Why did New Zealand turn its back on free speech? -

[Crichax]

As we all know, NZ has been taken over by far-leftists who don't want to allow freedom of speech (hence taking guns away from Trump supporters). Just why and how did the state of the country turn into...this?

I guess a small factor could be the royal family's idiocy (like Prince Phillip worrying about Fortnite more than the various countries in the Commonwealth).

But I will still never understand how people who oppose freedom of speech got voted in.

 

[Exorbital Columnations]

It's a myth that citizens of Commonwealth countries have freedom of speech. We have more privileges than some places but it's not a right.

 

[garakfan69]

Because no one cares.
Why would some random sheep shagging boomer care when his government complains about some weirdo on the internet hosting shit from a nut who shot up a mosque?

 

[Papa Adolfo's Take'n'Bake]

It's a myth that citizens of Commonwealth countries have freedom of speech. We have more privileges than some places but it's not a right.

Pretty sure a war was, in part, fought to establish this. If you don't want to defend your rights, who gives a shit when they evaporate at the whims of some apparatchik?

 

[Frank D'arbo]

it never existed there

 

[TaimuRadiu]

Pretty sure a war was, in part, fought to establish this. If you don't want to defend your rights, who gives a shit when they evaporate at the whims of some apparatchik?

Yeah, in 1776.

 

[Dildo]

Depends what you interpret freedom of speech to be and what other factors you need to consider.

I'm sure even in the US if you shouted fire in a crowded theater that would not be protected. Some countries further interpret that to other scenarios that could inspire chaos and disorder; Islam is one of those elephants in the room. We can all see it but one wrong word said and it could descend into a bloodbath.

The commonwealth interpretation, on the other hand, is not all bad, and I think does come with some protections to ensure as free speech as possible which America would not necessarily guarantee. Take Salman Rushdie and the Satanic Verses affair. Among the first thing the British did was ferry him off and provide for his safekeeping; acknowledging he had the right to say what he did and taking measures to ensure he wasn't punished for exercising it. In America he would likely have just been murdered by one of the many angry mobs.

It's more a case of balance; Britain favors stability over disorder (one of the reasons they don't allow guns) whereas Americans generally seem to favor absolute freedom over stability and is willing to permit varying degrees of chaos and violence to uphold it. There is a common tendency, especially among the French and Americans, to see freedom and slavery as the only options with no shades of grey inbetween. This is not the case, and we can even see varying degrees of it between commonwealth states themselves.

Some countries have to make compromises to make sure their populations don't turn and start ripping each others throats out. New Zealand, perhaps even moreso than the other commonwealth states, has long had to factor in pandering to and not offending groups like the Maori to prevent earlier flare ups to hold the country together. America historically has generally just killed off or suppressed its own internal population who prove inconvenient (and still did this in the modern era by birthing the eugenics movement), which isn't an option all countries can or would even consider taking.

 

[Terminus Est]

New Zealand is such a faggoted little island nation. And their prime minister used the kebab removing to try and be relevant on a global scale. No one gives a shit about New Zealand.

 

[Crichax]

Depends what you interpret freedom of speech to be and what other factors you need to consider.

I'm sure even in the US if you shouted fire in a crowded theater that would not be protected. Some countries further interpret that to other scenarios that could inspire chaos and disorder; Islam is one of those elephants in the room. We can all see it but one wrong word said and it could descend into a bloodbath.

The commonwealth interpretation, on the other hand, is not all bad, and I think does come with some protections to ensure as free speech as possible which America would not necessarily guarantee. Take Salman Rushdie and the Satanic Verses affair. Among the first thing the British did was ferry him off and provide for his safekeeping; acknowledging he had the right to say what he did and taking measures to ensure he wasn't punished for exercising it. In America he would likely have just been murdered by one of the many angry mobs.

It's more a case of balance; Britain favors stability over disorder (one of the reasons they don't allow guns) whereas Americans generally seem to favor absolute freedom over stability and is willing to permit varying degrees of chaos and violence to uphold it. There is a common tendency, especially among the French and Americans, to see freedom and slavery as the only options with no shades of grey inbetween. This is not the case, and we can even see varying degrees of it between commonwealth states themselves.

Some countries have to make compromises to make sure their populations don't turn and start ripping each others throats out. New Zealand, perhaps even moreso than the other commonwealth states, has long had to factor in pandering to and not offending groups like the Maori to prevent earlier flare ups to hold the country together. America historically has generally just killed off or suppressed its own internal population who prove inconvenient (and still did this in the modern era by birthing the eugenics movement), which isn't an option all countries can or would even consider taking.

Interesting answer, and I thank you for your contribution.

However, I'm wondering why the NZ government now worries about whether someone supports Trump or not. This doesn't have anything to do with the question of how radical leftism gained such power over there.

 

[Webby's Boyfriend]

NZ has been taken over by far-leftists who don't want to allow freedom of speech

That crap has happened in many places during the 20th century. Read a good history book.

 

[Dildo]

Interesting answer, and I thank you for your contribution.

However, I'm wondering why the NZ government now worries about whether someone supports Trump or not. This doesn't have anything to do with the question of how radical leftism gained such power over there.

