Hill, perhaps sensing that this question was best left unanswered, segued quickly into demanding why Nazis liked to attend Parker’s rallies. Guilt by association was a politically safer line of questioning than asking the British activist about her actual views and why she was touring the antipodes in the first place.
We’re having a free-speech moment. It isn’t going well.
Back at the start of March, there was a kerfuffle at the Avondale library when a small cabal of protesters marched into the premise to disrupt a drag queen reading to children.
Outraged at the prospect of kids seeing a man in a dress who wasn’t a priest or Scotsman, the urgent need to protect the young’uns drove the godly of West Auckland into action.
The Free Speech Union upset some of its conservative and traditional feminist support by defending the right of the drag queens to read to children, whilst being careful not to say they believed that this is a good thing. Or a bad thing.
Meanwhile, a group protesting co-governance are finding their events being cancelled because those providing the venues are getting cold feet in the face of determined physical opposition.
An event in Havelock North was called off after local iwi leader Bayden Barber wrote an open letter to the managers of the venue, stating: “I assure you that should this event go ahead at your venue, our people will be there. We will be seen. We will be heard.”
We no longer engage in debate but in a tit-for-tat escalation of tactical moves to deny those we disagree with the opportunity to be heard or to punish them if they speak out of turn.
National MP Maureen Pugh spoke her mind on the issue of climate change and rather than have a debate she was told to be quiet and read some books.
Radio hosts Leah Panapa and Miles Davis accidently spoke their mind on-air when the issue of pregnant people, as opposed to pregnant women, was raised.
Panapa was forced to recant, saying her own comments were, “inexcusable, inappropriate and deeply offensive”, which she may believe, or perhaps she judged if the costs of speaking her mind was her continued employment, it was better to stay on-script.
And let’s not forget the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, Marama Davidson, who told a journalist that, from her perspective, it was “white cis men” who were responsible for violence.
The response wasn’t a desire to challenge her views, but that she apologise and, preferably, resign. I’d rather see Davidson front to a debate than being simply forced into a retraction that, in all probability, is as sincere as the apology issued by Panapa.
Which all leads us to the inevitable debacle of what happened in Albert Park last week.
Like most of New Zealand I’d never heard of Posie Parker (more formally Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull) until Green MP Ricardo Menendez March called for her to be banned.
According to Wikipedia, she is a British activist and the founder of the group Standing for Women, who disagrees with the current trend with respect to transwomen in female sports, bathrooms, and has raised concerns about the use of puberty blockers.
I won’t bore readers with details; we know what happened. A mob erupted in outrage and Parker had to be escorted to safety by a coterie of burly men in high-vis vests.
And why not seek to physically assault this woman? The Minister of Immigration, Michael Wood, declared her views “inflammatory, vile and incorrect”, and these words were quoted by High Court judge, Justice Glendall, who went further and declared: “It was also generally accepted by many parties before me that Ms Keen-Minshull’s views may well be potentially harmful to those communities, communities which are deserving of protection, being particularly vulnerable to harm and discrimination.”
Prominent columnist Shaneel Lal wrote: “I will not sit at home while Nazis and terfs attack my right to be who I am. I will protest Nazis and terfs who dare to touch my rights … If we could go back in time and ask people who died in genocides like the Holocaust: what is more important – your lives or the Nazis’ freedom to express their hatred for you? The answer would be obvious.”
The Nazi theme continued with Tova O’Brien at the recently-departed Today FM, who wrote: “She’s had just about the best publicity she could have hoped for, for her hate-fuelled, anti-trans, neo-Nazi-supported campaign.”
The drawing of an analogy between Parker and Nazis, by referencing the Holocaust and claims Parker was a danger to the trans community, contributed to a feeling of panic, hysteria and tribalism that played out on the lawn of Albert Park.
With dreary predictability those annoyed at what transpired started a petition to have Lal fired from their column-writing gig, and began badgering the police into arresting those whom they feel needed arresting.
This isn’t the way a democracy should be grappling with complex issues. Parker should be free to come and state her views, as should drag queens, those opposed to co-governance, as well as Panapa and Davidson.
Those who find these perspectives objectionable should be given room to explain why, and all should be done without the threat of violence or sanction.
The answer to Kim Hill’s question – why did Posie Parker require protection – is because Hill, Minister Wood, O’Brien, Lal and even Justice Gendall had all contributed to an environment where the use of violence was not only being legitimised, but had become a moral necessity.
We have graduated to a cultural landscape where commercial intimidation and even physical violence is permissible against people if their views are deemed unacceptable by the cultural, political and media leadership......The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective.
