Naziland's Evil Woke-Fascist Labour Regime: Bringing '1984' to 2021

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sun, 2021-03-07 07:15

[Image from Dieuwe de Boer's Right Minds site, https://www.rightminds.nz/

[Submission to Parliamentary Select Committee, Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill, March 8, 2021]

"Religious faith is, precisely because we are still-evolving creatures, ineradicable. It will never die out, or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other. For this reason I would not prohibit it, even if I thought I could. Very generous of me, you may say. But will the religious grant me the same indulgence? I ask because there is a real and serious difference between me and my religious friends, and the real and serious friends are sufficiently honest to admit it. I would be quite content to go to their children's bar mitzvahs, to marvel at their Gothic cathedrals, to 'respect' their belief that the Koran was dictated, though exclusively in Arabic, to an illiterate merchant, or to interest myself in Wicca and Hindu and Jain consolations. And as it happens, I will continue to do this without insisting on the polite reciprocal condition—which is that they in turn leave me alone. But this, religion is ultimately incapable of doing. As I write these words, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon."

—Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great

It would be a tragedy and travesty of historic enormity if the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill were to transpire to be a ruse by which the Religious Woke snuff out what little of our freedom of speech remains. Alas, that appears to be their exact intent.

The Religion of Woke was an ominously growing spectre in Mr Hitchens' time, but could still be easily batted off with a modicum of richly deserved mockery and humour, especially of the kind Hitch was so skilled at. But its devotees now behave in exactly the manner Christopher ascribes to Christians, Muslims et al to whom "live and let live" is wholly alien;  they seek to ban mockery and humour, and have already succeeded in doing so to a scary degree by sheer intimidation without any need for  laws—their "Cancel Culture" is the modern equivalent of the Inquisition. Dissidents, apostates and non-conformists generally are not burned at the stake; rather, their books are burned; they are "crushed" and "destroyed" on social media and "unpersonned" in society-at-large in the manner of George Orwell's 1984—which the Zealous Woke are treating as an instruction manual rather than the dire cautionary tale of totalitarianism it was. Internationally, even fictional characters such as the Muppets and some of Dr Seuss's cast have been cancelled by Woke-Fascism just in the last few weeks; here in New Zealand commentators John Banks, Sean Plunket and Michael Bassett have been shoved down the Memory Hole in short order. Heaven help us when laws such as that proposed here add legal legitimacy to this moral depravity.

The proposed Bill supposedly brings the Films, Videos and Publications Act 1993 into the digital age, extending the entirely laudable protections it affords against the sexual abuse and exploitation of children to Cyberspace. Nothing wrong and everything right with that. But it behoves us to remember that the 1993 Act also proscribes any publication that:  

 (c) degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person [hurts anyone's feelings?] ...

(e) represents (whether directly or by implication) that members of any particular class of the public are inherently inferior to other members of the public by reason of any characteristic of members of that class, being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in section 21(1) of the Human Rights Act 1993. [You wonder what happened to Irish jokes?]

  
And let us remind ourselves how the updated Bill was touted by the Minister who introduced it when she did so earlier this year:

New Bill to Counter Violent Extremism Online Heads To Select Committee

Thursday, 11 February 2021, 3:48 pm

Press Release: New Zealand Government

Hon Jan Tinetti

Minister for Internal Affairs

“New Zealanders can now have their say on a new Bill to make livestreaming objectionable content a criminal offence and better protect all of us from inadvertently viewing harmful online content,” says Minister for Internal Affairs, Jan Tinetti.

The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill is part of a wider government programme to address violent extremism. It was read for the first time in Parliament today and has been referred to Select Committee for public consultation.

“The Bill addresses specific legislative and regulatory gaps in our current online content regulation that were highlighted in the wake of the Christchurch Mosque terrorist attacks on March 15. This Bill will allow Government to act swiftly in the future if another incident, like the livestreaming of the March 15 terror attacks, were to happen again.

”Objectionable material is already illegal to possess and distribute in New Zealand – it is the highest classification that can be given to a publication under the Classification Act. This includes child sexual exploitation material and violent extremism or terrorist content."

