Much ado about an old rotten Kiwi PM

[Starlight]

Gotta wonder what Starlight thinks

I think
1. This speech was given 11 months ago and that person is not NZ's PM any more.
2. That pretty much everything US right-wingers say is a lie, so I don't believe any part of the twitter posters claim and they don't appear to quote any of the speech.
3. That you are a gullible and ignorant fool who propagates such false information and your lack of interest in correcting it reflects very negatively on your morality and intelligence.
4. That after reading the speech transcript I don't think the summary given above in any way reasonably represents what was said. She talks generically about the problem of online disinformation and extremism and its consequences, talks about the importance of upholding free speech and human rights, and doesn't propose any solution.

[tabibito]

I think
1. This speech was given 11 months ago and that person is not NZ's PM any more.
2. That pretty much everything US right-wingers say is a lie, so I don't believe any part of the twitter posters claim and they don't appear to quote any of the speech.
3. That you are a gullible and ignorant fool who propagates such false information and your lack of interest in correcting it reflects very negatively on your morality and intelligence.
4. That after reading the speech transcript I don't think the summary given above in any way reasonably represents what was said. She talks generically about the problem of online disinformation and extremism and its consequences, talks about the importance of upholding free speech and human rights, and doesn't propose any solution.

1. Condolences for your loss.

2. It would come as no surprise if this "is a weapon of war" had originally been "can become a weapon war." "Can become" has ample historical support.

[rogue06]

I think
1. This speech was given 11 months ago and that person is not NZ's PM any more.
2. That pretty much everything US right-wingers say is a lie, so I don't believe any part of the twitter posters claim and they don't appear to quote any of the speech.
3. That you are a gullible and ignorant fool who propagates such false information and your lack of interest in correcting it reflects very negatively on your morality and intelligence.
4. That after reading the speech transcript I don't think the summary given above in any way reasonably represents what was said. She talks generically about the problem of online disinformation and extremism and its consequences, talks about the importance of upholding free speech and human rights, and doesn't propose any solution.

You could have bothered to check for yourself but for some odd reason you chose not to do so.

She does not like it if some disagrees with her.

[tabibito]

You could have bothered to check for yourself but for some odd reason you chose not to do so.

She does not like it if some disagrees with her.

OK - she says that dis- and mis- information are weapons of war. That is demonstrably true.

[Starlight]

You could have bothered to check for yourself but for some odd reason you chose not to do so.

I read the transcript and watched the video. It's bizarre you make this false statement that I didn't.

As I said in summary:

She talks generically about the problem of online disinformation and extremism and its consequences, talks about the importance of upholding free speech and human rights, and doesn't propose any solution.

When she was PM, as a result of the Christchurch terrorist attacks, her government reviewed the laws around hate speech. They came up with 6 ideas around possible changes to them, there were 19,000 public submissions on the subject over several years of consultation, and they ended up settling on one of the ideas: To protect religious people from violent rhetoric against them.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...ve-debate.html
Currently, under the Human Rights Act, it is illegal to publish or distribute threatening, abusive, or insulting words likely to "excite hostility against" or "bring into contempt" to any group on the grounds of colour, race, ethnic or national origins. The changes will extend this to cover religious beliefs.

She left office before that proposed change was implemented. After she left office, the new leadership of her party indefinitely shelved that proposed change by sending it back out to committee. It may come back, but there is no current timeline for it and it may undergo changes before it returns, if it does.

It's a little weird that you bring up a person who made no changes to free speech laws while PM, and who is no longer PM, as being some sort of major international threat to free speech. I guess you could get upset that her government proposed, but didn't implement, and subsequently dropped, an idea to protect religious people... but I don't know if you'd be for or against protecting religious people. Are we supposed to cower in fear at the authoritarian way in which she implemented her awful liberal agenda of... not doing anything on the subject after many years of public consultation?

