SMH on Neo-Nazi sites
October 27th, 2006 at 10:06 am by David FarrarThe Sydney Morning Herald has an article on the two Neo-Nazi sites I referred to yesterday.
I don’t actually back efforts to close their sites down. Even neo-Nazis deserve free speech, so long as they don’t specifically incite violence etc.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:34 am
Yeah theire disclaimer reads basically we don’t condone violence and this is all in fun but we think you should go out and kill all these Jew Reds who are running the world.
That they can link the left with Jews tells you all you need to know about their brain cells.
The harsh light of day is the best medicine, let them speak.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Fascinating their link to NZ First. May we therefore assume NZF condones their views and, in turn, gets support from them.
Old saying … by their friends so shall ye know them.
And if none of that is true, why the link?
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
>I don’t actually back efforts to close their
>sites down. Even neo-Nazis deserve free
>speech, so long as they don’t specifically
>incite violence etc.
Glad to hear it David.
P.A.D. does not try to incite violence, but some people get the wrong message when reading our articles. I personally think they hear what they want to hear, regardless of what is actually said. Just read some of the comments that have been made in reply to our articles for plenty of examples.
We do not try to “target minority groups” either as the article implies, we are just exposing what the media are unwilling to touch. It’s all about Political Correctness and how important issues are not being brought up because of the fear someone may get offended.
One thing that wasn’t mentioned in the two articles that have been written is that Blogger doesn’t get involved with anything. Period. Brian Stokes makes it sound like Google / Blogger doesn’t care, but not too long ago P.A.D. uncovered a paedophilia ring on Blogger with child porn on it, Blogger didn’t do anything about it at first until we notified the police.
I do not expect you to trust my word on this, so if you are interested in evidence, go to Blogger’s help section on their website and read all the complaints about how Blogger never gets back to them about anything.
Lastly, to Ross Miller: While I nor P.A.D. can comment on what goes through the minds of Red Watch NZ members (good luck to anyone with that), we are aware that a lot of people on the extreme-right vote N.Z. First because they have the toughest immigration stance in N.Z. politics.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Now lets all say it together
Left and right unite……..
“BULL Sh*T!!!!”
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Oh the poor little Nazis, just because they want to destroy democracy and wipe out gays, jews, black people, Muslims, the disabled and “reds” people get all nasty to them.
Makes you weep doesn’t it, won’t anyone think of the fascists?
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Ross, they link to the National Party as well, I don’t think that means anything much.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Sonic – the link to National is a few hours old. The NZ First one has been up there for ages.
At the end of the day though one can’t blame a party for who links to them.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
I agree David about the link, you cannot control who links to you.
So the National link is new? sneaky little barstewards…
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
I think I’ll join the bullshit voters.
You take post a picture of a guy and slap “Juden” accross his forehead and say “these people all need a bullet” and we’re the ones getting the wrong idea.
BTW being a plastic nazi wannabe and wearing all black with a #1 doesn’t make your profession “military”. You don’t have what it takes.
Real soldiers got you free speech, charming to see what you do with it.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
The irony is that Himmler would see all of them as “sub human” and “anti social” and they would be off to the camps themselves.
Vote:October 27th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
It looks like the “these people all need a bullet” bit is in the comment section, posted by some moron who goes to their website.
Vote:October 28th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
From a traditional conservative perspective I agree with the neocon position that ‘far right’ websites should be tolerated provided they don’t promote violence or totalitarianism.
Sites like ‘Red Watch’, which publish personal details of prominent leftists, deserve to be closed down.
Vote:October 28th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Sorry, I am referring to the original UK Red Watch here.
I ‘ve just looked at the NZ Redwatch site and can’t see any actual personal addresses of left wing activists, and the site does at least have an anti-violence disclaimer.
Pretty unpleasant site though – how can these guys call themselves ‘white nationalists’ when they openly support the Nazis, who caused the deaths of over 20 million white people.