The Bill amends the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 so that:

• The Chief Censor will be able to more quickly notify the public of illegal content that could cause high levels of harm;

• The livestreaming of objectionable content will be a criminal offence;

• Government will be able to issue take down notices, requiring the removal of objectionable content online

• Social media companies will come within the scope of current laws on objectionable content; and

• Legal parameters are established for a potential web filter to block objectionable content in the future, subject to further policy development and consultation.

“We have worked with industry partners to create the Bill, which will ensure law enforcers and industry partners can rapidly prevent and fight harm from illegal online content.

“The Bill has now been referred to select committee, and I encourage the public to have their say through the select committee process,” Jan Tinetti says.

Notes for editors

• The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 (the Classification Act) governs censorship in New Zealand. Under the Classification Act, it is an offence to make, possess, supply or distribute an objectionable publication (including digital content). Such an offence is based on whether the availability of a given publication or digital content is likely to be injurious to the public good.

• The Classification Act contains mechanisms to deter people from creating or sharing this illegal content, to allow authorities to investigate those who do and to prosecute them where appropriate.

• You can view the Bill at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2020/0268/latest/LMS294551.html and the relevant Cabinet paper with attachments at https://www.dia.govt.nz/Proactive-Releases#Min 

  
So it is not really "violent extremism" that is being targeted; it's anything at all that the government deems to be "objectionable" and "injurious to the public good"—i.e., anything it disapproves of! It's not the livestreaming of violent extremists this regime is worried about; it's the livestreaming of a debate involving Don Brash!

There is no "violent extremism" in New Zealand, unless you count the Woke-Fascist Blackshirts who forcibly close down any debate involving Don Brash (screeching uninvited at someone else's event through deafening megaphones is force, in my book). The perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque massacre, cited by the Minister in justifying this Bill, is the only example of "violent extremism" we have ever seen. But he was not a New Zealander; he was an Australian visitor, who, thanks to lax implementation of existing and already-adequate protocols by authorities, managed to obtain the weaponry in New Zealand with which to carry out his dreadful slaughter: an act of barbarism wholly atypical of life in New Zealand. Disgustingly, however, true to form, this regime just couldn't wait to use his murderous rampage as a pretext to confiscate the guns of law-abiding, peaceful New Zealanders; to politicise the police, who then morphed literally into Orwell's Thought Police and went knocking on doors to interrogate citizens about their political views;  and to launch an assault on our freedom of speech generally—which assault is already well advanced and which is the true purpose of this Bill, awaiting only the addition of "Hate Speech" laws to kill free speech off altogether.

Simpson and Grierson highlight:

The Bill introduces a new take-down regime that applies to online publications, with the definition of online publication expressly including livestreamed content and a copy of livestreamed content. The Bill provides that an Inspector of Publications may issue a take-down notice in relation to a particular online publication to an online content host where: an interim classification assessment has been made by the Classifications Office that the content is likely to be objectionable, or it has been classified as objectionable; or the relevant Inspector believes on reasonable grounds that the content is objectionable.

An Inspector of Publications is any person appointed by the Department of Internal Affairs for this purpose. The police are also deemed to be Inspectors of Publications, but not for the purposes of the new take-down notice regime.

Our police officers, Inspectors of Publications? Thought Police indeed! With the Ministry of Internal Affairs playing Orwell's Ministry of Truth! Note, by the way, there is not just one Inspector of Publications. There can be as many of these unelected, unknown, unaccountable censors policing our published opinions as the Ministry of Internal Affairs chooses to appoint. And I don't say "unaccountable" lightly. See for yourself, from the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill:

Under Bill safe harbour provisions in Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 will not apply to objectionable online content

Section 24 of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 (the HDC Act) states that online content hosts cannot be charged under New Zealand law for hosting harmful content on their platforms if they follow certain steps when a complaint is made. This creates the potential for exemption for online content hosts from any criminal or civil liability if they break the law under the Act (which is concerned with more serious content) but follow the steps outlined in the HDC Act. Under the Bill, section 24 of the HDC Act will not apply to the operation of the Act. No amendments will need to be made to the HDC Act. This will mean that enforcing the new offence or modified offences in the Act will not be limited by the HDC Act safe harbour provisions for online content hosts. It will ensure that online content hosts can be prosecuted for hosting objectionable content if they are liable for doing so.

