Planet Rugby Forum

Seneca of the Night wrote:Just looked at linked in. He is patently a complete cnt.

He's our local cheesemaker. And a complete fraud

Saziah Bashir is one of those paradoxical Muslim feminists living in the West writing about how Western society mistreats its women
It's writing like this that opens the door for the other side of the conversation, the side that Bashir claims we don't need to talk about.

Why not talk about it?

Does anyone seriously consider Southern or Molyneux a threat ? Is it now that Auckland is a cuck city? It explains the Blues.

kiwinoz wrote:Does anyone seriously consider Southern or Molyneux a threat ? Is it now that Auckland is a cuck city? It explains the Blues.

This is odd. She and Logan Robertson have exactly the same views and methods in their attempts to monetise hate speech.

A comment about Southern and others on Facebook:

There’s a pattern emerging. This woman, Milo, the Information Wars guy and Australia’s assortment of provocateurs have latched onto a business model. This involves calculatedly creating outrage to generate notoriety and ‘brand’ awareness. The politics is neither here nor there. What’s important is getting noticed and monetising that attention.

So I'm left assuming you have no issue with the growth of this sector despite many different jurisdictions drawing a line in the sand.

Thai guy wrote:

kiwinoz wrote:Does anyone seriously consider Southern or Molyneux a threat ? Is it now that Auckland is a cuck city? It explains the Blues.

This is odd. She and Logan Robertson have exactly the same views and methods in their attempts to monetise hate speech.

A comment about Southern and others on Facebook:

There’s a pattern emerging. This woman, Milo, the Information Wars guy and Australia’s assortment of provocateurs have latched onto a business model. This involves calculatedly creating outrage to generate notoriety and ‘brand’ awareness. The politics is neither here nor there. What’s important is getting noticed and monetising that attention.

So I'm left assuming you have no issue with the growth of this sector despite many different jurisdictions drawing a line in the sand.

That's a null argument. You could make the exact same statements about people like Anita Sarkeesian or Cenk Uygur

It boils down to the same thing
People who reinforce my world view = valuable social commentators
People who threaten to pop my bubble = cynical social provocateurs

Thai guy wrote:

kiwinoz wrote:Does anyone seriously consider Southern or Molyneux a threat ? Is it now that Auckland is a cuck city? It explains the Blues.

This is odd. She and Logan Robertson have exactly the same views and methods in their attempts to monetise hate speech.

A comment about Southern and others on Facebook:

There’s a pattern emerging. This woman, Milo, the Information Wars guy and Australia’s assortment of provocateurs have latched onto a business model. This involves calculatedly creating outrage to generate notoriety and ‘brand’ awareness. The politics is neither here nor there. What’s important is getting noticed and monetising that attention.

So I'm left assuming you have no issue with the growth of this sector despite many different jurisdictions drawing a line in the sand.

You may left or historically extreme left. The point is extreme views from either side can get shot down in the public arena and most people will see them for what they are. If its an opinion then facts will show it up. But in order to stop the cultural polarisation then you must be able to have a debate between opposing views. The extremes on both sides are dangerous but for the ever increasing extreme left anyone who disagrees with them is alt right or far right.

The better question to ask is why the extremes on both sides are coming to the fore.

Thai guy wrote:

kiwinoz wrote:Does anyone seriously consider Southern or Molyneux a threat ? Is it now that Auckland is a cuck city? It explains the Blues.

This is odd. She and Logan Robertson have exactly the same views and methods in their attempts to monetise hate speech.

A comment about Southern and others on Facebook:

There’s a pattern emerging. This woman, Milo, the Information Wars guy and Australia’s assortment of provocateurs have latched onto a business model. This involves calculatedly creating outrage to generate notoriety and ‘brand’ awareness. The politics is neither here nor there. What’s important is getting noticed and monetising that attention.

So I'm left assuming you have no issue with the growth of this sector despite many different jurisdictions drawing a line in the sand.

