Saturday, September 3, 2016

Lindsay Perigo: "Magnificent Pandemonium" - Linz vs Muslims and Their Enablers

This is the speech I delivered almost in its entirety in my capacity as special commentator, along with Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy, at Monday night's semi-final in the intra-university Next Generation Debates series at Auckland University. I say "almost in its entirety" because a gaggle of Muslims became very vocal near the end of my speech and demanded, successfully, I be stopped at once for having gone over my allocated time. The point at which I was shut down is noted in the text below.
What a member of Young New Zealand First called "magnificent pandemonium" followed, with epithets flying back and forth, Dame Susan waiving her right of rebuttal and storming off from the table we were both sharing.
“That this House would ban religious symbols in public.”
I’m a libertarian. As a rule I don’t believe in banning anything ... except banning. I don’t believe in banning religious symbols in public, even though I’m an atheist. [At this point the lights went out, and I declared myself a Believer. Then they came back on.] I often repair to the immortal maxim derived from Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it.”
What a magnificent sentiment!
Article 13 of our Bill of Rights says:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.
Article 14 says:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.
Article 15 says:
Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief, in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.
I agree with all that.
Unfortunately Article 4 makes it clear that this Bill of Rights can be trumped by legislation contrary to it, meaning the whole thing is a sham!
So that’s the first thing I’d do before worrying about the display of religious symbols: remove Article 4 from the Bill of Rights so that it really is a Bill of Rights.
Second, I’d abolish Dame Susan. Nothing personal! I’d just abolish the office of Race Relations Commissar and with it, the entire Human Rights Commission, to which I routinely refer as the Human Wrongs Commissariat. This cossetted coterie of taxpayer-supported fascists of the left just want to impose their precious, prissy, puritanical Political Correctness upon all of us. They’re our Thought Police, prattling on about diversity when they’re attempting to outlaw the most important diversity of all, ideological diversity and make their Political Correctness compulsory. Everything in their universe would be either illegal or compulsory. In my universe they’d have to find real jobs and the legislation that set them up would be repealed.
You see, that legislation already contains provisions that violate our Bill of Rights.
Article 131 of our Human Rights Act says you can go to jail for making insulting comments about someone’s race or country of origin!
So there was this Irishman, Englishman and Scotsman … oh wait, we can’t go there.
So there was this Iraqi, Iranian and Pakistani … of my, we most certainly can’t go there!
So much for: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression ...
I hate to break it to you, but there is a right to insult. The way to deal with a racist is to shame him with reason, not to jail him. Freedom of expression includes the right to say offensive things. It doesn’t include a right never to be offended.
There is certainly a right to say things that will be construed as insults by those intent on being insulted even though they’re not intended to be.
And this gets us close to the nub of the issue.
This is the Age of Umbrage, the Age of Offence-Taking. All chance of debate on any matter of substance is instantly closed down nowadays as soon as some some two-bit totalitarian, some shrieking Social Justice Warrior, some pompous PC Thought Policewoman whines, “I find your statements offensive.” For these latter-day Inquisitionists, the only thing that gets them out of bed each day is to find something to be offended by and be a victim of. Racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, White Privilege , income inequality … you name it. To them, the best response I know of was uttered by comedian Stephen Fry, who said, and I shall quote him exactly: Quote—“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what!" Unquote.
The stifling pervasiveness of this infantilism, the mindless absurdity of campus “safe zones” where one’s “sensitivities” won’t be “triggered” by “micro-aggressions,” is such that free speech is all but dead. It has been killed above all by those institutions that once were its proud bastions, the media and the universities. Here I want to salute as noble exceptions the students at Otago University who just voted down a ban on “offensive” costumes at their annual party by their purported representatives, the Otago University Students Association. The OUSA had issued a list of forbidden apparel, including anything depicting Nazis, Arabs, Bill Cosby or Caitlyn Jenner. The students rebelled. A referendum was held and 67% of participants voted against the prohibitions. Congratulations, Otago students. But look out. Big Sister Susan is watching you!
We all know what the real moot is here tonight. Not the generic banning of religious symbolism in public, but the specific banning of Muslim religious symbolism. There’s no issue with Christians or Buddhists or Sikhs or Hindus or Jews wearing their drag and bling in public. There is an issue, because of everything that’s going on in the world, with Muslims covering up their faces. But had the moot been, “That this House would ban the burka,” this debate would not have been allowed to proceed. Muslims would have taken offence, Dame Susan, even though Islam is not a race and hence not within her purview, would have instigated prosecution proceedings against NZ Initiative, and we’d be having to launch a campaign to “Free Oliver Hartwich!”
But we should be able to debate banning the burka. What’s going on in the world does make it an issue.
Ordinarily, as a libertarian I’d say wear whatever drag and bling you want; just don’t force me to wear it.That’s my default position. In the case of Islam, however, there’s one significant consideration that might cause me to depart from that position. That is, elements of Islam have declared war on us, in accordance with their Holy Book, and are waging that war with a brutality we never expected to see revisited in the twenty-first century. These are sub-human barbarians who want to take us back to the stoning age. They want their evil superstition to be mandatory for everyone in a world-wide caliphate. In free countries they take advantage of freedom of speech to hold up signs saying, “Death to the Infidel!” “Freedom of speech go to hell!” "Man-made law go to hell!" “Massacre those who insult Islam!” “Behead those who insult the prophet.” Like the Human Wrongs Commissariat, they don’t believe in the right to insult, and they behead away with impunity.
In war, all bets are off. You don’t have to extend peacetime freedoms to those you’re at war with. In WW2 England people were not free to wear Nazi regalia in public, or hold Nazi demonstrations, or advocate publicly for Nazism, and neither should they have been. We’re not obliged to extend freedom of expression to any enemy who is seeking by violence to take ours away, and to kill us. We must not assume that because no Muslim in New Zealand has ever committed a terror attack, none ever will. I would hope that “reasonable” non-violent Muslims are cooperating with authorities in monitoring for signs of violent ones. My contention, though, is that “non-violent Muslim” is a contradiction in terms, given the number of injunctions in the Koran along the lines of “slay the infidel wherever ye may find him” and the odious violence that is Sharia Law. My position is that “non-violent” Muslims are by definition not Muslims at all, even if they consider themselves to be. [At this point, shouting by Muslims got very loud, and they demanded I be silenced at once since I had gone overtime. Unfortunately the organisers capitulated, and asked that I stop immediately, notwithstanding my protestations that I was almost there. The following lines of my speech were not delivered.] Now I wouldn’t put any bans or restrictions in place just yet, except one: on further Muslim immigration while Jihad is going on anywhere in the world. I would put Muslims on notice that I reserve the right to put other bans or restrictions in place, and expect them to understand that and cooperate.
So, ban the burka? Not right now—there'd be no particular point as best I can tell—but we'd be within our rights to do so and there could be a point quite soon.
The overarching thought I want to leave you with is that we should be able to at least debate this matter without the spectre of the Human Wrongs Commissariat hanging over us.
PS: If there’s anyone I haven’t offended here tonight, I apologise.


