Friday 28 July 2023

The Demonstration Effect.

She’ll Be Back! A fortnight out from the General Election, with early voting already underway, it is difficult to think of any person the Labour Government would be less likely to welcome than Posie Parker. 

WHAT HAPPENED IN AUCKLAND on Saturday, 25 March 2023, revealed the power of officially-sanctioned protest. That power was demonstrated to even greater effect the following day in Wellington. New Zealanders are blessedly unfamiliar with this type of politics, which is more commonly associated with authoritarian regimes such as Viktor Orban’s Hungary, or Nicolás Maduro’s Venezuela. Nevertheless, the mass demonstrations against Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (aka “Posie Parker”) strongly backed by government ministers and the state-owned media, revealed just how potent a weapon the mass mobilisation of sympathetic citizens by official, or quasi-official, forces backed up by the news media, can be.

Since Keen-Minshull has announced her intention to visit New Zealand again in September of this year (perilously close to the election date!) it will be interesting to see whether the same politicians and media outlets who denounced her attitudes towards the trans community back in March – “inflammatory, vile and incorrect” – are prepared to offer the electorate a repeat performance six months later. Were they to do so, there can be little doubt that the result would be the same. New Zealanders sympathetic to the transgender cause would rally against Keen-Minshull in their thousands.

The response of those who share Keen-Minshull’s views about the impact transgender ideology is having on the rights of women and children will, however, be very different the second time around. Should Keen-Minshull return to these shores in September, she is certain to arouse a powerfully demonstrative response from those who support her cause. The March spectacle of 2,000 transgender activists and their supporters drowning-out and then physically attacking Keen-Minshull and her fewer than 100 supporters is unlikely to be repeated.

Citizens hailing from both the left and the right of the political spectrum will not be backward in coming forward to Keen-Minshull’s defence. Moreover, since the trans community set the rules of political engagement so violently in March, Keen-Minshull’s defenders in September are unlikely to pull their punches.

Given, that Keen-Minshull is calling for New Zealand women to speak up for their rights outside the Auckland courtroom in which the person who showered her with tomato juice back in March is set to stand trial, the egregiously “hands-off” policing on display on 25 March (now the subject of an internal Police investigation) will not be an option. Indeed, if two vast crowds of mutually hostile demonstrators seem determined to confront one another outside His Majesty’s courthouse, then Police Commissioner Andrew Coster will have no option but to prepare a very “hands-on” response. Hundreds of police officers will be required to maintain public order.

Scarcely a fortnight out from the General Election, with early voting already underway, it is difficult to conceive of anything the Labour Government would welcome less than dramatic evidence of the deep political animosities dividing New Zealand society. The very real possibility that some deluded individual, inflamed by the white-hot passions besetting the transgender issue, might turn protest into tragedy, will only heighten the Government’s trepidation. Political violence on the streets is the last thing Prime Minister Chris Hipkins needs as he goes head-to-head with the Opposition leader, Christopher Luxon.

Which is why Immigration Minister Andrew Little will be under enormous pressure to deny Keen-Minshull entry to New Zealand under Section 16:1(iii) of the Immigration Act – the sub-clause which authorises the Minister to deny entry to any non-New Zealand citizen who “is, or is likely to be, a threat or risk to public order”. This was the clause cited by the trans community back in March as they attempted to keep Keen-Minshull out of the country. The courts ruled against them then, but they may not to do so a second time. It would not be difficult for Little to make the case that Keen-Minshull’s arrival in March did, as predicted, contribute to a breakdown of public order, and that given the intensity of feeling aroused by her ideas, and by other people’s reaction to those ideas, it risks doing so again if she is granted permission to enter New Zealand.

What Little almost certainly would not mention is that, back in March, Keen-Minshull’s opponents were arguing that public order would be threatened by attacks on the trans community perpetrated by Keen-Minshull and her supporters. If a second attempt is made to keep her out, Keen-Minshull’s defenders will, quite justifiably, respond that on 25 March it was the supporters of the trans community who broke through crowd barriers to harry, harass, and inflict serious physical and emotional harm upon the few dozen people, many of them elderly, who had assembled in Albert Park to join Keen-Minshull in speaking up for women’s rights.

If Little does decide to bar Keen-Minshull’s entry, then the story is most unlikely to end there. The Free Speech Union (of which the author of this opinion-piece is a member) is practically certain to launch a bid to rescue Keen-Minshull from the so-called “Thug’s Veto”. It will argue that those presenting disorder as the most likely outcome of Keen-Minshull’s visit and, hence, the best reason for banning it, are the very people most likely to cause it. Equivalent to Ku Klux Klansmen warning a civil rights worker that if she insists upon addressing the local Black Baptist congregation, then there’s just no telling what might happen to their little church.

Recognising Labour’s discomfort, National and Act would be most unlikely to refuse the political gains of presenting themselves as the staunch defenders of Free Speech. Nor would they likely forgo the opportunity to castigate the Labour Government for lining-up with extremists who cannot give a straight answer to the question: “What is a woman?” They would pillory Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori for lacking the guts to defend the core principles of a democratic society. The Right’s message to the country would be unequivocal: Those who threaten the right of freedom of expression must not be appeased, they must be fought!

The parties of the Right might even feel emboldened to take a leaf out of Labour’s own playbook by throwing their weight behind a mass demonstration in support of New Zealanders’ right to speak freely and without fear of being shouted down or attacked. Were they to help organise such an event, they could be absolutely certain that elements of the Left would not be able to resist organising a counter-demonstration. Like Keen-Minshull, herself, they could rely upon the intolerance and aggression of their political opponents to clinch the argument.

What the Labour Government should do, of course, is what any democratic government should do in such circumstances: uphold the right of both sides to make their case. Let Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull and her supporters have their say. Let the trans community register its disagreement and disgust. And make damn sure that hundreds of cops, in full riot-gear, are standing between them. Holding the ring, as the state is bound to do, and keeping the peace.

This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Friday, 28 July 2023.


Odysseus said...

What happened in March this year at Albert Park was State-sanctioned thuggery, reminiscent of 1930s Germany. Isn't Keen-Minshull returning for the trial of her assailant? She surely has the right to see justice done, where she was the victim. The protection of women's rights is fundamental in a civilized society and cannot be wished away, or swept under the carpet by a Ministerial injunction. Labour-Greens Ministers took an antagonistic stance towards women in March and will pay the consequences electorally, whatever happens in September.

Simon Cohen said...

An excellent article.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

" New Zealanders are blessedly unfamiliar with this type of politics, which is more commonly associated with authoritarian regimes such as Viktor Orban’s Hungary, or Nicolás Maduro’s Venezuela."

You could have added Poland, Russia and India to those 2 right-wing regimes – Spain has thankfully rejected the hard right, but Italy is going that way, and Trump is determined to increase the powers of the presidency.
And yet... and yet ... when I have posted references to these regimes and their illiberal attitudes towards freedom of speech among other things, on various blogs that I follow – not one conservative poster has bothered to condemn them. So I can't help thinking that conservatives are in general in favour of free speech and nonviolence – unless it's used against people they despise. In which case they never condemn it, and often simply silently approve of it. Because I guess public appearances must be kept up and they don't like to be associated with neo-Nazis.

Personally I think we should embrace the paradox of tolerance and refused to tolerate the intolerant. Because we all know what happened last time we failed to do this.

Guerilla Surgeon said...
And here we go. Just the latest iteration of conservative restrictions on free speech.

