tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post6168278984564907438..comments2024-03-29T10:51:27.752+13:00Comments on Not PC: Will the Coalition for Free Speech instead play a part in its muzzling?Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-23266456019192993752018-07-28T20:34:39.201+12:002018-07-28T20:34:39.201+12:00The argument here is don't poke the bear. And ...The argument here is don't poke the bear. And the solution is let the bear have his way.<br /><br />The council taxes. The council builds facilities. The council decides upon the basis of political speech inciting disharmony that the facilities will be denied those claiming to be disharmonised.<br /><br />It's called the thug's veto.Thomas Jeffersonhttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiLyOq9sMHcAhVH5rwKHc-xDIIQFjAAegQIBBAC&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson&usg=AOvVaw36Blzlj01M22cnbKGD8JKLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-9129583174258335472018-07-16T15:54:26.796+12:002018-07-16T15:54:26.796+12:00I think the debate here has become clouded by libe...I think the debate here has become clouded by liberterian ideology at the expense of common sense. I think the council should have reigned in Goff but, being gutless, didn't. There was no process here, just decree. <br /> The fact is that the council owns the venue (whether you like the idea or not) but that ownership is effectively a trust arrangement with ownership being for the benefit of the rate payers who fund it via rates with the expectation it will be used to generate revenue to offset costs. The council does not have a veto right that a private owner would because of harmless things like perceptions of bad taste, religious conviction, hurt feelings and so on.<br /><br />Therefore, apart from the threat of violence by the Peace Action deluded, (which the police should deal with if it becomes actual violence) there is no reason why this evening cannot proceed as there's no risk beyond a bit of criminal damage or assault which can be avoided or addressed via the Crimes Act unless the cops twiddle their thumbs. <br /><br />Given the above Goff's decision is clearly a political one related to him being a hard leftie - he just doesn't want to have these two pose questions that may challenge the left's ideology because he's frightened of consequences from other lefties further into the trough than he is and, more worryingly, the Islamic Council who hate attention being given to Islam's claims, its writings and the delightful Sharia Law.<br /><br />As we saw on the weekend most free speech advocates are busy making a living and can't raise the numbers to look threatening so a legal challenge is sensible. We can always debate which fight to pick but I think this one is worth a look because its such a personal attack by one politician acting in a most partisan and arrogant manner to bar people from enjoying an evening in a venue they may well have paid for. Personally I'd love to see Goff get trashed - it would slow down these petty bureaucrats whom we simply would be better off without.<br /><br />3:16Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-73775879084460858582018-07-16T11:47:46.887+12:002018-07-16T11:47:46.887+12:00This scenario highlights the elementary mistake ma...This scenario highlights the elementary mistake made by the organisers of this speaking tour - by having it on privately owned property, this whole mess could have been avoided. There will now be a lot of privately raised money thrown down a black hole, along with lots of Auckland ratepayer money. It would perhaps have been better to have first established in court the ironclad right to have held these meetings with Molyneaux and Southern on privately owned property. <br /><br />It did seen odd to have Trotter, who has defended Communist totalitarian states such as Cuba in the past, as a figurehead for free speech. Richard McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16897506962769133615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-83272555560742688322018-07-16T11:23:19.330+12:002018-07-16T11:23:19.330+12:00I agree with Mark Hubbard's very last comment,...I agree with Mark Hubbard's very last comment, and I agree it's a simple as that. When the state gets involved in activity they shouldn't (owning speaking venues) it complicates things, and there's no perfect answer. In that situation you simply have to make a judgement call on what is the most important value to defend or attack in the context of the times. This is not abandoning principle, but choosing the most important principle that can be practically applied in that context. It's very clear to me we have more to lose by letting Goff's cowardice and capitulation to the politically correct narrative go unanswered. It's now about what Molyneux/Southern are allowed to do, but about what Goff is not allowed to do.MarkThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06199883270652041621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-41347518200553646322018-07-15T16:28:37.806+12:002018-07-15T16:28:37.806+12:00I've raised the flag. Everyone must choose for...I've raised the flag. Everyone must choose for themselves.Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-8906847000163186082018-07-15T15:17:59.859+12:002018-07-15T15:17:59.859+12:00Yep. It's as simple as that. Phil Goff deserve...Yep. It's as simple as that. Phil Goff deserves a giant, Fuck You!<br /><br />If the case is lost, and Terry's scenario plays out, it isn't a case of game over. It just means it's a time to ramp up the opposition even more.Richard Wiighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03553016955621925893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-6448577527794853842018-07-15T15:09:07.173+12:002018-07-15T15:09:07.173+12:00That it is a trap is a theory, so it cannot be tak...That it is a trap is a theory, so it cannot be taken as fact. Just a possibility. You might have missed where I said that it doesn't matter if it is a trap, and if they win. I think the principled stand will have value in raising consciousness about the issues, regardless of whether or not the outcome is a win. That's assuming that the majority of New Zealanders can think clearly enough to see the arguments.Richard Wiighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03553016955621925893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-17992408992985390882018-07-15T14:43:04.064+12:002018-07-15T14:43:04.064+12:00No I'm out.