Unknown said...

Outstanding stuff, Lindsay!

Max said...

You should feel lucky to have just got away with being silenced. If Achmed the Dead Terrorist had been there who knows how it could have gone.

Anonymous said...

Beautifully put, I will be using this in my next debate with a SJW. Thank you.

Unknown said...

The only "court" needed for any so-called "offensive" comments is the "court of public opinion".

Useless PC speech-censoring bottomless-money-pit officious-finger-wagging outfits like the RRC, HRC, Women's Affairs and Maori Affairs should be immediately axed. The money going to them would be *far* better spent on charter schools, giving children a decent non-leftist-infested education.

paul scott said...

Mr. Perigo’s speech is inspired and inspiring, it is awe inspiring, and I thank him.
I was literally reeling in my seat as I read that speech, and I had to take some time out to recognise that it comes with the clarity that many of us would wish for.
We need to borrow courage from each other, because as Mr. Perigo makes clear we are being intimidated and attacked on several fronts.
We have the sickling social justice warriors group within which Susan Devoy graces us. Secondly we have the media.
Both these groups and even some of us are oblivious to the fact that Western Civilisation is in danger of obliteration by a determined and warlike barbarian horde.
We are at war. The war has been declared on us, and enacted on us, and still we will not believe it
I will write again here of my own small efforts, and the things I think we can do.
Now, I salute Lindsay’s courage and strength, and I say to him that the few of us will become many.
paul scott

Brian said...

Outstanding! I congratulate Lindsay not only on what he said, but having the courage to say it. To say it in an environment loaded with the usual anti European sentiments and attitudes, shows that however little our so called democracy has sunk down too; there is a place for outspoken opposition.
Quite obviously the Chairman ruling was intended to avoid contention, and although correct, most Chairmen would have allowed a small amount of overtime for a speaker to finish.
Most public meetings these days seem to be controlled by the abusive factions that attend them, and by Chairmen who have little knowledge of the rules governing meetings. A prime example is the lack of control we see in television debates when those attending give little courtesy to those speaking with views contrary to their own. Also with an audience which seems loaded in its selection process.
While reading Lindsay’s blog I was reminded of a poem by Rudyard Kipling (There is a red rag to the ethnic bull if ever there was one!!!)
(United States & Philippine Islands) 1899.
“Take up the White Man’s burden-
Have done with childish days
The lightly proffered laurel
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear bought wisdom,
The judgement of your peers!”
The question that concerns us all is “does the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous People signed by Pita Sharples on Mr. Key’s instructions, over ride our Bill of Rights.?”
Equality is a very frail instrument it seems, especially so in the hands of rulers.