No-Skates said...

I'm mostly a consistent reader of you cause I too believe strongly in free speech, but Parker tests me.

To the point where I've rewritten this comment several times already. My thoughts are still very much in flux.

We have three main ways of motivating someone to follow our values: discussion, incentive, and violence. You can't reason with cancer, and we're kept economically depressed by design, so I can understand why lashing out can feel like the last resort.

And I don't think it's unfair when your rhetoric does call for taking rights away from people, and emboldens your followers to commit acts of violence. At that point, it's either me or them.

Should violence be the answer? I never used to think so, but I'm realising so many of my problems in life could be solved by a guillotine.

Also, liking the trans movement to the KKK is... insensitive, and inaccurate. One side is interested in the purity of the and strict adherence to an idealised form, and it's not the people with tattoos and piercings.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"He flooded Facebook with the information that the measles vaccine is killing children in Samoa. He went to Samoa. He met with anti-vaccine activists. He met with senior officials in Samoa and kept the drumbeat alive that the measles vaccine was killing children in Samoa as a consequence," Offit continued. "Vaccination rates fell from 70% to 30%, and between September and December of 2019, there was a massive measles epidemic in this island nation of 200,000 people. There were 57,000 cases of measles and 83 deaths."

Free speech – anyone like to hazard a guess as to who they're talking about here? Without posting it into Google.

"What happened in March this year at Albert Park was State-sanctioned thuggery, reminiscent of 1930s Germany."? Seriously? Someone doesn't know much about Nazi Germany.

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.”
Søren Kierkegaard

Guerilla Surgeon said...

" The protection of women's rights is fundamental in a civilized society "

It's somewhat ironic that the Conservative – movement if you want to call it that – after at least a hundred years of denying women rights – voting, borrowing money, equal pay, promotions – all of a sudden find that the protection of women's rights is fundamental. Because reasons.

Anonymous said...

There was a protest against the TTPA toward the end of the last National government. Myself and my daughter did not attend that one, because we were afraid of the political rhetoric about ‘eco-terrorists’ and ‘rent-a-mob’ that the then government used to justify armed police presence at that protest. We were actually afraid of the government and how they were portraying the protesters and the measures they were taking to suppress the protesters. We had been at the anti-mining conservation land one. So long ago. It was amazing, and we won. But that was about the last time I was unafraid to speak. Within a short time, with the TTPA, it changed. We were afraid back then, of the government, the over-the-top police presence, the rhetoric that demonised and misrepresented the forward to today...I didn’t attend Albert Park because I was afraid. Afraid of the transactivists. I didn’t attend any Speak Up For Women events back in the first version of this horrible government before 2020 for the same reason. Silenced? For sure. The ‘government-encouraged’ counter-protest, media demonisation of free speech, it was horrific and no doubt spurred many people including me to resign our Labour Party membership. I’m seriously considering being there on the high court steps in September, supportive of Posie, and all women, fearful no more. Thank you Chris, and the Free Speech Union for being there, a calm, measured voice of reason in these very troubled times.

Red Umbrella said...

The following manuals are being distributed by members of the Workers Party / Fightback, many of whom have ingratiated themselves into trans activism and the "mis and disinformation" (pro-censorship) space.

The manuals advocate for a violent response to free speech events and the Police, if necessary, outline how to form military formations and instruct on the proper use of weapons. See for yourself.

John Hurley said...

Have a listen to RNZ's latest Undercurrent, it is clear the new ideology is a society made up of communities(s) and the nearest thing to legitimate authority (I could discern) is the piece where Paul Spoonley provides professorial analysis of reactionary "ontological insecurity" ("this is a British country. Why are we giving recognition to Maori and transgender") and the Disinformation Projects scholarly (we notice) "community bridging" (meaning ideological clusters). It is Critical Theory with knobs on.

Notice how Paddy Gower focuses on the most legitimate part of the argument which is a dysmorphic individual who (like Blair White) passes for female (until you know). Whereas in Thailand "lady-boy" is accepted (they have separate bathrooms).The latter isn't what they want though, it is a war on human nature and it's pesky restrictions that group people as "New Zealander"; "Chinese" etc.

John Hurley said...

" New Zealanders are blessedly unfamiliar with this type of politics, which is more commonly associated with authoritarian regimes such as Viktor Orban’s Hungary, or Nicolás Maduro’s Venezuela."
Phyl Goff and Stephan Molyneau

Steve Maharey ($600,000pa) and RNZ. They have lost the plot are falling back on education (Cynical Histories) algorithms (hiding content) and bullying and hate speech.

David George said...

Yes Odysseus, it does look like Labour, and certainly the Greens, have picked a side. A side that is increasingly unreasonable and violent and anti woman. It's probably not a major issue ATM but their reaction to KJK's next visit is crucial - alienating half the population doesn't seem like a great idea.

Transgender ideology is now being pushed in our schools, often with totally age inappropriate material. The Methodists, Muslims and Mama Bears are not happy. Good to see that at least Chris Luxon can actually say what a woman is and, just the other day Nicola Willis: ‘‘Here’s how I feel about sexual education. That’s the job for me and my husband to do with our kids, based on our values and our views of the world . . .I want my education system focused on teaching my children how to read, how to write and how to do maths.’’
Hear Hear.

Tom Hunter said...

when I have posted references to these regimes and their illiberal attitudes towards freedom of speech among other things, on various blogs that I follow – not one conservative poster has bothered to condemn them.

That's because we all know that you're just doing your usual Far Left deflection from what your mates are up to.

Democrats now favor censorship by 70 to 28 percent, a major rise since 2018, when their attitude towards free speech was almost identical to Republicans. Since then, while Republican support for the First Amendment and freedom has remained largely stable and strong."

That was a Pew survey of Democrat and GOP voters, not the politicians, but it fits with the totalitarian garbage the Biden administration and various Federal agencies have pulled over the last few years with the likes of Facebook, Twitter and other social media. Not much on Google yet but they don't seem to need to be told what to censor by the US government.

I will admit that the likes of the Tories in Britain appear to be no different, but that won't worry you really, given your worship of massive State power, which is ultimately what leads to this.

Madame Blavatsky said...

"Let the trans community register its disagreement and disgust"

It's pretty evident that they've already done this, and then some, earlier in the year. They should just sit this one out, lest they damage their own cause even more than they have already.

Why are they so violently hostile to anyone challenging their dogma (and being the exact opposites of "inclusive" "tolerant" and "diverse" in so doing, giving the lie to all of their claimed values)? Only someone with a very weak or nonexistent argument wants to censor challenges to that argument.

The reason they are so hostile to any disagreement is because they know full well that the case for the normativity, and even the possibility, of transgenderism (and this goes equally for every other pillar of progressive ideology) is so weak that it can't stand any scrutiny.

If they let opponents to their delusional ideology speak against it, people would find that they all agree just how delusional they and their ideas are. Think of any topic of discussion that has been censored in the last few years (and there's some very prominent ones), and the motivation is always and only to sustain a politically expedient lie.

Madame Blavatsky said...

Guerilla Surgeon
I agree 100% that the "women's rights" angle is wrongheaded. I disagree with transgenderism both because it is an offense to biological reality, and it is completely counter to the moral order. We don't need an argument from the liberal worldview to argue against it, when we have all we need at our disposal in the illiberal worldview.

Frankly, the rights of women are very low in the list of reasons for rejecting the pseudo notion of transgenderism.