So no matter whose livelihoods are destroyed by the Thought Police, they can't be sued or held to account in any way!

"Objectionable," "injurious to the public good," and "online harm," of course, in today's context, actually mean: any point of view, however peaceably held, to the right of Joseph Stalin's; any criticism of the Chinese Communist Party; any criticism of Islam; any criticism of the current Woke regime; anything that offends anyone who isn't white, male and unambiguously heterosexual. (I am old enough to remember the time I could have been jailed for acting on my sexual orientation; thankfully, that was all put right eventually, but we now confront the opposite travesty: straightness is treated as a defect for which one should be pilloried and cancelled.) Gay males are not off the hook if they are white; all whites are deemed to be an intrinsically racist stain on humanity because they are white; they ought to be turned down for jobs even if they're the best-qualified, and generally treated as second-class citizens—"white" is deemed to be inherently defective exactly in the manner proscribed in the aforementioned 1993 legislation!

Among those leading the racist charge is the New Zealand School of Music, which boasts of its intention to "de-centre whiteness" (it's not looking good for Bach, Beethoven and Brahms!). Whatever happened to judging people by the content of their character (or their actual musical prowess) and not the colour of their skin, or their gender, or sexual orientation or anything else they have no control over?!

Legislation such as is proposed here will only encourage the armies of snowflakes Woke brainwashing has engendered to find something to be offended by and poutingly seek to turn their infantile umbrage into a cancellation.

I first read 1984 in secondary school—it was on the required reading list. Now, under this very Bill, it could easily be deemed "objectionable" by an Inspector of Publications and banned. How long, after all, can the Woke-Fascists in Big Government, Big Tech, Big Business, Academia and the lickspittle media tolerate the ready availability of a work that foretold them with such devastating accuracy over 70 years ago:

It was only after a decade of national wars, civil wars, revolutions and counterrevolutions in all parts of the world that Ingsoc and its rivals emerged as fully worked-out political theories. But they had been foreshadowed by the various systems, generally called totalitarian, which had appeared earlier in the century, and the main outlines of the world which would emerge from the prevailing chaos had long been obvious. What kind of people would control this world had been equally obvious. The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralized government. As compared with their opposite numbers in past ages, they were less avaricious, less tempted by luxury, hungrier for pure power, and, above all, more conscious of what they were doing and more intent on crushing opposition. This last difference was cardinal. By comparison with that existing today, all the tyrannies of the past were half-hearted and inefficient. The ruling groups were always infected to some extent by liberal ideas, and were content to leave loose ends everywhere, to regard only the overt act, and to be uninterested in what their subjects were thinking. Even the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was tolerant by modern standards. Part of the reason for this was that in the past no government had the power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance. The invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further. With the development of television, and the technical advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end. Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough to be worth watching, could be kept for twenty-four hours a day under the eyes of the police and in the sound of official propaganda, with all other channels of communication closed. The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time. [Italics mine]

That possibility is being  realised before our very eyes. We are on the verge of 1984. Pass legislation like this and we'll be all the way there. What to do instead?

Repair to Section 14 of our Bill of Rights:

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.

By all means legislate exceptions for child pornography, incitement to violence, shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre, the open advocacy of any kind of initiation of force, and ensure that such prohibitions apply to the Internet. But that's it! Stop there! Most, if not all of this is already covered. These things aside, untrammelled freedom of speech should be sacrosanct. Instead of killing it off altogether, let's declare a Free Speech Emergency for the express purpose of restoring it! Let's have Hyde Park-type Speakers' Corners in every public square in the country! Let their arches sport such unassailable truths and precepts as, "There is no such thing as a right not to be offended" (Salman Rushdie); "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all" (Noam Chomsky); "I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it" (mis-attributed to Voltaire, though it distills his position accurately); and, "A gun is not an argument" (Ayn Rand).


Critical analysis

Rosie's picture

I enjoyed your article very much and the imaginative employment of your analogy.

I have just one observation to make: the definition of "objectionable" in the Act has not been amended by the Bill. So I would be interested to understand why you think the Bill has somehow increased the scope and extent of the powers of government to decide what is objectionable (and include free speech).