Outraged at the prospect of kids seeing a man in a dress who wasn’t a priest or Scotsman, the urgent need to protect the young’uns drove the godly of West Auckland into action.
The Free Speech Union upset some of its conservative and traditional feminist support by defending the right of the drag queens to read to children, whilst being careful not to say they believed that this is a good thing. Or a bad thing.
Meanwhile, a group protesting co-governance are finding their events being cancelled because those providing the venues are getting cold feet in the face of determined physical opposition.
An event in Havelock North was called off after local iwi leader Bayden Barber wrote an open letter to the managers of the venue, stating: “I assure you that should this event go ahead at your venue, our people will be there. We will be seen. We will be heard.”
We no longer engage in debate but in a tit-for-tat escalation of tactical moves to deny those we disagree with the opportunity to be heard or to punish them if they speak out of turn.
National MP Maureen Pugh spoke her mind on the issue of climate change and rather than have a debate she was told to be quiet and read some books.
Radio hosts Leah Panapa and Miles Davis accidently spoke their mind on-air when the issue of pregnant people, as opposed to pregnant women, was raised.
Panapa was forced to recant, saying her own comments were, “inexcusable, inappropriate and deeply offensive”, which she may believe, or perhaps she judged if the costs of speaking her mind was her continued employment, it was better to stay on-script.
And let’s not forget the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, Marama Davidson, who told a journalist that, from her perspective, it was “white cis men” who were responsible for violence.
The response wasn’t a desire to challenge her views, but that she apologise and, preferably, resign. I’d rather see Davidson front to a debate than being simply forced into a retraction that, in all probability, is as sincere as the apology issued by Panapa.
Which all leads us to the inevitable debacle of what happened in Albert Park last week.
Like most of New Zealand I’d never heard of Posie Parker (more formally Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull) until Green MP Ricardo Menendez March called for her to be banned.
According to Wikipedia, she is a British activist and the founder of the group Standing for Women, who disagrees with the current trend with respect to transwomen in female sports, bathrooms, and has raised concerns about the use of puberty blockers.
I won’t bore readers with details; we know what happened. A mob erupted in outrage and Parker had to be escorted to safety by a coterie of burly men in high-vis vests.
And why not seek to physically assault this woman? The Minister of Immigration, Michael Wood, declared her views “inflammatory, vile and incorrect”, and these words were quoted by High Court judge, Justice Glendall, who went further and declared: “It was also generally accepted by many parties before me that Ms Keen-Minshull’s views may well be potentially harmful to those communities, communities which are deserving of protection, being particularly vulnerable to harm and discrimination.”
Prominent columnist Shaneel Lal wrote: “I will not sit at home while Nazis and terfs attack my right to be who I am. I will protest Nazis and terfs who dare to touch my rights … If we could go back in time and ask people who died in genocides like the Holocaust: what is more important – your lives or the Nazis’ freedom to express their hatred for you? The answer would be obvious.”
The Nazi theme continued with Tova O’Brien at the recently-departed Today FM, who wrote: “She’s had just about the best publicity she could have hoped for, for her hate-fuelled, anti-trans, neo-Nazi-supported campaign.”
The drawing of an analogy between Parker and Nazis, by referencing the Holocaust and claims Parker was a danger to the trans community, contributed to a feeling of panic, hysteria and tribalism that played out on the lawn of Albert Park.
With dreary predictability those annoyed at what transpired started a petition to have Lal fired from their column-writing gig, and began badgering the police into arresting those whom they feel needed arresting.
This isn’t the way a democracy should be grappling with complex issues. Parker should be free to come and state her views, as should drag queens, those opposed to co-governance, as well as Panapa and Davidson.
Those who find these perspectives objectionable should be given room to explain why, and all should be done without the threat of violence or sanction.
The answer to Kim Hill’s question – why did Posie Parker require protection – is because Hill, Minister Wood, O’Brien, Lal and even Justice Gendall had all contributed to an environment where the use of violence was not only being legitimised, but had become a moral necessity.
We have graduated to a cultural landscape where commercial intimidation and even physical violence is permissible against people if their views are deemed unacceptable by the cultural, political and media leadership......The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective.
6 comments:
“At her patronising best” (re Kim Hill)? You are being ultra-charitable sir.
Why Parker would even agree to being interviewed by that wolverine of NatRad is an indication of desperation. There would have been many other avenues, some of them genuinely committed to the right of free speech, and the civilised exchange of views and beliefs.
Does Grant really write under the Stuff banner? I suppose because the article does not encompass the PIJFund conditions something faintly objective and individual is possible. Again a lot of musunderstanding might have been avoided if all had observed the early The Platform interview of KJKM. But I guesse most were too busy searching social media.
