FSU Council Member Dane Giraud criticised Australia’s move, labelling it a “foolish choice” likely to increase attention on Owens and her controversial views.
Owens, known for her provocative political opinions, is set to tour New Zealand next month, sparking calls from some groups for a visa denial over her stance on sensitive topics, including the Holocaust. Giraud argued that “provocative or unpopular opinions are not a reason to deny someone’s entry into a country.”
In a press statement, Giraud stressed that New Zealanders’ rights to free speech should be respected, underscoring the importance of open debate as a cornerstone of democracy. “Bad ideas are beaten by good ideas,” he said, adding that challenging opposing viewpoints can only strengthen public discourse.
The Free Speech Union sees the potential visa denial as a counterproductive form of censorship that risks stirring greater interest in Owens’ message. Giraud noted Australia’s recent decision, asserting it had created “more interest in Owens and her views” than allowing her entry would have.
Giraud also cautioned that barring Owens could foster resentment among minority groups and warned against censorship in the name of protection.
“If New Zealanders don’t want to engage with Owens, they don’t need to attend her events,” he concluded, reiterating that Kiwis should have the freedom to decide which voices they engage with and to form their own opinions.
Daily Telegraph New Zealand (DTNZ) is an independent news website, first published in October 2021. - where this article was sourced.
In a press statement, Giraud stressed that New Zealanders’ rights to free speech should be respected, underscoring the importance of open debate as a cornerstone of democracy. “Bad ideas are beaten by good ideas,” he said, adding that challenging opposing viewpoints can only strengthen public discourse.
The Free Speech Union sees the potential visa denial as a counterproductive form of censorship that risks stirring greater interest in Owens’ message. Giraud noted Australia’s recent decision, asserting it had created “more interest in Owens and her views” than allowing her entry would have.
Giraud also cautioned that barring Owens could foster resentment among minority groups and warned against censorship in the name of protection.
“If New Zealanders don’t want to engage with Owens, they don’t need to attend her events,” he concluded, reiterating that Kiwis should have the freedom to decide which voices they engage with and to form their own opinions.
Daily Telegraph New Zealand (DTNZ) is an independent news website, first published in October 2021. - where this article was sourced.
8 comments:
I never thought I would see the day when a conservative was banned from NZ.
She had already explained the “controversial” views and would be a good fit for the real national party.
Let her in.
LOL !
The Streisand Effect in full swing.
Whether or not someone's views upsets Jewish people in high places shouldn't be the criterion for allowing someone to visit a country and speak. This is what this is about.
In fact, what does it reveal about the power dynamic when this IS the criterion?
As far as I know, Dane Giraud, Council Member of the Free Speech Union who issued this statement is himself Jewish. What's the subtext here? "Don't worry, I, as a Jewish person, agree that people should be free to hear Candace Owens, so let her in." Well, thank God you approve, Dane.
Sorry, but who made Jewish people the arbiters of what can and can't be said, and who can and can't be heard? I don't need their permission to make my own judgments.
Reply to I.C. Clairly:
I'm sorry, but I don't see any evidence in this piece to support your suppositions. Nowhere is there any mention in this piece of jews (except for an oblique reference to the Holocaust in connection with Owens' purported previous statements) or any reference to Dane Giraud's identity in terms of nationality, ethnicity or religion. For me, the only way I can see your comments making any sense at all is if Giraud is explicitly speaking as a representative of some identity apart from the obvious—as a spokesperson for the FSU. Everything he says in that regard are standard, stock positions the FSU has reiterated many, many times already. You do know that he is addressing the government here don't you.
In all honesty I can't figure out what you are bristling at here apart from a hypothetical scenario that is entirely of your own making. Unless of course you just happen to have a thing about jews. Am I missing something here?
I particularly like what Candace says about welfare: "welfare creates dependency and discourages self reliance among recipients". We all in NZ know that but it is good to have it heard and repeated often especially when stated by an articulate woman of colour. This is a counter to Marxism which we need desperately to be contradicted in this country.
Until recently, Owens was the darling of US mainstream conservatism. Then what happened?
Owen's "crime" is that she made comments that Jews didn't like. Her Jewish boss Ben Shapiro fired her for it. Her career went of the rails when she publicly noticed the excessive influence and negative effects of organised Jewish influence, thereby well-demonstrating its existence.
After Oct 7th, the Israelis needed all hands on deck to win the propaganda war, and they couldn't countenance a high profile dissenter. So she was punished.
If she hadn't gone off the script, we wouldn't even be having this conversation about whether she should be allowed to enter the country.
"Unless of course you just happen to have a thing about jews."
Oh, the irony. In case you haven't noticed, if anyone has "a thing about jews" it is jews themselves, and there's an expectation that gentiles share their obsession - unless, of course, the "thing" is anything less than reverence, in which case its a "dangerous and irrational obsession" that cannot be allowed to spread.
Anonymous @ October 31, 2024 at 4:12 PM
My point is, treating another person on the basis of an identity that can be attached to them, especially when they don't even profess to that identity, is to further support the whole Identity Politics industry and all that goes along with it.
So what if Giraud is a jew? Does that justify shoving him into some imaginary subtext involving negative characterizations based on being a jew, or based on belonging to any other identity that could be wittingly or unwittingly attached to him? Can't he just represent the FSU as he purports, without dumping all that on him? Why can't we just take individuals at face value until they say or do something that suggests otherwise? Why automatically buy into all the worst excesses of identity politics?
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.