Empathic said...

Part 1 of 2:
Although this takes the topic down a new path, I hope it's seen as relevant. Ms Devoy waded in to the matter of allegations by stripper 'Scarlette' against Chiefs rugby players who hired her to 'perform'. Ms Devoy was joined by Equal Opportunities Commissioner Dr Jackie Blue and a coven of 'some of the country's most prominent women' in signing an open letter by the Human Rights Commission stating that they 'need New Zealanders to respect women' and implying that the Rugby Union's investigation was corrupt.

Ms Devoy made a number of public statements at various venues, at times 'struggling to speak' because of her indignation. Apparently, this also caused her to struggle to think. She claimed the 'scandal' showed 'a major culture shift is needed', that the rugby union's investigation into the matter involved a lack of respect and dignity to Scarlette, and that Scarlette was an 'adult entertainer, nothing more, nothing less'. She talked about the challenge she faced as a mother instructing her sons as to what is 'morally right and morally wrong'.

Well, I couldn't find anything in Ms Devoy's biographical information, stellar though it was with respect to playing squash, that qualified her to make pronouncements about moral right and wrong. She didn't appear to have studied philosophy, ethics or any other subject that might equip her with the understanding or methods to draw conclusions about morality. Regardless, she wants to tell us all how it is.

Ms Devoy failed to mention that Scarlette had agreed to 'extras' for more money, involving allowing touching and indecencies. Because this had been contrary to the rules of the agency that provided her with work, she was removed from that agency's listings. How did the 'extras' fit in with Ms Devoy's description of Scarlettte as nothing more than an entertainer? And what is the morality in Ms Devoy ignoring important facts when using her public office to attack others in public?

Empathic said...

Part 2 of 2:
Further, what is the morality of assuming that someone's allegations are truthful or of treating accused men as guilty simply on the basis of allegations? The only testing of the allegations was done by the Rugby Union. This included watching CCTV recordings of the whole event, interviewing the accused players, bar staff and other witnesses, and concluded that the evidence did not support Scarlette's allegations or warrant any disciplinary action against any player. The stripper's allegations were largely lies. The scurrilous insinuations by Ms Devoy and her like that the Rugby Union's investigation was a corrupt whitewash were made without evidence and apparently purely on the basis that it arrived at a conclusion the feminists didn't like; what 'morality' does that show?

The Rugby Union have every right to investigate whatever they choose to and to do so in any way that is legally available to them. Ms Devoy and her fellow misandrists seek to impose their restrictive codes of political correctness on others' behaviour even when it is entirely within the law. The demanded that they advise the Rugby Union regarding how to do the investigation; if they did you can be sure the method would be capable of only one result, that of supporting the stripper's claims and minimizing any significance of her lies. They called for an independent investigation by some body other than the Rugby Union, but we already have such a body in the NZ Police whose efforts to conduct an independent investigation Scarlette refused to cooperate with.

Scarlette's allegations were of criminal offending for which the maximum punitive tariff is 20 years imprisonment plus lifelong punishment on a sex offenders register. She used a number of opportunities to spout her allegations through internet and news media, at the same time claiming she just wants to be left alone and refusing to allow her allegations to be tested in Court through any prosecution. Allegations made in that way surely deserve little respect or credibility. Yet Ms Devoy and her human rightists seem to believe it's somehow morally right to keep placing great weight on such shielded allegations, to milk them for as long as possible as ammunition in their war against men.

The Rugby Union made the mistake of trying to appease the likes of Ms Devoy and her lynch mob. They appeared to be so frightened of the thought police that they were not clear and assertive in their support of the accused players and their finding that Scarlette's allegations were largely false. They muddied the waters by issuing the team with a warning essentially not to hire strippers in future, and this allowed Ms Devoy and her human rightists a foot in the door with which to keep kicking the accused players. In my opinion the Rugby Union should have commenced, and still should commence, defamation proceedings against Scarlette that will force her allegations to be tested.

In this display Ms Devoy and her human rightists have not shown standards of honesty, ethics, morality or sound reasoning to deserve to be in any position of directing our nation's moral compass.

Anonymous said...

About time we all became courageous enough to confront these issues by starting a group movement or political party so our voices can be heard by all New Zealanders.The facts listed here regarding the Chiefs and the stripper are not widely known and unless the media or the courts expose these false accusations ,players will be defamed unfairly forever.And the women can extort capital again and again . This behaviour applies to other forms of employment ,where ,as Lindsay points out , people victimise themselves while making completely unfounded claims against their employers with total impunity.Time for a more balanced and fair system for addressing these matters, Cheers Mike