ACT have made a big deal of their links to the NZ Taxpayers Union, and
also to the Free Speech Union.

It is the second of those that pushes for a level of freedom of
expression that most New Zealanders can agree with, and occasionally
uses that vehicle to support some extremist nonsense from their
supporters. But they have a real test coming up - the vote on whether
the Maori Party should have been able to express themselves as they
did with a haka on an issue that they felt strongly about.

There has been speculation that ACT don't believe in free speech any
more than any of the other parties, but use that organisation to
support some potential allies right to spout stupid and/or hateful
ideas that they want to spout - their pretend support for the
anti-vaxxers may come into that category.

Now ACT does not agree at all with the Maori Party attitude to their
Treaty Principles Bill, but it will not make any difference to the
vote for that Bill unless some National Party MPs find that they too
cannot agree with the Bill. It would help the image of ACT (at least
with some gullible New Zealanders) as a principled party (even though
most disagree with their principles) if they regard the Haka as being
merely Free Expression which they do not agree with but are prepared
to accept that the Maori Party are entitled to, even if ACT believe
them to be wrong . . .

So will ACT stand by their principles - or is the whole Free Speech
Union just an Atlas Network propaganda machine?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 15 May 2025 23:02:22 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

ACT have made a big deal of their links to the NZ Taxpayers Union, and
also to the Free Speech Union.

Where? Without the context of your claim there can be no meaningful
response to your post.

It is the second of those that pushes for a level of freedom of
expression that most New Zealanders can agree with, and occasionally
uses that vehicle to support some extremist nonsense from their
supporters. But they have a real test coming up - the vote on whether
the Maori Party should have been able to express themselves as they
did with a haka on an issue that they felt strongly about.

There has been speculation that ACT don't believe in free speech any
more than any of the other parties, but use that organisation to
support some potential allies right to spout stupid and/or hateful
ideas that they want to spout - their pretend support for the
anti-vaxxers may come into that category.

Now ACT does not agree at all with the Maori Party attitude to their
Treaty Principles Bill, but it will not make any difference to the
vote for that Bill unless some National Party MPs find that they too
cannot agree with the Bill. It would help the image of ACT (at least
with some gullible New Zealanders) as a principled party (even though
most disagree with their principles) if they regard the Haka as being
merely Free Expression which they do not agree with but are prepared
to accept that the Maori Party are entitled to, even if ACT believe
them to be wrong . . .

So will ACT stand by their principles - or is the whole Free Speech
Union just an Atlas Network propaganda machine?

--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 15 May 2025 23:02:22 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

But they have a real test coming up - the vote on whether
the Maori Party should have been able to express themselves as they did
with a haka on an issue that they felt strongly about.

You’ll notice that the MP that got off relatively lightly was the one who wrote a letter expressing contrition at what she’d done.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-05-15, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

ACT have made a big deal of their links to the NZ Taxpayers Union, and
also to the Free Speech Union.

It is the second of those that pushes for a level of freedom of
expression that most New Zealanders can agree with, and occasionally
uses that vehicle to support some extremist nonsense from their
supporters.

With freedom comes responsibility, something which gets lost all too often.

But they have a real test coming up - the vote on whether
the Maori Party should have been able to express themselves as they
did with a haka on an issue that they felt strongly about.

In a civilised society there are rules, both formal and informal, which are needed to keep things civil.

The debating chamber is for debates, not gun fights or hakas.

There has been speculation that ACT don't believe in free speech any
more than any of the other parties, but use that organisation to
support some potential allies right to spout stupid and/or hateful
ideas that they want to spout - their pretend support for the
anti-vaxxers may come into that category.

Now ACT does not agree at all with the Maori Party attitude to their
Treaty Principles Bill, but it will not make any difference to the
vote for that Bill unless some National Party MPs find that they too
cannot agree with the Bill. It would help the image of ACT (at least
with some gullible New Zealanders) as a principled party (even though
most disagree with their principles) if they regard the Haka as being
merely Free Expression which they do not agree with but are prepared
to accept that the Maori Party are entitled to, even if ACT believe
them to be wrong . . .

So will ACT stand by their principles - or is the whole Free Speech
Union just an Atlas Network propaganda machine?

Conclusion jumping in action.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 15 May 2025 22:50:56 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2025 23:02:22 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

But they have a real test coming up - the vote on whether
the Maori Party should have been able to express themselves as they did
with a haka on an issue that they felt strongly about.

You’ll notice that the MP that got off relatively lightly was the one who >wrote a letter expressing contrition at what she’d done.