Isn't the Bill simply to enlarge the existing censorship model to set up an office to censor the internet on the basis the internet now makes publication available to every person who owns a computer or telephone and has access to an internet provider? Thus more people are required now than before to supervise the existing law. I.e., The Bill provides additional bureaucratic manpower to remove objectionable material online but it doesn’t extend the type of material that is objectionable (as defined at least!) in any way.

The definition of objectionable in the 1993 Act (unchanged by the Bill) reads as follows:

3. Meaning of objectionable

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a publication is objectionable if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), a publication deals with a matter such as sex for the purposes of that subsection if—
(a) the publication is or contains 1 or more visual images of 1 or more children or young persons who are nude or partially nude; and
(b) those 1 or more visual images are, alone, or together with any other contents of the publication, reasonably capable of being regarded as sexual in nature.

(1B) Subsection (1A) is for the avoidance of doubt.

(2) A publication shall be deemed to be objectionable for the purposes of this Act if the publication promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support,—
(a) the exploitation of children, or young persons, or both, for sexual purposes; or
(b) the use of violence or coercion to compel any person to participate in, or submit to, sexual conduct; or
(c) sexual conduct with or upon the body of a dead person; or
(d) the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct; or
(e) bestiality; or
(f) acts of torture or the infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty.

Do you have a problem with the meaning of objectionable and the law prior to the Bill? If not, why is it a problem to have some extra people employed to administer the law regarding publications online?

Or do you believe there should be one law for the magazines/newspapers who formerly had 100% control over publications and another for the private citizen? That, I think, is the issue for discussion.

Your article suggests that internet publications/posts/blogs/websites should not be considered a publication if written by an individual private citizen but "free speech" and should therefore be treated differently under the law from a corporation or other entity in the business of publication.

I would be interested to hear how (and why) you distinguish why a publication on the internet should be treated differently depending on which entity published it and also why there is a problem given the definition of "objectionable" (which has not changed since 1993).

Lingerie joke incident

Rosie's picture

Hi Linz

I read the following story this evening and thought you might appreciate it since it combines a few of your favourite topics: wokeism, humourless feminists/wimmen, and professors from universities - all in five short paragraphs!

It, including the title, is taken directly from the Wikipedia page of Professor Simon Sharoni, one of wokeism's feminist religious leaders.

Lingerie joke incident

"On April 5, 2018, while attending the annual conference of the International Studies Association (ISA), Professor Richard Ned Lebow, a Professor at King's College London, and Professor Simona Sharoni were on a crowded elevator when someone in the elevator offered to press their floor buttons; in response, Lebow jokingly answered, “ladies’ lingerie.”

"Following that, Sharoni filed a complaint against him, arguing that his use of sexual innuendo in a public space at an academic conference was a violation of ISA's Code of Conduct. An ISA committee found him in violation of its Code of Conduct and asked him to apologize to Sharoni.

"Following the complaint Lebow sent an e-mail to Sharoni explaining the context of his remark. In his e-mail he explained that in large department stores in the 1940s and 1950s there were lift operators that would request which department the customers wanted and it had become a standard gag line to reply "ladies' lingerie" when someone asked which floor you wanted.

"Lebow indicated that he will not apologize. Initial media coverage reported Sharoni's action as an example of political correctness. Columnist Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post sided with Lebow. "Let’s maintain some sense of proportion and civility," she said. Not every offensive comment was intended that way, and Sharoni should have checked with Lebow before bringing a disciplinary procedure, said Marcus. Marcus also quoted an email from Sharoni saying that “political correctness” was nothing more than a “blanket excuse by those who refuse to rethink and change their racist, sexist and homophobic beliefs and practices. From inappropriate jokes in public spaces to unwanted sexual advances and assault, men in positions of power are outraged when they are being held accountable, even if the sanction is as minor as a request for an apology.” Of more than 2,300 comments on Marcus's story about the incident, the vast majority condemned Sharoni.

"The incident went public. Sharoni said that in response, she had received hate mail, and that this was an example of “the impact on women and other marginalized groups” who witness abuse, and would discourage them from speaking up, even if they follow written policy and even if they are right. Lebow said that Sharoni and ISA should have tried to resolve the matter informally, since “international relations scholars know that dialogue is the first step in addressing conflict and coercion the last. Yet, ISA went right to coercion at the outset.”"