FFS you are describing Fairfax, TVNZ, RNZ, and MediaWorks there.


Southern and Molyneux wouldn't have even been worth protesting if they came here. I doubt they could fill much of a venue.

Phil Goff has disgraced himself and the left by disallowing them.

Logan Robertson thinks gays should be shot. He wants to protest against extreme Islam allegedly who also hold similar views. It would be much better to highlight to each extreme how they are alike the other side and then watch them self destruct.

Sonny Blount wrote:

Thai guy wrote:

kiwinoz wrote:Does anyone seriously consider Southern or Molyneux a threat ? Is it now that Auckland is a cuck city? It explains the Blues.

This is odd. She and Logan Robertson have exactly the same views and methods in their attempts to monetise hate speech.

A comment about Southern and others on Facebook:

There’s a pattern emerging. This woman, Milo, the Information Wars guy and Australia’s assortment of provocateurs have latched onto a business model. This involves calculatedly creating outrage to generate notoriety and ‘brand’ awareness. The politics is neither here nor there. What’s important is getting noticed and monetising that attention.

So I'm left assuming you have no issue with the growth of this sector despite many different jurisdictions drawing a line in the sand.

FFS you are describing Fairfax, TVNZ, RNZ, and MediaWorks there.


Southern and Molyneux wouldn't have even been worth protesting if they came here. I doubt they could fill much of a venue.

Phil Goff has disgraced himself and the left by disallowing them.

He hasn’t really disallowed them from coming here. They’re still free to book at a private venue, if Immigration have no issues with them?

A council CEO should not be earning $440K p/a in NZ. That's ridiculous.

deadduck wrote:There seems to be a real problem in local government in NZ where they're all too happy to just keep spending, spending, spending with no fiscal discipline at all
Is there a single council that isn't running up huge debts and gouging their ratepayers year after year?

Totally agree. I'm also seriously fed up of the corporate welfare that Councils seem to indulge in. Buying land for someone to build a hotel, and then gift the land to the builder. What business does a Council have getting into hotels?

I don't know about everyone else, but my rates bill in Lower Hutt went up 57% between 2009 and 2017. Compound inflation over the same period was about 16% when I checked. That is not sustainable.

UncleFB wrote:

Sonny Blount wrote:

Thai guy wrote:

kiwinoz wrote:Does anyone seriously consider Southern or Molyneux a threat ? Is it now that Auckland is a cuck city? It explains the Blues.

This is odd. She and Logan Robertson have exactly the same views and methods in their attempts to monetise hate speech.

A comment about Southern and others on Facebook:

There’s a pattern emerging. This woman, Milo, the Information Wars guy and Australia’s assortment of provocateurs have latched onto a business model. This involves calculatedly creating outrage to generate notoriety and ‘brand’ awareness. The politics is neither here nor there. What’s important is getting noticed and monetising that attention.

So I'm left assuming you have no issue with the growth of this sector despite many different jurisdictions drawing a line in the sand.

FFS you are describing Fairfax, TVNZ, RNZ, and MediaWorks there.


Southern and Molyneux wouldn't have even been worth protesting if they came here. I doubt they could fill much of a venue.

Phil Goff has disgraced himself and the left by disallowing them.

He hasn’t really disallowed them from coming here. They’re still free to book at a private venue, if Immigration have no issues with them?

The problem with what Goff has done is that he's politicised the council venues. Now it seems they are only available to mayoralty-approved groups. Who will be the next group he evicts because he doesn't like them? Young Nats? Family First? Pro life groups? It's not his role to be the moral arbiter of the city.
There are plenty of groups that use public spaces that also have associated religions, political or social agendas.