Vote:October 28th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
frankly i see this kind of stuff is an abuse of free speech. like i’ve heard a lot lately, “free speech” and “hate speech” are not the same thing.
free speech is usually invoked to promote the powerless. they can say what they like about the majority and feel not threatened because of it.
but hate speech is another matter. these kinderfascist fckknuckles are abusing our system of freedoms to achieve non-liberal objectives, i.e. suppressing minorities, limiting social inclusion, and defending the right of useless white psmokers to laze around on the dole and bitch.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 2:50 am
Che tibby, please define “Hate Speech” for me – when does Free Speech become Hate Speech?
Here is a maxim for you:
“The truth is hate to those who hate the truth.”
I would suggest you also look up Galatians 4:16 for a good example, but you might get offended by that “hateful” Bible that only 2.1 billion people read.
One of the reasons I left Europe for good and came to New Zealand was because of arseholes like you who think that things should be off-limits just because people like you say so.
Question the Holocaust figures? Jail for up to 20 years for you!
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 9:22 am
“Hate speech” is easy to define – it’s any speech a liberal doesn’t like. “Freedom of speech” is also easy to define – it’s the protection of speech you don’t like. As you can see, there’s a basic problem for liberals in there.
Vote:October 29th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
the willingness of commenters on this blog to defend neo-nazis kind of says it all really.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 8:10 am
“the willingness of commenters on this blog to defend neo-nazis kind of says it all really.”
The fact that you cannot tell the difference between defending Neo-Nazis and defending free-speech (no matter how abhorrent) says it all about you and the rest of the far-left che.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
“Hate speech” is easy to define – it’s any speech a liberal doesn’t like.
Quick question Psycho Milt…
“We Hate The Jews! … [insert name here] – This kike is fucking disgusting … RWNZ has not been involved in any intelligence gathering or red-spotting as of late, but we do have one new photo that some people might enjoy [picture of jewish grave] … Jews, Judaism and the Israeli people are not welcome in this country. Jews are a slap in the face to the human race … [photo of someone protesting] Now the fat slut in the gay hat and pink vest is [insert name here]. Here phone number is [insert here]. Please give her a text or a call and let her know she is a fat red pig.”
Hate speech? Or just someone exercising their freedom of speech?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
more free speech…?
(Be sure to read all the comments).
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Keep in mind that the crazed rantings of the likes of Redwatch are not going to convert anyone. Those who take them seriously have already joined the dark side. The only thing it does is show them up for what they are: a bunch of dickheads.
I actually believe neo-nazi groups do their own cause more harm than good – therefore I encourage their right to free speech. As unpleasant as it is to read their stuff, it just confirms what a pack of savages they are.
I would be much more afraid of a group who used more subtle forms of racism/anti-Semitism. Groups who use carefully choose their words and tap into people’s insecurities.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Exocet, with due respect: there is a difference between “abhorent free speech” and “posting personal information about people, in the hope that Nazi thugs will beat them up”. Someone saying “gays are disgusting” or “the Holocaust never happened” = abhorent free speech. I defend it. Take a look at the link Hemi posted, and you’ll see pretty clearly that it’s incitement to violence against an individual. I don’t see why that should be covered by freedom of speech.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
As I understand it Hemi, incitement to crime is already covered by existing law, and no further legislation is required. But simply expressing your dislike of somebody never should be made illegal by a civilised country.
Here’s a question for you:
Vote:I think fascist Glatzkoepfe are fucking disgusting and a slap in the face to the human race – do you think the fascists should be able to haul me before the courts for writing that? If the answer’s no, good luck drafting hate speech legislation that only bans what you want banned.
October 30th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
…incitement to crime is already covered by existing law, and no further legislation is required. But simply expressing your dislike of somebody never should be made illegal by a civilised country.
The thing is, “incitement to crime is already covered by existing law”, doesn’t really cover what is going on at RWNZ. By publishing phone numbers, names and addresses *without* directly inciting violence, I’m not sure the Police would have enough to press charges with. If that wasn’t the case, and given the publicity, why haven’t they done so? Do we really have to wait until some single-brain-cell nutter actually makes use of some of the information on RWNZ and clubs some unsuspecting ‘communist homosexual’ to death before any action can be taken against it?
If the answer’s no, good luck drafting hate speech legislation that only bans what you want banned.