Secondly, "Seriously? Someone doesn't know much about Nazi Germany"

I agree. Most people have no idea about Nazi Germany outside of the favoured narrative supporting the popular caricature. When you realise that the books the Nazis were burning were not the works of Homer, or Shakespeare, or Goethe and other great writers, but that they were instead burning books on transgenderism and did so in places such as outside the "Institute of Sexual Research" founded and run by "sexologist" Magnus Hirschfeld, the whole thing starts to take on a very different character.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"That's because we all know that you're just doing your usual Far Left deflection from what your mates are up to."

Perhaps that's what you think, but if you were at all rational, which conservatives tend not to be – much more emotional IMO – you would realise that if there is a problem, it exists on both ends of the political spectrum. In my opinion much more on the far right/proto-fascist side to which you belong. There is far more massive state power in use their than in NZ certainly, and on the left in general. Not as you would put it the far left, that's a canard you always throw me and of course it's your usual bullshit which I wouldn't bother responding to usually but I'm a little sick of it. So sauce for the goose.

And you did not mention that the Democrats favour restricting false information, and violent content. That's interesting because it wasn't too long ago that all you people are blaming "violent content" in computer games for the crime waves that you maintain a sweeping the world at the moment. And calling for its restriction.

Misuse of free speech as I noted above has caused deaths. Something you people constantly avoid responsibility for, by completely ignoring instances of it, just as you ignore instances of censorship by your fascist mates. Time you people looked at the beam in your own eye.

"Transgender ideology is now being pushed in our schools,"
This is such obvious bullshit I'm not even sure that it's worthy of a reply, but if by Mama Bears you mean mothers for Hitler, that's just another front organisation for the extreme right/proto-fascists. You want to make statements like "totally age inappropriate material", you really should provide examples of it. Some time ago I gave you a list of pretty innocuous books that your far right mates want to ban, and you never responded to that, so I assume you approve.

main-qimg-5d1b220fc460cc7354bd8151a5af31a6 (602×784) (

I tell you what IS being pushed in some schools in the US and could I guess, make it across the pond to here – the idea that chattel slavery was a benefit for black people, something like a polytechnic where they learned trade skills. I also heard a nutty far right mate of yours on Fox, claim that concentration camps came in handy for teaching Jews survival skills.

I tell you what David, we ignore this shit at our peril. Because while you may well be just a silly old bloke with somewhat dotty right-wing ideas, when these people get into power – put 1 foot wrong and you'll be in the concentration camps with the rest of us.

David George said...

GS: "Spain has thankfully rejected the hard right, but Italy is going that way"

Your seem confused between conservatism and "hard (far?) Right". There is the possibility that your confusion is genuine; this might help:

"Both Italian and Swedish Scrutonians ground their opposition to the European project in Scruton’s ideas of oikophobia and oikophilia. The Greek word oikos referred to three interrelated concepts: the family, the family’s property, and the house. In other words, the sense of community, place, and home that binds a community together through space and time."

"Those at the summit of political power and influence in countries like Italy and Sweden [and Hungary] explicitly cite Scruton’s philosophy as inspiration for their vision of life and how it relates to the role of government. In A Political Philosophy, Scruton articulated a form of conservatism antithetical to an Anglo-Saxon Right-liberalism, instantiated in the Thatcherite worldview, which sees liberation from bonds of restraint and the maximisation of economic autonomy as the highest good of politics, while simultaneously making incoherent gestures at socially conservative values.

For Scruton, conservatism concerns “the conservation of our shared resources – social, material, economic and spiritual – and resistance to social entropy in all its forms”.
'The Salisbury Review'

John Hurley said...

There's a house next to me for sale. Owner added a garage and converted it into two bedrooms.
Altogether holds about 6 students.
Asking price is just under (wait for it) $900,000.
I didn't want to know the price, my wife did. We are both working class and she has two friends with 2 children and both live in two bedroom apartments.
Meanwhile Meghan Woods (2 election cycles back) told B that she didn't think we ad too much migration.
It's council high rises for workers and Wigram for Chinese.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

OT but I thought I'd just throw it out here – I just watched Neil Oliver on YouTube talking about excess deaths, and how it's all been covered up in the mainstream media hasn't covered it done so on and so forth. 10 seconds of googling, and I find any number of articles about excess deaths, including one in the Guardian – that bastion of Communism. Someone made exactly that point in the comments, although you shouldn't really do that because it just makes his channel more 'valuable'. So for me it's a down vote and "don't recommend channel". It's really sad how someone who is TV documentaries I used to enjoy has gone doolally tap.
And he is some sort of hero of one or 2 commentators here. One can only marvel at their gullibility. Honestly guys, do you not think to check your sources?

David George said...

GS: "ironic that the Conservative – movement ...........all of a sudden find that the protection of women's rights is fundamental."

Perhaps that's because you don't know what conservatism is, or even that there is such a thing as conservative feminism.
Have a read of Mary Harrington's substack ( ) or The Conservative Woman website

Feminism isn't just confined to promoting Girl Boss power or the denigration of men and their place - it's about protecting and advancing women's rights to be everything they want to be and can be. Including traditional roles. I wonder if the trans ideologists even try and understand why we have these protections - "If we don’t understand how we got “here,” we run the risk of making things much worse". The protection of the rights of women and girls to private spaces and sports is conservative by definition

Chesterton's fence analogy:
"There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

Dave said...

" is difficult to conceive of anything the Labour Government would welcome less than dramatic evidence of the deep political animosities dividing New Zealand society. The very real possibility that some deluded individual, inflamed by the white-hot passions besetting the transgender issue, might turn protest into tragedy, will only heighten the Government’s trepidation. Political violence on the streets is the last thing Prime Minister Chris Hipkins needs as he goes head-to-head with the Opposition leader, Christopher Luxon."

Disagree, not with the government's record being so clearly abysmal. The government would much rather have their core supporters feeling energised by a great good-v-evil morality moment (an emotion felt by both sides on this) than generally dispirited by listening to media commentary that uncomfortably dissects their failures one by one for the last month of the election. They will be very happy to see Kellie Jean appear at this time. I wonder if she is aware of this?

The principle is similar to the way moral hot-button issues such as abortion are used to keep large numbers of party faithful in line across decades of US elections.

The Barron said...

Thanks GS.
I was in Samoa during the measle epidemic. Anyone who argues "free speech" for the Australian and American social media misinformation targeted at Samoa should understand it was not "free" it came at the cost of the lives of scores of children.

The Barron said...

There is no doubt in my mind that nothing positive can come from the return of Keen-Minshull. That does not mean that she should not be allowed into NZ, the criteria has not changed since she was last in, nor has Keen-Minshull. My problem is trying to gauge why anyone would wish to reintroduce her to the debate. Keen-Minshull is fascist adjacent and has shown outright prejudice towards the Muslim migrant community, including Islamic women. She is someone who has little or no understanding of universal rights. Further, she maintains a dogma that trans women do not exist. This is not a statement of the rights of women, but a denial of rights to a vulnerable community.

The question of the rights of, particularly, 2nd wave feminists and their perception of safety in some spatial relationships is one which requires dialogue and mutual understanding. There can be few rights based activists which cannot have empathy for women that may have been abused having trauma about spatial safety. There can be few rights based activists who cannot have empathy for those that have a gender identity different than that 'assigned' by others, and the right to live within that identity. This is a matter of adjustment to a changing situation and a dialogue (not debate) as how to maximize the rights of gendered identity, while minimalizing potential trauma during a period of change.