Sadly Damien, the greatest majority of New Zealander's will not get see and/or even read this article. What I read from your well framed comments, is that New Zealander's live in the dark, and only come out when the Rugby & Cricket is being played. Unless you listen to talkback Radio!
You mention "names" within your article, I wonder how many of our Country Men & Women even know who they are - Green MP Ricardo Menendez, like Golriz Ghahraman, Julie Anne Genter, are immigrants to NZ, all have piggy backed onto the Green Party List, and into Parliament".
To readers of this Column, and this Comment, can I direct you to Karl Du Fresne and his post, within the Breaking Views domain, on matters similar.
NZ is now starting to go thru what the United Kingdom has gone thru (and still do) over past years. The establishment of Hate Speech Laws, and the number of Police who do nothing else but respond to "complaints". Mind you we have already had the same here (NZ) with at least 2 people who 'spoke their minds on Jacinda Ardern' -(both via YouTube), to whom the Police visited them (it was filmed) and YouTube management was 'encouraged to shut them down, as they had breached (YT) Community Standards'. We have another, who has had YT "remove some of his videos (about Jacinda) and has received warnings, from YT over content - he still persists.
I find it amazing that neither Kim Hill or Tova, or a couple of other female NZ journos/ radio commentators never bothered to "research what Kellie-Jay Keen -Minshull objectives were", prior her arrival. If they had looked, they may have found what she stands for and how how long she has been at it.
The other thing they may have found, is the "ridicule & harassments" she has undergone, in the UK, even from Police, over Her views. All in the Name of Women.
As to a Justice of the Bench, the question- "What data was presented, that caused the verbal tirade"?
Damien - you of all people you should know not to use Wikipedia as a research engine.
All the 'hype' that prevailed came from News coverage in Melbourne, the only event where it "was high jacked', and what followed was 'a hit piece, by NZ MSM'. And Damien, you missed reporting on the inconvenience (alleged) place upon Kellie, by NZ Immigration at Auckland Airport upon her arrival.
The International MSM have had a field day re Saturday 25th March 2023, the "pile on" from conservative Women in Media has been nothing short of condemning, the actions that prevailed.
" We no longer engage in debate but in a tit-for-tat escalation of tactical moves to deny those we disagree with the opportunity to be heard or to punish them if they speak out of turn" quote from Damien's post, your statement is appropriate, in that America, Canada & UK have already preceded us in this matter - it is now our turn.
Firstly, don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Kellie-Jay, by her own admission is a women's rights campaigner; has said she did not write the Wikipedia bio and has no ability to edit it. All confirmed in an interview with her by Sean Plunket before her arrival here in NZ.
This whole debacle, which has brought international shame on New Zealand, was to a very large part fomented by mainstream media, which in turn seemed to influence our politicians (perhaps with the exception of Michael Wood and those outspoken Green MP’s who all appeared to be pre-primed) and Justice Gendall, who may now regret not conducting more through research before commenting as he did.
But you are right, the cultural landscape as to what is and is not acceptable has evolved, leastwise to some. The recent poem of Tusiata Avia’s is a case in point. An expletive ridden piece of vitrol that incites the doing of grievous bodily harm to others, but having been written by a woman of colour with an undercurrent of past ancestral oppression, aka colonisation, that’s deemed entirely acceptable to the point of it being publicly funded and promoted. On the other hand, Kellie-Jay, a white woman from the former colonising empire espousing some entirely sensible ‘old fashion’ woman’s rights beliefs - a persona non grata, with potentially white supremacist and Nazi affiliations and deserving of our condemnation and a physical shut-down. Except, that’s not what she stands for and the media, the politicians and all that mob rule that maligned her have made complete fools of themselves and have only highlighted what nasty, intolerant, bigoted, hypocrites they all are.
By their own actions - like the blatant falsehood and racism evident from Marama Davidson’s “white cis men” outburst, they have clearly showcased their own bias and intolerance; whose comments are not worth a moment’s consideration; and, importantly, who to avoid giving support to in the upcoming elections. For that, I think we all owe Kellie-Jay our eternal gratitude.
I initially thought polly must be an awful person not accepting trans gender people. But when you look into what the trans activists actually want, it is the complete destruction of the knowlege of what a biological man and woman are. Everyone needs to do their research. This is nothing to do with inclusivity and I totally support polly's views.
I add to Peter Young's comment that the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, was also a former director of the Guardian newspaper. The Guardian is a strong supporter of the current liberal ideology. When Jimmy got married wedding guests included Tony Blair and David Mililand. Mililand left UK politics to work for George Soros's aligned International Rescue Charity so a small world.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.