Upper Hutt have had the same guy (David Guppy?) for 20-odd years. We've had Ray Wallace in Lower Hutt and he seems most interested in legacy projects and spending as much ratepayer money as possible now, despite the fact in his first couple of council cycles, he was all about keeping rates down. Obviously has one eye on retirement now and wants to put his name to as much as possible.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Gordon Bennett wrote:

deadduck wrote:There seems to be a real problem in local government in NZ where they're all too happy to just keep spending, spending, spending with no fiscal discipline at all
Is there a single council that isn't running up huge debts and gouging their ratepayers year after year?

Totally agree. I'm also seriously fed up of the corporate welfare that Councils seem to indulge in. Buying land for someone to build a hotel, and then gift the land to the builder. What business does a Council have getting into hotels?

I don't know about everyone else, but my rates bill in Lower Hutt went up 57% between 2009 and 2017. Compound inflation over the same period was about 16% when I checked. That is not sustainable.

Doesn't Upper Hutt have a decent mayor? Wellington certainly has a complete utter tool of the highest order - it's scarcely possible to think of a bigger fckwit. He's actually worse than Justin Trudeau, which most people would not doubt consider impossible. But the Upper Hutt bloke is apparently a top bloke.

Phil Goff is an unusual case. He has such vast experience that it's not unfair to put him in the heavy hitter category, and after the fiasco of Len Brown, an abysmal man of no ability whatsoever, that's a vast improvement. But alongside his managerial competency has always lurked a couple of extremely stupid opinions that would shame a student politician, and he seems to have kept them intact since the 70s. Amongst them of course a stance on Israel that would get him thrown in the anti-semitic basket in the UK with Jeremy Corbyn (things have turned swiftly on this recently). He's shown his colours on this one - one peep from the local Islamic group and he banned Southern from council venues. No messing around.

If it makes you feel better our wellington one banned the military expo because a couple of skinny hippies knocked on his door

Seneca of the Night wrote:Southern gave an interview with Radio Live here. She's going off at a million miles an hour, spouting unsourced stuff everywhere, obviously awesomely ignorant about NZ (Jacinda, Russell McVeagh, our amazing awesome unique moral specialness, etc), so should have been an easy takedown by the interviewers. But they echo her ignorance about NZ with a corresponding complete and total ignorance about the world, Southern's core beliefs, and their own job. So her blistering personality - and it is quite remarkable which is why she is a star - blows the whole thing apart.

https://www.radiolive.co.nz/home/on-dem ... thern.html

If this is the case

It isn't because I heard it at the time, why ban her

No problem with her coming .

Not keen on rate payers providing a venue.

deadduck wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

Sonny Blount wrote:

Thai guy wrote:

kiwinoz wrote:Does anyone seriously consider Southern or Molyneux a threat ? Is it now that Auckland is a cuck city? It explains the Blues.

This is odd. She and Logan Robertson have exactly the same views and methods in their attempts to monetise hate speech.

A comment about Southern and others on Facebook:

There’s a pattern emerging. This woman, Milo, the Information Wars guy and Australia’s assortment of provocateurs have latched onto a business model. This involves calculatedly creating outrage to generate notoriety and ‘brand’ awareness. The politics is neither here nor there. What’s important is getting noticed and monetising that attention.

So I'm left assuming you have no issue with the growth of this sector despite many different jurisdictions drawing a line in the sand.

FFS you are describing Fairfax, TVNZ, RNZ, and MediaWorks there.


Southern and Molyneux wouldn't have even been worth protesting if they came here. I doubt they could fill much of a venue.

Phil Goff has disgraced himself and the left by disallowing them.

He hasn’t really disallowed them from coming here. They’re still free to book at a private venue, if Immigration have no issues with them?

The problem with what Goff has done is that he's politicised the council venues. Now it seems they are only available to mayoralty-approved groups. Who will be the next group he evicts because he doesn't like them? Young Nats? Family First? Pro life groups? It's not his role to be the moral arbiter of the city.
There are plenty of groups that use public spaces that also have associated religions, political or social agendas.