New Zealand Becomes Naziland

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Don't speak to your neighbours. Rather, snitch on them!

Where are the Free Speech Union, the National Party, ACT and all the rest of the controlled opposition on this??!!

A Product of that very brainwashing

Judi McFarland's picture

Sadly for us, jackass is the epitome of the very brainwashing that began in the '60's and has culminated in the manifestation of bad ideas rattling around the space where a brain should have developed. Yes, 'moron' is appropo: 'a person who is intellectually stagnant at around the age of 13' or 'has an intelligence quotient of around 50-69.' And this is what people voted for - possibly because it is a familiar face, espousing familiar bromides (albeit with a lot of arm-waving and facial gesticulations for psychological effect to distract from the vacuous content) - having all graduated the same government alignment centers.

The anti-dote of course is for each individual who has a clue, to work harder at his/her own self-preservation and value-achievement, until it's possible to once again breathe freely.

While it's still possible to exercise some choice: I choose a good book to read, to listen to great music, watch an old-time musical, contemplate the great works of art, or better yet: create something worthy of my soul. And I don't grant the morons a second more of my precious time than what they've earned . . . Smiling

jackass intimidation and scary reminder of being back in school

Judi McFarland's picture

I couldn't believe my ears when I heard jackass admonish everyone publicly: "You don't want to have your name on this list. We'll read the names out for everyone to hear!" - (so do what you're told you stupid 5-year-olds, or else!)

?Really.

I'm happy to say, Lindsay, we are not all as dumb as the rocks that jackass evidently projects us to be. It is a sad indictment on the population, though, that compliance with insanity is so compelling, versus fidelity to reality, truth and self-confidence.

I have been known to reject the idea of the 'kiwi' as a representation, for obvious reasons, of the nation's aspirations: small brain, big bottom, flightless bird, comes out at night, easily scared back into it's hole. However, of late, it seems more than appropriate.

Voice from the Gulag

Lindsay Perigo's picture

As people, abandoned by Borderless Beijing Biden the Bastard, cling to the sides of aeroplanes, attempting to flee Islamo-Fascism; as Taiwan, abandoned by Borderless Beijing Biden the Bastard, is about to fall to the Chinese Communist Party (facilitators of the Wuhan Virus) just as Hong Kong has fallen; as fry-quacking Woke-Fascist Comrade Jihadi Jacinda Podesta, applauded by Borderless Beijing Biden the Bastard, commands Kiwis not to speak to their neighbours [but by all means snitch on them]—and Kiwis meekly comply—here's a salient reminder of what enabled Joseph Stalin to proceed with his tyranny unperturbed:

We lacked enough love of freedom. And even more—a consciousness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we made tiara to be submissive. We submitted with pleasure! We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

—Alexander Solzhenitsyn, 'The Gulag Archipelago'

Take back the Shire

Jmaurone's picture

Seeing the tyrannical news coming out of NZ; makes me sick! But...also well as the protests there and Australia...here's hoping that you Hobbits there take back the metaphorical Shire.

Jihadi Jacinda's Jackboots: World Famous!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Jackboot Jihadi Jacinda: "Don't speak to your neighbours." But by all means snitch on them! Nazi Germany of the 1930s, Communist East Germany of the 1950s. The world is watching! Iran, North Korea, Communist China and the Islamic Emirate of Aghanistan applaud!

"New Zealand is now a police state":

Note, the following opening ten minutes from Tucker's show today has NOT been released by Fox (controlled opposition) while other less contentious parts have. This bootleg reproduction, oddly, has thus far been allowed to stay up on Woke-Fascist YouTube, but has been altered so that the images of Marie Antoinette Pelosi and her maskless Woke-Fascist rich white donors being served in luxury by masked slaves have been replaced by a still photo of Donald Trump!

Edit: boom!!

Another Excellent Piece on Big Sister Apartheid Ardern

Lindsay Perigo's picture

This one in the Australian Spectator by the indefatigable Amy Brooke, who has fought the good fight for decades to protect and preserve our sacred liberties, now under unprecedented assault by this evil Woke-Fascist regime and its lickspittles in the media and Academia:

https://spectator.com.au/autho...

