Saving Free speech from Profa

Credit: SonovaMin

It was reassuring to read on?Whaleoil?about a new organisation called Advance Australia which humans are joining ” to make sure their beloved country doesn?t succumb to rampant radicalism or political correctness” of the kind viciously promoted by the Soros-funded group GetUp. We could do with something like Advance Australia in New Zealand, where subhumans – biological humans who nonetheless renounce reason and revert to force – are attempting to end free speech at every turn. They are our local Antifa, except that Antifa should be called (and will be by me henceforth) “Profa” because they are?pro-fascist. In their behaviour, appearance and mindless malice they are the modern-day version of Mussolini’s Blackshirts. In their beliefs, they are Islamo-Marxists, which makes them fascists also.

At present they are successful. Although Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern were finally allowed in to New Zealand to speak at a privately-owned venue – having been denied a ratepayer-funded one by Phascist Phil – the private owner was intimidated by Profa at the last minute to such an extent that he called the event off and told the pair he didn’t want them anywhere near his establishment.

We saw Profa in action again at an Auckland University debate where the subhumans almost succeeded in preventing Don Brash from speaking by incessantly screeching into megaphones. The organisers were capitulating and moving on to the next speaker when a chorus went up from the humans present, “Don Brash! Don Brash! Don Brash!” The humans made it clear that they would keep this up until Don was allowed to speak as scheduled. This time Profa caved, and Don spoke. No thanks to the cowardly organisers.

If we are not brave in our advocacy of free speech, we shall lose what’s left of it. Too much ground has been given already, but we are not yet at the point to which Britonistan has descended where Orwell’s Thought Police have become a literal reality and police officers assigned to Hate Crime Units knock on doors and arrest people for criticising Islam on Twitter. That?is?the point the Islamo-Marxists want to get us to, though. Here was New Zealand Federation of Islam Associations president Hazim Arafeh talking about his letters to the Immigration Minister, Minister for Ethnic Communities and the Human Rights Commission asking for Lauren Southern to be denied entry to New Zealand:

“I don’t think insulting Muslims comes under free speech, that’s an abuse of freedom of speech. I’m talking on behalf of 50,000 to 60,000 Muslims in New Zealand who are going to face a very hard time by all the comments she is going to make.”

A Muslim named Azad Khan started up an illiterate petition, citing Lauren’s blasphemy against Allah (“Allah is gay”) and her opposition to multi-culturalism as the reasons she should be denied entry.

The Muslims, it will be recalled, were joined by Marxists calling themselves Auckland Peace Action (“Peace”? More Orwell!) who threatened to “confront and blockade” Lauren and Stefan.

The Islamo-Marxists won’t be satisfied until criticism of Islam is criminalised. In this, they are supported by New Zealand’s bulwarks of political correctness such as the Human Rights Commission. Here’s then-Race Relations Commissioner Susan Devoy presenting the HRC’s submission to the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, in Geneva, July 2017. She cites Section 61 of the Human Rights Act quote.

61 Racial disharmony

It shall be unlawful for any person?

(a) to publish or distribute written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, or to broadcast by means of radio or television or other electronic communication words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting; or

(b) to use in any public place as defined in section 2(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1981, or within the hearing of persons in any such public place, or at any meeting to which the public are invited or have access, words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting; or

(c) to use in any place words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting if the person using the words knew or ought to have known that the words were reasonably likely to be published in a newspaper, magazine, or periodical or broadcast by means of radio or television,

?being matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons in or who may be coming to New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons. end quote.

Then she complains:

it should be noted that both section 61 and section 131 are limited to instances of racial disharmony. Jurisprudence indicates that the provisions may only be applied to religious groups where membership is restricted to a pre-existing cultural group with a long-shared history and common belief as to their historical antecedents.?The provisions are therefore unable to be utilised in respect of religious hate speech directed at Muslim New Zealanders, who, for the most part, belong to a variety of ethnic minority communities in New Zealand.

And so she recommends:

That the Committee urges the Government to:

(a) Review the adequacy of current legislation in addressing and sanctioning hate speech and incitement to racial disharmony, including hateful and disharmonious speech targeted at the religion and beliefs of ethnic minority communities; and

(b) Following that review, make any changes necessary to ensure that the legislative framework is adequate and contains appropriate and effective sanctions. end quote.

In other words, criminalise “hate speech” against Islam!

This is the same Dame who wrote in a?Herald?op-ed: quote.

I believe online hatred is something we can get better at calling out.

I believe we need better restrictions when it comes to the online forums, comments sections on some media outlet websites as well as their social media accounts.

I am keen to see our Police begin to gather hate crime statistics ? at the present time this is not something they collate when responding to call outs. end quote.

Devoy has departed, but you can be sure the thought commissars who remain will diligently promote this item on the Islamo-Marxist agenda.

Here are my own alternative recommendations?which I would urge upon members of the recently-formed Free Speech Coalition?designed to save and restore free speech:

1) Salman Rushdie?s famous dictum, ?There is no such thing as a right not to be offended? must be emblazoned in the sky, fry-quacking moronic snowflakes notwithstanding.

2) So too must ?I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.? The counter to bad ideas is good ideas and the free exchange thereof.

3) So too must Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which 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.”

4) Section 4 of that Act, which says the Act can be trumped by other legislation, must be repealed.

5) Section 61 of the Human Rights Act must be repealed.

5) The office of Race Relations Commissioner must be disestablished.

6) So too must the entire Human Rights (Wrongs!) Commission.