This is over a mayor who denied t...No I'm out.<br /><br />This is over a mayor who denied two speakers an already booked and paid-for venue because of his political views.<br /><br />It's as simple as that.Mark Hubbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-19803863293206300962018-07-15T13:24:15.508+12:002018-07-15T13:24:15.508+12:00Mark, refer what I wrote Richard above Mark, refer what I wrote Richard above Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-4089147463861274702018-07-15T13:21:34.996+12:002018-07-15T13:21:34.996+12:00It's about principle for you. It's about a...It's about principle for you. It's about a trap for them. Hence the closing remark of my article; by defending your principle you will trigger their trap, a trap that is designed to prevent you from operating on principle (i.e., from speaking freely, as we still can in this country, thankfully). The greater principle which should be fought for is removing the trap. <br /><br />Re companies, many do not operate for profit, and many survive (like the council) by exploiting coercive laws, so your distinction does not hold. The point I am making is that there is a legal entity in each case which has its own property rights in law, and then there are the stakeholders who have their property right in the legal entity. So I am still not convinced you are in the right on where the property right must be recognized *in law* (morally is another issue). Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-55851063803042571592018-07-15T12:20:39.564+12:002018-07-15T12:20:39.564+12:00Whether it gives extra teeth to current legislatio...Whether it gives extra teeth to current legislation or not remains to be seen, but even if it does, I do not see that as a good reason not to go ahead with the court case, if the case is to be fought on the basis of property rights. It's about the principle.<br /><br />In regards to shareholders and a private company, I don't think you can compare the two. A private company acts towards profitability on behalf of shareholders who have voluntarily parted with their money in support of those running the company. This is not the case with ratepayers and the mayor. You can't compare ratepayers with shareholders. Goff isn't thinking that Stefan and Southern will be bad for business, and thus hurt his shareholders. It's a case of him lording it over his subjects by deeming certain ideas out of bounds for them.Richard Wiighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03553016955621925893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-51171513084061502882018-07-15T11:42:37.902+12:002018-07-15T11:42:37.902+12:00... sorry, that is why this is a worthy case to de...... sorry, that is why this is a worthy case to defend free speech.Mark Hubbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-35688531021329490342018-07-15T11:41:50.504+12:002018-07-15T11:41:50.504+12:00Okay, then let me rephrase your:
'I am most ...Okay, then let me rephrase your: <br /><br />'I am most certainly not saying that. One cannot speak of rights proper when it comes to government property. So one is left to revert to the next best thing, which is far from ideal, and that is to apply property rights to what is publicly owned even though said property has been plundered. '<br /><br />To (by changing a single word):<br /><br />I am most certainly not saying that. One cannot speak of rights proper when it comes to COUNCIL property. So one is left to revert to the next best thing, which is far from ideal, and that is to apply property rights to what is publicly owned even though said property has been plundered.'<br /><br />And that is why this is a worth case to defend free speech. Mark Hubbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-18482609534621542572018-07-15T11:20:34.288+12:002018-07-15T11:20:34.288+12:00Clarification: "One cannot speak of rights pr...Clarification: "One cannot speak of rights proper when it comes to government property" *that has been acquired by force*.<br /><br />Apologies for not posting under replies.Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-24250604784453394202018-07-15T11:16:07.483+12:002018-07-15T11:16:07.483+12:00Mark, no, I am most certainly not saying that. One...Mark, no, I am most certainly not saying that. One cannot speak of rights proper when it comes to government property. So one is left to revert to the next best thing, which is far from ideal, and that is to apply property rights to what is publicly owned even though said property has been plundered. At least that way the baby is not thrown out with the bathwater, the baby being the principle that rights can only be implemented based on property rights. Throw that principle out and you throw out all rights along with it.Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-3896527440418335192018-07-15T11:00:10.908+12:002018-07-15T11:00:10.908+12:00Wrong, Terry. As a shareholder/customer of a compa...Wrong, Terry. As a shareholder/customer of a company I can boycott them and shop somewhere else, for starters. I have no such volition against 'my' council. Are you saying a government has the right to limit free speech, as Goff has done, on 'government property'; for example, Parliament or the debating chamber.Mark Hubbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-81253229471259705312018-07-15T09:56:43.621+12:002018-07-15T09:56:43.621+12:00The morality is in upholding the right to exercise...The morality is in upholding the right to exercise free speech based on property rights, not in inviting free speech and property rights to be take away by giving currently benign legislation the teeth it needs to be effective. <br /><br />And a point regarding the property rights of ratepayers. Ratepayers are akin to shareholders are they not? Shareholders with an unlimited liability who have been forced to be shareholders. A shareholder cannot demand the right to be served as a customer against the policies or management decisions of the company concerned. All a shareholder can do is vote for change at the next AGM or make suggestions to management, and even that assumes they hold voting shares. If the Bruce Mason centre were a company and had shares in it, you could not demand that you have the right to book the venue on account of your shareholding. That decision rests with the company as a whole, meaning with the board and ultimately with the shareholders at large. So I am not sure that the argument based on property rights is even in the FSC's favour, meaning morally you are not in the right on that count either.