As Voltaire might have sung, “I disagree with what you auto-tune, but I defend to the death your right to do it in Auckland.” (If Auckland is where he’s booked to play; I have no idea, and even less interest.)
Anyway, Mark Hubbard makes the case “for letting Chris Brown in to perform his execrable music”:
It has nothing to do with Chris Brown.
He has ‘done his time’ for his crimes. End of.
After that, I don’t want politicians and bureaucrats deciding who can, and cannot, come into New Zealand. It has to be left up to the choice of the individuals of New Zealand whether they want to see, buy tickets, or whatever interaction they desire, with people such as Brown when they are in-country…
Chris Brown must be free to bring his shite show to New Zealand, because if politicians [and, you know, the commentariat] get to choose who crosses our borders, New Zealand is not a free land and we all are living in Progressivestan.
Any questions? Because Mark has probably answered them.
UPDATE: Russell Brown appears for the prosecution.
We should begin by making clear exactly what Chris Brown did to Rihanna in 2009. He has not “been accused of being involved in violence against his partner” as Dame Tariana Turia bizarrely said yesterday. And his actions were not “considered only odious enough to warrant community service” as a hapless post on The Daily Blog claims. . . .
6 comments:
Try having a conviction in NZ and going to the States. No go, no visa. We don't need trash like him. Maori don't need this sort of example even if the Dame from Wanganui with a black African father and a rough caste maori mother thinks so.
Well done. As huge as the principle is, you managed to entirely miss it. (And by the way, your racism is showing: be careful, Progressivestan has a public stock in every square :) )
Doesn't that comment rather highlight the suggestion by some, that the response to Brown has racist overtones? I have disagreed with Tariana Turia frequently over the years but never mentioned her parentage.
Here's another thing. Rihanna forgave him. We bang on about restorative justice in this country and the value of forgiveness and healing. So much hypocrisy.
The wonderful world of whatever anyone wants is OK. At some point there needs to be a line where what you do (as opposed to what you may say) sees you face long term push back from civilised society. In my view Chris Brown doesn't approach that point but principles sometimes have to meet reality. My step daughters like some of this stuff and my advice has always been that you can listen all you like but start acting it out in a way that treats others like dirt and there will be repercussions.
Forgiveness comes from the victim alone but society at large is much more impersonal and punishes. That doesn't alter the fact of forgiveness but reflects that the forgiven may still be dangerous. I like rapists and murderers behind bars no matter what the victim may say.
3:16
Russell Brown's essay is surprisingly conservative. I agree with Mark --Brown has done his time; let him come here. It is all good for the economy as well.
You know Peter, I am starting to think that old Leonard Peikoff was before his time in his much criticised views about the threat of conservatism.
Maybe he got it wrong in saying it was religious fundamentalism...we shall see.
What is this "religious fundamentalism" that sees religious people blamed when progressive atheists pass laws that impact on people's rights to do what they want ? It gets trotted out a fair bit and I'd like to make sure I'm not afflicted.
3:16
Post a Comment