Why hasn’t this been reported in our media?


All around the world Universities are falling victim to Social Justice Warriors and other limp-wristed, panty-waist types seeking safe spaces and shutting down free speech in the very places that free speech should be encouraged.

If it isn’t Black Lives Matter it is various gay groups or Muslim Associations howling down freedom of speech.

Well, it’s happened here and to my knowledge hasn’t yet been reported by the mainstream media despite the awful precedence this sets.

Back in August, there was a debate involving Lindsay Perigo and Susan Devoy at the University of Auckland. The moot was “That this House would ban religious symbols in public.”

Lindsay Perigo was howled down as he gave his speech. Strangely there hasn’t been a murmur or a mutter from Susan Devoy about the issue and likewise nothing in the mainstream media. Why is that?

I’ll let Lindsay Perigo explain:

This is the speech I delivered almost in its entirety in my capacity as special commentator, along with Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy, at Monday night’s semi-final in the intra-university Next Generation Debates series at Auckland University. I say “almost in its entirety” because a gaggle of Muslims became very vocal near the end of my speech and demanded, successfully, I be stopped at once for having gone over my allocated time. The point at which I was shut down is noted in the text below.

What a member of Young New Zealand First called “magnificent pandemonium” followed, with epithets flying back and forth, Dame Susan waiving her right of rebuttal and storming off from the table we were both sharing.   


“That this House would ban religious symbols in public.”

I’m a libertarian. As a rule I don’t believe in banning anything … except banning. I don’t believe in banning religious symbols in public, even though I’m an atheist. [At this point the lights went out, and I declared myself a Believer. Then they came back on.] I often repair to the immortal maxim derived from Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it.”

What a magnificent sentiment!

Article 13 of our Bill of Rights says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.

Article 14 says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

Article 15 says:

Every person has the right to manifest that person’s religion or belief, in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.

I agree with all that.

Unfortunately Article 4 makes it clear that this Bill of Rights can be trumped by legislation contrary to it, meaning the whole thing is a sham!

So that’s the first thing I’d do before worrying about the display of religious symbols: remove Article 4 from the Bill of Rights so that it really is a Bill of Rights.

Second, I’d abolish Dame Susan. Nothing personal! I’d just abolish the office of Race Relations Commissar and with it, the entire Human Rights Commission, to which I routinely refer as the Human Wrongs Commissariat. This cossetted coterie of taxpayer-supported fascists of the left just want to impose their precious, prissy, puritanical Political Correctness upon all of us. They’re our Thought Police, prattling on about diversity when they’re attempting to outlaw the most important diversity of all, ideological diversity and make their Political Correctness compulsory. Everything in their universe would be either illegal or compulsory. In my universe they’d have to find real jobs and the legislation that set them up would be repealed.

You see, that legislation already contains provisions that violate our Bill of Rights.

Article 131 of our Human Rights Act says you can go to jail for making insulting comments about someone’s race or country of origin!

So there was this Irishman, Englishman and Scotsman … oh wait, we can’t go there.

So there was this Iraqi, Iranian and Pakistani … oh my, we most certainly can’t go there!

So much for: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression

I hate to break it to you, but there is a right to insult. The way to deal with a racist is to shame him with reason, not to jail him. Freedom of expression includes the right to say offensive things. It doesn’t include a right never to be offended.

There is certainly a right to say things that will be construed as insults by those intent on being insulted even though they’re not intended to be.

And this gets us close to the nub of the issue.

This is the Age of Umbrage, the Age of Offence-Taking. All chance of debate on any matter of substance is instantly closed down nowadays as soon as some two-bit totalitarian, some shrieking Social Justice Warrior, some pompous PC Thought Policewoman whines, “I find your statements offensive.” For these latter-day Inquisitionists, the only thing that gets them out of bed each day is to find something to be offended by and be a victim of. Racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, White Privilege , income inequality … you name it. To them, the best response I know of was uttered by comedian Stephen Fry, who said, and I shall quote him exactly: Quote—“It’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights. It’s actually nothing more than a whine. ‘I find that offensive.’ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so fucking what!” Unquote.

The stifling pervasiveness of this infantilism, the mindless absurdity of campus “safe zones” where one’s “sensitivities” won’t be “triggered” by “micro-aggressions,” is such that free speech is all but dead. It has been killed above all by those institutions that once were its proud bastions, the media and the universities. Here I want to salute as noble exceptions the students at Otago University who just voted down a ban on “offensive” costumes at their annual party by their purported representatives, the Otago University Students Association. The OUSA had issued a list of forbidden apparel, including anything depicting Nazis, Arabs, Bill Cosby or Caitlyn Jenner. The students rebelled. A referendum was held and 67% of participants voted against the prohibitions. Congratulations, Otago students. But look out. Big Sister Susan is watching you!