<br /><br />Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-23991831220128035132018-07-15T09:35:47.330+12:002018-07-15T09:35:47.330+12:00There is a difference between not being able to wi...There is a difference between not being able to win on the basis of property rights, and not able to be fought on the basis of property rights. If winning the court case is the sole goal, regardless of the morality of it, then there is no point in going ahead. If it is about the morality of it, then even with a lose there is a win - a win in illuminating the existing corruption and spreading the moral case. This is just one battle in a war, a war in which the outcome in the long term will not hinge on this case.Richard Wiighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03553016955621925893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-58190136652942829552018-07-15T06:46:48.003+12:002018-07-15T06:46:48.003+12:00Richard, when I wrote "this battle is not abl...Richard, when I wrote "this battle is not able to be fought on the grounds of exercising property rights, not as far as I can tell" I meant not able to be won on the basis of property rights, my reasoning being that the muzzling provisions of the HRA trumps the Bill of Rights and also what property rights there is here in NZ. That is how the law has been framed, as far as I can tell. I welcome a legal expert to correct me. If I am right in my thinking then whatever victory the FSC might achieve will almost certainly be a pyrrhic one. The offending Act needs repealing to win this one, but that is not the fight the FSC is planning to fight, is it.Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-15753617635050959952018-07-14T23:50:48.017+12:002018-07-14T23:50:48.017+12:00I agree that property rights should be recognized,...I agree that property rights should be recognized, that was my point.Whenever a rate payer owned venue is used by a group that is expressing their opinions, then there is going to be rate payers that are going to be annoyed that they are being compelled to fund a venue where people are expressing views contrary and perhaps views they find abhorrent.As Thomas Jefferson said, that is sinful and tyrannical. If the Mayor gets to decide which group can use rate payer owned venues to express their views, and which group can't then that is favoured propaganda. I think you are right that if the Council defeats the freedom coalition in court, that will set a precedent that allows councils to stifle freedom of speech. Don Walkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-44072068978825103192018-07-14T22:40:48.407+12:002018-07-14T22:40:48.407+12:00I don't agree with you, Terry, that it cannot ...I don't agree with you, Terry, that it cannot be fought on the basis of property rights. The issue of property rights cannot be avoided in this case. The Mayor does not have the right to make value judgement precisely *because* he does not own the property in question. I think that very nicely elevates property rights, along with highlighting the inherent conflict in public ownership.Richard Wiighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03553016955621925893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-30269268596770396762018-07-14T20:56:19.775+12:002018-07-14T20:56:19.775+12:00Not legally I mean. Pressure the council in other ...Not legally I mean. Pressure the council in other ways to overturn their decision if that is what will advance freedom of speech on council property.Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-24489714950790767682018-07-14T20:53:05.883+12:002018-07-14T20:53:05.883+12:00Richard, by winning this challenge what will be wo...Richard, by winning this challenge what will be won? Answer: a legal precedent that property rights do *not* underpin free-speech rights, at least on public property. All that will be achieved from that is a weakening of the foundation of right that upholds free speech on *private* property. Long term that win is really a loss, and the hard Left knows it. And what is lost by losing? Answer: the HRA which presently is benign getting some sharp teeth on both public *and* private property. So it's lose-lose. There is a third option: don't fight this one.Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-52489441302046142672018-07-14T20:36:29.701+12:002018-07-14T20:36:29.701+12:00A case of act as if you have lost the case before ...A case of act as if you have lost the case before you have even mounted a case, let alone lost the case. By that strategy the Mayor - and all enemies of freedom of speech - wins by default.Richard Wiighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03553016955621925893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-13861241210458354582018-07-14T20:21:38.522+12:002018-07-14T20:21:38.522+12:00Correction: de jure and defacto above were employe...Correction: de jure and defacto above were employed the wrong way around.<br /><br />Mark, if Stephen Franks can correct me, I am all ears. I do not run with a group just because its running or because I like and respect whose leading it. I go with my conscience, and to do that I need to understand the issue. Everything I have posted is how I presently understand the issue.Terrynoreply@blogger.com