What’s that got to do with my point that he hasn’t disallowed them coming to NZ.

You’ve made this point in the thread twice now, is there any group you don’t think should have access to council buildings?

eugenius wrote:No problem with her coming .

Not keen on rate payers providing a venue.

The attendees will be rate payers.

UncleFB wrote:

deadduck wrote:

UncleFB wrote: He hasn’t really disallowed them from coming here. They’re still free to book at a private venue, if Immigration have no issues with them?

The problem with what Goff has done is that he's politicised the council venues. Now it seems they are only available to mayoralty-approved groups. Who will be the next group he evicts because he doesn't like them? Young Nats? Family First? Pro life groups? It's not his role to be the moral arbiter of the city.
There are plenty of groups that use public spaces that also have associated religions, political or social agendas.

What’s that got to do with my point that he hasn’t disallowed them coming to NZ.

You’ve made this point in the thread twice now, is there any group you don’t think should have access to council buildings?

9/11 truthers like Jeanette Fitzsimmons' friends.

Sonny Blount wrote:

eugenius wrote:No problem with her coming .

Not keen on rate payers providing a venue.

The attendees will be rate payers.

Highly questionable.

Sonny Blount wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

deadduck wrote:

UncleFB wrote: He hasn’t really disallowed them from coming here. They’re still free to book at a private venue, if Immigration have no issues with them?

The problem with what Goff has done is that he's politicised the council venues. Now it seems they are only available to mayoralty-approved groups. Who will be the next group he evicts because he doesn't like them? Young Nats? Family First? Pro life groups? It's not his role to be the moral arbiter of the city.
There are plenty of groups that use public spaces that also have associated religions, political or social agendas.

What’s that got to do with my point that he hasn’t disallowed them coming to NZ.

You’ve made this point in the thread twice now, is there any group you don’t think should have access to council buildings?

9/11 truthers like Jeanette Fitzsimmons' friends.

I don't know what this means.

Seneca of the Night wrote:Southern gave an interview with Radio Live here. She's going off at a million miles an hour, spouting unsourced stuff everywhere, obviously awesomely ignorant about NZ (Jacinda, Russell McVeagh, our amazing awesome unique moral specialness, etc), so should have been an easy takedown by the interviewers. But they echo her ignorance about NZ with a corresponding complete and total ignorance about the world, Southern's core beliefs, and their own job. So her blistering personality - and it is quite remarkable which is why she is a star - blows the whole thing apart.

https://www.radiolive.co.nz/home/on-dem ... thern.html

Holy shit, first time I've listened to her more then a few minutes - she's a bit of an idiot. I guess being blonde and pretty can get you far.

I think you're being too harsh on the presenters, I think they asked her enough questions that got her spouting the ignorance you rightfully mention.

I did particularly like how she went on her final rant about free speech and how she'll be telling the NZ people what the govt don't want us to hear, what the establishment doesn't want them to hear, and what the media doesn't want them to hear - while she's on an interview with national media broadcast throughout the country.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:Southern gave an interview with Radio Live here. She's going off at a million miles an hour, spouting unsourced stuff everywhere, obviously awesomely ignorant about NZ (Jacinda, Russell McVeagh, our amazing awesome unique moral specialness, etc), so should have been an easy takedown by the interviewers. But they echo her ignorance about NZ with a corresponding complete and total ignorance about the world, Southern's core beliefs, and their own job. So her blistering personality - and it is quite remarkable which is why she is a star - blows the whole thing apart.

https://www.radiolive.co.nz/home/on-dem ... thern.html

Holy shit, first time I've listened to her more then a few minutes - she's a bit of an idiot. I guess being blonde and pretty can get you far.

I think you're being too harsh on the presenters, I think they asked her enough questions that got her spouting the ignorance you rightfully mention.

I did particularly like how she went on her final rant about free speech and how she'll be telling the NZ people what the govt don't want us to hear, what the establishment doesn't want them to hear, and what the media doesn't want them to hear - while she's on an interview with national media broadcast throughout the country.

