Attacking Golriz Ghahraman

Golriz Ghahraman pn335

You'd think people tottering along the line close to libel or slander would have been warned by the recent conviction, and later declared self-bankruptcy, of WhaleOil's Cameron Slater and broadcaster Helen duPessis-Allen's conviction  by the Broadcasting Standards Authority for anti-Pasifika comments. Not to mention official and widespread concerns about the inflammatory  misuses of social media during and after the Christchurch tragedy.

But not SB, Cameron's partner on Whaleoil. She (?) has launched a spiteful and unfair attack on Greens MP Golriz Ghuhraman for her supposed denial of free speech.  Under the heading "Golriz uses her free speech to undermine our democracy"

1. SB writes (my emphasis): 

I do not want to silence her nor do I want to punish her for her divisive opinions. I want to amplify her voice so that people know exactly how divisive and wrong she is.

Having listened carefully to what Golriz said I can find absolutely no evidence that her opinions are particularly divisive. To the contrary, I think most people would agree with what she was saying. And it's only SB's opinion that her views are "wrong."

Golriz said that hate speech is amplified and spread on line, which is true.

 We're not immune from the politics of hate speech leaking into NZ from all over the world and allowed to grow here unchecked."

I think most people would agree with her. It was certainly the case with the Christchurch tragedy.The difficulty is in defining hate speech and determining how to prevent the misuse of on line social media.  Advocating greater controls over hate speech is not an attack on free speech per se or an attack on democracy, which already places limits on free speech.


2. SB writes:

By labelling opinions and criticisms that she doesn't like as "hate speech" she is advocating taking away the cornerstone of our democracy, which is freedom of speech.

 Golriz did not label anything. She was talking about a specific misuse of free speech. There is nothing to suggest she does not respect the opinions and criticisms of others on other issues.

3. SB writes:

She talks about hate speech undermining our democracy as she undermines our democracy by advocating for some people to be more equal than others. 

Golriz  is certainly not advocating that some people are more equal than others,  She is quite specific in what she wants to be more controlled. She correctly points out that while our Human Rights Act protects individuals against unfair public statements, there is no protection for groups.

I cannot see how it can be argued that Golriz is advocating inequality when she says: 

Most of us would be shocked to find our laws don't protect religious groups, gender or the Rainbow community."  

Saying that groups should have similar protection as individuals is not advocating inequality. 

4. SB says: 

"She undermines our democracy by demonising white people and by blaming everything on colonisation, when colonisation is the reason she has freedom of speech, a higher education, the right to vote and equal rights.

Golriz makes no mention of "white people" or "colonization" in her talk. That's what some Maori, including Moana Jackson, have been saying (See my post pn314) and many Pakeha would think they have a point. 

Once again, for SB it's all or nothing, black or white. To criticize some aspects of colonization for all its consequences, many of which, a 180 years later,  even Maori would acknowledge as beneficial, is not to "blame everything on colonisation."

In sum, in the briefest of articles SB has managed to misrepresent what Golriz said four times.

We  too often play to our readers emotions and built-in prejudices, to the neglect of reality and fact. 

Similar shallow, prejudiced thinking is also evident in her comment of child poverty which, with luck, I'l publish later today. 

-- ACW