The attack on free speech is extraordinarily damaging, because of course it is basically a totalitarian move, in line with George Orwell's chillingly prophetic NINETY EIGHTY-FOUR.

No - it's not that Orwell got the date wrong. The underground work of the far-Left to take over this country, hijacking our democracy, has been under way for several decades. The attack on our education system, substituting for academic learning propaganda directed at brainwashing children according to the agenda of Marxist activists - i.e. Communists - has been gathering in force from the 60s onwards.

Little by little the ramping up of incremental changes, in line with the Communist Gramsci's instructions to his followers to conceal their agenda of open warfare - and, instead, move to what has been over-late, at last recognised as "the long march though the institutions " - has brought about the situation we are in today.

The Labour Party leader, with her coalition of some equally as dedicatedly far-Left - assisted by the compliance of the usual patsies found within any political party, adept at keeping their heads down - is now bringing into fruition some decades of thoroughly undemocratic practices.

It has not helped the country that whenever the National Party assumed power in turn, its intellectual firepower was insufficient to make its members take on board the importance of reversing the Left' s power grabs.

In reality, in some ways National has been equally culpable in promoting divisive racial polities, and too easily rubber-stamping treaty settlements that arguably should never have been made - for example, the controversial "full and final" Ngai Tahu treaty settlement claim - which of course turned out to be nothing of the sort.

On very good evidence, described at the time as basically "a swindle, it was facilitated by inept Crown lawyers, admitting they had no knowledge of the tribe's history, and almost incredibly, accepting the tribe's far from accurate version of events ...

https://spectator.com.au/autho...

Excellent Piece on Apartheid Ardern and Her Zombies

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It's symptomatic of what Karl du Fresne writes about that you'll never see this in a New Zealand publication. Note the part about the media bribery slush fund. To say journalism is dead is to insult death:

"In his best-selling 1976 book The Passionless People, the late author and journalist Gordon McLauchlan characterised his fellow New Zealanders as ‘smiling zombies’: polite, cheerful and hard-working but smug and compliant. It was cruel but not inaccurate.

"It takes a lot to provoke New Zealanders politically. The last time it happened was in 1981, when a tour by the South African Springbok rugby team tore the country apart.

"Since then, Kiwis have largely reverted to their default setting of complacency and passivity. Which makes it all the easier for Jacinda Ardern’s Labour government to push through an agenda of radical transformation quite unlike any the country has experienced.

"New Zealanders returning after a few years abroad might wonder whether they’ve blundered into a parallel universe. A government that is pitifully thin on ministerial ability and experience is busy re-inventing the wheel, and doing it at such speed that the public has barely had time to catch its breath. To quote one seasoned political observer: ‘It seems like a hostile takeover of our country is underway and most people feel powerless to do anything about it’.

"The most visible change might crudely be described as Maorification, much of it aggressively driven by activists of mixed Maori and European descent who appear to have disowned their problematic white colonial lineage. Self-identifying as Maori not only taps into a fashionable culture of grievance and victimism but enables them to exercise power and influence that would otherwise not be available to them.

"In mainstream media, Maori place names, most previously unheard of by most New Zealanders and unused even by people of Maori descent, have displaced official names bestowed by British colonists — ignoring the inconvenient fact that New Zealand cities and towns are British, not Maori, creations.

"The government has done its best to ensure continued media support for this ideological project by creating a $55 million slush fund, supposedly to support ‘public interest journalism’ but available only to news organisations that commit themselves to the promotion of the so-called principles (never satisfactorily defined) of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. What has been framed as an idealistic commitment to the survival of journalism is, in other words, a cynical and opportunistic bid for control over the news media at a time when the industry is floundering. This is a government so shameless, or perhaps so convinced of its own untouchability, that it is brazenly buying the media’s compliance. ..."

https://www.spectator.com.au/2...

Orange Man Bad Is Back!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The landslide winner of the 2020 election rips in to election fraud and Woke-Fascist Critical Race Theory around the two hour mark. More fearless than ever! Watch before Woke-Fascist YouTube take it down!

