The NZ government under whose watch Owens has had her visa denied is of the National Party, their Conservatives.
I don’t think you can really make this a right v left thing.
Right-wing pundit Candace Owens now barred from New Zealand as well as Australia
- Thread starter Serene
- Start date
The NZ government under whose watch Owens has had her visa denied is of the National Party, their Conservatives.
I don’t think you can really make this a right v left thing.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Again, do you have any examples of how not allowing a fascist moron a visa has backfired on anyone else?
It's just the mission creep theory, that's not manifested in reality.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
It's not a double standard. Like it or not, citizens have rights that non-citizens don't. We can't do anything about our native scumbags. We can however, tell foreign ones to get fucked, by the simple refusal of a visa.
They haven't though. She can say what she wants just not in a monitising tour. Otherwise you're arguing for the right for anyone to be able to go anywhere and do any work they want. A position which.. Has issues.
danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
The state criminalising social media posts in particular, or the wider point about the state expanding its definition of extremism to include more and more views? Because I’m sure you can think of examples of both yourself.
Here’s an article about a list of organisations produced by the police about “counterterrorism” which includes an organisation I was at the time a member of.
Greenpeace included with neo-Nazis on UK counter-terror list
Exclusive: Extinction Rebellion and Peta also named in anti-extremism briefing alongside Combat 18 and National Action
Well citizens don't have the total freedom to cause potential incitement in public arenas either.
Well I've already given an example. Raed Salah - who is an Islamist but may have important things to say nevertheless.
I'm not a big fan of the mission creep argument fwiw. On this particular question of bans on individual visitors, we're already at the thick end of the wedge. It's very alarming that people on here are defending this status quo because they think free speech doesn't matter.
What does that achieve? 100 native scumbags have the right to say things we don't like, but we can ban one foreigner from doing the same. Hurrah.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Again, it's the messaging. It's a protest against what that person has to say. It's the diplomatic equivalent of calling them a cunt.
And yes; hurrah!
Ie. pure gesture that achieves nothing.
But yes OK the stakes are low on this question. Fifty years ago, before the Internet, this question would have been more pressing. Nannyish attempts at coddling us against the outside world would have meant something.
What is more important to me is that so many on here don't see the importance of defending free speech. And that broader question is where the slippery slope lies.
We are seeing in America right now a quite brutal crack down on free speech on campuses and on ostensibly anti-hate speech grounds. Protect Jewish students from hearing protests over Gaza.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Well yet again, I reject the suggestion that the state is trying to 'coddle' or somehow protect us from nasty people saying mean things. As already stated it's a moral position rather than a practical one.
Do you think I should be allowed to stand in Hyde Park and tell people to kill jews?
It's not about free speech though. No one has ever had the right to monitise speech where and whenever. You can argue it's a mistake they have denied her a visa, that's fair but you can't sight an inalienable right to free speech in this context to do so, since one has never existed anyway.
Monte
You can't say lavatory without saying tory.
Plus they booted out Novax Djocovid a couple of years ago.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
That was because he wasn't vaccinated though.
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
Being barred gives her, and grifters like her, even more reason to complain about being 'silenced' and victimised. And their followers lap it up.
At a local level yes. Venues should have the right to decide who speaks there. But whole nations?
The monetisation relates to work visas as I understand it. But why not argue that work visas should not be used to block speakers? I don't imagine that's particularly difficult to legislate.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Fuck 'em. Who cares?
The only people who are going to swallow that shit are people who've already buried themselves down that rabbit hole.
Robinson and his cronies moan about having their free speech curtailed. Everyone else just calls them wankers.
isvicthere?
a.k.a. floppybollocks
Indeed. If there's one thing the far right love more than anything, it's playing the victim.
Monte
You can't say lavatory without saying tory.
Not exactly.
It was on grounds of 'health and good order'.
He also lied on his visa application.
The 'good order' part of the ruling is what is most relevant to the Owen case.
Why let someone go on a hate speech tour if there is a high likelihood that there will be a breach of public order?
OK but then at the local level, what if the Police decide there's a serious risk of incitement, public disorder if a given individual presents a public event?
Should they be allowed to refuse a license for that event? (or what ever the mechanisms are.)
Quite rightly, we don't allow individuals to stand in the street shouting racist bile without the potential for censure and legal consequences. This seems more akin to that than the spector of senshorship.
Also seems to be some posters are coming close to saying, we should let people who spread hateful likely inciteful bile in more eloquent terms do so because otherwise the right will play the victim card. Fuck the right, they'll use anything and as I say, there's no consistency in their positions anyway.
And there we have it
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
And what?
It's hardly controversial. Anyone who does believe in absolute freedom of speech is an idiot. This idea that FoS is some kind of inviolable right is ridiculous.
There are loads of things that folk shouldn't be allowed to say.
nogojones
spelling is overrated
I think you'll find Spymaster is quite regularly told to fuck of and is often banned from the boards. He has some lived experience on being banned for his speech and writings. So I think he has some authority on this subject.
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
Gestures never achieve nothing. Everything in society is constructed through what we communicate to each other. Gestures make all the difference in the world
Gesturing about free speech may achieve something, it starts a more serious conversation at the very least. Celebrating the banning of a speaker is just an expression of schadenfreude. Hence the hopeless purity of the gesture.
danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
Nor by the state though. There’s a difference. Though it is one many of you seem unable to perceive.
I'm not sure where things stand in terms of the legal realities. But in principle, no the police should not be called on to police speaking tours. This has been a long standing anti-fascist principle.
The police can deal with such breaches of the peace.
I think those posters are arguing that the ban will be counterproductive. It's not the point of principle, but it's pretty reasonable. Think when Kellie Jay Keen aka Posy Parker toured Australia and ended up with literal neo-nazis supporting her. She effectively marginalised herself. OTOH she'd have made political capital if she had been banned.
Lord Camomile
Yipchaa!
There's possibly a certain irony in this context to not letting someone into the country because of the high likelihood they will have a negative impact on society.
For a second I missed the "never", and was about to disagree in rather strong terms
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
I'm more concerned about British citizens not being able to bring their partners to live in the UK because they don't have very high salaries than some bigot being banned from going to Australia to give speeches. If they're that desperate to hear her they can still do so via Zoom or holograph her in if the want a more 3D encounter.
Lord Camomile
Yipchaa!
Yeah, almost no-one believes in absolute freedom of speech.
It has been, somewhat embarrassingly, one of the things I routinely get most irritated by in recent years. You have people going around making impassioned arguments for freedom of speech, while in other situations telling people what they can't say, with seemingly no internal connection between the two.
What really irritates me, though, is that people who are fairly fundamentally ideologically opposed to each other will usually make the same arguments, often almost verbatim, in favour/against 'freedom of speech', depending on what kind of speech is under discussion at the time.
You don't believe in freedom of speech, and that's fine. You believe some speech should be allowed, but there is other speech you don't think should be allowed. Can we all just be honest with each other, and ourselves, about that? And, please, be more specific with our reasons for which we like and which we don't, and the arguments we're making for either? Otherwise we're just shouting past each other, which is very boring and gets us nowhere.
I mean, if there was a kind of speech I'd like to restrict the freedom of...
Similar threads