I think there are absolute rights for those with gendered identity, but any rights based movement must acknowledge the 2nd wave feminists which made those rights possible. Mutual respect for what should be complementary rights is not going to be enhanced by the imposition of Keen-Minshull into the NZ context. She is deliberately polarizing, and is, at best, a diversion from the issues put forward by some pertaining to women's rights. If her return is being hailed by some as a childish "get back" by those that felt slighted by her previous exit, I would urge those to consider that Keen-Minshull can only bring harm to the vulnerable, there is no possible outcome in which she positively contributes to any rights or empowerment in NZ.

David George said...

GS: "if by Mama Bears you mean mothers for Hitler"....."put 1 foot wrong and you'll be in the concentration camps with the rest of us"

Hitler and concentration camps is it now. Get a grip.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"Your seem confused between conservatism and "hard (far?) Right". There is the possibility that your confusion is genuine; this might help:"

I use the term hard right the same way you use the term hard left David. Largely in response to that – in other words I'm sort of kind of trolling you just a bit. On the other hand, I find that in my experience it's only the hard right that characterises anyone to the left of Margaret Thatcher as hard left. So if the cap fits.

And crikey David you do seem to be at the mercy of anyone who can string together a shitload obscure words. Congratulations if you really understand it, because I haven't got a clue what it means. But if it's an excuse for right-wing authoritarianism ....

"Hitler and concentration camps is it now. Get a grip."

For Christ sake David grow up. This is pure exaggeration of the sort I see every day on MSN news. It's not worthy of anyone on this site, and you're usually better than this – if not much. This is supposed to be a place for serious discussion. 😁

Tom Hunter said...

Hitler and concentration camps is it now. Get a grip.

Haha. He's projecting. In IMAX with full Dolby Surround sound.

I don't think people like GS realise how laughable and water-off-the-ducks-back such accusations are nowadays for we RWNJ's. Fascists, Hitler, NAZI'ssssss.

For decades now. And then we get some performative whinging about how upset such people are when they're compared to Stalinists, Maoists and the rest of the unlovely tribe.

And seeing how beloved he is of Google, here's just one search on Transgender books in schools.

The ones I really find funny are the sex education books for little kids that, when read to school boards in public by "Mothers For Hitler" (that's a keeper), have had the boards stop them because of the explicit pornography (and that's before we get to the cartoon images of sex acts for 5 year olds). The same books those boards allow in the libraries. Talk about cognitive dissonance. :)

Tom Hunter said...

One thing I appreciate about "The Barron" is his mastery of the Post-Modernist language...
The question of the rights of, particularly, 2nd wave feminists and their perception of safety in some spatial relationships is one which requires dialogue and mutual understanding. There can be few rights based activists which cannot have empathy for women that may have been abused having trauma about spatial safety. There can be few rights based activists who cannot have empathy for those that have a gender identity different than that 'assigned' by others, and the right to live within that identity. This is a matter of adjustment to a changing situation and a dialogue (not debate) as how to maximize the rights of gendered identity, while minimalizing potential trauma during a period of change.

That mush got translated into a far harsher reality by TPTB, as shown by this testimony by former university swimmer, Paula Scanlan, testifying to Congress recently:

My teammates and I were forced to undress in the presence of Lia, a six-feet four-inch tall biological man fully-intact with male genitalia, 18 times per week. Some girls opted to change in bathroom stalls and others used the family bathroom to avoid this. When we tried to voice our concern to the Athletic Department, we were told that Lia swimming and being in our locker room was non-negotiable and we were offered psychological services to attempt to re-educate us to become comfortable with the idea of undressing in front of a male.

An Athletic Department staffed by little barrons. It got worse when she revealed that was that as the victim of previous sexual assault, having an intact & exposed man undressing inches away from her is traumatic in ways some could never understand.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

A lot of comments here by people who don't know anything about the science behind being transgender, and who don't know any transgender people. I suggest you look up the US national library of medicine – genetics home reference. It's not nearly as simple as you think.
Couple of things I do know from talking to a number of trans people –
1. They didn't choose to be trans. Any more than anyone chooses to be gay.
2. They knew what they were as early as their teens.
3. They just want to get on with their lives without the harassment and condemnation of people like those who comment here. Some of them find it very difficult to even leave their house thanks to you people.
Keen – Minshull adds very little to the debate, she basically just pulls stunts. I wouldn't care if she came back, and I certainly would support anyone who demonstrated against her as long as they weren't violent. Free speech has consequences after all.

Tom Hunter said...

I tell you what IS being pushed in some schools in the US and could I guess, make it across the pond to here – the idea that chattel slavery was a benefit for black people, something like a polytechnic where they learned trade skills. I also heard a nutty far right mate of yours on Fox, claim that concentration camps came in handy for teaching Jews survival skills.

And here we go again with a typical GS comment about the USA. No citation given but it'll be one of his HATE-GOP blog sites who spoon-fed him this, or perhaps even some of the moronic MSM who think de Santis is the GOP Presidential threat and so are attacking the new Florida school curriculum. That's what GS's crap is about and it started with one of the dumbest Vice Presidents to ever disgrace the office.

So instead of the usual political activist language and garbage that's designed for an emotional impact rather than intellectual, here's Professor Kevin Roberts
The outcry over Florida's African American History standards is absurd. That happens to be my academic field as a historian; I use to write extensively—including curriculum standards—on the topic. So I took some time to review Florida’s. The bottom line: they are excellent.
Roberts then highlighted that Florida’s standards state: “Instructional materials shall include the vital contributions of African Americans to build & strengthen American society and celebrate the inspirational stories of African Americans who prospered, even in the most difficult circumstances.
“In no way does mentioning that ‘personal benefit’ for some slaves, in some instances, amount to defending slavery or making slavery sound better–rather, it shows the amazing, heroic perseverance of enslaved people amid an evil system,” he said. “The author of the standards, African American historian Dr. William B. Allen–former chairman of the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights–said as much in an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, who himself acknowledged that Allen was ‘correct.'”

Allen went on to talk about these skill-learning realities with people like his great grandfather.

Not only that but the same arguments already exist in the entire US education system:
The College Board included a similar item in its course framework for AP African American Studies for 2023-2024. The curriculum identifies as “essential knowledge”: “In addition to agricultural work, enslaved people learned specialized trades and worked as painters, carpenters, tailors, musicians, and healers in the North and South. Once free, African Americans used these skills to provide for themselves and others.”

The College Board’s AP college prep classes are available in thousands of schools across the U.S.

So once again we see a classic piece of GS propaganda. For all the huffing and puffing about going back to university and getting a degree, plus constant implications about intellectual approaches, we simply get random crap vomited out, an echo of the idiot Harris's totally wrong-headed claims, based no doubt on her team of Matthew Hooton Democrats who have probably never heard of Professors Allen or Roberts - and all for a pathetically political partisan hit piece on de Santis.

Some deep intellectual approach that is. If you'd bothered shifting off your backside to research this issue rather than just taking VP Harris's words as gospel I'd like to think you wouldn't have written something so stupid.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Well Hunter, if anyone's talking bullshit it's you. Naturally the nuttier side of the hard right publish approval of the curriculum – and the Daily Wire of course, one of the fringe nut job purveyors of wingnut welfare. And Prof Roberts is the president of the Heritage foundation which is hardly an unbiased organisation. It's very job is to promote conservative P̶u̶b̶l̶i̶c̶ ̶p̶o̶l̶i̶c̶y̶ bullshit.