Don’t mass media broadcasters already have to answer to some sort of Standards Authority? Thus, aren’t there already some limits on the extent of ‘free speech’?
If what RWNZ was doing was on the TV, it probably wouldn’t last five minutes. I’m not au fait with broadcasting and media law, so can someone explain to me why RWNZ can publish this material, when a TV or Radio show probably wouldn’t get away with the same? Or would they get away with it?
(eg. if the NZ Herald published a photo of David Farrar describing him as a one-parent son after his “slut-whore mother died of cancer”, complete with a picture of his mother’s grave, would such an article break any laws, or result in any sort action against the paper?)
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
exocet, i’m hardly ‘far left’. my thesis was a defence of, and means to more deeply entrench, this very liberal democracy.
so leave your prejudices at the door.
“free speech” has limitations, full stop. our democracy also allows “free agency”, meaning you can do and/or act in any manner you see fit.
BUT, free agency is limited by social conventions. you can’t murder, or even lightly assault someone just because you would like to do so. and who determines what these limits are? you and i do.
so i kind of get that in the debate about what is and is not tolerable in our shared society that i’m anti-hate, and you’re pro some mythical version of “free speech”, there must be some other factor that’s encouraging you to tolerate neo-nazis?
and hows this for a guess? what did you think of the views of the australian muslim cleric who talked about women as “meat”? you like those views? think he should be circumscribed? because according to your logic on “free speech”, he should be able to voice whatever anti-women bullshit he likes.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
che, you say that you are ‘anti-hate’.
What is hate?, who defines it?.You?, dear leader Helen?, the UN?.And what should happen to those guilty of ‘hate’?.
“there must be some other factor that’s encouraging you to tolerate neo-nazis?” WTF??. I don’t even know where to begin on this one.
So I think that Neo-Nazi fuckwits (and marxist fuckwits for that matter) should be able to say whatever stupid things they like so that everyone knows how exactly stupid they are (sunlight is the best disinfectant and all that) and you think that I, in any way support them?.Free your mind.
And as for the Muslim cleric, again, I’m glad his fucked-up views have been published far and wide, this shows for all to hear the disfunction at the heart of Islam.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
did you read my post? i said “we” define what is hate speech, and hate speech should be circumscribed just like other forms of bad behaviour.
what i didn’t say was ‘punished’.
but it’s obvious you don’t know where to draw the line on this one. tolerating these people, and condemning those who oppose them, IS supporting them.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Che is right. The whole “free speech is sacrosanct” thing only actually works if you exercise your own free speech to stand up for what you believe in return. If you stand up and say “Oh, well, I mildly disagree but I utterly respect their right to say that your mother is a whore who deserves to be raped with a thousand knives” then you miss the point. Yes, you can oppose *legislation* that *criminalises* such things being said. But if that isn’t actually on the table then free speech is NOT at threat, and your communal obligation is to join in standing up to these fuckheads and telling them exactly how little they represent the country they claim to stand for.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Forgive me for assuming Che was intending to persuade, rather than just idly bitching, when he declared Redwatch to be an abuse of free speech and an example of “hate speech” (in quotes because I can’t stand writing these Dianne Yates kind of phrases straight). If we are just bitching, then sure, the guys writing and commenting at Redwatch are pustulent buboes on the nether regions of humanity, and their opinions would be rejected by anyone whose brain hasn’t been destroyed by syphillis, years of drug abuse or bad genes from conception. But if we’re intending to persuade people toward some kind of political action to restrict others’ freedom of speech, then no, count me out.
Vote:November 3rd, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Looks like you got your photo taken down DPF whats the gist??
They like you now?
Vote:December 20th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
“how can these guys call themselves ‘white nationalists’ when they openly support the Nazis, who caused the deaths of over 20 million white people.”
YEAH RIGHT!
oh, sorry, were you referring to the Communists?
Oh that’s right, that’s over 200 million people!
Vote:December 20th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
“how can these guys call themselves ‘white nationalists’ when they openly support the Nazis, who caused the deaths of over 20 million white people.”
YEAH RIGHT!
oh, sorry, were you referring to the Communists?
Oh that’s right, that’s over 200 million people!
Vote: