Simon, the edit has timed out. I don’t mind if you flag that comment for deletion by mods.
Just for the record I took the threats at face value, because others might do so too, and feel empowered to carry them out.
I suggest that those who might copy cat the suggested actions do not make such distinctions.Are you suggesting that violent repression of some views is O.K.? Or that inciting violence against those you disagree with is fine.? Is that not one of the things that we need to change?
Depends what you mean by 'violent'.
Perhaps you have never heard of The Lance Wiggs Invective Series.
Perhaps Lance is not left- leaning. But interesting as an example of the type of exhortation to violence that has previously been deemed acceptable if not enthusiastically approved. In the wrong minds this rhetoric , if that is all that it is , is dangerous. That is my only point.
Violent – Intended to intimidate/ silence/produce conformity by inducing fear.
Some violence is O.K.?
How do the mentally - challenged know which is the O.K. form?
*Plausible* threat. Coming from a person/group with access to power and weapons.
Almost anything can be weaponised. We all have access.
Spending time discussing the merit of particular examples of hate speech is only worthwhile if the intent is to reach consensus. That requires reciprocity.
My point is that the current law has marginal relevance due to lack of implementation. Whining and moaning about hate speech on political blogs almost always fails to include specific examples. I believe that is why the whiners & moaners always fail to proceed with prosecutions.
It is possible that your " whiners and moaners" do not wish to enlarge the target to make it more identifiable. Then there is the legal fees question.
But the nutter who is triggered cares nought for these distinctions.
I consider it plausible that mentally unstable people can be triggered by hate speech. Tell me I have nothing to fear, that they will realise it was not serious( if that is the case). Just jokes right?
“Life- long incarceration is too good for climate deniers”
It isn’t funny.
I thought we might agree that it is dangerous to spray this sort of invective. Maybe I should HTFU.
Well okay, but I don't see the point of having a law if everyone ignores it. Surely parliament passed the damn thing so it would be used? Or was it intended as an exercise in moral grand-standing? I agree the pc-brigade would likely be satisfied with a sham, but laws are meant to be for everyone.
I see now that you had already made the point, somewhat more succinctly :-)
Following an offensive Facebook post about the mosque shootings a 28 year old Masterton woman has been charged with inciting racial disharmony. Good.
One of the downsides of living in a tolerant society has been a reluctant tolerance of the racists openly living/posting/broadcasting in our midst. I truly hope that those days are almost over.
Given the grotesque evil which visited our country last week, if ever there was a time to declare our complete intolerance of racism and hate speech, that time is now. Let's make that New Zealand's new norm.
Also a link there to this similar prosecution: https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/111334495/christchurch-man-arrested-for-enticing-racial-or-ethnic-hate
If these and any similar copycat prosecutions succeed, that will establish case-law precedent - based on the actual evidence specified. That will provide a basis for describing hate speech accurately.
Also a link there to this similar prosecution...
Posting "target acquired" over a photo of the mosque in advance of the shooting suggests that case may be more sinister. I believe that person is still in custody.
Let’s not be defensive about it, Christchurch does not ‘have these issues to itself’, I agree, but that sounds a bit like what-aboutism, rather than addressing how it is in Christchurch.
No, it is not. It’s saying we all have some shit to attend to.
Also, clearly it was not Christchurch that was attacked Russell. Muslims were attacked and bystanders that didn’t fit the target profile of the killer were not targeted.
On this, can I suggest you go back upthread and read what Emma has to say about this. There were people posting “fucking Christchurch” comments on social media with an hour of the attack and I don’t believe that was okay.
And finally, there were non-Muslim kids whose friends weren't at school on Monday. Because they'd been murdered. Show some empathy, for goodness sake.
That's an excellent design. I agree it sketches mass psychology well. Not all of it of course, but it has to be selective to fulfill the agenda of the designer.
I think it captures a considerable portion of centrists: many of those who prefer to be apolitical, who lack a moral compass, or principles.
Also a link there to this similar prosecution:
and this guy who already has form...
Nazis are still a thing, then. "14.88 is a hate symbol popular with white extremists", but no explanation why. Devil is probably in the details...
"The company's website www.BIIG.co.nz, is an acronym for the company's full name Beneficial Insulation Installs Guaranteed. BIIg was the name of a barracks at Auschwitz concentration camp". Biig on symbolism.
Phew! Glad all this symbolism is now being exposed, those people had really disappeared into a rabbit warren of hate!! Im just dismayed. It needs exposing so we can all be on our guard.
Im not linking to it Jim Jefferies( he is not a bigot) an Oz Comic now in the USA has a clip on youtube watch it there is you want, about white supremacists in Australia in the light of March 15. The unashamed bigotry on display is mind boggling. He tried to make it funny but its not a funny subject.
Mental Health Foundation sets things straight.
"Shooting people is not a symptom of mental illness. White supremacy is not a mental illness," it said in a statement.
While it understood there was comfort in believing the shooter was an outlier, or "different to us", the foundation statement added it was not something to hide behind during the healing process.
"We're using 'mentally ill' as a short-hand for 'violent' and 'threatening' and 'a risk to the community'. This is deeply troubling."
The foundation said mental illness shouldn't be a scapegoat because it would mean letting New Zealand off the hook from reckoning with racism, white supremacy and anti-immigrant sentiments.
“14.88 is a hate symbol popular with white extremists”, but no explanation why.
As I understand 88 means HH (8th letter) which means Heil Hit...etc
dunno about the '14'
I always thought it telling & apt (and wondered if it was deliberate) that Fox TV news is on channel 88 in NZ...
"14.88 is a hate symbol popular with white extremists", but no explanation why.
It's not something I'd come across either, but apparently every nazi will recognise the symbolism. The Anti-Defamation League has a concise answer.
1488 is a combination of two popular white supremacist numeric symbols. The first symbol is 14, which is shorthand for the "14 Words" slogan: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."
The second is 88, which stands for "Heil Hitler" (H being the 8th letter of the alphabet). Together, the numbers form a general endorsement of white supremacy and its beliefs.
As such, they are ubiquitous within the white supremacist movement - as graffiti, in graphics and tattoos, even in screen names and e-mail addresses, such as email@example.com. Some white supremacists will even price racist merchandise, such as t-shirts or compact discs, for $14.88.
Anyone who'd choose $14.88 per m2 as an integral part of his company's branding knew exactly what he was doing. Highly offensive... and proud of it.
Gosh, how arcane. Using 14 to symbolise a statement of principle is interesting, and attaching the historical code is kinda like tipping one's hat to the prophet.
It does seem racist, but proponents would argue there's nothing wrong with valuing a future for your (ethnic) children, and prioritising security action on that basis.
I can't see a court defining it as hate speech. Perhaps he used some in his manifesto, or on his guns, but everyone has been very careful so far to refrain from identifying any such evidence. Since public policy is nowadays meant to be evidence-based, everyone seems to be parking the implications for now...