Roberts claims to be a historian of slavery, but he hasn't published a great deal about it apart from his PhD thesis, which you obviously haven't read and which is largely irrelevant to the subject at hand. In fact according to his CV he hasn't really published a great deal or worked as anything much more than an adjunct. Pretty lowly position.

On the other hand – "Professor Margaret Washington, an expert in African American and southern history, said: "The Florida Board of Education is going back in time, to well over one hundred years ago, and it makes me both very sick, and very, very sad. The Board of Education in Florida is reviving what we historians call the 'plantation legend.' It was perpetrated in the early twentieth century, as the 'Daughters of the Confederacy' began financing Confederate monuments."

"The Florida Board of Education should hear the words of Fountain Hughes, a 101-year-old former slave. I often play his W.P.A. narrative for my students. Looking back on his life, Fountain Hughes told the WPA interviewer: 'If I thought I would ever be a slave again, why, I would just take a gun, and end it all. Because you're nothing but a dog. You're n-o-t-h-i-n-g, b-u-t a d-o-g.'"

If you'd bothered to get off your backside and research your sources you would realise this, but I wouldn't be surprised if you did given your hard right stance on most issues. Aren't you the one who said that there teaching a "watered-down" version of critical race in schools? Pretty damn dishonest that. I could easily say you're spouting a "watered-down version of Nazism – just without the obvious anti-Semitism, and the desire to invade Poland.

Chris, I'm afraid this conversation is degenerating into insults. The last time this sort of thing developed somebody suggested that they had better things to do than read my inane stuff, including watching paint dry. I manfully resisted the urge to suggest that they seem like the sort of person that could easily amuse themselves watching paint dry. No longer I'm afraid.

The Barron said...

As stated, no one should ignore potential trauma. Similarly, no one should impose an identity on others and overlook the need to accommodate their rights. There is not an absolute or black and white solution other than mutual respect for the others situation and shared empathy.

Complicating this is that many of the contended spaces have been historically designed by men. The famous examples are the traditional schooling. Otago Boys High School was provided with large grounds and sports facilities, Otago Girls small grounds and limited facilities. This is a result of a male led view of women and sport.

It is counter productive for you to highlight some of the few global incidents and present as normative. Women's Refuge and other organizations have been negotiating the concerns for years and without issue.

That said, there remains an issue where some are still genuinely suffering anxiety about the possibility of certain situations in certain spaces. Both rights based groups should have dialog based on empathy and mutual respect. Scare stories rallies and counter protest gets in the way of solutions.

Of courses, the culture wars promoted by the right wish for perpetual conflict, misunderstanding and prejudice. I don't think we should fall for the trap. I guess I'm an old fashioned lefty that believes in cooperation for the betterment of society than your conflict model.

David George said...

Thanks GS, cocks in frocks in the girls changing room part of "the science behind being transgender"?

To sum up;
1/ It's not really happening
2/ Yeah, it's happening but it's not a big deal
3/ It's a good thing actually
4/ People freaking out about it are the real problem

Chris Trotter said...

To: Guerilla Surgeon & His Detractors.

Point taken, GS.

Let's refocus on the content of the blog and desist from assailing one another.

Or, I'll start hitting the delete icon.

Tom Hunter said...

Or, I'll start hitting the delete icon.

That's fair enough as long as you allow people to critique GS when he just throws ignorant crap against the walls with no argument or citation, and especially when it's that blatant and dishonest, and sourced from cheap, partisan places in the USA rather than any well-spring of academic thinking. And especially when it's just another one of his endlessly snide attacks on the Right. As witness his reply to me on the point...

And Prof Roberts is the president of the Heritage foundation ...

And Dr. William B. Allen is the author of the Florida standards but I notice you left him out to focus on Roberts, as I knew you'd do because Roberts is from the Heritage group and fits within your frame of reference about the Right and Conservatives - whereas Roberts is African-American and can speak directly to his own family history on this specific matter. Naturally you had to ignore him in your response because apart from calling him an Uncle Tom you had no response.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

To sum up even more David:
1. Transgender people are a TINY minority.
2. Accommodations can be made by those in charge of public toilets and the like, which I'm sure would satisfy everyone but the hysterical.
3. The number of transgender people who commit crimes is far less than the number of transgender people who have crimes committed against them because they are transgender, and almost certainly although I can't be arsed checking*, lower than the general population. People who commit crimes should be punished. Sometimes men dress up as women to get in the female toilets – they have always done so – they are rarely if ever transgender.
4. I agree with point 4.

*Actually, it's not that easy to find out about transgender crime as many police departments don't keep statistics but some actual research has been done:

"Data come from public record requests of criminal incident reports related to assault, sex crimes, and voyeurism in public restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms to measure safety and privacy violations in these spaces. This study finds that the passage of such laws is not related to the number or frequency of criminal incidents in these spaces. Additionally, the study finds that reports of privacy and safety violations in public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms are exceedingly rare. This study provides evidence that fears of increased safety and privacy violations as a result of nondiscrimination laws are not empirically grounded."

This evidence of course should change your mind David but it won't. You're being just a tad irrational about this, as are many people. You have to overcome the "yuck factor" and believe in the research.

The Barron said...

David, you are usually better than this. An obsession with genitalia and what you see as assigned clothing is shallow, outdated and monocultural.

You are more than aware any argument against women wearing trousers is untenable, you are aware that men in non-western societies are as often as not wear wrap around garments. Indeed, in the so caĺled cradle of western civilization, Mussolini derided the uniform of the Greek army until he needed the Germans to bail him out.

Your crude fascination as to the genitals beneath the cloth does you a disservice.

sumsuch said...

Never concentrated my mind on the free speech thing, thinking it a diversion from rich-rule -- freedom for them and not the people, who need stuff to survive, and from which the only liberty worth a crap comes from.

I think I said this on the TDB version of this, let all the nitwits come over here. You've made your case.

Particularly against shouting or whistling out talkers.

The Barron said...

Well, Tom Tom Turnaround, I take this as a concession that if the Florida school curriculum required the teaching of slavery to include the positives of slavery for the enslaved, that would be morally bankrupt and intellectually bereft.

David George said...

Some news and comment from the front lines:
The world swimming’s governing body has effectively banned "transgender women" from competing in the female category. They are also contemplating introducing a new "open category". Be interesting to see if that gets any uptake from the likes of those now excluded from the female category - "Lia" Thomas & Co.

A new interview of KJK by Jordan Peterson.
It includes some very interesting discussion on the question of whether "The Left" have changed in a fundamental way. Overtaken by malevolent actors hiding under a cloak of compassion?
This is a shortened version (32 minutes), sanitised to avoid banning from the Youtube censors.
The full two hour discussion is available elsewhere but may be paywalled.

David George said...

Fair enough Chris, no one wants the "conversation ... degenerating into insults".
As "a silly old bloke with somewhat dotty right-wing ideas" that "needs to grow up" I can only marvel at the psychological projection.

Anonymous said...

It just got worse for the Labour government and the legacy media. Kellie-Jay Keen has just won (Friday August 4) a defamation case against the Independant newspaper, and journalist Patrick Strudwick. This involves a monetary payment, and an apology, to be published both in the paper, and on Twitter.

