It allows individuals to express their opinions and beliefs, even if they are unpopular or controversial. This right is protected by international law and is enshrined in our Bill of Rights.
Last week, protesters took to the streets in Auckland to demonstrate against British writer, Posie Parker.
I didn’t know who Posie Parker was before this event, and frankly I don’t care. I do not subscribe to her view on transgender people, either, but I respect her right to free speech.
What was particularly concerning about this protest was how the protesters put their views above the right to freedom of expression. They accused Parker of being transphobic and promoting hate speech against transgender individuals, and while it is understandable that some may disagree with Parker’s views, attempting to silence her and prevent her from expressing them, is not acceptable.
The protesters behaved as though their views were more important than the right to freedom of expression of others: they argued that Parker’s views were harmful and had real-world consequences for transgender individuals and, therefore, she should not be allowed to express them.
Well, this is a dangerous precedent to set.
When individuals start to believe that their views are more important than the right to freedom of expression, it opens the door to censorship and the silencing of dissenting opinions.
It is also important to note that what constitutes hate speech is often a matter of subjective interpretation, and it is not the place of protesters to determine what can and cannot be said.
If Parker’s views are indeed harmful and offensive, then individuals are free to criticize and challenge them. Likewise, if the protesters’ actions are harmful and offensive, then they, too, should be subject to the same options.
Attempting to silence Posie Parker and prevent her from expressing them is a violation of her fundamental human rights.
One must remember, however, that the protesters did not represent the entire transgender community, and many transgender individuals have expressed their support for Parker’s right to freedom of expression, even if they do not agree with her views.
Attempting to silence Parker and her supporters is a violation of their fundamental human rights, and to think otherwise is to accept mob rule, which is a pathway to chaos.
Government minister Marama Davidson was intoxicated by her participation in the protest and made outrageous racist and sexist comments. In my view, she is not fit to hold a ministerial warrant and the prime minister should sack her.
Questions must be asked around why the police appeared to stand by and let the mob run riot.
Whoever was responsible for the police not protecting the right of free speech should be reminded of the words of the late Evelyn Beatrice Hall: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Stuart Smith is a N Z National Party politician who has been a member of the House of Representatives for the KaikÅura electorate since 2014. This article was first published HERE
I didn’t know who Posie Parker was before this event, and frankly I don’t care. I do not subscribe to her view on transgender people, either, but I respect her right to free speech.
What was particularly concerning about this protest was how the protesters put their views above the right to freedom of expression. They accused Parker of being transphobic and promoting hate speech against transgender individuals, and while it is understandable that some may disagree with Parker’s views, attempting to silence her and prevent her from expressing them, is not acceptable.
The protesters behaved as though their views were more important than the right to freedom of expression of others: they argued that Parker’s views were harmful and had real-world consequences for transgender individuals and, therefore, she should not be allowed to express them.
Well, this is a dangerous precedent to set.
When individuals start to believe that their views are more important than the right to freedom of expression, it opens the door to censorship and the silencing of dissenting opinions.
It is also important to note that what constitutes hate speech is often a matter of subjective interpretation, and it is not the place of protesters to determine what can and cannot be said.
If Parker’s views are indeed harmful and offensive, then individuals are free to criticize and challenge them. Likewise, if the protesters’ actions are harmful and offensive, then they, too, should be subject to the same options.
Attempting to silence Posie Parker and prevent her from expressing them is a violation of her fundamental human rights.
One must remember, however, that the protesters did not represent the entire transgender community, and many transgender individuals have expressed their support for Parker’s right to freedom of expression, even if they do not agree with her views.
Attempting to silence Parker and her supporters is a violation of their fundamental human rights, and to think otherwise is to accept mob rule, which is a pathway to chaos.
Government minister Marama Davidson was intoxicated by her participation in the protest and made outrageous racist and sexist comments. In my view, she is not fit to hold a ministerial warrant and the prime minister should sack her.
Questions must be asked around why the police appeared to stand by and let the mob run riot.
Whoever was responsible for the police not protecting the right of free speech should be reminded of the words of the late Evelyn Beatrice Hall: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Stuart Smith is a N Z National Party politician who has been a member of the House of Representatives for the KaikÅura electorate since 2014. This article was first published HERE
14 comments:
>It is also important to note that what constitutes hate speech is often a matter of subjective interpretation, and it is not the place of protesters to determine what can and cannot be said.
Stuart, you've missed something. Those who promote 'hate speech' laws insist that simply being 'offended' constitutes harm done - they do not require 'objective' measures of offensiveness.
