Not sure you should reference anything to News Talk ZB please, , as you can read, it baldly describes Chloe Swarbrick's words as inflammatory, no nuance available to News Talk ZB listeners. As an outlet for the noxious Mike Hosking it ranks as one of the more rank outlets.
OTOH Chloe doesn't have to use the phrase, and can still support the Palestinian cause, don't provide your opponents the stick they use to beat you with.
However neither should she now apologise - that's weakness. She said it, it's on the record, you defend it, like Norman Finkelstein did his remarks after 7th October. Once you apologise, you're doomed, as Corbyn and many others found out. . After all, the Jewish people in Israel probably invented this phrase in describing the homeland in the first place.
Jemes Shaw had the same problem with his support of this private ecological school in the South Island. He probably wasn't politically wise to support it in the circumstance, but he had perfectly rational reasons for doing to, he should have stuck to his guns.
Re: NZ politician attends mediation after "controversial" chant at rally
Not sure you should reference anything to News Talk ZB please, , as you can read, it baldly describes Chloe Swarbrick's words as inflammatory, no nuance available to News Talk ZB listeners. As an outlet for the noxious Mike Hosking it ranks as one of the more rank outlets.
Yes, I'm aware of all that, John. I am perhaps the most anti-NewstalkZzzzzB person in the country. Note that I also referenced the equally obnoxious and equally biased RNZ.
OTOH Chloe doesn't have to use the phrase, and can still support the Palestinian cause,
What's wrong with the phrase? I expect a serious answer from you, not one written so as to forestall an explosion from some creep on the extreme right wing NZ Jewish Council. And how does she curb her language to placate the implacable?
don't provide your opponents the stick they use to beat you with.
Do you think the likes of Dr David Cumin will start treating her with respect if she starts talking like a political prisoner forced to read out a statement written by her captors? That's what poor Nanaia Mahuta sounded like every time she opened her mouth about Gaza.
However neither should she now apologise - that's weakness.
Good. As I suspected, that little deviation into Corbyn-speak (AKA Sanders-speak) was an aberration.
Jemes Shaw had the same problem with his support of this private ecological school in the South Island. He probably wasn't politically wise
You think it would be "politically wise" for Chlöe Swarbrick to self-censor in future? Would the likes of Hosking and Soper at NewstalkZzzzB and the drones of National and ACT suddenly start treating her with respect?
Whether we, or Chloe, don't accept the phrase as a valid anti-Semitic trope, many do - including many folk who really don't know any better. There's no compulsion to use the phrase, she can let others do so. If that comes back to her, which it might, then yes, she can defend their use of it and explain exactly what it means.
I think one needs keep things simple - and using the phrase brings more problems than its worth in using. I don't see that be not being serious.
People with the political views of Chloe will be attacked by her political opponents but that isn't an argument not to keep your own arguments to avoid obvious points of attack. You could call this political cowardice, but I think it's just being politically adept. The phrase - the slogan - is not important enough on its own to insist on using it.....
Chloe is able,, but she's young and a bit impetuous.. As a 77 year old man, I rather bridled at her "boomer" interjection in Parliament. She was attacking a whole cohort of her fellow citizenry with that. I don't know if it'll lose her any votes but she does need to take care if she's a pretender for the leadership.
My concerns with the Greens and Labour is their going down the rabbit hole or woke ideology and cancel culture, I consider this problem a serious assault of free speech and democracy. Chloe I believe is one of the worst offenders.
Some thoughts from the Free Speech Union on this matter. ...two sides to any coin
Free Speech Union (New Zealand) Incorporated Dear John,
Some of our supporters may find this harder to believe than others, but Chlöe Swarbrick made some pretty good points yesterday in an interview with Jack Tame about 'Hate Speech.'
Challenged over her use of the chant 'From the River to the sea, Palestine will be free' late last year at a pro-Palestinian rally, Swarbrick told Tame that while she knew that many in the Jewish community consider this chant to be 'hate speech,' she disagreed that it was.
She also said that if her ideas made people uncomfortable, perhaps we needed to 'embrace the discomfort', which, again, is a pretty solid free speech argument.
Just because something is uncomfortable doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it.
It's just a pity that when it's not her expressing what others consider 'hate speech', but when others are expressing ideas she doesn't like, she's keen on them to be put in prison for 3 years.
John, it reminds me that few things stink so much as hypocrisy. Or as another individual once embroiled in a Jewish conflict put it, 'Hypocrisy is the yeast of the Pharisees.'
But that's precisely what we have to constantly deal with when it comes to fighting our would-be-censors.
There was another recent example of this. Last weekend, former Minister of Defence Peeni Henare spoke at Waitangi as the Opposition Parties were welcomed onto the marae.
In his speech, he said, “This is a fight that will not be fought just in Parliament. I lift my gun, and I let the shots do the talking.”
He quickly clarified: “That’s a figurative gun, not an actual gun.”
I, for one, am willing to accept that he spoke figuratively. Incitement to violence is a bright line for free speech advocates - we're very clear that 'true threats' aren't protected by free speech, but this wasn't a true threat; it was colourful language.
Peeni Henare
Just like it wasn't a true threat when, several months ago during the election campaign, David Seymour claimed that he would 'blow up' the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, Seymour said, "In my fantasy, we’d send a guy called Guy Fawkes in there, and it’d be all over, but we’ll probably have to have a more formal approach than that."
Both David Seymour and Peeni Henare used violent imagery to convey their point, but neither meant their words to incite violence. I'll let you decide whether they could have communicated their intent better, but I hope we can agree that they both should have the right to speak freely.
This is where the hypocrisy comes in.
Both have the right to speak freely. But one was castigated by the media and online trolls for weeks, while the other was given a free pass.
But free speech only works if permitted for both sides.
This is what I said to Chlöe Swarbrick when I wrote to her today: "We have always said that there is no way to define hate speech in an objective, neutral way for the purposes of criminalising it. Speech may be considered hateful on subjective interpretation, and those who write hate speech laws will always have views themselves that others would be all-too-willing to employ against them for their own ends. We trust this is a reality you would now be well aware of yourself."
If we believe in free speech for the opinions we agree with but think that free speech doesn't apply to the positions we disagree with, then that's not a commitment to free speech; it's a commitment to our opinions.
There is no doubt that Chlöe Swarbrick is fully committed to her opinions- and again, she should have every right to be.
But there is real doubt whether her belief in the right to say things that make others uncomfortable on one issue means others have the right to make her uncomfortable on a different issue.
Here at the FSU, we're constantly working hard to check our own biases and John, I know that you and the tens of thousands of other supporters of the Union are willing to call us out if we stray from the principle.
One of the reasons I think people are losing faith in free speech is not because they disagree that people should be allowed to speak freely. It's because they're sick of the hypocrisy that allows some to speak, but silences others.
In a New Zealand that is more polarised than ever before across many issues, let's stick to the radical idea that even our opponents deserve the right to speak.
We hope that the next co-leader of the Green Party agrees (though we're not holding our breath). One way or the other, we'll be here to hold them to account and keep them to the principle that Kiwis' free speech matters, no matter who they are.
Thanks for joining us in the fight to keep free speech for all.