The apology states: "Editor's Note: The original version of this article reported that "an anti-trans rally organised by British 'gender-critical' campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen staged a mass Nazi salute". We are happy to clarify that Ms Keen, the organizer of the Let Women Speak event in Melbourne, did not stage a mass Nazi salute. The group of masked men who did so in the vicinity of the event was neither invited by Ms Keen nor endorsed by Ms Keen. We apologise to Ms Keen for this error."

So KJK and her supporters can now, correctly, say much of the legacy media coverage and comment from Labour ministers repeated claims since found to be defamatory by a British court. They can add, equally correctly, as the self-confessed perpetrator of the tomato based assault faces justice, that they are the victims of assaults, not the perpetrators.

I really hope the Greens are stupid enough to loudly and publicly back any attempt to repeat the disgraceful misogynistic and homophobic violent suppression of free speech that happened on March 25. That should drive voters who place protecting the environment above ideological purity on gender issues away from them. The Mexican Bandit should join his co-conspirator, the Purple Taniwha, in leaving the Greens. That would help them re-focus on their core purpose again.

Just how much they need to was noticeable at the recent Forest and Bird conference, at Te Papa in Wellington. A wide range of speakers did not include any serving MPs, of any party. Retiring Green MP, former Conservation Minister, and life member of Forest and Bird, Eugenie Sage, did attend, but in the audience, and in a "personal capacity".

Nicola Toki confirmed, after the conference, on RNZ, that invitations for politicians to speak were extended, but they were all declined.

So, a well established and respected conservation organisation, is celebrating its 100th birthday. This is a celebration at which it stresses acting against both climate change and loss of biodiversity. But it can not attract any Green MPs, let alone the Green climate change minister, to speak. What the heck else are now their top priorities?

Why the heck should anyone concerned about climate change and biodiversity loss now vote Green? They seem to have become more interested in denying biology than saving it.

David George said...

The KJK (Posie Parker) interview/discussion has just been released on Twitter.

David George said...

Riley Gaines is the top female swimmer that was forced to compete with six foot four biological man Lia Thomas. She sits down for a chat with Bill Mahr. Fascinating stuff, everything you wanted to know but were afraid to ask.

David George said...

Chris: "desist from assailing one another. Or, I'll start hitting the delete icon"

Fair enough. Being called an idiot, eejit, silly, stupid, heartless, greedy etc. is toxic and counter productive. An example of "The Iron Law of Woke Projection"?

James Lindsay: "In countless lectures and several previous podcasts, I’ve discussed how Marxist activism (read: bullying) seeks to achieve three primary purposes: to drain its target of moral authority, intellectual authority, and/or psychological authority. That is, Marxist manipulations seek to make their opponents look bad, stupid, or crazy. The reason is that if you believe yourself bad, stupid, or crazy, you might doubt yourself, and if other people believe you are bad, stupid, or crazy, they won’t listen to you. The Iron Law of Woke Projection, however, never misses. With regard to this tripartite Marxist tactic, then, the Marxist seeks to position himself as good, smart, and sane, or at least better, smarter, and saner than anyone who might disagree with him. Why? Because he is not good, not smart, and possibly psychologically disordered, so says the Iron Law of Woke Projection."

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"Roberts is African-American and can speak directly to his own family history on this specific matter. Naturally you had to ignore him in your response because apart from calling him an Uncle Tom you had no response."

Okay, you want rational debate without insults – first show me exactly where I called Roberts an "Uncle Tom". I simply said that he hadn't published a great deal about slavery. And yet he claims to be an expert on it. I believe he said "that's my field".

If you look at his CV which is publicly available, you'll find that he's mostly worked in private schools rather than public universities, and has published very little at all.
I didn't ignore him so much as dismiss him. If you'd investigated him – I was going to say you might dismiss him yourself – but you won't because he agrees with you.
Being black is no guarantee of being an expert on slavery – or pretty much anything else for that matter, except perhaps being black.

I ignored Allen partly because he is the lead author of the standards, and one wouldn't expect him to criticise it. He's only one of the authors anyway a reasonable number of whom did not agree with that particular aspect of it. I didn't provide attribution because you wouldn't believe anything I posted – at least so I thought – but here is some.

I could have actually explained that he also is not an expert on slavery and has not really written a great deal about it. He's not a historian of slavery, he's not a historian at all, in fact he is a political scientist. Really the only thing his written in this particular area has been something about Harriet Beecher Stowe's political philosophy.

If you really want a discussion without insults you should first probably accurately represent what I said.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"a silly old bloke with somewhat dotty right-wing ideas"

David I apologise for that statement. I should have said that you might be perceived as ..... but that it wouldn't save you from persecution. Authoritarians don't distinguish between the dangerous and the harmless when it comes to getting rid of people.

'Needs to grow up" I also apologise for putting it that way, but comparing contemporary NZ to Nazi Germany is a damfool idea.

The Barron said...

It is increasingly disturbing to read the by contributors to this blog. Those identifiable are overwhelmingly men (as am I). Many have always seen these issues as not simply prejudice against trans people, but a way of re-imposing control over women. Many of the Southern states of the USA have legislation against trans, while also expanding areas like dress requirements for girls at school. If you try to define "what is a women", this is not just an exclusion exercise, but one which comes with controls and limitation to those already under the banner.

It seems an exploitation of those with gender liminality and hatred towards a vulnerable minority to play out demands for cultural regression. I am at a loss as to David raising the issue of an American swimmer. There is acknowledgment that most competitive male teenage swimmers would break women's world records.

The debate is whether all those who identify as women should have the absolute right to compete as women (this raises issues of safety and fairness), or, whether competition is restricted those that transitioned before puberty, or, whether it may be viewed on a case-by-case basis, or, whether a neutral scientific criteria may be used (the use of hormone levels is increasingly discredited), or, an absolute ban on anyone not consigned as a women at birth (this has major legal and moral problems). Where those that are intersex fit into these arguments may differ from those identified as trans.

I have seen little intention to discuss these talking points. Keen-Minshull has no intention of addressing this. The sole focus becomes an us against them culture war. It is one that her supporters have already lost. This is why the few anecdotal stories of changing rooms or unfair sport dominate this blog. The wider issue of trans rights within society have been established. There are many issues still to be discussed as to where the majority of trans people identify on a spectrum and the move from binary identification to more nuanced acceptance. The speed of the change has meant that there are remaining issues accommodating these changes and where they fit into competing rights. This brings us to (particularly 2nd wave feminists focus on spaces they are now being required to share with those that now identify as women that had not previously. Like the sports example, this is a genuine discussion, and that there is clear evidence of anxiety of those who may be traumatized by abusive men.

This cannot be enhanced by Keen-Minshull denying the existence of a vulnerable sector. What is required is respectful dialogue between groups. Keen-Minshull is divisive and her only function is to stir the culture wars.

The Barron said...

Biology is not destiny.

Not sure your point. Anyone viewing the Melbourne footage can see she did not lead a Nazi salute. This does not counter balance her extensive use of alt-right media, her frequent appearances with far right activists and her abhorrent attacks on Islamic migrant and Muslim women. You can do all this with you arms at the side.

Anonymous said...

The Barron is correct on one thing, that a "respectful dialogue between groups" is needed. May I respectfully point out that can not happen if one side decides who, if anyone, can speak for their opponents. It certainly can't happen if one side says "no debate!" and violently shuts down their opponents. That that is the trans rights activists approach is clear from Albert Park. Who assaulted who? Who is appearing in court as the accused, and who as the victim?

