ACT Leader David Seymour on proposed hate speech laws | Q+A 2021

[@DaisyHaize]

I don’t usually agree with David, but on this one he is speaking all facts!

[@bialikma]

David is the only hope to return NZ back to normal in 2023.

[@psyconwill]

It seems most people these days are affected by words and have no control over their own emotions. Using the violent force of Government to stop peoples feelings getting hurt will not end well for any society. Parents need to teach their children how to become strong adults so they dont grow up needing the safety of Government.

[@stevehorner8302]

well said

[@netguy888]

could not have said it better myself

[@brycejohansen7114]

I agree with David Seymour on this. This is very dangerous, the moment you take away people's ability to legally speak their mind is the moment where other actions and options come to the forefront. I would want a general consensus on this since it affects the public over all.

[@KathrynLiz1]

This is not a government of concensus, this is a dictatorship and it has been since day one.

[@KathrynLiz1]

Obvious where Mr. Woke, Jack Tame stands on this.... the shallowness of this guy really is mind boggling. Hr toes the government line like a good little socialist.

[@jakefinnigan1707]

David Seymour is a g

[@stevehorner8302]

Whats a g

[@netguy888]

@@stevehorner8302 gangster (not literally) just someone who is admirable and a ally

[@paragoncumulus6636]

Being a Lefty ( or what used to be considered one ) I don't think I have ever listened to David Seymour speak before but I am glad that he is pushing back against this law change. I've been paying a lot of attention to what is going on in the UK and I see no good coming from hate speech laws. I see one gigantic headache for police who really are required in areas a bit more urgent than regulating people's speech. How does shutting people up stop mass shootings and acts of terrorism exactly ?

[@marshalllorenzo]

How about being called faggot on the street and punched in the face IN FRONT of the police and have them say ' there's nothing I can do'. I was literally walking home from buying milk. You don't get it.

[@paragoncumulus6636]

@@marshalllorenzo obviously that is unacceptable. But if police don't intervene when someone is physically assaulted in front of them, I still fail to see how hate speech laws will spur them into action.

[@marshalllorenzo]

@@paragoncumulus6636 because then I could prosecute? I don’t know how you don’t understand? Check your privilege

[@paragoncumulus6636]

@@marshalllorenzo quick tips for trying to make your case for hate speech laws, for your future reference: 1. don't insult people who you are trying to win over and who actually empathise with you. 2. use better examples to illustrate your point, since the one you used already had the criminal offence of physical assault that the people could have been charged with, so why would they instead be charged with calling you names when they physically punched you in the face?

[@buzzardsmith3676]

@@marshalllorenzo you fail to see the bigger implications here, due to something unrelated, police brutality.

[@chrisallum9044]

You should be free to hate. You should not be free to enact violence against someone..or ongoing harrasment

[@josiahwillemse3514]

This reporter is smokescreening the issue. David Seymour is absolutetly right on this issue.

[@KathrynLiz1]

Jack Tame is a mad keen socialist, and it shows.

[@booth2710]

He's comging across as on over eager upstart trying ot make a name for himself. He should give up - James Corden already got the job.

[@kingfillins4117]

Why is it happening all over the world at the same time? Clearly this is not some random move by random governments. This is the paving for something. What exactly? The laws have been ok till now., so why the change?

[@Tha3rdworldghost]

The great reset

[@mikewilliams6086]

Another government paid reporter with a political opinion. Hmm.

[@Piwakawakanz]

Still relevant

[@craigkendall1793]

I don't agree with hate speech but I do agree with the freedom of speech.

[@AholeAtheist]

I'm a Green voter, but I generally agree with Seymour here. I think he should have pushed back on the assertion that a jury is higher bar. Some people are stupid, including judges, but it's more likely you'll have at least 4 people who aren't very smart on a jury. At least judges are somewhat educated, even if they are also idiots and man r abuse currently.

[@Sophie_Bannon]

I'm ashamed of ever being a Labour (or the Smiling Totalitarian Progressive Party) supporter. I'm voting ACT from now on.

[@pamh1648]

The law should only cover inciting actual violence. Not insult. If this law comes to pass it means free speech in NZ in dead, and that is very worrying. On this policy alone I would have to vote against labour. The fact that they are even considering it makes me think they are becoming more and more authoritarian every day. The gradual stripping away of our democracy and our civil rights is concerning, and it is a relief that David Seymour is able to speak for many of us who feel this kind of thing is a worry.

[@andrewking9435]

Agree with Seymour, govt is piling on to Cancel culture, either intentionally or unintended consequene.

[@J.CForever]

I agree with Seymour here.

[@crackheadsthemovie5201]

"Those who call for censorship in the name of the oppressed ought to recognise it is never the oppressed who determine the bounds of censorship" - Aryeh Neier (Holocaust survivor) "This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." - Plato “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”- C.S Lewis At the most, these laws will drive true hatred underground where it festers and gathers support and makes such people harder to find. The Nazi Party was banned from speaking in all German states before Hitlers rise to power.

[@dave9547]

People just need a cursory glance at history. The censors are never the good guys. Dark times.

[@brucesmith5134]

David you are totally correct. NZ media wont say who is doing ram raids when we all know its Maori kids. Media wont say who are doing the stabbings and killings ,is is Pakeha no NZ media dont tell the truth and all us Kiwis are sick and tired of a race of people who do all the violence dont work but cant be named.

