Weak dithering Faafoi hands too hard hate speech problem to Police

Faafoi won’t talk about hate speech since his last interview a month ago where he made it clear he was completely clueless on steering the law into legislation. He’s gone to ground, and with similar silence from just about everyone else in govt, its clear the decision is to hand the problem to uniformed police.

So this barbarian legislation will be passed by the usual lot of left wing philistines in all the glory of its subjective inaccurate emotive language, and no one has a clue what the offence it attempts to define actually is. Hate Speech can really only be defined one way-

Hate speech is whatever those who control you say it is

Fake academics (fake because no true academic would advocate for such a barbaric law) who have vociferously cheered for this legislation can’t define it. The Minister of Justice can’t define it. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern can’t define it. She says in her usual scrambled egg language that “you’ll know it when you see it”.

However, if this disgustingly uncivilised legislation does become law as is likely given the ignorami in power at the moment, someone somewhere down the line will have to define it, and that someone is going to be the the policeman on the street.

PM Jacinda Ardern & Justice Minister Kris Faafoi are driving the “hate speech” legislation

Who just could be some pimply faced recent graduate from Police College with no idea on the issue. Worse, it could be the ultra-woke Police Commissioner himself. Or it could be some lesbian in uniform with a grudge against straight white men, or it could be an atheist with a fiery dislike of religion or it could be a Hindu who dislikes Sikhs or a Sikh who dislikes Muslims.

In all of these instances the personal prejudices of the police officer will have the most bearing on his decision to lay a charge. Which is why this law is so very wrong.

Take shoplifting for example. An offender may be caught stealing, and the stolen item is recovered from his person, and if the shop has video surveillance, its likely it will show the offence. “You took the phone off the shelf and you hid it in your bag and walked out of the store”.

The offence is clear. The evidence for a charge is clear. It doesn’t matter what personal prejudices the arresting officer may have. He just does his duty according to the law. A law that gives no room for his/her own personal interpretation.

The so called “hate speech” law that is going to be passed by Labour’s collection of Stasi style goons is not anything like this. The offence is poorly defined and described, and all of the discretion for a charge will lie with the arresting officer.

What’s worse is that with such an unintelligible definition as the legislation presents, alleged offenders will have no way of knowing if they have breached the law either. We will be left with the ridiculous situation where a police officer will allege hate in the mind of the offender, and the offender will deny having any such hate in his mind. Its actually a situation so farcical it could be material for a Monty Python script.

In communist East Germany, the Stasi used the threat of torture to stop speech it didn’t like. In NZ today, the govt uses the threat of a long and stressful court process to silence its citizens

Some may say that the courts will have the final say, but this isn’t good enough. Not by a long shot. In the instance of shoplifting above, there would be a case resting on material evidence, which justifies the following course of action. The arrest. The bail. The court appearance. The final verdict, guilty or not guilty. All an extremely stressful sequence of events for the offender.

The same process will be followed in the case of alleged hate speech, but the material evidence will be completely absent. Everything that happens will be proceeded with on the basis of the arresting officer’s subjective opinion, and it is just completely unconscionable that such a stressful process should rest upon how the arresting officer interprets such a vague and expansive law.

Not good enough. Just farcical and barbaric, and only something a bunch of uncivilised failure ridden Stasi style goons like the Ardern govt could come up with. They’re taking NZ deep into the mire of a totalitarian sewer, as such degenerative goons have done to various societies throughout time.

New Zealand will just be the latest example. Why can’t we learn from history?


  • 💯💩💩💩
    These clowns are doing so much damage to NZ


  • Why can’t we, indeed?

    As another observer opined, “The legislation will just get rammed through under urgency. Who needs to waste time on democracy when you have a large majority?” Certainly not the commie crony clique in the drone house.

    Redbaiter said, “everything that happens will be proceeded with on the basis of the arresting officer’s subjective opinion . . .”

    Adding, “no one has a clue what the offence it attempts to define actually is. Hate Speech can really only be defined one way – hate speech is whatever those who control you say it is.

    I suspect you’ve slipped past the other side of that same nasty, deceptive and illusory coin.

    The person feeling ‘hated’ will define it. “I was offended,” will be the cry it takes. (You’ve already identified that trend in earlier bulletins.)

    The arresting officer will testify that someone was offended and that someone’s subjective opinion of ‘feeling hated’ by what was said will be sufficient.

    That will be so much worse than the possibilities you’ve posited.

    Will anyone one day feel offended when the phrase is murmered, “there are some dark clouds on the horizon?”


    • Yes, just as in the recent Tik Tok video of a policeman confronting a street preacher. The people who called the police were no doubt opposed to the ideas the street preacher expressed so called the cops, and the cop automatically takes their side because they made the complaint and he knows no better. What a shambolic and disgusting application of law.

      Well, it isn’t law really, its just thuggery and tyranny.

      Liked by 1 person

  • We live in times where smart people are Silenced So that Stupid people won’t be Offended.

    Liked by 1 person