I think, but am not actually sure, that the one thing she actually did achieve on the international stage as a result of the rhetoric around the Christchurch terrorist attack was getting international social media platforms to make sure they had the ability to quickly cut a livestream if they started receiving reports that it was going horribly bad (e.g. the livestreamer was livestreaming themselves murdering people as happened in Christchurch). Whether Twitter still retains such functionality after Elon has sacked 90% of his staff, I have no idea. I don't know if you have any views on how important it is/isn't that social media companies can stop the livestream of in-progress mass-murders.

[Starlight]

1. Condolences for your loss.

She was a good speaker, and probably saved a lot of lives during covid by securing the borders of the country until people had been vaccinated.

But I wasn't sorry to see her go...

Her government had a tendency to fail to enact any policies... they would come up with some ideas, water them down a bit, send them out to committees for years, water them down some more, and if they ever delivered anything it would be 1/1000th of what had been initially suggested. The above example of her government's ideas after the Christchurch terror attack eventually being watered down after many years and many committees into doing absolutely nothing, are unfortunately typical of her government. People like me, who would have liked to see her implement a bold left wing progressive agenda were repeatedly disillusioned as bold ideas were turned by committees and working groups into weak ideas and then not implemented. One of her appointed working-groups made over 100 recommendations of action on the task they had been appointed to look at, and her government only then implemented a tiny tiny fraction of them. I got sick of shouting at her in my head for years to "actually DO SOMETHING instead of nothing!"

[tabibito]

She was a good speaker, and probably saved a lot of lives during covid by securing the borders of the country until people had been vaccinated.

But I wasn't sorry to see her go...

Her government had a tendency to fail to enact any policies... they would come up with some ideas, water them down a bit, send them out to committees for years, water them down some more, and if they ever delivered anything it would be 1/1000th of what had been initially suggested. The above example of her government's ideas after the Christchurch terror attack eventually being watered down after many years and many committees into doing absolutely nothing, are unfortunately typical of her government. People like me, who would have liked to see her implement a bold left wing progressive agenda were repeatedly disillusioned as bold ideas were turned by committees and working groups into weak ideas and then not implemented. One of her appointed working-groups made over 100 recommendations of action on the task they had been appointed to look at, and her government only then implemented a tiny tiny fraction of them. I got sick of shouting at her in my head for years to "actually DO SOMETHING instead of nothing!"

The best of all governments. Anytime a government actually does something, they make matters worse.

[rogue06]

I read the transcript and watched the video. It's bizarre you make this false statement that I didn't.

If that is the case then why did you pretend that it was just right wing B.S. that she was calling such speech weapons of war?

[Starlight]

The best of all governments. Anytime a government actually does something, they make matters worse.

The most popular government in NZ history was the government that did the most. Only one run by an avowed socialist.

[rogue06]

The best of all governments. Anytime a government actually does something, they make matters worse.

I won't go that far. I'd say that far more often than not, but not always.

[Starlight]

If that is the case then why did you pretend that it was just right wing B.S. that she was calling such speech weapons of war?

Are you creatively pretending that's what the original claim was?

[tabibito]

The most popular government in NZ history was the government that did the most. Only one run by an avowed socialist.

Same for South Australia*, for all that he was a liberal (conservative), he made significant social improvements. It took a couple of decades before his successors started to dismantle it all.

The State premier, not the PM.

[rogue06]

If that is the case then why did you pretend that it was just right wing B.S. that she was calling such speech weapons of war?

Are you creatively pretending that's what the original claim was?

Yeah. Silly me. Where would I possibly get the idea that her claiming such speech were weapons of war

[Sparko]

You could have bothered to check for yourself but for some odd reason you chose not to do so.

She does not like it if some disagrees with her.

Basically "We value free speech. As long as it is our speech or it agrees with us."

[Starlight]

Basically "We value free speech. As long as it is our speech or it agrees with us."

It's interesting you can watch a video of someone saying they value free speech, and who is bringing no concrete proposals for restricting it in any way, and from that conclude they are against free speech.