[@buzzardsmith3676]

Silence can be violence kinda like a slit wrist.... nothing good can come from limiting discourse

[@publicdefenceservice]

Despite the vague wording of the proposed provision, Jack rightly points out the (somewhat) clear parliamentary intention which the court will look at when someone's charged. HOWEVER, I think the wording should be more clear and well defined because when Police enforce the law, when they deem that a crime has been committed by way of fitting the wording of legislation, they can warn or charge that person. At times Police charge so that the Court can decide - by that time damages been done to the defendant.

[@J.CForever]

Feelings are going to take over facts fairly soon. That's a problem

[@michaelmullins3396]

If Seymour or any other Politician in NZ cared about FREE SPEECH, or really understood the implications of any threat to Free Speech ,they would be speaking out on behalf of Julian Assange who is rotting ,and tortured to death by the British Government. This is Key to FREE SPEECH. The same goes for Tame, and his so called Journalists.

[@geraldcoffey3303]

As we discuss the free speech debate again and again.Strange not a word said about the criminal treatment of julian Assange for speaking up Shame on all those Silent in power.

[@cumminsfj4586]

I plan to leave as soon as I can afford to. I love nz but I do not recognize this country anymore.

[@chrisallum9044]

I'm beginning to entertain the same thing. To fight or leave...

[@stevehorner8302]

Me too

[@netguy888]

best thing to do is to move to a country like Austria, Czechia, Switzerland or USA they are all countries where you truly have freedoms and are free

[@Sophie_Bannon]

For me, if these laws aren't in place in either Aussie, Canada, Norway, Denmark, or France, then I'll move to one of those countries.

[@andreatodd3095]

Canada has more restrictions plus a terrible leader, check it out first.

[@publicdefenceservice]

The danger is that more often than not a defendant's criminal intent is determined by the fact finder (judge or jury) by examining the defendant's act. Take for example, a person takes an item and runs out of a shop. No matter what that person says, the fact finder is likely to find that person guilty of shoplifting. If I say something that offends one group of people, I can be charged (which itself is a great cost to me) and defending it would be tricky if the jury are a bunch of snowflakes who are easily offended. But remember, discussions will almost always offend another party e.g. when David called Winston an arsonist dressed as a fireman

[@DW_Kiwi]

I reject the anti-smacking law. You know, the one that has been proved to not work. Is that hate speech??

[@paragoncumulus6636]

It probably is considered incitement to violence.

[@chrisallum9044]

what do you mean it doesn't work? do you mean it's there but people still smack so it doesn't stop smacking?

[@DW_Kiwi]

@@chrisallum9044 Research suggests that people are still using smacking (note: Not hitting) as a means of control and discipline, so the "law" is not working!

[@andrewking9435]

Molyneux & Southern, Brash were already cancelled under current law, as well as Banks, Peter Williams and others. Question should be: what can be done to enable people to speak safely, not crimilaise them. Govt reaction is in the wrong direction.

[@booth2710]

If that presenter shut his gob for a minute he might learn something and let us learn something. i Hope that's not hate speech ...

[@honawikeepa5813]

How does Atheism and Science define a moral motion beginning with Atheism and Science? The answer is, they can't because Science cannot quantify 'personality' and Atheism rejects the notion of absolutes, despite thinking in absolutes in order to communicate their ideas outside of their space between their ears. Who determines what moral motions are if government backed by Science can't?

[@sabo55]

The modern standard of prosperity only exists because of a massive society that was based on the moral absolutes of Biblical law. Sure bash the religion but ya can argue with its success, because nothing has ever come close to its success :)

[@johnaho3135]

Im glad i dont live in NZ.. cant say anything now might hurt some feelings and get locked up for it! Seesssshhh

[@honestlee3435]

To me swearing is Hate speech and Kiwis swear a lot. That is why comments are shut off on so many YT channels.

[@jamesonz2898]

Yeah I'm done with Newzealand I'll be selling my property and leaving my home country is no longer a place of freedom I will not stand for these laws.People deserve the rite to express there feelings and need too inorder to learn from others and vent hostilities no one is forced to listen to it.You are responsible for your actions and your own feelings look up the laws on free speach there already ridiculous.

[@MoyoGaming]

Ridicule and criticism is not what cancel culture is... cancel culture is trying to damage a person's livelihood or reputation based on the opinions they express. We want ridicule and criticism in our culture because it contributes to the free market of ideas, but when the state can dictate what is allowed to be expressed in the free market of ideas they can use their monopoly of force to not just silence you but to imprison you...

[@InfinityDsbm]

I wonder if it will protect satanists too

[@delanielockhart9380]

Remember the anti smacking law where parents lost a lot of their ability to discipline their children. Like anything, only people who are inclined to be law abiding citizens would be affected. The people who the legislation is directed at would still do what they do and It is impossible to have discourse on a subject when one party is too afraid of having an opinion because of the social ramifications that such a vague and subjective law would encourage.

[@rgm2659]

Because a hater has to hate.

[@robertfisher736]

I agree with David..Labour has got to go..mate nearly every girl in this country would be guilty of that..motivation to convict point is bang on..tv.CNN.one news all the same

[@bigcrazy9068]

This journalist has an agenda clearly

[@TempestJust]

Every Political party advocate has an agenda that benefits them, it’s the same reason CNN supports Democrats compared to republicans

[@colinhouston]

NZ football national lleague

[@paulhannonthedj]

The real crime is the amount of makeup that presenter always wears.

[@kentaylor2416]

Or you could just stop hating on people and it wouldn't be a problem.....