It's always hard to defend the free speech of those you deeply disagree with. That's why I have mixed feelings about the news that "River of Protest", the film made from within the anti-vaxxers circus outside parliament, is having it's premiere at the Civic Theatre in Auckland. I deeply disagree with anti-vaxxers. I think they are not just wrong, they are dangerously wrong. But, in spite of that, I think it is a win for free speech for them to be able to use an Auckland City Council facility. The Council is correct on this, their facilities should be available to all points of view, the Council should not be involved in censorship.

The Barron said...

As continually stressed, the involvement of a British speaker who is alt-right adjacent does not allow for dialog, only counter protest. Dichotomy into groups that are seen as them vs us is counter productive. This takes individual aspirations and needs out of the discussion. To say it is impossible to have dialog because of the actions of any supporter of a position clouds the issues into tribalism.

As I have indicated, groups like Women's Refuge have navigated issues of accommodation of the vulnerable and of potential trauma for decades without incident. If we look at individual need we may see someone who has faced discrimination and danger because of the gendered identity and sees the absolute identification as a woman as a right and protection. To not include in women's space is perceived as "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever", a clear human rights issue, but should also be seen as an individuals need.

This does.not negate the trauma of someone abused and the feeling of unsafe in closed spaces accessed by those seen as from the sector that the abuser came from. This anxiety cannot, and should not, be dismissed as "hysteria", something at the heart of abuse.

On the edges of the issues are the majority of those with gender liminal identity. That is those that are non binary on a spectrum, and those born, and identifying as intersection. Those rights and accommodations should not be lost in the us vs them dichotomy that is being promoted.

As a society we need to protect the marginalized, this can only happen with dialog and understanding. Those encouraging a prejudicial overseas speaker do have to ask themselves motive and question their end game.

Anonymous said...

I can now update what actually happened on September 20, at St Patrick's Square, just around the corner from the court from the "soup Nazi" case hearing. The defendant was not appearing in person, and Shaneel Lal had appealed, on their behalf, that their supporters stay away. Most did, only a few "trans liberation front" supporters turned up. They were outnumbered by Let Women Speak supporters and were (at last!) contained by police. Tania capably stood in as emcee for Kellie-Jay, and women were able to speak freely for two hours. The TLF gave up and sneaked away before the end of the speeches. The speakers included Jill Ovens, co-leader of the new Women's Rights Party, formed as a direct response to the events of March 25. In summary, a big win for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and women's rights.

Exclusively for Bowalley Road readers, I can admit to eavesdropping on the TLF and overhearing some of the apologies they received.

Shaneel Lal had, in fact, unwisely bought an illegal gun (entirely for self defence, of course), and shot himself in both feet.

Also unwisely, Silly Rubberchicken had actually turned up in court to interrupt the judge by screaming "you're being transphobic!" at them. Turned out that gets you time in the cells for contempt of court while the case proceeds without you. (For now, at least. Might work in the future?).

Police person Rhona Stace sent apologies. (Who, I hear you ask? The police person who liased with the "rainbow community" on March 25, that's who. Never heard that before? That's because it took an OIA request to finally dig it out). Proudly out first trans police person, paid for their own "gender atffirming" surgery in Thailand, but his kids still call him "Dad". Could not attend Setember 20, due to an urgent meeting with Commisar Coster, to discuss how to convince the public the police were neutral on March 25, and thus help protect Coster's career from a change of government.

Chloe "I lead from the front" Swarbrick, proudly queer local MP? Could not pass up an opportunity to meet with Admiral "Rachael" Levine in the US, to discuss the benefits to world peace of "queering" the US nuclear arsenal. This will help make the world a safer place, by painting rainbows on nuclear warheads.

Chippy unavailable, in an urgent meeting with his Mum on how to best answer the obviously transphobic dog whistle question "what is a woman?" Offer of vegan sausage rolls not enough to tempt him to participate.

Michael Wood apologised for lateness, a diary clash with an urgent meeting with his stockbroker. Said he'd be there as soon as he could catch the light rail into the city.

Marama Davidson busy meeting with Ricardo Menendez-March on progress on solving the "cis white male" problem. Who is also known as James Shaw.

Colin Peacock, of Rainbow Radio's Mediwatch? Attendance unnecessary, he's a totally compliant mouthpiece, can be trusted to repeat whatever the "rainbow community" care to phone in. Probably best he stays away, so as to totally avoid the (very low) risk he might believe his own eyes.

Jacinda Adern was not heard from at all. Believed to be in a self imposed political exile in an echo chamber in Tranada.

Anonymous said...

Same anon. as September 26. I see the Herald is reporting the Labour candidate for Taranaki-King Country, Angela Roberts, says she was slapped in the face after a local candidate meeting in Inglewood. She did not report it immediately.

The Herald quotes her as saying "Manhandling candidates on the campaign trail is completely unacceptable. I don't know why he felt that it was okay to grab me or to slap me, that is a question for him. Would he have done it to a man? Who knows?"

My question to Ms Roberts is to ask if she thinks it is okay for Labour and Green MP's (including Cabinet ministers) to egg on male supporters, who cosplay women, to physically attack actual women? And not after they have spoken, but before, in order to deny them the right to speak? And if that is okay, and Labour and Green MPs then double down on their support for such mysogynistic and anti-democratic violence, why would she then expect respect for her right to be free of such appalling behaviour on the campaign trail?

Such hypocrisy is part of the reason the Labour Party is facing electoral disaster. Make health and education outcomes worse, empty out prisons, coddle gangs, try to introduce "hate speech" laws, (that are really blasphemy laws, giving state protection to your antiscientific and pseudoreligious fantasies), back physical attacks on your political opponents, try to sneak in constitutional reform without a mandate, or even open public discussion, but leave people the vote? And expect anyone not either delusional, or already on board with you on your elitist gravy train, to vote for more of the same?

I hope the electorate delivers a very hard, but strictly metaphorical, slap in the face to Labour on election day. They have fully earned it, and totally deserve it.

Anonymous said...

Same anon. As 30 September, with an update. The Herald reports today (October 27) that the person who assaulted Kellie-Jay has failed to have the charges against them dropped. No trial date has yet been set, but the matter will be called again on February 26 for a trial call-over. Kellie-Jay's initial reaction was, unsurprisingly, to welcome that decision. However, the current political uncertainty about the exact shape of the incoming government means she's not making any immediate plans to return.

The other update is to do with Kellie-Jay's reaction to the Hamas atrocities of October 7. Her initial, and in my opinion totally correct, reaction was to totally condemn and abhor Hamas for it's pogrom, especially the vile public abuse of an abducted woman's semi-naked body on the back of a ute in Gaza.

(I also note that the TRA's at a recent Let Women Speak event in the UK were attempting to howl down a daughter of Holocaust survivors who was justifiably outraged at being called a "Nazi".)

"Queers for Palestine" is beyond satire. People who's tribal affiliations are so strong they support an ISIS style fundamentalist death cult, who would kill them for being their "authentic selves", are weird beyond belief. And it's not like Hamas supporters even attempt to hide their views, a rainbow flag on a pro-Palestine rally has been torn down by other participants on at least one occasion. "Queers for Palestine" should go to Gaza, and join the other human shields being used by Hamas, and see how Hamas will repay them for their solidarity. Any survivors might consider moving to Israel, where gay and trans rights are protected, the only country in the region where they are.

