$15M PARIS ACCORD, HATE CRIME, TIKANGA FOR TEETH: NO!

To comment pleaae open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X (Twitter).

 

Unless the Coalition Govt wakes up from its Woke Global wet dream

 Let's not tear our hair out just yet, people. Even when National asks for advice on 'hate crime' legislation which could never work. Even when they gave away $15 million New Zealand doesn't have, on climate change which is nonexistent. And nearly $30 million to UNRWA for Hamas' little helpers in Gaza. Even when our corrupt socialist judiciary say you must learn Maori tikanga before you can sell real estate or clean people's teeth. Even when Te Pati Maori are thrilled to bits at ACT's leader being deplatformed at Waitangi.  

Who can possibly tell anyone's motivation for anything? You can't.  We exercise our judgment on others' deeds but not on why they did those deeds. A government's first duty is to protect its own people. Giving people preferential treatment because of the colour of their skin is not Christian. That's all Catholicism 101 but Catholics don't know it because the NZ Bishops don't teach Church doctrine, they teach 'social justice'.

Meanwhile US President Trump is dismantling USAID and the Africans applaud him. And he's defunding UNRWA. And Planned Parenthood. And the Paris Accord - like India, Russia and China, whose products are still selling like hot cakes and so would New Zealand's. David Seymour's suggesting the next election be fought over the globalists' Paris Accord. It can be done. 

 

 

Despite canning unworkable and incredibly unpopular 'hate speech' laws at the beginning of their term, the National Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith, has instructed the Law Commission to prepare advice on creating 'hate crime' laws in New Zealand. Yesterday, they released the consultation document.

 

It baffles me as to why this Government would pursue such a fool's errand. 

 

You likely don't need me to tell you, the inherent weakness of 'hate speech' laws is also found in 'hate crime' laws: it's impossible to objectively decide what 'hate' means. 

 

Put simply, there is no logical reason to support ‘hate crime’ laws, but reject ‘hate speech’ laws. They both come from the same faulty assumption that the government can simply make ‘hate’ illegal.

 

When Canada passed C-250, a ‘hate crime’ law in the mid-2000s, the bill’s sponsor MP Svend Robinson argued that it did not go far enough as it did not include ‘hate speech.’ Subsequent laws in Canada have fulfilled Robinson’s wish.

 

Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia have each shown the folly of trying to address division in this way. 

 

Scotland, the land of Braveheart  
https://x.com/SpeechUnion/status/1857803685100744883

 

If this Government accepts advice to create ‘hate crime’ laws, ‘hate speech’ laws will be passed within the next five years, and NZ Police will be mandated to suppress ‘wrong speech'. 

 

Together, tens of thousands of Kiwis pushed back against the Government trying to outlaw 'hate' previously. Up against a majority Government (the first in a generation), we defeated laws that would have been a death knell for free speech in New Zealand. 

 

And that's exactly what we have to do again.  

 

 

If we don't win this one, the implications for tomorrow are clear. Just look at what 'hate crime' laws have done in Canada, what non-criminal 'hate' incidents have done in the UK, and how the Government has regulated online speech in Australia.

 

We have stood in their way to accomplish the same in New Zealand; let's do it again.

What actually makes a ‘hate crime’ different to other crimes? 

 

Being ‘tough on hate’ certainly makes us feel like we’re achieving something. Laws usually act to some degree as deterrents for criminal behaviour. But as I told Whena Owen from Q+A, ‘hate crime’ is unavoidably subjective.

 

For instance, was the attack on a Treaty of Waitangi display at Te Papa Museum in 2023 a ‘hate crime’?

 

When pro-Palestinian protestors threw red paint on an MP's office, was that a 'hate crime'?

 

What about a car doing burnouts on the rainbow crossing on K-Road? 

 

If you feel inclined to brand one a ‘hate crime’ but not the other, this ought to be reason for caution.

 

John Key signed us up. Then took off.

 

Without some broad agreement as a society on what we deem ‘hateful’, we’re treading on shaky ground. Who gets to call it?

Calling it is the business of the Catholic Church, but what we have in New Zealand instead of the Catholic Church is the post-conciliar, Novus Ordo Synodal Bergoglian sect. The Church still exists as it always will, but only in pockets of traditional Catholicism, here and there, where the Traditional Latin Catholic Mass is celebrated. The Mystical Spouse of Christ is no longer fronted by the socialist NZ Conference of Catholic Bishops.  

In NZ law, intent – what someone seeks to do – and motive – why they do it – are already central factors in determining guilt and sentencing. Though not always easy to prove, these two factors can be reasonably demonstrated to a court.

 But figuring out which crimes we call hateful is impossible in reality. Some acts may well seem obvious – fire bombing a synagogue or viciously assaulting a man because of his skin colour might easily fit the bill. But beyond these sorts of cases, things get tricky.

 

 

We can be against crime that is hateful, yet still against ‘hate crimes’ laws that will only give a big stick to those who want to beat, not just criminal activity, but wrong-thought. 

https://freespeechunion.org/doctors-and-vicars-accused-of-non-crime-hate-incidents/

 

Aside from the obvious use of the word ‘hate’, which elicits a strong emotional response from the public, there is no evidence that ‘hate crime’ laws have reduced the sort of offences they were designed to address. Laws of this kind in the UK has been a prime example of this failure.

 

In fact, evidence increasingly suggests that such laws have actually been counter-productive in combatting the kinds of extremism they were supposed to address.

 

Preserving an open society where thought and speech are free, and everyone is held accountable under the same rules - that is the best path to fighting hate. Jonathan Ayling, Free Speech Union

 

 

St Agnes, Virgin and Martyr, pray for us