47
shes just a grifter of the right, she was originally a leftwing grifter but only switched to the right because she found out right wingers are easy money.
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
Hopefully, there will be so many people protesting that even getting to the event will be a shitshow.
This is really really bad. Aus blocked her we blocked her and then someone goes out of their way to allow her in. She's a cancer and should not be allowed to speak here.
Do not allow her in as she has threatened Canada’s sovereignty.
Our immigration blocked her then some higher up over turned it. Honestly fuck the Free Speech Union.
Divest. Protest. Raise hell. If allowing them a platform isn't your hard line, you don't stand a chance.
I dunno, maybe it's better to focus on platforming your better views than de-platforming those you judge bad. If your views really are better, then you can bring people round to your opinion with proper debate; silencing the opposition because you can't compete is a nice foundation for future fascism.
I understand your point but it seems like a bad idea when it comes to people being harmed.
To take a clear cut example the reason we don't allow people to lie that they are a medical doctor is because in the time it takes you to "platform" the fact that they are not, people will die.
Similarly with false advertising being illegal. The stakes are less life-and-death but as a society we don't want to spend our time and energy debunking lies and platforming the truth while people are getting deceived and robbed.
With extremist hate speech and incitement it can be a little harder to draw a straight line between it and its effects, but the same principle applies, if it is extreme enough that people are likely to get harmed.
As Hasan Piker often says, lying is OP. You can't hope to compete on even footing with someone when you're constrained by facts and they are not. Plus, Owens probably still has some backing from the capitalist class.
It's sad times when we give up on truth to fight lies. Lying is OP like chemical weapons and torture are OP. If your only goal is to beat the other team, perhaps they do the job.
But that's the problem: their only goal is to beat the other team. That's why telling the truth isn't enough and we have to do other things, like deplatform reactionary ghouls.
Why handicap yourself when entering a fight? Do both, do more things as well.
Also we can't pressure any of the platforms to platform anybody. At least we can put a little pressure to deplatform.
By refusing to use all the weapons at your disposal you are making sure the fascists win.
What are you really winning, though, if you take away bad people's public speech or debate? It seems a little like winning the battle but losing the war.
She can still speak publicly and debate. Nobody is taking that away from her. We are denying her entry into our country because she lacks the moral tests we have for entry into the country. We have every right to limit who enters the country. Nobody has a god given right to come to New Zealand and speak. That's just not a right.
I get the idea, but that works at a gradual level. Over time you convince more, but not all, to your side.
When your speeches directly incite a mass murder (as the mass murderer alluded to), maybe we don't need to give that a platform.
No, I don't know the answer here, because you're right that the government controlling who can speak is a direct threat to democracy.
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.
There's no paradox. Candace's espoused ideology is an open attack on the social contract, and should therefore not be protected by it.