest and open commissioner. Such tactics may be amusing but they are ultimately just bullying and of no practical value.
She needs mentoring. Now who's going to stand up and try that?

Susan Devoy has been handed a

Neil's picture

Susan Devoy has been handed a bum rap on this thread and has been poorly treated just about everywhere else.
She has respect earned in the sporting arena but few if any have figured out that this respect can be useful in communicating with the public. IMHO she needs no further qualifications to start on what is a difficult PR exercise.
OK, her office should be abolished but that is not going to happen through hurling abuse nor through cool reasoning which is mostly undone by high emotion from every side. So far reason has been far from the main feature of criticism which has been mostly aimed at embarrassing her and if not booting her out then causing her to give up. (or walk out as we saw at Lindsay's pandemonium festival) Such tactics may be amusing but they are ultimately just bullying and of no practical value.
She needs mentoring. Now who's going to stand up and try that?

Joe Sobran 2000

Neil Parille's picture

Could have been talking about today -

https://video.search.yahoo.com...

three cheers

J Cuttance's picture

Courageous stuff Lindsay - I've logged on for the first time in two years to say that.

The burka issue is initially simple - wear whatever you like. Where there is no victim, there is no crime.

But what if she is compelled to wear one under the threat of violence, not just from her husband or male relatives, but from all the other outrageous unfortunates?

That truly approaches the declaration of war you suggest.

That shill Devoid walking out signalled surrender on the field of reason and argument.

She's a high ranking officer in the state's own war against its own people, especially those, like yourself, who have the temerity to opine against it.

Alex Jones and Stefan Molyneus

Neil Parille's picture

New Book on Rand

Neil Parille's picture

Greg

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Of course I wasn't referring to you! Was surprised not to see you there though. Sorry they were so pedantic. I guess everyone was a tad on edge.

Doug II

gregster's picture

I couldn't get away early enough to avoid traffic into the city. By the time I (almost) got there the orange juice and light beers were being cleared away and the security person said I'd missed the registration, but a blonde beckoned me in through the door window. If I had have charged in it may have set off the muzzies. [I do not believe Linz is referring to me, my Faecesbook participation notwithstanding.]

Doug, Phil and Neil

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Doug—the leading NZ Obleftivist has pronounced me "unhinged" on the subject of Islam. He parrots the ARI line on everything. No reason given for the boycott, but not hard to figure.

Phil—love it when you talk dirty to me!

Neil—I myself told the Muslims that they'd have plenty of opportunity to make their case when I'd finished, which would be any moment now. They weren't going to be satisfied with anything less than my being shut down immediately.

Question re NZ Obfleftivists

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

This event was boycotted by our home-grown Obleftivists

Could you explain how that played out? Did they give a reason for not attending? Did they accuse you of "collectivism" or some such stupidit?. I'm more interested in that then the by now expected Muslim savagery.

defending offending

Neil's picture

as I was saying on FB (well you were there too Eye ) "the right to offend is a right to defend" seems like a compact way to say we must fight back or lose everything we value. Anyway, it is impossible to avoid offending (as you said) those with the intent to be offended.

I've been wondering how I would have chaired the meeting you describe. Maybe to ask you to pause and to invite the rowdies to line up behind the microphone to express their indignation in any terms they wished. From their own mouths, they would have finished your speech most convincingly and confirmed your point. Sadly I doubt if any mortal power could have seen you finish as you planned.

Noteworthy

Lindsay Perigo's picture

This event was boycotted by our home-grown Obleftivists, the ARI-shill Hillary-enablers, the Islamappeasers, the cowards afraid of Islamofilth reprisals, the "Islam = Aristotle" fuckwits ...

Sigh.

You Magnificent Bastard...

PhilipD's picture

You Magnificent Bastard...

I sat in the third row from the front...

Olivia's picture

and I can tell you the force of intelligence, wit and intensity with which Linz delivered this was magnificent! The whole audience was having a laugh at different points, even Susan Devoy. (It was a relief to everyone I think to hear a speaker who knew how to actually speak.)

But then it was derailed by some woman who rudely interrupted from the audience on the basis that she was a Muslima. She was joined by a few others with her, and the moderators didn't put them in their place. Very rude!
They kept calling out "Trump, Trump" - not just to Lindsay but to me (because I got my hands on the microphone) - which told me that the name Trump now has become the epithet of choice in responding to criticisms of Islam - my god that man has obviously done something right. Smiling

Most disappointing that Linz was not allowed to finish. So typical of lovers of Islam that they try to, and succeed in, shutting down debate. The big excuse given by a few people, including Susan Devoy, was that Lindsay had strayed from the topic. Like hell!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.