I'm not in New Zealand so I can't comment on the gun confiscations, but I can comment on why Commonwealth governments are interested if someone supports Trump or not since it is something that comes up quite frequently here; especially since the Brexit party took off.

For an American there's a lot of reason to care who becomes President of the United States. You come out to your polling booths and choose yourself, and this individual will spend the next few years enacting policies which could improve, damage or potentially even destroy your life and the lives of those around you. While the choice of President does affect all of us around the world, this influence is far less marked.

Imagine in America....Actually why imagine? Have you met @Jacob Harrison, our resident monarchist/ex-Catholic theocrat? Jacob is very invested in who is the monarch of England, which might be somewhat relevant to one of the British subjects but to an American who rejects the rule of nobles? I'm sure you'd agree that's rather eccentric. Jacob likewise also is concocting a plan to overthrow Elizabeth II, abduct the grandchild of the heir of Liechtenstein and destroy the State of Israel among a range of other activities and political policies most of us would consider outside the norm and rather extreme.

Outside the US while not always the case an intense interest and appreciation of Trump rightly or wrongly frequently goes hand in hand with belief in conspiracy theories like Qanon which teaches and spreads some very extreme dogmas and slander that has led to violence. Again while also unfair it often tends to be a factor often shared with white supremacists and groups deemed dangerous like the National Front.

While it might be normal for an American to be fully invested and active in American politics, when done by non-Americans who really have no connection or horse in that race it's often a sign of an exceptional personality who might need watching. It might not be Trump's fault, but mass shooters both in America and outside of the United States have listed Trump as one of their inspirations and something they align with.

TL;DR: There's not really a good reason for a non-American to be that interested in the American president and it's usually a sign of something bad to be wary of.

 

[Varg Did Nothing Wrong]

Pretty sure a war was, in part, fought to establish this. If you don't want to defend your rights, who gives a shit when they evaporate at the whims of some apparatchik?

When did New Zealand fight a war with someone in order to establish freedom of speech?

 

[Crichax]

TL;DR: There's not really a good reason for a non-American to be that interested in the American president and it's usually a sign of something bad to be wary of.

That is most likely the primary motivation for the NZ government, sure. But it's not excusable for the police to cyberstalk someone because they have interest in foreign politics (and/or someone they don't like).

 

[Trappy]

TL;DR: There's not really a good reason for a non-American to be that interested in the American president and it's usually a sign of something bad to be wary of.

This is retarded, Western culture is all downstream of the US at this point so for people to be interested in Trump or US politics in general says and means nothing. It's just typical lefties arming the state against political opposition.

 

[QD 846]

Pretty sure a war was, in part, fought to establish this.

it was fought by american colonists AGAINST the brits.
new zealand on the other hand IS the brits.

 

[Dildo]

That is most likely the primary motivation for the NZ government, sure. But it's not excusable for the police to cyberstalk someone because they have interest in foreign politics (and/or someone they don't like).

For an American I expect it's not. You're the self-declared "land of the free" and anything that impinges on that right needs to be stopped and I'm sure there are other nations out there like the French who would agree with you. Before I go further I should add the disclaimer that I'm speaking as a non-British citizen in Britain who has spent a good portion of time in commonwealth states; a position I think helps in observing how they behave, I tend to pick up little things they do that seem strange to me but are perfectly normal to them.

However, as I mentioned before, there are other peoples and governments who value other aspects of their nation more. Britain, the nation with the most CCTV surveillance in the world, does practice cyber stalking and is known to be very active and prolific in breaking into peoples online emails and data; the majority of people tend to take the stance of "it's not great, but if it stops a terror attack (which indeed it frequently has) well how can we complain? If you've got nothing to hide, there's nothing to be afraid of".

It's a question of what you prize more, and what you can or cannot sacrifice or compromise to achieve. America prizes the most absolute freedom of the individual possible, no matter the cost or the consequences whereas a state like New Zealand is slowly edging towards more left thinking that sometimes for the safety and flourishing of the citizenry sometimes individual liberties need to be curtailed. Americans are clearly not willing to sacrifice the right to bear arms to reduce mass shootings, wheras other nations have already taken that step to do so.

You may not agree with it, most of my own countrymen wouldn't accept this line of thinking either though for different reasons, but this is the situation some leaders have to face. We don't all share American values or think all of them are necessarily good; some are worth more than others to people depending on what they're dealing with.

This is exceptional, Western culture is all downstream of the US at this point so for people to be interested in Trump or US politics in general says and means nothing. It's just typical lefties arming the state against political opposition.

I agree that the US President is relevant to the rest of the world, but not to the same degree he is relevant to you. Trump's spat over trade with China may have affected and been relevant to China and states who are financially tied up with it like Australia, but it's not really of much interest in Europe which continues to trade with both regardless. It wouldn't be out of the ordinary for this to become a hot topic worthy of investigation and prolonged conversation, perhaps even protest for those in the situation but a European who spends several hours a day online ranting and raving about evil chinks defying the God Emperor on the other hand probably has a few other screws loose; ones that might well be worth probing into.