We all know what the real moot is here tonight. Not the generic banning of religious symbolism in public, but the specific banning of Muslim religious symbolism. There’s no issue with Christians or Buddhists or Sikhs or Hindus or Jews wearing their drag and bling in public. There is an issue, because of everything that’s going on in the world, with Muslims covering up their faces. But had the moot been, “That this House would ban the burka,” this debate would not have been allowed to proceed. Muslims would have taken offence, Dame Susan, even though Islam is not a race and hence not within her purview, would have instigated prosecution proceedings against NZ Initiative, and we’d be having to launch a campaign to “Free Oliver Hartwich!”

But we should be able to debate banning the burka. What’s going on in the world does make it an issue.

Ordinarily, as a libertarian I’d say wear whatever drag and bling you want; just don’t force me to wear it.That’s my default position. In the case of Islam, however, there’s one significant consideration that might cause me to depart from that position. That is, elements of Islam have declared war on us, in accordance with their Holy Book, and are waging that war with a brutality we never expected to see revisited in the twenty-first century. These are sub-human barbarians who want to take us back to the stoning age. They want their evil superstition to be mandatory for everyone in a world-wide caliphate. In free countries they take advantage of freedom of speech to hold up signs saying, “Death to the Infidel!” “Freedom of speech go to hell!” “Man-made law go to hell!” “Massacre those who insult Islam!” “Behead those who insult the prophet.” Like the Human Wrongs Commissariat, they don’t believe in the right to insult, and they behead away with impunity.

In war, all bets are off. You don’t have to extend peacetime freedoms to those you’re at war with. In WW2 England people were not free to wear Nazi regalia in public, or hold Nazi demonstrations, or advocate publicly for Nazism, and neither should they have been. We’re not obliged to extend freedom of expression to any enemy who is seeking by violence to take ours away, and to kill us. We must not assume that because no Muslim in New Zealand has ever committed a terror attack, none ever will. I would hope that “reasonable” non-violent Muslims are cooperating with authorities in monitoring for signs of violent ones. My contention, though, is that “non-violent Muslim” is a contradiction in terms, given the number of injunctions in the Koran along the lines of “slay the infidel wherever ye may find him” and the odious violence that is Sharia Law. My position is that “non-violent” Muslims are by definition not Muslims at all, even if they consider themselves to be. [At this point, shouting by Muslims got very loud, and they demanded I be silenced at once since I had gone overtime. Unfortunately the organisers capitulated, and asked that I stop immediately, notwithstanding my protestations that I was almost there. The following lines of my speech were not delivered.] Now I wouldn’t put any bans or restrictions in place just yet, except one: on further Muslim immigration while Jihad is going on anywhere in the world. I would put Muslims on notice that I reserve the right to put other bans or restrictions in place, and expect them to understand that and cooperate.

So, ban the burka? Not right now—there’d be no particular point as best I can tell—but we’d be within our rights to do so and there could be a point quite soon.

The over-arching thought I want to leave you with is that we should be able to at least debate this matter without the spectre of the Human Wrongs Commissariat hanging over us.

PS: If there’s anyone I haven’t offended here tonight, I apologise.

As you can see the Religion of Peace…and Intolerance was once again intolerant even though a life long libertarian was explaining that he wouldn’t ban the burqa.

SJWs say we must be tolerant…and it turns out we must be tolerant of intolerance.

I say no. We should be intolerant of intolerance. There is little to fault Lindsay Perigo in this debate. It is shameful that he was howled down, it is shameful this happened at the university, and it is shameful that this plague of shouty sooks has now infested NZ.

Where was Susan Devoy? Where was her press release condemning the abrogation of our human rights by shouty scarf wearers? She is a disgrace, for this silence alone she should be dismissed.

Instead two days ago she lectured us all to be tolerant but praised herself and her office for shouting down neo-nazi idiots, fools who like dressing up in black..kind of like these neo-nazi idiots who also like dressing up in black.

Where was her open letter to the Muslim community decrying the shutting down of freedom of speech? She is a disgrace, Auckland University is a disgrace.


– Solo Passion

  • Raibert

    Would have liked to be there, just to see the look on the badminton players face. Well put sentiments that need to be articulated more often to combat the tsunami of PC b/s we are constantly confronted with.

  • Chris Bell

    He’s dead right about the hatred pouring out of the Quran for non-believers in their false God. I checked it out on-line and was horrified! I then checked out Robert Spencer debating the so-called “religion of peace” with a Catholic priest of all choices, and he clearly stated that Muslims are instructed that they must not interpret the Quran but rather take it literally. If we really cared about this world we would ban Islam and this hateful book, or render it as a ‘hate book’ along with the likes of Mein Kampf. Instead, this liberal ‘heads in the sand’ world embraces this hateful doctrine and condemns those who dare to speak up against it. In 50 years time I really fear what this world will be like – peaceful religions like Christianity will be practiced in secrecy, and Muslims will hold complete dominance and oppress all who have alternative views – and where did this all start? – it started with the liberal western fools who protected these haters from day one.

