What The “Thug’s Veto” Means For New Zealand

Further confirmation that the New Zealand Justice System is comprised of arse-licking cowards was delivered by this week’s verdict in favour of the Auckland Council and Phil Goff, who had last year banned a couple of Canadian speakers from speaking at council-owned venues. Despite the fact that the ban was clearly a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the New Zealand High Court let them get away with it. This article discusses what this decision means for New Zealand.

It seems when the men and women of our Justice System aren’t locking up cannabis growers for years while letting repeat sexual marauders go free, they’re busy undermining our God-given and natural human rights.

New Zealanders have the right to free expression and the right to freely share opinions. This right is not only granted by the Will of God, but it’s also written into our Bill of Rights Act, Section 14 of which reads: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”

We also have the right to freedom of assembly (viz. Section 16: “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.”) and the right to association (viz. Section 17: “Everyone has the right to freedom of association.”) and the right “to adopt and to hold opinions without interference” (Section 13).

Therefore, New Zealanders had the right to attend the Molyneux-Southern talk, and the move to ban it was in violation of those rights.

The High Court decision clearing the Auckland Council and Goff from any wrongdoing sets a very worrying precedent. It’s now official in New Zealand that if you want to silence someone, all you have to do is threaten violence, and that person will be kept quiet out of safety concerns, and then the courts will take your side.

This is not the first time such a thing has happened. In Nelson last year, author Bruce Moon had been due to give a talk at the Nelson Public Library, but it was cancelled on account of threats made to library staff.

Neither those whose threats cancelled the Molyneux-Southern event nor those whose threats cancelled the Moon talk were ever prosecuted. This is astonishing – and deeply worrying – because both acts were undeniably acts of terrorism. Using the threat of violence to deny New Zealanders the right to assemble peacefully and to peacefully share ideas is terrorism by any honest standard.

What these two cases have in common is that, in both cases, the alt-left were the terrorists and they were motivated by a desire to silence those they perceive as political enemies. Central to alt-left mentality is a persecution mania revolving around a supposed Nazi resurgence. This persecution mania leads to alt-leftists justifying all kinds of abuses in the name of the greater good (yes, history repeats).

The worry for many, especially those who understand how free speech is absolutely vital to the correct functioning of civilisation, is that the cowardly High Court decision will give the greenlight to further threats of violence. Now that it’s possible to silence your political enemies by threatening violence, more of society’s dregs will be motivated to do it.

This is of particular concern to us, being a media enterprise that champions free speech. VJM Publishing, despite a committed adherence to alt-centrism, is in no way exempt from being targeted by the alt-left, as our Fan Mail column proves (we have also been targeted by the Human Rights Commission). Therefore, a High Court ruling encouraging violence against those perceived to be enemies of the alt-left must be cause for concern.

All of this is part of a wider leftist rejection of free speech as a tool that upholds oppression. As those who identify with the left continue to sink into Slave Culture, they will become ever more resentful of those with the ability to freely discuss intellectual ideas about political issues that concern them. This resentment, coupled with the High Court’s approval for threats of violence, means that future attacks on free speech are likely.

Unfortunately, as this column has previously mentioned, the left doesn’t care about free speech, or much else to do with freedom. They have happily drifted into authoritarianism, and they now fight for that. This week’s victory for the authoritarian left is a loss for New Zealand. The rest of us can only hope that the judgment is overturned on appeal.


If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 is also available.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund.

10 thoughts on “What The “Thug’s Veto” Means For New Zealand”

  1. the right to vocalise fresh ideas and thinking must be protected. But when those ideas become caustic vitriole sold as truth but praised by some anyway, a line must be drawn

  2. go light another joint and stop crying to your mother who is also your sister , never read so much rubbish in a few paragraphs .
    Both talks were going to be on public property , it became clear these talks could / would cause trouble ( created mostly by yourselves) o were stopped brilliant idea
    You want to hear these idiots , You host them at your place and pay costs ..
    That is right the benefit wouldnt cover it

    1. Free Kiwi – the trouble was caused by leftist scum determined to stop the free exchange of ideas. Now get a soy latte and crawl back to your safe space.

  3. “New Zealanders have the right to free expression and the right to freely share opinions. ”

    Too confusing! When did Canada become part of New Zealand?
    Why was I not informed?

  4. I agree entirely with everything you say in the above article. People are laboring under the illusion that only “hate speech” is being censored. Actually, they are censoring anything they don’t like. Even people advocating the taking of vitamin D (instead of having the flu shot) are being censored. There is, literally, no end to this madness.

  5. The issue of free speech has become a right-wing issue not because they’re champions of freedom or because it’s inherently conservative, but because few other things the right has to say are palatable. The actual ideas of people like Molyneux and Southern are generally dogshit, so the right to express those ideas is the only appeal they can really make.

    Characterizing the left as authoritarian is just a trick; being left-wing is about fairness and equality instead of justice and purity. That’s actually the set of principles in tension. Many leftists have now become so habituated to this mischaracterization that they now feel compelled to defend the state and accept the label of statists.

    But it’s false. The left don’t need to argue for the state. Right-wing principles of private property and nationalism are just as statist as redistribution of wealth and publicly funded health-care. Instead the argument of that left should simply be for fairness and equality; if we’re going to have a state, those principles should inform it, and accepting at least for now the existence of the state, it makes sense to work politically to push it in that direction rather than simply to insist on anti-authoritarian ideological purity and surrender control of the system to those whose politics favour the interests of the privileged few over the many. That doesn’t mean we can’t also work towards abolition of the state or argue for those ideas of fairness and equality independently of any statist political action, and it doesn’t make the left inherently authoritarian.

    Right wing people display more dark triad traits and right-wing politics is in fact more inherently authoritarian. Attempts to distort this picture are lies which survive, like all the most successful lies, because they contain an irony, which allows them to be more successfully memed and to make the people who accept it feel that they’re grasping subtleties others miss.

      1. I define it this way because it’s about the in-group rather than the wider community of nations. I see left and right as a spectrum roughly from egalitarian and cooperative on the left and hierarchical and competitive on the right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *