Boundaries of hate speech

LETTER

For some, there is a huge difference between the public statements made by Israel Folau and Tina Ngata — especially when judgements are being made on whether they push the boundaries of hate speech or not.

It obviously depends a lot on an individual’s political leanings and religious beliefs, because it is a revelation watching the hysterical left being very selective in the adjectives they use to describe the respective utterances.

On the one hand we have Ms Ngata knowingly telling lies about the historical James Cook’s tragic first encounter with the tangata whenua of this land. As a consequence, she must have gone well beyond what normal people are prepared to accept as a person’s right to free speech.

Yet it would appear that while her comments do border on incitement to violence, the left-wing media of this country have not lifted a finger to point this out. And Ms Ngata knows that as long as they continue to adopt a blind eye to her outrageous garbage, she can virtually say what she likes.

Unfortunately, not so Mr Folau whose crime was to say what he firmly believes to be true based on his religious convictions. Yet the media regard his testimony as having the potential to cause damage in the lives of those who are struggling with their own sexual identity.

For his trouble, Mr Folau has been cast as a character of criminal proportions, insensitive to the faiths of others which actually advocate punishments worse than death for misdemeanours less offensive than those on his list.

But that’s OK because his religion happens to be Christianity, which has long been the public whipping boy for the media — unlike others who we feel an obligation to defend, even in the knowledge that the teachings we are condoning are far more barbaric than those Mr Folau adheres to.

There is a rotten stench of hypocrisy when this topic is being discussed, which is made worse by the fact there appears to be no mood for change — at least not amongst those who administer the law governing these aspects of social conformity.

Clive Bibby

For some, there is a huge difference between the public statements made by Israel Folau and Tina Ngata — especially when judgements are being made on whether they push the boundaries of hate speech or not.

It obviously depends a lot on an individual’s political leanings and religious beliefs, because it is a revelation watching the hysterical left being very selective in the adjectives they use to describe the respective utterances.

On the one hand we have Ms Ngata knowingly telling lies about the historical James Cook’s tragic first encounter with the tangata whenua of this land. As a consequence, she must have gone well beyond what normal people are prepared to accept as a person’s right to free speech.

Yet it would appear that while her comments do border on incitement to violence, the left-wing media of this country have not lifted a finger to point this out. And Ms Ngata knows that as long as they continue to adopt a blind eye to her outrageous garbage, she can virtually say what she likes.

Unfortunately, not so Mr Folau whose crime was to say what he firmly believes to be true based on his religious convictions. Yet the media regard his testimony as having the potential to cause damage in the lives of those who are struggling with their own sexual identity.

For his trouble, Mr Folau has been cast as a character of criminal proportions, insensitive to the faiths of others which actually advocate punishments worse than death for misdemeanours less offensive than those on his list.

But that’s OK because his religion happens to be Christianity, which has long been the public whipping boy for the media — unlike others who we feel an obligation to defend, even in the knowledge that the teachings we are condoning are far more barbaric than those Mr Folau adheres to.

There is a rotten stench of hypocrisy when this topic is being discussed, which is made worse by the fact there appears to be no mood for change — at least not amongst those who administer the law governing these aspects of social conformity.

Clive Bibby

Your email address will not be published. Comments will display after being approved by a staff member. Comments may be edited for clarity.

Jason M WA - 18 days ago
Clive, I am glad I am not the only one to notice this. Well done.

Waitai Allen - 17 days ago
Israel Folau lives in Australia and was punished by Rugby Australia, what does that have to do with New Zealand?

M Hills, Tauranga - 16 days ago
It was Australian Rugby's sponsors along with others who put the pressure on them to get rid of Folau. Why? Because his comments did not meet their views. As a result of their actions I will never fly Qantas, one of the sponsors, again. He was only repeating, as a deeply religious Pacific Islander living in Australia, the morals he was brought up to believe. If more people went to the Pacific Islands and attended their packed church services on a Sunday, and heard the beautiful voices of their choirs, they would better understand Folau's point of view.

Poll

  • Voting please wait...
    Your vote has been cast. Reloading page...
    Do you want the rail line to Gisborne reinstated now?