Stifling free speech
We can now add health and safety laws to stifle dissenting voices. A couple of Canadians were to give a "controversial" speech in Auckland. Big deal. If you don't like it don't go, don't stop others.
Seems Phil Goff cared enough to cancel their ticket due to "security concerns" involving the "health and safety" of the presenters, staff and patrons of the event.
A group known as the Auckland Peace Action have threatened to disrupt the event saying, "If they come here, we will confront them on the streets. If they come, we will blockade entry to their speaking venue."
The Islamic Federation also got in on the act, which I find interesting since there is not one Muslim majority country, in my view, that can be considered a democracy [freedom of speech, religion/thought and association].
How intelligent is it for Auckland Peace Action to threaten violence, for the Islamic Federation to try to undermine the very liberal ideas that let them operate in this country and for a virtue signalling mayor to operate in a way totally counter to a Western democracy? How smart indeed when I can easily watch these speakers on YouTube?