I also think you overestimate how relevant American culture is to the rest of us. There are Western states that it is relevant for, but many of them also find US culture objectionable and set themselves up in opposition or rejection of it (think of Austria and Poland in the past few years).

 

[Queen Of The Harpies]

Generally speaking, before SJW Labour became government, NZ was by far more edgier and politically incorrect. It is all part of appealing to the global trend of SJWdom.

However, the good people of NZ are starting to turn their backs on Saint Horseface Jacinda and return to their white conservative roots. Even Maori are growing tired of this feel good 'let everyone in' crap. Next year is election year and will be pretty damn interesting if you ask me.

Jacinda Ardern was picked as leader of Labour (last minute) only because of the appeal a 30 something (at the pregnant) woman who is in a de facto relationship with some z grade NZ celebrity. Her bullshit lasted longer than I expected but is starting to come through. People are beginning to grow tired of her obvious thirst for UN status like her metaphorical mother Helen Clark.

As a side note, a year or two a good there was a sexual assault at one of their youth camp which they have failed to properly investigate. Apparently there are rumours stirring of a lot of sexual misconduct. The people aren't happy!


To the OP: We didn't vote Labour in. We have a shitty voting system like Britain which means a party can become government *if* they manage to form a coalition with a smaller party thus bringing their overall total to 50%+. Although NZ is a democracy, it really isn't. It actually pointless to participate in elections because like in Whose Line is It Anyway? the votes don't matter.

Mixed-member proportional representation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MW 590]

I'm not in New Zealand so I can't comment on the gun confiscations, but I can comment on why Commonwealth governments are interested if someone supports Trump or not since it is something that comes up quite frequently here; especially since the Brexit party took off.

For an American there's a lot of reason to care who becomes President of the United States. You come out to your polling booths and choose yourself, and this individual will spend the next few years enacting policies which could improve, damage or potentially even destroy your life and the lives of those around you. While the choice of President does affect all of us around the world, this influence is far less marked.

Imagine in America....Actually why imagine? Have you met @Jacob Harrison, our resident monarchist/ex-Catholic theocrat? Jacob is very invested in who is the monarch of England, which might be somewhat relevant to one of the British subjects but to an American who rejects the rule of nobles? I'm sure you'd agree that's rather eccentric. Jacob likewise also is concocting a plan to overthrow Elizabeth II, abduct the grandchild of the heir of Liechtenstein and destroy the State of Israel among a range of other activities and political policies most of us would consider outside the norm and rather extreme.

Outside the US while not always the case an intense interest and appreciation of Trump rightly or wrongly frequently goes hand in hand with belief in conspiracy theories like Qanon which teaches and spreads some very extreme dogmas and slander that has led to violence. Again while also unfair it often tends to be a factor often shared with white supremacists and groups deemed dangerous like the National Front.

While it might be normal for an American to be fully invested and active in American politics, when done by non-Americans who really have no connection or horse in that race it's often a sign of an exceptional personality who might need watching. It might not be Trump's fault, but mass shooters both in America and outside of the United States have listed Trump as one of their inspirations and something they align with.

TL;DR: There's not really a good reason for a non-American to be that interested in the American president and it's usually a sign of something bad to be wary of.

Actually despite living in a Republic, a lot of Americans are fans of British royalty. Many actively read news of Harry and Meagan Markle.

There are good reasons for non-Americans to be interested in President Trump. Many Brits are frustrated with their own government, so it is natural for a Brit to admire a foreign populist president because they want a populist leader in their own country to make their country great again.

 

[Queen Of The Harpies]

Putting my tinfoil hat on here:
After the kebab remover incident, there were several (conspiracy) theories going around about how it was an Agenda 21 driven false flag psy-ops in order to justify gun confiscation and limits to speech.

We (in NZ) don't want to give up our freedoms of speech. We can see what has been happening in the US and UK. It's terrifying.

 

[MW 590]

Putting my tinfoil hat on here:
After the kebab remover incident, there were several (conspiracy) theories going around about how it was an Agenda 21 driven false flag psy-ops in order to justify gun confiscation and limits to speech.

We (in NZ) don't want to give up our freedoms of speech. We can see what has been happening in the US and UK. It's terrifying.

The US has freedom of speech, in fact it has the most freedom of speech. The government cannot arrest someone for speech unless if the speech is threatening. The other restriction is defamation which can get someone sued. It is true that many people get assaulted at rallies but that is antifa thugs doing that, not the government. In fact, the government is considering labeling antifa as a terrorist organizations.

Freedom of speech is uniquely an American concept, making America the freest country. The worst tyrannical governments are governments that pretend that their countries are free which is the state the UK is in. That is Britain would be better off as an autocratic monarchy, because that kind of government is honest about the lack of freedom. A good historical example is comparing England under Charles I with England under Oliver Cromwell. Charles I believed he ruled by divine right and under him the English had the freedom to celebrate Christmas, play sports on Sunday, etc. Oliver Cromwell claimed he ruled in name of the people, but he restricted so much freedom that the English cheerfully welcomed Charles I's son Charles II back as king.