The ?woke? supporters of hate speech legislation reckon that the primary reason for the legislation against ?hate speech? is ?to send a strong message of tolerance and equality to all of society?. They also want to virtue-signal to the UN.
They want a strong message sent, particularly to liberal-conservative and reasoned debaters like Jordan Peterson. Their message is that, by eliminating and punishing open debate, they will ‘shut down’ perceived prejudice on the basis of identity, race, religion and sexuality.
Today, the controversy regarding the effectiveness of hate speech laws is being debated within our homes and with our friends as we question whether this type of legislation benefits society.
However, hate speech laws will actually accomplish the opposite effect of tolerance and equality because they will encourage citizens to create or view ?objectionable material?, not as members of our society, but as members of a group driven underground, divided from society and with the potential for anarchy.
The enactment of hate speech legislation, at the federal and local council level, will lead to unintended consequences and unfair practices.
It is unacceptable that the new head of the Human Rights Commission has recently written to the public through an MSM owned ?neighbourhood website? asking the recipients to dob in neighbours and people in general who spout what they deem as ?hateful speech?. This is not welcome; 1984 is almost upon us.
Combined with the impending intended hate speech laws we have the knee jerk reaction to the Christchurch tragedy and the firearms restriction legislation which has passed the first legislative phase and appears to have support on both sides of the house.
I am not a firearms expert but, as with any legislation, depending on how it is written, it may be incrementally expanded in the future, to further restrict firearms.
Socialists have an agenda; they wish to enact their ideology while ignoring future consequences. If Marxists really understood economics and acknowledged the benefits of capitalism and freedom of speech, they would not be Socialists.
As Shakespeare noted in Hamlet, ?there?s the rub?. New Zealanders will eventually get tired of the Nanny State inflicting their version of 1984 upon us. Hypothetically, a right-wing lead coalition government could be elected which could use the very same anti-free speech legislation against the Marxists; perhaps by enabling a version of ?McCarthyism.?
McCarthyism was a vociferous campaign against alleged communists in the US government and other institutions by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the early 1950s. Many of the accused were blacklisted or lost their jobs, though most of them did not in fact belong to the Communist Party.
Our prime minister is making ‘Captains Calls’ to virtue signal. She has enacted immediate legislation without due diligence; not taking legitimate advice thereby apparently showing disregard of the consequences for New Zealand. What do we call such leadership?
No one I talk to wants any legislation that restricts our freedoms. My advice to the Coalition of Losers is to leave our freedoms alone!
However, the past tells us that our PM does not ‘take advice’ but ?ideologically? she knows exactly what she is doing. Ultimately though, the Socialists should be very careful what they wish for.