I was not aware that ACT had anyone on the Privileges Committee, but
fair enough from the perspective of Collins - she would appreciate the
partial legitimisation of her prejudices - but my post was about
whether ACT would support Free Speech

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 15 May 2025 23:49:13 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

On 2025-05-15, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

ACT have made a big deal of their links to the NZ Taxpayers Union, and
also to the Free Speech Union.

It is the second of those that pushes for a level of freedom of
expression that most New Zealanders can agree with, and occasionally
uses that vehicle to support some extremist nonsense from their
supporters.

With freedom comes responsibility, something which gets lost all too often. With the funding from the "Taxpayers Union" and the "Free Speech

Union", ACT are able to fund all sorts of ''spontaneous protests'',
such as Groundswell and (more quietly) the anti-Vaxx movement and the
gun lobby - their version of "Freedumb" has nothing to do with
responsibility.

But they have a real test coming up - the vote on whether
the Maori Party should have been able to express themselves as they
did with a haka on an issue that they felt strongly about.

In a civilised society there are rules, both formal and informal, which are >needed to keep things civil.

And there will be a similar action welcomed by Parliament in the next
few months to acknowledge a Treaty Settlement - legitimate freedom of expression for one haka but not another?

The debating chamber is for debates, not gun fights or hakas.

Where was the gun fight? The haka was merely a way of expressing a
quite reasonable strongly held view of Government actions - it did not
last long and did not hold up the business of the House, but the real
offence was that it highlighted the problems with what the government
was proposing.

There has been speculation that ACT don't believe in free speech any
more than any of the other parties, but use that organisation to
support some potential allies right to spout stupid and/or hateful
ideas that they want to spout - their pretend support for the
anti-vaxxers may come into that category.

Now ACT does not agree at all with the Maori Party attitude to their
Treaty Principles Bill, but it will not make any difference to the
vote for that Bill unless some National Party MPs find that they too
cannot agree with the Bill. It would help the image of ACT (at least
with some gullible New Zealanders) as a principled party (even though
most disagree with their principles) if they regard the Haka as being
merely Free Expression which they do not agree with but are prepared
to accept that the Maori Party are entitled to, even if ACT believe
them to be wrong . . .

So will ACT stand by their principles - or is the whole Free Speech
Union just an Atlas Network propaganda machine?

Conclusion jumping in action.

ACT has already confirmed that they do not intend to support the
Freedom of the Maori Party to express their disagreement as they did -
but they deserve to be held to account for expressing principles of
Freedom of Speech that they are not prepared to defend. They do
deserve our contempt for their "Dirty Tricks" partisan political
actions; my post was to highlight their hypocrisy and dishonesty.
Thank you for your demonstration that their lack of ethical values did
need to be highlighted - some supporters of far-right principals are
inclined to turn a blind eye to ethical faults . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 15 May 2025 23:49:13 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

On 2025-05-15, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

ACT have made a big deal of their links to the NZ Taxpayers Union, and
also to the Free Speech Union.

It is the second of those that pushes for a level of freedom of
expression that most New Zealanders can agree with, and occasionally
uses that vehicle to support some extremist nonsense from their
supporters.

With freedom comes responsibility, something which gets lost all too often.

But they have a real test coming up - the vote on whether
the Maori Party should have been able to express themselves as they
did with a haka on an issue that they felt strongly about.

In a civilised society there are rules, both formal and informal, which are >needed to keep things civil.

The debating chamber is for debates, not gun fights or hakas.

So why shut down debate? https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2505/S00028/on-the-mock-horror-over-political-profanity.htm

Clearly Van Velden was not concerned about the use of the c-word - she
used it herself and the only person that appeared to be offended was
Winston Peters. If that was OK, what was wrong about the haka? - that
small protest took a lot less time than the fuss now about the c-word
- with Brooke van Velden making it clear that she thought it was
acceptable for her to say it . . .

See also: https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2505/S00027/gender-pay-inequity-perpetuation-and-venality.htm

There has been speculation that ACT don't believe in free speech any
more than any of the other parties, but use that organisation to
support some potential allies right to spout stupid and/or hateful
ideas that they want to spout - their pretend support for the
anti-vaxxers may come into that category.

Now ACT does not agree at all with the Maori Party attitude to their
Treaty Principles Bill, but it will not make any difference to the
vote for that Bill unless some National Party MPs find that they too
cannot agree with the Bill. It would help the image of ACT (at least
with some gullible New Zealanders) as a principled party (even though
most disagree with their principles) if they regard the Haka as being
merely Free Expression which they do not agree with but are prepared
to accept that the Maori Party are entitled to, even if ACT believe
them to be wrong . . .

So will ACT stand by their principles - or is the whole Free Speech
Union just an Atlas Network propaganda machine?

Conclusion jumping in action.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)