  • Curly1952

    Reminds me of this little one –

  • Shalice

    On the one hand I agree that this should have been reported by the MSM, but on the other I’m not sure because of as to how it would have been reported – would it do more harm than good if the press started going around witch hunting and calling people racist which is what I suspect the approach they would have gone for.

  • Pluto

    Well said Lindsay Perigo, and to those Otago Uni students who voted against “offensive” costumes at your party – WARNING – stay away ’cause you WILL be offended !
    Oh wait you want to be offended, it gives you a purpose in life.

  • KatB

    The problem with these SJW types is they never really listen to what the person is saying. They get hung up on one word or phrase that the person mentions and go off on a tangent about that. If the SJW’s were bright enough, they might just realise they actually agree with the bulk of what’s being said.

  • biscuit barrel

    Its interesting that this symbol which is from the original germanic alphabet ( of which English is a descendant) would be banned

    But this one from another more recent time is not

    (its supposed to be the Sword of islam but for strange reasons you cant get an image address that doesnt say its encrypted.

  • Blueburd

    Ahhhh the word outraged. The go to word for every opinion piece in the mainstream media. Ok, not every piece, but you can’t help but feel like it’s every piece.

    I’ve commented before about how outraged most of NZ is over one thing or another if you went by the media. I just love Stephen fry’s quote. perfect

  • Phenandra

    Poor Susan. She’s mismatched in her job and will never have the independence of thought to escape capture by her Long March through the Institutions public servants.

  • Gazza

    Lindsay Perigo….nailed it! Bravo Mr P. I wish I had been there….has anyone got a video of the proceedings??? In these times I would be surprised if no-one had recorded it…

  • Bling Bling

    Mr Perigo is on the money with his point of libertarianism. The issue we have is that like the US people are sick of being told what to think and what they cannot say and that feelings supplant facts. See the Rubin Reports two longish interviews with Milo Yiannopoulos for 24 March 2016 on You Tube on the issue of cultural Libertarianism.

  • Mick Ie

    Susan Devoy walked out of the debate. Is this because she actually didn’t have a (pre-prepared) rebuttal? Does she personally write the open letters and are the summations and conclusions/decisions made by her? I often wonder if she is a ventriloquist’s puppet and the mouth piece of others who are standing in the shadows.
    After all, her only credentials to gaining this position is that she was a talented squash player.

    • Ruahine

      Nice person but does not have the intellectual ability to engage a well reasoned and factual ‘argument’.

      Appointed largely on sporting ability.

      • Patriot

        “Appointed largely on sporting ability” yes – and having female genitalia.

        Personally, I would rather be appointed on my ability than my sex but that doesn’t fit with the socialist way of thinking.

  • sandalwood789

    The “shouty Muslims” at this debate have proved that Lindsay and we here are right.

    For years, we’ve been saying that Islam is an ideology of intolerance, hate and violence. Bingo – these Muslims have shown that we were spot-on. Thank you, Muslims, for your confirmation that we were right about your ideology.

    Devoy should swallow her pride and learn about Islam. She will learn that what we say is true. ( Of course, she would go to the very worst people to tell her about Islam – Muslims. They would just tell her what they know she wants to hear. She needs to learn from *critics* of Islam. )

  • Duchess of Pork

    It is ironic that we, the country that hosted Sir Karl Popper in the years that enabled him to formulate The Open Society and its Enemies have failed entirely to learn the lessons of which he warned:

    “If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”

  • OneTrack

    “SJWs say we must be tolerant…”

    They only say we must be tolerant of what they want. Things that they don’t want, like freedom of speech, they don’t have to tolerate.

  • XCIA

    The next time Stephen Fry is over here, we should ask him if he would debate our Commissioner about “human rights” live on camera for a charitable cause. I’m sure he would be up for it.

  • spanishbride

    I posted this article over on Gab and one of my 300+ followers sent me this in response. If you don’t get it you obviously don’t follow Milo.
    ““cuck” is used as a general term of abuse, to describe someone who caves in, surrenders, or sells out his core supporters. (His base, in political parlance.) “

  • Usaywot

    Knighthood for that man!

  • Odd Ball

    It’s good to see Lindsay is still as sharp & uncompromising as ever.

  • Alan Beresford B’Stard

    I’ve always enjoyed Lindsay its a shame he’s not on tv anymore. That was an excellent speech, he’s rapidly becoming a national treasure.

  • johcar

    I have just become Lindsay Perigo’s biggest fan.

    It was a longish read but boy, it didn’t pull any punches. He said it like it is (or should be).