Imprisonable According to Jihadi Jacinda Podesta

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Sign this Petition!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Seymour is a loathsome, cynical Globalist reptile, but at the moment, in Parliament, he's all we've got:

https://freespeech.act.org.nz/

Woke-Fascists: One Step Back and a Giant Leap Forward

Lindsay Perigo's picture

From Tim Wikiriwhi:

"I cant believe it!

"This must have been a bitter pill of Commy Marc Daalder to swallow!

"The whole bill is not dead, but a significant section of it is."

Internet censorship provisions to be scrapped

Marc Daalder

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/int...

... Tinetti told Newsroom that the volume of submissions against the filtering provisions helped shift her thinking.

"The filtering provisions have been the most submitted upon aspect of the Bill – and the majority of the submissions that mentioned the filtering provisions were opposed to it," she said.

"While filtering can be a useful tool to prevent access to and mitigate harms from illegal objectionable content online, currently the approach taken in the Bill does not provide sufficient safeguards to prevent potential impacts on freedom of expression." ...

But then, alas, we learned the Woke-Fascists are proceeding with their disgusting hate speech laws, under which opinions will be criminalised: the offended sensibilities of lobotomised snowflakes will, unless this Woke-Fascism is defeated, become law, and outspoken humans will be sent to jail for causing offence. To invoke Salman Rushdie again, "There is no such thing as a right not to be offended."

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Free Speech Union
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 at 13:40
Subject: Hate Speech laws will not make New Zealand a safer and more tolerant society
To:

MEDIA RELEASE: Hate speech laws will not make New Zealand a safer and more tolerant society

25 JUNE 2021
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Free Speech Union is reacting with concern to the Government's plan to make speech criminal and says the proposals will go no way towards making New Zealand a safer and more tolerant society.

The law would change so that a person who intentionally incites, stirs up, maintains or normalises hatred against any protected group of people, would be liable for up to three years in prison if they did so by being threatening, abusive or even insulting.

Spokesperson for Union, David Cumin says, “The government claims these changes to hate speech laws will promote social cohesion. The opposite is true — legislating hatred out of existence is a hopeless expectation. What's more, the government is yet to provide examples of the speech they intend these provisions to capture.”

“The ambiguity of certain words in the legislation such as ‘insulting’ imports a real risk that speech may fall within the ambit for prosecution that was never intended to be criminalised by those envisioning the proposals.”

“Free speech has to mean the ability to insult. Democracy can’t work if the powers at be can deem certain arguments or speech as illegal.”

“Alarmingly, being found guilty of hate speech would carry a higher penalty than some violent offences. In any event, a lengthy prison sentence is unlikely to be the best mechanism to make an intolerant person rethink their views, if anything, it will push them into dark corners that would make violence a more tangible possibility.”

“New Zealanders should prepare for the very real possibility that those who take offence to tweets, crass statements or unsavoury protests will run to law-enforcement to have their offence indulged. The Union has already been contacted by members of Police concerned about having to enforce these proposals. While the ambit for successful prosecution may be high, overseas experience has shown that the introduction of such laws has resulted in law enforcement consistently missing the mark, and has created a structure allowing for legal harassment of the state against citizens, even if they are ultimately found not guilty.”

“The Free Speech Union will be fighting these proposals and invite all Kiwis who value this human right to join us.”

ENDS

Media contact:
Dane Giraud
027 419 9641
Copyright © 2021 Free Speech Coalition, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you have donated to or shown interest in the Free Speech Coalition.

Our mailing address is:
Free Speech Coalition
90 The Terrace, Wellington
Wellington Central, Wellington 6011
New Zealand

This Is How You Fight Back!!!

Mr_Lineberry's picture

This Pastor in Calgary, Canada wasn't taking any nonsense from the Police over Easter; ejected the Gestapo from his Church. They slunk away in disgrace and shame. This is how you fight back against the filth, folks! (hint: by standing up for yourself, not cowering away as you've been doing). Video is 2 mins 20 seconds and well worth watching if you are genuinely concerned about your freedoms being lost.

