It’s not personal, so let’s define ‘hate speech’

Lauren Southern and Tommy Robinson

When a government attacks a personal belief that we consider to be a fundamental part of our existence, and removes our freedom of choice or worse, we can feel that they are personally attacking us.? They are not. They are simply pursuing their own social agenda and we happened to get in the way. Credit for this thought belongs to Dinesh D’Souza in his book??Death of a Nation.

D’Souza points out that Abraham Lincoln predicted the future in his Lyceum address of the great American nation when he said? quote?

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” End of quote.

Lincoln said the threat to American freedom would come from their very own people. Likewise in New Zealand, we might identify the threat of a culture alien to our own, such as Islam, but fail to recognize the more familiar but equally dangerous threat springing up amongst us.

Donald Trump was voted in to step into the breach precisely to arrest the loss of individual freedom and rights encapsulated in the American constitution.

Americans didn’t need to be told they had lost their freedom, they knew it from Obama’s tanking economy and the businesses that had closed effecting loss of income and homes, unemployment, rising debt and lowering social values. The country’s defence force was severely weakened and the United States international profile suffered in the wake of the Iran agreement and other very poor international decisions including ignoring illegal migration which contributed to a rising crime rate.

Americans gathered around the one person promising to restore individual rights. “America first” was the battle cry that drew the grassroots vote, while the movement threatening to destroy America used the media, Hollywood and large chunks of academia in their attempts to bring Trump down.

They failed in America and they will fail here, provided sufficient numbers of us wake up in time to stop them and we can elect leaders who recognise and will address the issues around loss of freedom.

We were shaken awake when we realised our freedom of speech had just gone up in a puff of smoke when Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneaux were prevented from speaking in Auckland. Quote.

Caolan Robertson, understood to be an agent for Ms Southern, told Newshub that quote “powerful forces? were opposed to the event.End of quote.

When you are told to close your mouth because you are spouting “hate speech”, you certainly recognise that you have indeed lost your freedom to speak. The nebulous term “hate speech” was used by the media and the ignorant to shut down Southern and Molyneaux and is preventing intelligent discussion particularly on biculturalism, multiculturalism, indigenous rights and immigration.

Surely if hate was on Southern and Molyneaux’s agendas it would be evidenced by violence in their previous public appearances? There is none that I can find. The only violence that might have occurred in Auckland, had these two spoken, could possibly come from agitated protestors.? But Southern explained that she welcomed the opportunity to peacefully speak with protestors, as she has done many times in the past. Quote.

“Lauren Southern has frequently put herself in crowds of people whose views are fundamentally at odds with her own. She?s made a habit of parachuting into spaces where visible minorities are speaking out about their rights and demanding they explain their political positions and teach her why she?s wrong.” End of quote.

If any of us want to discuss sensitive subjects with those who are affected, surely we are free to do so?

Hateful actions are not tolerated and all of us are subject to laws that protect and prevent us from using physical violence.

“Hate speech” as it is currently used often includes the word racism even where there is no mention of race at all. ?So let me define hate speech as I see it: “hate speech” is used by the real haters to prevent a discussion they don’t want to have, it is simply a ploy to avoid a conversation.

So now that we know they have stolen our freedom of speech by using the term “hate speech” what else are they doing?

They have taken, and are continuing to take away our individual choices and replacing them with “collective choice”. In other words, they make decisions that we are told are for the collective good, sometimes despite evidence to the contrary. An example of this is the closure of Charter schools where the authorities argue that children attending charter schools are disadvantaged. This argument flies in the face of parental and educational evidence. No matter, the Minister of Education is in charge and the collective, or communist, argument applies.

The battlefield of education is a vital one to win because the indoctrinating of our children’s minds will heavily influence their future. We are particularly vulnerable through our children which is why it is so important that parents notice what their children are learning outside the home.

Our kids have already been trained to enforce political correctness.

We thought it sweet when a seven-year-old wrote to the head of the New Zealand Transport Agency complaining that it was not fair that women could not be road workers because the signs say “Men Working”.

If this notion had been planted in the child’s head by that child’s teacher, the teacher would be on thin ice with parents who don’t want their girls aspiring to be road workers.? And what about the children from families who believe a woman’s place is solely in the home, not working outside of it at all?? In the interest of fairness, is the teacher also going to espouse that limited point of view?

The real question though, is why do this government and its teachers have the right to decide on the values our children are taught?? Surely that is up to the parents, even when we disagree with them.? This is called freedom and we have already lost far too much of it.

In the words of Ronald Regan “It is not that they are ignorant, it is just that they know so much about what isn’t so”.

 

48%
×