  • WBC

    There is some hope beginning to creep in in some Universities fortunatley.

    Chicago announced at the start of the term that there would be no “safe spaces”, no “trigger warnings” and no limiting robust debate so that students could safely not need to listen to the real world.

    Let’s hope more follow suit once degrees from places like Harvard are no longer seen as a positive thing.

  • oldmanNZ

    susan D said she get a lot of abuse and hate mail, ect.

    Does she think she is doing something right if she creating hate?

    What she had not said was why people hate her.

    Asking NZders to forego their culture as to not offend a foreign culture tends to make people hate you, and then lable them as racist.
    Its a small wonder she not making friends.

    • Superman

      My feeling is that this doesn’t make people hate her. It just makes her and her office irrelevant.

  • Michelle

    A friend took her daughter to Unitec last weekend to check it out as there must have been an open day or something
    The part that got me riled up was when she was saying how one speaker was talking about how it would be great for the students if they didn’t have to pay fees for their courses and student allowances not going onto a loan, and how Labour was behind such a policy
    That is not word for word but you get the gist of this
    that educational institutes are pushing left policies at the young and their parents who don’t want their kids having a debt

  • Superman

    I follow Lindsay’s blog and posted his speech on my Facebook page with a warning that the left wing liberal and Muslim sections of our community are showing their true colours, stifling free speech and showing the intolerance they accuse everyone else of. The next step is they will resort to violence to get their way and shut down any debate. This is absolutely against what any university should stand for. What Lindsay said is is completely reasonable and should have given these hotheads pause for thought.

  • Peter Cresswell

    Sorry to correct everyone, but the way you’ve framed the event, and this post, is incorrect. Which is partly the fault of Lindsay’s reportage, it’s true, but what’s *not* true is that he was there debating Susan Devoy, or that university pantywaists shut him down for offending folk.

    The much simpler truth, which also has the advantage of being true, is that the debate itself was a semi-final in the NZ Initiative ‘Next Generation Debates‘ series, in which teams of young students from different unis debate each other on a topic of the NZ Initiative’s choosing.

    So the debate itself was between two teams of students, not between Susan Devoy and Lindsay Perigo; they were both invited as ‘special commentators’ to comment at the end for 7 minutes each while the judges tallied up their marks.

    So why was he “shut down” then? He was asked to finish because he’d gone well over his 7 minutes. Simple as that. Storm in a teacup, with no need for outrage, horror, talk of “intolerance” or cowardice, nor for any reportage from the mainstream media — and no need at all to talk about the “awful precendents” this sets, unless the quite basic lesson be learned that when you’re asked to talk for 7 minutes then you should plan a 7-minute speech. Not one going near twenty!

    • Abdullah

      Thanks for putting the truth out there. I was thinking of doing the same earlier but got a bit busy lately and I just saw your reply now.

  • Olivia Pierson

    You are not in a position to correct anything Cresswell, since you were not present at that debate. I was.

    Lindsay stated in his account that he was a panellist speaker; there to give a sum up speech, he never said he was a debater.
    He was nearly finished when the Muslim group behind me started to yell out “sit down, you’re over time.” They also lamented that they were insulted by Lindsay’s comments, which they felt did not represent Islam – you know, a beautiful religion of peace and all that. They appealed to the moderators that he be quiet and sit down.

    So, shut down because he went overtime? Absolute bollocks! He was shut down because they did not like what was said about their odious religion.

    When I made a few comments down the mic that got handed around the audience, they yelled out over me “Trump Trump – you sound like Trump,” as an attempt to insult me…. seems that the name ‘Trump’ is now the benchmark taunt to shut down dissenting views to their beautiful religion of tolerance and peace – Trump has obviously done something very right.

    Dame Susan was then called upon to rebut Lindsay; she swiftly declined saying that she was “done”. She was way out of her depth and the situation had suddenly turned hostile.

    So enough with this “7 minute” nonsense. Lindsay was allowed 7 to 10 minutes by the rules of the moderators… and he went overtime to around 13…. but that was not the “reason” he got shut down. He was absolutely formidable in his wit, rhetoric and even humour – a world class act – it was very powerful and intense, and the Muslims got offended. That is why he was not allowed to finish. Kiwis on the whole cannot cope with that kind of courage and forceful speech, they’re not used to it and it renders them woefully wobbly. They would never be able to deal with a Dawkins or a Hitchens, or even a cordial Stephen Fry in his fiery moments. Someone on the comments beneath said something about Lindsay being a ‘national treasure’, and that is what he is. He was magnificent, brave and utterly, utterly salient. That is also why Dame Susan waived the right of rebuttal – it would’ve been akin to a mouse attempting to rebut a lion, and she felt that keenly, we all did.

    So quit with the trivial summary of an unusual event to which you were not even present.