She's not an idiot. I'd say she's very smart. Very quick witted. She is only 23, so it's not like she's gobbled up the entire western canon. But she's a quick learn. I read her 'book' and she traipses over the cultural landscape quite adeptly. There are suspicions someone else wrote it for her and she's 'controlled opposition'.

Let's see if immigration let her in. I reckon they won't.

Well you flip flopped like John Tamihere (Radiolive reference for you). You consider her smart despite pointing out how unprepared she was for that interview? You don't have to gobble the entire western canon to be prepared for a radio interview - if you don't already know how your rhetoric fits in a country you're going to then maybe don't go there, and if you do plan to go maybe do a bit of background research before you go out on national radio.

I thought the promoter had cancelled the show now that they don't have access to the council venue? I'd let her in, she's not going to win over any converts if that interview is any pointer, and the people who are going to go are going anyway.

Re: The book. So what are you saying? There's a conspiracy theory she didn't write the book? You agree/disagree?

Very interesting the different latitude you’re willing to give to this demagogue compared to your regular, scathing assessments of the PM.

Gordon Bennett wrote:Very interesting the different latitude you’re willing to give to this demagogue compared to your regular, scathing assessments of the PM.

They're both to the left of Sneaker but Southern is at least in sight of him

UncleFB wrote:

Sonny Blount wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

deadduck wrote:

UncleFB wrote: He hasn’t really disallowed them from coming here. They’re still free to book at a private venue, if Immigration have no issues with them?

The problem with what Goff has done is that he's politicised the council venues. Now it seems they are only available to mayoralty-approved groups. Who will be the next group he evicts because he doesn't like them? Young Nats? Family First? Pro life groups? It's not his role to be the moral arbiter of the city.
There are plenty of groups that use public spaces that also have associated religions, political or social agendas.

What’s that got to do with my point that he hasn’t disallowed them coming to NZ.

You’ve made this point in the thread twice now, is there any group you don’t think should have access to council buildings?

9/11 truthers like Jeanette Fitzsimmons' friends.

I don't know what this means.

A decade plus ago, Jeanette Fitzsimmons sponsered a 9/11 truther to come and talk in New Zealand. This went ahead without any problems or attention (I don't think many people went).

Quite a few mainstream figures on the left have some sick and dangerous ideas such as support for Communism and 911 Trutherism.

Some people that have been in parliament in NZ don't pass Phil Goff's new standard.

UncleFB wrote:

deadduck wrote:

UncleFB wrote: He hasn’t really disallowed them from coming here. They’re still free to book at a private venue, if Immigration have no issues with them?

The problem with what Goff has done is that he's politicised the council venues. Now it seems they are only available to mayoralty-approved groups. Who will be the next group he evicts because he doesn't like them? Young Nats? Family First? Pro life groups? It's not his role to be the moral arbiter of the city.
There are plenty of groups that use public spaces that also have associated religions, political or social agendas.

What’s that got to do with my point that he hasn’t disallowed them coming to NZ.

You’ve made this point in the thread twice now, is there any group you don’t think should have access to council buildings?

I think as long as they pay a venue hire they should be able to do what they want, unless it is clearly illegal or directly inciting violence.


As evidenced by the alleged death threats against Marama Davidson, these sorts of extremist views already exist in NZ and the best way to combat them is with public debate and reason -that requires an open forum. Shutting down the conversation drives them underground and only further reinforces their world view.

deadduck wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

deadduck wrote:

UncleFB wrote: He hasn’t really disallowed them from coming here. They’re still free to book at a private venue, if Immigration have no issues with them?

The problem with what Goff has done is that he's politicised the council venues. Now it seems they are only available to mayoralty-approved groups. Who will be the next group he evicts because he doesn't like them? Young Nats? Family First? Pro life groups? It's not his role to be the moral arbiter of the city.
There are plenty of groups that use public spaces that also have associated religions, political or social agendas.