Anonymous said...

Same anon. as 27 October again, if you will continue to kindly indulge me, Chris.

The depth of the penetration of gender ideology into the institutions came to light with some mainstream media (unlikely as that sounds!) doing some freedom of information type digging into the affairs of the Auckkand War Memorial Museum. (My bush lawyer's understanding is that access to local government information includes the Museum).

The Museum was offered an exhibition based on the Harry Potter universe, prepared in conjunction with the Natural History Museum of London. (Two immediate strikes against it, a TERF author and a "colonialist" institution).

The Museum's initial market research discovered two things: it would be wildly popular, and the punters were prepared to pay premium prices. (They paid for market research to confirm that!?)

However, March 25 happened while they were considering it. Following that, elements in the Museum's staff were unhappy J K Rowling might profit financially from the exhibition, and they might feel "unsafe" at work because of it.

It turned out J K Rowling would not benefit financially directly from the exhibition itself, only from sales of associated licensed merchandise. Going ahead without the "merch" wasn't an option acceptable to the purple haired freakshow. Going ahead at all, under any condition, wasn't acceptable to them. So it never happened.

All we missed out on was a popular exhibition that would have helped the Museum's finances. Thanks to some purple haired, lemon lipped, thuggish and crybullying killjoys, the Museum has become a greater financial burden on ratepayers and taxpayers, while at the same time being censored, behind closed doors, by a minority of it's staff, in what it can exhibit to those paying for it.

The Coalition government has a Herculean task in cleaning all the accumulated dung out of all the institutions. (Does any educational institution still teach such classics as the labours of Hercules, or is that gone?) Are the Coalition up for it, and can they find competent contractors who can divert the river? I hope they can, it's much needed. Mostly, and most urgently, in Wellington, but a side stream through Auckland Museum would be really good as well.

Anonymous said...

Your anon. "gender critical" correspondent continuing, if I may.

Ups and downs since my last post. The down was the discharge without conviction, and with permanent name suppression, of the young man who punched a grandmother in the face three times at Albert Park. The courts have effectively Green lighted "punch a TERF right in her fucking face!". Do that and face zero consequences, at least official ones from the courts. Where's Marama commenting on how to prevent violence now? Winston is now bound by the convention Ministers don't comment on court decisions. Winston himself pointed that out, but added words to the effect of "no matter how ridiculous and outrageous!"

A definite up is the tour by Graham Linehan, the Irish writer of "Father Ted" and "Black Books". He's promoting his book, "Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy". He made the very serious mistake of thinking he only had to say,out loud, how ridiculous trans ideology is, to have everyone agree, and then we all move on. WRONG!! He then found out the very hard way that cancel culture does indeed exist, costing Graham his career, and his marriage.

The Free Speech Union is organizing his tour. Graham was planning to visit Australia first, but was denied entry there. No such problem here, but problems with venues being cancelled. I was able to attend the Auckland event last night (March 12), which went smoothly, but at a second venue after the first cancelled. The Trans Rights Activists were apparently unable and/or unwilling to pay the FSU $15 for a ticket to find out where the event was. They were, happily, no shows. Events in Wellington and Christchurch may not go so smoothly.

Graham has already done an interview with Duncan Garner of Newshub that he (Graham) thought was one of the best he has done. It's now available as a podcast. He's due to join Sean Plunket in the Platform's studio on Friday morning (March 15). I would love to be proved wrong, but I very much doubt Graham is going to see the inside of any RNZ or TVNZ studio.

He remains a very witty person. He's adding stand up to his repertoire, even though he considers himself much better at writing jokes than telling them. Nevertheless, he had a sympathetic crowd doubled up laughing at a brief stand up set. (Telling jokes about flatulent cows in New Zealand! That alone would get the Greens to cancel him!!)

He also remains optimistic than "trans" is a passing fad, one that will become completely laughable in the future.

He was also very pleased, as am I, that the Irish voters heavily rejected the two proposed amendments to the Irish constitution at the recent referendum. This was in spite of being proposed and backed by a "woke" government. The one on the family was attempting to remove female language by removing the word "mother".

I think this is in line with the moves to a more secular and liberal Ireland, as shown by the previous success of referenda allowing marriage equality and abortion rights. The Irish voters, quite correctly in my opinion, seem to have recognized the new mysogynistic, homophobic, Jew-hating, authoritarian pseudo religion for what it is, and rejected it.

The majority of New Zealand voters in the last election seem to have been of a similar view to the majority of Irish ones, at least on the nature of trans ideology. Thankfully, the election result here has helped to make Graham's tour, and free discussion of these contentious issues, easier.

Anonymous said...

Your anon. "gender critical" (i.e. reality based) correspondent, with a further update, if I may.

Kellie-Jay has been proceeding with defamation cases against both the Liberal leader of the Victoria state opposition, and the ABC, for broadcasting an interview in which he claimed Kellie-Jay had far right, neo-Nazi links.

Kellie-Jay was pleased (even thrilled, maybe) to announce that the ABC has settled. They have paid an undisclosed sum, and issued a "clarification" (rather than an apology). Effectively, the ABC are "clarifying" that viewers should not have inferred from the interviewers questions that Kellie-Jay was indeed linked to neo-Nazis.

The other defamation case, (against John Presutto, I believe his name is) has had a court date assigned. I'm not a defamation lawyer, but as an unqualified observer, that looks to me like the ABC settlement has strengthened Kellie-Jay's case, and weakened
his defense.

Scotland has "hate speech" laws coming into effect (appropriately enough) on April 1. Kellie-Jay is organising a Let Women Speak event in Scotland for April 6. I wish I could be there, and wish her, and all her supporters, well.

Anonymous said...

Ooops, that's John Pesutto, NOT Presutto. My apologies to the gentleman, and I hope he doesn't take offence at my getting his name wrong. And a clarification, Victorian state Liberal MP Moira Deeming, who was expelled from the Liberal caucus for supporting Kellie-Jay and Let Women Speak is also sueing Pesutto. A third woman involved is also sueing him. The court has combined the three cases into one, as they all essentially involve the same events, around the Melbourne Let Women Speak rally. I wish all three well, and hope they win an apology. They fully deserve one.

Anonymous said...

YES!! Saturday, May 18 is a good day! Jonathan Rauch, the gay, Jewish, Zionist free speech advocate being toured by the Free Speech Union was interviewed by Susie Ferguson on Saturday Morning on RNZ. He was able to make the point an elderly woman,seeking to use her free speech rights, who gets punched in the face for it, should have the full protection of the law. Susie did NOT ask him to expand on that, however!

The "controversial" Inflection Point gathering is proceeding in a Wellington City Council venue. A wide range of "gender critical" views, including those of US detransitioner Chloe Cole, will be expressed.

And, best of all, Kelly-Jay Keen has graciously accepted a "full and magnanimous" apology from John Pesutto for calling her a Neo-Nazi. A private settlement was reached, and Angela Jones, the third woman involved, has also settled. The case involving Moira Deeming remains unsettled, at least for the moment.

Although the settlement is private, Pesutto has confirmed the exact wording of the apology was negotiated between the parties, and no payment of compensation was involved. However, he will meet part of the legal expenses incurred by the other side. (I cynically suspect that means the taxpayers of Victoria will make the payment. I hope not, it should come out of Pesutto's pocket).

I look forward to hearing Radio New Zealand picking up the ABC coverage of the settlement and apology. But I'm not holding my breath.