Not surprised

Jmaurone's picture

Everyone was dismissing the influence of Cage and Shoenberg, because most people really didn't enjoy atonalism, or take it seriously as a threat, etc, but here we are, with musical notation itself being called "racist". But I knew this was coming, as far back as when I was talking with lefty-university types back in 98-99, who were telling me that classical music was "colonial", imperialism, etc, because it mirrored political structures of oppression, invoking Adorno idea's of "total freedom" in music (re: noise), etc. So it's no surprise. Hell, they're attacking objectivity itself...

Well, you know what they say, "you can't reason with the unreasonable." And once they throw objectivity out the window, all bets are off...

Sheet Music = White Supremacism!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

When reporting the embrace last year of Only Black Lives Matter by the New Zealand School of Music and its enactment of a programme to "de-center [American spelling!] Whiteness," I observed that things weren't looking good for Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. Little did I realise what an understatement this was. We now hear that Oxford University, no less, wants to shove musical notation itself down the Memory Hole of 1984:

https://www.breitbart.com/euro...

The University of Oxford is considering proposals that would remove sheet music from its curriculum over woke claims that teaching the Western form of musical notation has roots in “colonialism” and “complicity in white supremacy”.

In response to widespread Black Lives Matter protesters and riots last year in the United Kingdom, music educators at Oxford University have joined the wider iconoclastic movement which has been sweeping through British academia.

The music department at the prestigious and ancient university has seen calls to remove music notation from the curriculum as professors seek to focus less on white European heritage and culture, according to documents seen by The Telegraph.

The woke educators went on to claim that musical notation itself is a “colonialist representational system” that has “complicity to white supremacy”. The claim is similar to leftist pronouncements in America that mathematics is inherently racist.

The Oxford academics went on to pronounce that teaching the piano or conducting orchestras could cause “students of colour great distress” as the skills involved are closely tied to “white European music”.

Professors at the university said that the classical music which is taught at Oxford, which includes Beethoven, Mozart, and Schubert, among others, is too focused on “white European music from the slave period”.

The assertion is somewhat dubious, as Western classical music, as well as the practice of sheet music notation, predates the Atlantic slave trade, stemming back to musical traditions from the medieval period such as Gregorian chanting.

In response to student demands “arising from international Black Lives Matter demonstrations,” the Oxford faculty is also considering placing a heavier emphasis on “non-Eurocentric” musical traditions such as Hip-Hop and Jazz, as well as “African and African Diasporic Musics” and “Global Musics”.

The curriculum could also place more importance on pop music and culture, with suggested topics including “Artists Demanding Trump Stop Using Their Songs” at campaign rallies and “Dua Lipa’s Record-Breaking Livestream”.

Mocking the woke push from the university, London mayoral candidate and Heritage Party leader David Kurten said: “For goodness sake. Oxford is supposed to be one of our top Universities that promotes academic rigour and excellence. It should not be peddling woke nonsense like ‘classical music is racist and ‘sheet music is non-inclusive'”.

The proposals come amid a wider push throughout British academia to “decolonise the curriculum” in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement.

In February, for example, the University of Leicester caused uproar after it proposed cutting courses in Medieval English literature — removing seminal works such as Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales and the Anglo-Saxon epic poem Beowulf — in favour of focusing more heavily on texts relating to sexuality, diversity, race, and ethnicity.

The woke push has also seen the introduction of speech codes, with the University of Manchester telling staff to refrain from using gendered words such as “father” or “mother” in favour of more “inclusive language”.

https://www.breitbart.com/euro...

The moronry of this is unimaginable—but no lover of freedom and civilisation should content himself with faulting its utter brainlessness: it must be called out as the unspeakable evil that it is, with the only caveat being that this is being unkind to evil!

Milo vs Woke-Fascists

Lindsay Perigo's picture

This is cosmos-shattering:

Nigel vs Woke-Fascists

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Nigel is taking on the "child-molesters of the mind," as I've always called them, the harbingers of 1984. The vicious legislation of which I speak in the primary post, not to mention the nauseating Woke-Fascism of the puke-making Meghyn Markle whom Nigel discusses here, is the culmination of decades of indoctrination by the child-molesters of the mind:

Outstanding essay...

Olivia's picture

The ground you cover with this is both sweeping and detailed.
Free Speech emergency indeed!
And in all nations.

Marvelous

Mr_Lineberry's picture

Lindsay! so, are you appearing before the committee in person? an oral submission?

Comment viewing options

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