What’s that got to do with my point that he hasn’t disallowed them coming to NZ.

You’ve made this point in the thread twice now, is there any group you don’t think should have access to council buildings?

I think as long as they pay a venue hire they should be able to do what they want, unless it is clearly illegal or directly inciting violence.


As evidenced by the alleged death threats against Marama Davidson, these sorts of extremist views already exist in NZ and the best way to combat them is with public debate and reason -that requires an open forum. Shutting down the conversation drives them underground and only further reinforces their world view.

Maybe the event organisers should invite a second person to speak at the same conference, who holds the complete polar opposite view?

I haven't been following this news item too much (as it doesn't interest me much), but it reminds me a bit of NZ refusing to allow the Australian medical doctor 'Dr Death' who was an advocate for assisted suicide - to the extent that he provided demonstrations on how to end yourself.

Tehui wrote:
Maybe the event organisers should invite a second person to speak at the same conference, who holds the complete polar opposite view?

Who would be brave enough to go? Someone like Golriz Ghahraman would be a great foil for Lauren Southern but she would be crucified by her own supporters just for appearing in the same room.

deadduck wrote:

Tehui wrote:
Maybe the event organisers should invite a second person to speak at the same conference, who holds the complete polar opposite view?

Who would be brave enough to go? Someone like Golriz Ghahraman would be a great foil for Lauren Southern but she would be crucified by her own supporters just for appearing in the same room.

I'm sure we could nominate one or two posters from PR to front up.

guy smiley wrote:

deadduck wrote:
I think as long as they pay a venue hire they should be able to do what they want, unless it is clearly illegal or directly inciting violence.


As evidenced by the alleged death threats against Marama Davidson, these sorts of extremist views already exist in NZ and the best way to combat them is with public debate and reason -that requires an open forum. Shutting down the conversation drives them underground and only further reinforces their world view.

I agree... but there's a greyish area around how you define 'inciting violence' that is being compounded by open access to media for anyone with the willpower to get on.

Have the open forum but get serious about defining a standard for people who clamour about free speech as a right to adhere to.

If a Muslim speaker wanted to tour, would there be a similar reaction?

That would be an interesting test. A militant Muslim leader wanting a platform to criticise the West and call for conservative law, asking islamic people to stand up and fight wherever they are in the world. An agitator who is regularly pictured posing with very heavy weaponry. I'm guessing here but I don't think INZ or local government would be too happy.

She's been blocked from Britain and now Australia officially (not NZ at the moment despite the narrative that she has been), so clearly multiple jurisdictions think her brand of militant action and promotion of division has unacceptable risk.

guy smiley wrote:

Thai guy wrote:
She's been blocked from Britain and now Australia officially (not NZ at the moment despite the narrative that she has been), so clearly multiple jurisdictions think her brand of militant action and promotion of division has unacceptable risk.

The Australian situation isn't a ban, she's been directed to apply for the correct category visa for her visit after applying for a tourist visa, I think she has to have a performer's class of Visa to speak.

Ok. A similar situation to NZ then. I guess as an agitator you can get away with deliberately causing trouble for the clicks only for so long, then you start having to ask for permission to go to civilised places.

She is about as controversial as Garth McVicar or Brian Tamaki and also as irrelevant in terms of their influence.

deadduck wrote:

Thai guy wrote:

kiwinoz wrote:Does anyone seriously consider Southern or Molyneux a threat ? Is it now that Auckland is a cuck city? It explains the Blues.

This is odd. She and Logan Robertson have exactly the same views and methods in their attempts to monetise hate speech.

A comment about Southern and others on Facebook:

There’s a pattern emerging. This woman, Milo, the Information Wars guy and Australia’s assortment of provocateurs have latched onto a business model. This involves calculatedly creating outrage to generate notoriety and ‘brand’ awareness. The politics is neither here nor there. What’s important is getting noticed and monetising that attention.

