Greens Mess, By By Shaw

Dame Chole, pure as the driven snow...


NZ Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick is at it again.



On Thursday, at a pro-Palestinian rally outside parliament, she led the chant ‘From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free’ saying, 'I would like to close off with some words they have tried really bloody hard to take out of my mouth and the mouths of many others.'



While here at the Free Speech Union, we'll let you make your own mind up on whether it's the case or not (and personally, as a Jew, I obviously have my own opinion on the question), this chant is accepted by many around the world as a call for the destruction of Israel.



Chloe led this same chant only a month after the massacre by Hamas of Israeli civilians on Oct 7, 2023. At the time, she faced criticism from many local Jews and others. Jack Tame questioned her for its use on Q&A.



Along with many of her supporters, Chloe argues that this slogan holds multiple meanings (you know, other than being a slogan for Hamas, a hyper-racist terror group, sworn to the destruction of world Jewry).



I've worked alongside our team at the Free Speech Union for several years now. We exist to protect all Kiwis' free speech – including Chloe's. No doubt about it, she has a right to express this speech, even if I find it repugnant.



But it does present a bit of an issue for the crowd who have spent years arguing in favour of the power of the state being used to silence those who express opinions minority religious groups find offensive.







More than just the chant, when she says they 'have tried really bloody hard to take out of my mouth'. Who are they, exactly?



And in response, surely, we’ve seen a raft of her principled anti-racist supporters beg that she do better, right?



Afraid not. Clint Smith, 'hate-speech' law advocate and former-Ardern advisor has suddenly found his suspicion for those wanting to police speech.





You see, hateful speech is only ever what the other side does.



Your own side is as white as snow. Butter wouldn’t melt, etc, etc. This is the way censorship has always worked – it's the only way it can work: with those in power deciding what is permissible to say and what is not. Surprise, surprise – no censor sets out to criminalise their own speech.



We saw this in the local trans debate. Activists wearing “Kill All Terfs” T-shirts telling us that state censorship would save lives?!



Chloe Swarbrick herself is a vocal supporter of 'hate speech' laws. But when it comes to her own speech, different rules apply. In fact, she told Jack Tame on Q&A that anyone upset at her use of this genocidal chant should “lean into that discomfort”.



Essentially, if you are offended, maybe you need to reflect on why.



This isn’t actually bad advice; I may steal it for the free speech fight. There could be a lesson in it for you. But Chloe is applying it selectively (well, that's one word. Another would be cynically, or hypocritically, or disingenuously).



One way or another, when applied to a cause she doesn’t support, she’d be calling for the speaker's head! And thus, Chloe and her supporters offer us a masterclass in how censorship violates equality and democracy.



The goal of hate speech laws (and censorship in general) is always to create a two-tier system, where some citizens have more speech rights than others. If you happened to share an interest in one of Chloe’s pet causes, offend away! If not… well, a prison term could’ve awaited you.



And don’t give me the whole “But the Police would’ve made the actual arrests. Not Chloe Swarbrick!”. After the way our Police have treated certain protesters of late, resulting in two major cases for our legal team (we're suing the Attorney General right now for the Police's role in abusing protest rights), would you really trust them to be impartial?



Thank goodness, with your help, the Free Speech Union was able to kick this venal hate speech project to the curb! But it looks like the hypocrisy remains.



Again, it goes without saying that I support Chloe Swarbrick’s right to free speech. Her comments, in my view, are at the extreme end, but nevertheless they leave us no doubt as to what type of person she is.



And we need radical transparency in a healthy democracy. It isn’t always easy to hear what people have to say, but we cannot challenge bigotry if it is only expressed in dark corners, behind closed doors.



What can never be defended, however, is the hypocrisy of politicians like Chloe Swarbrick, who support censorship for some, and free rein for an anointed few.



"Dearest Chloe Swarbrick,



Thank you for yet another reminder that the introduction of hate speech laws in New Zealand would’ve been an unmitigated disaster.



