47
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
47 points (98.0% liked)
NZ Politics
610 readers
4 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!
This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi
This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick
Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Surely this is the government controlling who can come to New Zealand. Which is kind of a cornerstone of modern nation-states.
Our kind of democracy includes protecting people from being hurt or murdered. We already have a lot of speech restrictions based on that.
It does, but I'm still interested in the line of thought (even if hypothetically).
Who decides if vaccines, blood transplants, or stem cells count as hurting people?
If the government banned all three, would it be ok to stop anyone advocating for them from entering the country?
I don't think this is a very useful comparison because stem cells, blood, plasma, and vaccines are all things people choose to have done to their bodies based on guidance from medical science, and in all cases people are allowed to opt out of those things if if they disagree.
On the other hand lynchings, racial violence and other kinds of discrimination are not things anyone is likely to choose to happen to themselves, and they are also generally done to people against their will. Literally no one chose to be shot by the Christchurch shooter and he did not allow anyone to opt out.
Ah right, I get it. There aren't many things that fit into this category.