So I'm left assuming you have no issue with the growth of this sector despite many different jurisdictions drawing a line in the sand.

That's a null argument. You could make the exact same statements about people like Anita Sarkeesian or Cenk Uygur

It boils down to the same thing
People who reinforce my world view = valuable social commentators
People who threaten to pop my bubble = cynical social provocateurs

I don't think they are equivalent. I had to google Sarkeesian but I'm not sure she nor Cenk Uygur distribute inflammatory material to an people you want to attack and then turn the cameras on.

There's speech and then there's actions. Southern seems to think her militant posturing and provocative actions against a particular race is merely an exercise in free speech but she goes much further.

You'd be better to compare her monetised militancy with the actions of Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd. Hers differs though because they are attacking corporate interests for the good of the environment, not minorities and refugees for the good of Trump's America.

Sonny Blount wrote:

Thai guy wrote:

kiwinoz wrote:Does anyone seriously consider Southern or Molyneux a threat ? Is it now that Auckland is a cuck city? It explains the Blues.

This is odd. She and Logan Robertson have exactly the same views and methods in their attempts to monetise hate speech.

A comment about Southern and others on Facebook:

There’s a pattern emerging. This woman, Milo, the Information Wars guy and Australia’s assortment of provocateurs have latched onto a business model. This involves calculatedly creating outrage to generate notoriety and ‘brand’ awareness. The politics is neither here nor there. What’s important is getting noticed and monetising that attention.

So I'm left assuming you have no issue with the growth of this sector despite many different jurisdictions drawing a line in the sand.

FFS you are describing Fairfax, TVNZ, RNZ, and MediaWorks there.


Southern and Molyneux wouldn't have even been worth protesting if they came here. I doubt they could fill much of a venue.

Phil Goff has disgraced himself and the left by disallowing them.

It's true that media do sometimes deliberately foster live tension for the scoop but in general they are bound by some sort of code and are also scrutinised constantly for impartiality. Southern's method has no checks so it's up to officials in the countries which she now seeks to peddle her wares to decide on the risk.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Thai guy wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

deadduck wrote:
I think as long as they pay a venue hire they should be able to do what they want, unless it is clearly illegal or directly inciting violence.


As evidenced by the alleged death threats against Marama Davidson, these sorts of extremist views already exist in NZ and the best way to combat them is with public debate and reason -that requires an open forum. Shutting down the conversation drives them underground and only further reinforces their world view.

I agree... but there's a greyish area around how you define 'inciting violence' that is being compounded by open access to media for anyone with the willpower to get on.

Have the open forum but get serious about defining a standard for people who clamour about free speech as a right to adhere to.

If a Muslim speaker wanted to tour, would there be a similar reaction?

That would be an interesting test. A militant Muslim leader wanting a platform to criticise the West and call for conservative law, asking islamic people to stand up and fight wherever they are in the world. An agitator who is regularly pictured posing with very heavy weaponry. I'm guessing here but I don't think INZ or local government would be too happy.

She's been blocked from Britain and now Australia officially (not NZ at the moment despite the narrative that she has been), so clearly multiple jurisdictions think her brand of militant action and promotion of division has unacceptable risk.

Why would you compare her to a Muslim speaker? New Zealand is a western country. She is a staunch supporter of western cultural values. A Muslim firebrand would not be.

EDIT: there have been plenty of examples in London where lunatics have been allowed into the country (two of the three London mayors so far have been extremist islamists), whilst the likes of Southern are banned. It's a crazy situation we've got ourselves into in our own countries.

I think you need to see a doctor.

I don't think she's influential at all. Not in NZ's cultural zeitgeist at least.
The only people in NZ that would have ever heard of her prior to this media attention are those that are already watching that sort of media on Youtube. They exist in a bubble, and the ideas spread very slowly from that bubble because they are so reactionary to a very specific cultural pressure that doesn't really exist in NZ.