We have a better slogan for you...



“From the Cape to the Bluff… We should be able to all… say stuff???



Yours in appreciation,



The Free Speech Union



OK, maybe my new slogan needs a bit of work.



But I think you’d all agree it’s pointing in the right direction!

nice

judge releases her reasoning

The judgment, released by Judge June Jelas on Monday, said her mental health at the time did contribute to the shoplifting, but it was not a causative factor.

Jelas noted at the time of offending, Ghahraman was in therapy and "making good progress", according to a clinical psychologist commissioned by her lawyer.

"It's difficult to reconcile these positive reports with someone so affected by trauma that they would offend in the way Ghahraman did," Jelas said.

Ghahraman's mental health state had made her "more vulnerable" to offend, Jelas noted.

"I accept the Crown submission that this was not spontaneous isolated offending. It occurred over two months. There was clearly an element of premeditation and planning to the offending."

Jelas noted premeditation had been shown by Ghahraman carrying a bag to conceal stolen items.

Jelas said she was also not satisfied a conviction would have a disproportionate adverse consequence on Ghahraman continuing her legal career and applying for a practising certificate from the New Zealand Law Society.

"The entry of the convictions will be a factor undoubtedly considered by the Law Society but not a determinative factor. The factors that would be considered by the Law Society extend well beyond the entry of a conviction.

"I have reached a similar position in respect of consequences for future employment prospects overseas. An international organisation's assessment of Ghahraman's suitability to work as a counsel before an international court or tribunal is an inevitable consequence flowing directly from the offending itself."

The standard of conduct for lawyers was "high", Jelas said, and understandably so.

"They are consequences Ghahraman will encounter primarily as a result of her offending, not the entry of convictions.

"In any event, those consequences are not out of all proportion."

Another nice write up on Dame Chloe.

breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/07/simon-oconnor-three-reasons.html?m=1

Simon O'Connor: Three reasons.....


The Greens chanting terrible slogans causes at lot of offence but it also provides three reasons as to why they are wrong - and hypocritical - about so many things.

We once again have Green Party leader, Chlöe Swarbrick, proudly screaming the ‘from the river to the sea …’ slogan from the steps of Parliament. You can try and dance on the head of a pin about what this suggests, but it unambiguously means the removal of all Jews from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. She proudly screams it, repeatedly, despite being told it’s meaning and implications.

While I think an abhorrent chant and an insidious intention, I am also a proponent of free speech. As terrible as these words are, she is allowed to say them partly as there is no immediate incitement to violence. But she is very close to crossing a line. I say this for, as we look both here and overseas, we see the consequences of this chant or at least the thinking behind it - the harassment of Jews, attacking of synagogues, defacing of war memorials, and much more.

Such behaviours however, puts on full display the hypocrisy of the Greens and others. So in a strange way, we can be grateful that they are exposing themselves so clearly. In particular, there are three aspects we should highlight:

Hate speech laws for some

The first is that the Greens are, of course, at the vanguard of calling for ‘hate speech’ laws. Yet here we have the Green leader yelling what is to many a very ‘hateful’ statement. Now, this is not an argument for hate speech laws. As I noted earlier, I am a strong proponent of free speech and even the right of people to say awful and stupid things. What is striking here however, is that despite being told that this ‘river to the sea’ slogan can be reasonably understood as a call for mass murder (just read the Hamas Charter) and something that many in the community find deeply disturbing, the Greens and other progressives remain happy to scream it while simultaneously calling for ‘hate speech’ laws.

Of course, those calling for hate speech regimes only want ‘your’ speech banned. Not theirs.

They can call for the forcible removal of an entire people and expect praise; you use the wrong pronoun and you should be arrested and put in prison for years.