Thank you Barend I'm really liking you today. And to Stuart I'm not sure why you feel compelled to qualify what you say with your point" I do not subscribe to her view on transgender people, either, but..." So what is her view? All I can make out is what her view is Women have a right to speak freely in public, because that's the only message I got! I understand only from all of this discussion, ironically, they don't want their private spaces invaded by intact trans women. Quite rightly so. As someone else said to HDPA You are sitting on a barbed wire fence.
My reply to Stuart :)
https://lifebehindtheirondrapeii.blogspot.com/2023/04/of-roads-and-women-message-to-national.html
Apologies I meant to put my comment, not ,y blog link to it in comment above … try again.
Stuart if you don't agree with Kellie-Jay's transgender views, then you don't agree with women's rights and you agree with the erasure of women.
There's no compromise here. Trans-women(men) have all the rights the rest of us have, but like Maori they want more rights. In the case of co-Tribal Totalitarianism-governance that's the end of our Westminster democracy, and in the lunatic gender ideology war, that's the erasure of women, adult human females, and biological men - sorry to be profane - with their dicks swinging around in women's toilets, and in front of your daughters in the changing rooms. And it's dangerous for women, go look at the stats on sexual offenses by this group, the real ones, not the stream of lies put out my Marama Davidson who is the most toxic person in our politick today.
How absurd you all have to tow the line in that asylum in Wellington on straight out reality denial (which always ends uncivilly as at #LetWomenSpeakAuckland). You know the Voltaire quote: those who believe in absurdity enable atrocity [and it is atrocious what's happened to civil society in New Zealand].
So don't be a typical National party willy wonker on this issue like you are with our Marlborough Sounds Roads - yes, it's Mark Hubbard, Moetapu Bay Road, you know me well - where you will not represent we residents on ruined roads for over 22 months now and you agree with the lunatic consultancy that has us all trapped here in houses we can't sell without huge discounts because we can't guarantee the public road access we all built our houses for will be there in the future (140 houses on just my road, and I'm talking the whole of Marlborough). We're over it totally: Stantec NZ's report doesn't even go to Waka-Catastrophe until at least June, meaning we won't even know if our road/s are to be fixed until let's face it next year. That will be three years with our lives on hold on dangerous roads facing ruination in your damned electorate not for our roads, again, to be fixed, but just to find if they will be fixed - how is that acceptable? ... And crickets from you.
Gah! I'm hoping this election sees both Labour and National cleaned out: you're both a woke elite and are the problem.
Originally said by Voltaire!
Nively done Mark Hubbard.
We will have to get used to it. in the lead up to the election much free speech will be repressed, as the PIJFund conditions have acheived with the msm newspapers. Already in public gatherings any rational open discussion of co governance has effectively been suppressed. Independant contrary free speech by others unoposed by violence is not part of tikanga/te ao.
Stuart, you seem to have swallowed the mainstream media line that Posie Parker is anti-trans. From online interviews, it is clear she is not, she is pro-women.
Please tell us which of these Posie Parker views you disagree with:
* a woman is an adult human female;
* biological males should be kept out of women's sport, toilets, changing rooms and jails;
* Children should not be groomed for trans surgery.
Parker says she does not care what trans people do, other than the above.
I didn’t know who Posie Parker was before this event, and frankly I don’t care. I do not subscribe to her view on transgender people,
Every comment I've read from NZ-based writers about the event last weekend have included this statement.
What view on transgender people?
Everything I've read states that Parker has two main points:
Woman = Adult, Human Female.
and
Women only spaces are for women only.
What is objectionable about that?
I expect better from an MP.
Phil Blackwell
Think about it Stuart. Women are the lowest of the low. Anyone can claim a woman’s identity but a women. Women are parodied freely but it is not acceptable to call it out.
If people want to redefine themselves I have no problem - just not at the expense of women.
That's a creative way to get attention Mark. Nicely done.
Sick and tired of politicians sitting on the fence on this one. Grow some nuts (and sanity) National and call out the ideological rubbish for what it is. Show some guts and give us a reason to vote for you.
Go Moetaou Bay Rd. From Mahau Road. And the women on it.
Stuart - WAKE UP!!!!!!!!’n
I believe many New Zealanders expected better Stuart, and you, along with many of our elected officials, should go away and think about what several of the commentators have said above. You are right, the Police's inaction needs to be investigated, but also why all the Labour, Green and National politicians seem to think Posie Parker was a persona non grata with, inter alia, strong anti-trans views? Who briefed you or were you all just sucked in by a false Wikipedia entry and msm news and their woke, jaundiced group-think outlooks where it appears no earnest research was undertaken? That's a question I want answered, or at least an apology to be given to both the public and Parker for the misrepresentations and misunderstandings. But I expect pigs might fly first. Fortunately, we all have memories and most of us still have a right to vote.
Post a Comment