Antidote NZ

Ah, Ive taken a dislike to her..., not liking what these people are and say seems to be the reason this women thinks it was OK they were banned. Banning people just because you dont like what they might say is dangerous territory. Instead she should be countering their arguments, but there is none of that here. What gives you the right to decide what can and cant be heard? Who decides what is acceptable thought and what isnt? Scary stuff indeed.

It is not your call to make who we can and cannot hear. Im a South African Indian immigrant, proud citizen, wont be hearing out Molyneux or Southern, but that is my choice to make, not the Auckland Council, not yours.

I would much rather read a Lauren Southern column than this extreme left-wing diatribe. Lauren speaks the truth and so often says things out loud that we are all thinking but too afraid to say for fear of hurting someones feelings or worse, being arrested and thrown in jail ala Tommy Robinson. Typical of the left; all for free speech unless someone says something you dont agree with.We need to ask Phil Goff if spitting on service personnel is free speech, maybe exercise the same right and direct some of it at him.

You too Rosemary? Another lazy commentator who hasnt done the work to find out what these people think by listening to them? These people are not alt Right, racist or fascist. Their views are based like Brashs on an alternative view of reality that I dont find attractive. Id rather we used precise language, real research and better arguments than them. All you have done is echo misinformation and taken a few dollars reward. Not good enough.

Another article that agrees with people NOT having free speech while they spout their own views for everyone to read. Bit of a double standard. Just shows if your views dont agree with the PC racial views its not allowed. We need some good journalist who can actually write good articles

It seems a bit pathetic... thats correct Rosemary, it does. However the pathetic role lies with those who cant see this action as a diminishment of the flame of the freedom of speech, or the freedom to assemble. My question to you and those who think like you is, what are you all so scared of? Don Brash has an opinion about you and the left and thankfully he can publicly correspond and gather the like minded around him to hear it. Why do you want to stamp on that? What are you so scared of?Misandry and white bashing is fashionable. The would-be speakers are also anti feminist. Surely that is the principle quality which you would welcome so that you could challenge rather than ridicule safely in this column. If Islamic terrorism ever stalks this land who will you turn to for salvation. The young, white men you seem so afraid? Not my sons if I have anything to say about it. Your blind hypocrisy is the issue which is worth further debate but no one from the MSM seems brave enough to investigate and challenge. The internet is the only place where other ideas are available and many of these are fringe. Adopt a broader range of opinion in MSM and your fear of misandry may be cured. Probably not!

I bet you havent even listened to what they have to say. It definitely isnt far right or fascist. It seems in this day and age if the left have something to say then its okay, if anyone else has an opinion it is racist, bigoted or homophobic and shouldnt be allowed.

I love how the media are eating this up and spitting it out with such vitriol, as if they themselves have nothing to owe to the right to freedom of speech, political dissent, and social critique.Its deliciously ironic that much of the content that parades as journalism these days would have been hard pressed to find a platform 30, 40, 50 years ago - and that its only via the liberal ideology espoused by most mainstream media that they now enjoy a virtually uncensored stage from which to provoke, criticise and preach.This point is so perfectly illustrated in Mcleods mentioning of Southerns Allah is trans activity - which, as she rightly notes, had the predictable effect. The purpose was indeed to press the boundaries of free speech in the same way the liberal ilk had during the last four decades of the 20th Century, challenging entrenched beliefs, religion and social mores - all under the guises of art, academic enquiry and entertainment. Loosening the shackles of censorship was a cause for human rights back then. But now, it appears its simply a base, detestable squirming motion of fascists and bigots, hell-bent on winding back Western evolution to a time when Britannia ruled the waves.But I dont believe either Southern or Molyneux have ever professed to such a motivation; its been projected onto them by the new Patriarchy & Matriarchy among us, the new religious order who refuse to entertain any point of view that might sin against their own, and that might completely upturn the fragile peace of progressive idealism that we all should believe in so strongly. (And a long-dead white man wouldnt approve, Mcleod bemoans).Aucklands council venues have been used frequently to question and debate politics, religion, and the state of the world. Surely thats the point of them? If not, then perhaps our rates are funding a political infrastructure terrifyingly less democratic than we are being led to believe.

All youve done is cherry pick a couple of their more inflammatory statements and yet provided no response.Race tied to I.Q; well if race is tied to physical traits (twitch fibres, height, muscle strength etc) then can you state with 100% accuracy that race is unrelated to brain activity and how people process ideas and emotions?Nope.On violent men; we know that most of someones empathetic skills and how people deal with stressful situations is learned in childhood. We also know that many violent men do not have a permanent father figure growing up. What is so controversial about linking failed humans with bad mothers / parents?Provide some of your own thoughts rather than sniping at people willing to provide theirs.Thats called free speech.Youre just attacking the player and not the ball.

Weak journalism that conveniently fails to address the only issue at hand. Its not about who she is or what she says. Its the clumsy attempt to run interference on free speech by Goff and his colleagues who have used the power of their office to deny access to publically owned infrastructure. The logic they have applied could in its time been applied to Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and the Suffragette movement. Therein lies the problem if not causing offence or concern for public order and police safety are your measures. If you fail to accept Goffs latest version of why this happened (and lets face it, hes finessing his story by the day), we really are witnessing a frightening abuse of authority by an elected official who is in contempt of the freedom of speech.

Yet another journalist defending the suppression of free speech.

Its not about what these people want to say. Its about their right to say it. Imagine if MLK was told he was not allowed to use a public area during the civil rights marchs to deliver his i have a dream speech, because local government did approve of what he was saying

Im proud to be a white man standing up for freedom of speech. If the opposition wants to use my gender and skin color as some sort of argument against freedom of speech then so be it. Well see how that works out in the long run.

Is it ok if you are proud of your culture and history? English, Maori, Japanese etc. How is she different from a pro African American speaker who is African american? Winston is anti immigration also and hes acting PM so perhaps not everyone agrees with these leftist article.I would much rather see NZ fix up and help the people in need that we already have first, so Im against immigration also.

Good.. thats settled then Rosemary.. if you dislike them (anybody) they shouldnt be heard.

Hey heres an idea for a journalist. Ring up or email one or both of these guys and do an interview. Do it live and Im sure theyd agree, that way I mean there could be some clarification around their views? That is what journalists do isnt it?

I for one would love if journalists were held responsible for any 0 information they publish. Of course this would mean the end of media in NZ as journalists here dont have a shred of integrity in the entire rotten crowd.Broadcast the news, as your job description entails. Keep your opinions private, again, as your job description should entail.

Rosemary Im surprised at you. Ive enjoyed your writing for decades but this is nonsense. As a writer Id have thought you would be thankful to live in a place where people can say what they want. What other work skills do you have if that law changes?

We all had tolerate Hilary Clinton when she bestowed her presence on our country and we all had to listen to how she was beaten by anti Feminists and the old white guys who sabotaged her run for the presidency and we all had to swallow our tongues and make out she isnt a crook and has the FBI and CIA in her pocket covering up her crooked deals..........pure leftist rubbish but as soon as someone turns up with an alternative to the left narrative they are banned, this is how Hitler got into power, people were burning books and shutting down freedom of thought and as soon as person with some charisma turned up they were led like sheep because they couldnt actually think for themselves. The left is following a dangerous path by blocking alternative views and opinions, Im a middle aged brown guy and I have no problem with Lauren Southern, sure somethings I dont agree with but thats life is it not?

Feminists trying to deny the right to free speech to a woman whose opinions they dont agree with. What is there to be afraid of? Maybe an assault on the feminists prejudice would be a good thing. Guess where the physical violence will come from if Southern does come here to speak.