Looking in the mirror

Secondly, we are all familiar with those on the left obsessed with those they deem far right, fascists, and so on. The awful irony is they are the ones demonstrably aligning themselves with the terrible actions of these historical ideologies. The targeting of the Jews is the clearest of indicators. We should be under no illusion - the Green Party and others are fueling the growing antisemitism in New Zealand and around the world. The harassment of Israelis, blocking access to their shops, targeting their homes, seeking to boycott and isolate them – all of this is familiar to us who have studied history.

How someone can be crying out ‘from the river to the sea’ and then minutes later be accusing others of promoting genocide or apartheid is beyond me. There must be some sort of strange psychology in play to accuse others of the very thing they are promoting.

A confused defence

The third point addresses a common defence used by those shouting these awful slogans. They state that some of the community they are targeting actually support them. This is of course true. There are some within the Jewish/Israeli community who believe in the slogan and consequences.

But akin to their hate speech arguments, this approach is only applied to causes that suit them. Not to others. They are ok with applying minority views to justify their position, but you cannot.

Consider during the Covid period, the various medical and health professionals who spoke out against various assumptions, rules, and requirements. They were a minority and were not only shouted down but often completely ignored and derided. This was done by many, but included the Greens. The call at that time was that people should only follow what the majority said; the minority should have no influence.

Yet here we are with the ‘the river to the sea’ chant and the Greens are more than happy – in fact celebratory – to draw on the minority to justify themselves. Ninety nine percent of people understand precisely what the slogan means but the Greens are happy to use the one percent view to justify it’s use.

As I said the start, we should remain a country that values free speech and accept all the good, bad, and ugly that comes with it. Part of the reason is illustrated above. By allowing such awful speech, we can also clearly see the reasons – three in this case – of why they are wrong and why we should seek a better path.

Simon O'Connor a former National MP graduated from the University of Auckland with a Bachelor of Arts in Geography and Political Studies . Simon blogs at On Point - where this article was sourced.

It is beyond me how people can get their knickers in such a twist about a slogan, a chant or a line in a song when there is so much death and violence in Palestine.
You've got the Jews working very hard to wipe the Palestinians off the map, and all people are worried about is a second rate politician repeating a slogan.

The irony that it is the Jews that are on the verge of exterminating another group of people.

Bit of perspective needed me thinks.

Just clicked over to kiwiblog and what do you see

www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/07/greens_believe_in_sensitivity_for_everyone_but_jews.html

It is amazing that Chloe Swarbrick still leads this chant, despite having been told that many Jews see it as calling for Israel to be destroyed (per the Hamas charter) and hence Jews living there to be wiped out (as Hamas did on October 7).



Now you an argue that those chanting it don’t mean it the way most Jews interpret it, so I guess one can only assume that Swarbrick has decided that the feelings of Jewish New Zealanders don’t matter, compared to the importance of her showing solidarity with those who chant it.



This to me is akin to a politician saying it is okay for them to use the N word in public, because they don’t mean it as a racist term, and the feelings of those who see it is disparaging doesn’t matter.

She really is awful. 

Chuck some Te Reo on there and pretend you're all about the 'whanau'.  

Just make sure it's the 'right' whanau, coz the wrong 'whanau' need to be exterminated...

So she's finally been given the arse, but only from the gangrene's.

Am I right in thinking she'll still be taking home her taxpayer funded salary?

www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128622/darleen-tana-has-been-booted-green-party-hasn%E2%80%99t-resigned-parliament-after

I see Darleen Tana is going for plausible deniability in not resigning as an MP

In saying that, she is claiming a lack of natural justice, in that she received the report on Sat morning (I find in implausible she didn't have a draft months ago) and claims the Green Party had a predetermined outcome before hearing from her.
Highly likely I'd say.
This could get messier than Elizabeth Keri, or Golriz Grabagarment, or the leader before that fessed up to benefit fraud to try and win an election.
At least Efisso Collins had the good grace to go quietly. There must be some bad energy in the Greens having lost 5 MP's since the election, out of 15.