There's no real driving force in NZ for anti-Muslim sentiment or anti-refugee sentiment like there is in the UK or Canada because we haven't taken anywhere near the numbers they have and we haven't had the same working class economic struggles that they've had. We also don't have a massive problem with a leaky border like they have.

Without this media attention, Southern's visit would have played out to a group of perhaps 500 people in Takapuna. Then she would have left, and no doubt vlogged something about it to her Youtube subscribers. But 99.99% of Kiwis would have gone on with their lives still not knowing she even existed.
Even with this media attention, she'll have been forgotten about in 2 week's time.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

guy smiley wrote:It's almost like you don't want to discuss anything at all, preferring to just throw insults and hyperbole with flagrant abandon.

Are you wearing a cravat?

If you're going to lay silly half-arsed traps all over the thread and wank yourself stupid when someone trips over one of them, then forgive me if I'm not too inclined to get into a philosophical discussion with you.

I'm not laying traps. You keep leaping into your own.

Do you want to know anything about Lauren Southern or don't you?

No.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

guy smiley wrote:
It wasn't a trap.

It's a valid example to use... she's a polarising figure. I'm uncomfortable with censorship but I think the nature of the beast these days is some sort of publicly stated policy addressing the content people want to present is required... simply saying hate speech is out leaves too much room for sensationalism and populist opposition.

A speaker wanting to explain Muslim beliefs say, a community speaker looking to enhance understanding... how does that stack up with someone spruiking hardline anti immigration policy?

What does that even mean? Anyone who wants to even have a discussion about immigration is, it seems, a hardline anti-immigration advocate. As Southern points out, we are not even allowed to have the most minimal of discussions about what sort of society we should have. It is axiomatic that we will have a multi-racial multi-cultural future, but no one even knows what that means or what that would look like. The discussion simply does not take place.

Its a difficult time, filled with fraught conversations and uneasy bedfellows.

Our world is changing, which is not unusual of itself, but it seems to be happening at the behest of some who insist that the change is, of itself, not only desirable but unarguable and a moral good.

Based on anecdote and a wish and often directly in the face of uncomfortable facts and precedent.


One can hope that we are overthinking things and that geography will continue to be a salve.

It feels a little forlorn and a quick drive up Great South Road puts the lie to it.

Thanks god for funny cats to distract me

Seneca of the Night wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

guy smiley wrote:I specifically didn't mention militant muslims...

yet here we are, watching both of you knee jerk yourselves silly.

What an amazing trap you laid then. Providing an utterly pointless example.

It wasn't a trap.

It's a valid example to use... she's a polarising figure. I'm uncomfortable with censorship but I think the nature of the beast these days is some sort of publicly stated policy addressing the content people want to present is required... simply saying hate speech is out leaves too much room for sensationalism and populist opposition.

A speaker wanting to explain Muslim beliefs say, a community speaker looking to enhance understanding... how does that stack up with someone spruiking hardline anti immigration policy?

What does that even mean? Anyone who wants to even have a discussion about immigration is, it seems, a hardline anti-immigration advocate. As Southern points out, we are not even allowed to have the most minimal of discussions about what sort of society we should have. It is axiomatic that we will have a multi-racial multi-cultural future, but no one even knows what that means or what that would look like. The discussion simply does not take place.

Agree, all viewpoints need to be heard

There are many out there who are too scared to come out for fear their opinion will be deemed racist.. censorship or restriction by a government ( or local ) authority etc isn’t going to change their point of view or make any progress

I don’t know much about southern other than this interview that I found yesterday.. she seems pretty articulate and if you are to believe her story then the banning from the uk was ridiculous

Goff has well and truly fukd this up.. should’ve kept his big nose out of it

https://montrealgazette.com/news/canada ... 5eb5d0e2e8