Thank you Joris De Bres

by Whaleoil on November 7, 2009 · 34 comments

Now you might be think­ing that I am mad in thank­ing Joris De Bres but he has finally cleared up a few mis-conceptions with his state­ment today, and for that I thank him.

Com­mis­sioner Joris de Bres says unlike stu­dents wear­ing Nazi uni­forms or school­boys bow­ing to a swastika Mr Harawira’s com­ments are not a breach of the Human Rights Act, because he is enti­tled to free­dom of expression.

That’s right, “free­dom of expres­sion”. That means when I talk about Shane Kawe­nata Brad­brook, I can call him a “lazy good for noth­ing trough­ing black c**t”. There is not one thing that any­one can do about it because I am sim­ply “enti­tled” to my free­dom of expression.

Or Cac­tus Kate when she describes Andrew “The Crook” Krukziener as the “lit­tle Jew”, she like­wise is sim­ply “enti­tled” her free­dom of expression.

Or if DPF’s dis­gust­ing, hideous mutant Ginga friend calls him a Jew and a Christ Killer, that isn’t offen­sive either because he is also “enti­tled” to his own free­dom of expres­sion even though he is a dis­gust­ing, hideous mutant Ginga.

So for that I thank Mr Joris De Bres and other mem­bers of the bro-aucracy for once and for clear­ing up that racism is sim­ply free­dom of expres­sion and no mat­ter how repug­nant it is it is one of our inalien­able human rights to express it how ever we desire.

I think he has it wrong though on the wear­ing of strange uni­forms and the such because that also is sim­ply a per­sons free­dom of expres­sion much like a tat­too. But then that would also put an end to the silly gang patch ban, because surely those are a person’s right, nay “enti­tle­ment” as Joris De Bres says, to free­dom of expression.

Accord­ing to Joris De Bres it is now safe to tell jokes about spics, frogs, tulip-chompers, japies, krauts, nig­gers, coons, blacks, dagos, wops, wogs, chinks, slopes, chows, plug-sockets, wet backs, coconuts, fobs, freshies and Aus­tralians because they are sim­ply our “enti­tle­ment” to free­dom of expression.

Phew! I am glad we got that settled.

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

{ 32 comments }

jocko November 7, 2009 at 8:57 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Cameron.
Full marks. Got it in one. Sev­eral actu­ally.
Skew­ered a use­less Commission…and a square cloggy Dutch plug-head….at last, able to be said as jus­ti­fied ‘free­dom of expres­sion’.
Sooner he goes, the bet­ter.
Come on, John Key….Let this be your first quangocide….Just do it…..!
Jocko

Harpoon November 9, 2009 at 10:35 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Jocko, you have no idea what you’re talk­ing about. Read the orginal mate­r­ial, not a third-hand inter­pre­ta­tion:
http://www.hrc.co.nz/home/

Scanner November 7, 2009 at 9:06 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I’m nom­i­nat­ing Hone for “Coon of the Month”, thats just my “enti­tle­ment” to free­dom of expression.

Jman November 7, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I get the feel­ing if some white politi­cian from the Act party had referred to brown moth­er­fuck­ers, that Joris De Bres wouldn’t be giv­ing them the same kind of leeway.

Chiefsfan73 November 7, 2009 at 8:23 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

no doubt

Joris November 7, 2009 at 1:47 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Whale,

You have it wrong.

The inter­pre­ta­tion that I gave was for the ben­e­fit of Maori only, not any white­bread motherfucker.

Expert November 7, 2009 at 4:30 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

JMan

Don’t encour­age David Gar­rett to try this please.

notamotherf.....r November 7, 2009 at 5:32 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Can’t see us being able to call our dear friend Hone a motherf…..r………
Who would ever dare try it on with Titi­whai and think they would sur­vive? She’s the ulti­mate black widow! and that’s allowed under the new Harawira Bill of Free­dom of Expression

Chiefsfan73 November 7, 2009 at 8:28 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Good work, this would be a sim­ple dele­tion of s131 of the Human Rights Act 1993.

131 Incit­ing racial dishar­mony
(1) Every per­son com­mits an offence and is liable on sum­mary con­vic­tion to impris­on­ment for a term not exceed­ing 3 months or to a fine not exceed­ing $7,000 who, with intent to excite hos­til­ity or ill-will against, or bring into con­tempt or ridicule, any group of per­sons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or eth­nic or national ori­gins of that group of per­sons,—
(a) Pub­lishes or dis­trib­utes writ­ten mat­ter which is threat­en­ing, abu­sive, or insult­ing, or broad­casts by means of radio or tele­vi­sion words which are threat­en­ing, abu­sive, or insult­ing; or
(b) Uses in any pub­lic place (as defined in sec­tion 2(1) of the Sum­mary Offences Act 1981), or within the hear­ing of per­sons in any such pub­lic place, or at any meet­ing to which the pub­lic are invited or have access, words which are threat­en­ing, abu­sive, or insult­ing,—
being mat­ter or words likely to excite hos­til­ity or ill-will against, or bring into con­tempt or ridicule, any such group of per­sons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or eth­nic or national ori­gins of that group of per­sons.
(2) For the pur­poses of this sec­tion, pub­lishes or dis­trib­utes and writ­ten mat­ter have the mean­ing given to them in sec­tion 61 of this Act.

notamotherf.....r November 7, 2009 at 9:45 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

No No! That act would still apply to every cul­tural group and eth­nic group EXCEPT Maori.

Chris Gale November 8, 2009 at 12:34 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Agree. This. like the sim­i­lar sec­tion in the cana­dian act, needs to be repealed.

ernesto November 7, 2009 at 6:26 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Andrew “The Crook” Krukziener as the “lit­tle Jew”. Oh, that one might be defama­tion, see: Siemer v Sti­assny (alle­ga­tions of impropi­ety mixed with racist abuse) $1m damages.

petal November 7, 2009 at 6:29 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Very sad, but not unex­pected.
Still. I think ANYONE accused of racist speech now has a prece­dent they can quote to jus­tify their free speech.

Pro Bono November 7, 2009 at 7:16 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

When the Maori “Politi­cian” Hone, is per­mit­ted to do as he likes, and Dr. Peta Sharples is foot­ing the bill with per­mis­sion of our P.M., we seem to have lost the integrity we have given the Gov­ern­ment credit for.

notamotherf.....r November 7, 2009 at 7:18 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Agreed Petal… “Polit­i­cal Cor­rect­ness” is NOW about flout­ing all that is decent and ethical…taking advan­tage of the gen­eros­ity and open mind­ed­ness that has char­ac­terised NZ soci­ety up until now.
The Hide/Harawera Man­date means that it is “Polit­i­cally Cor­rect” to ride on other’s money, take hol­i­days on the pub­lic purse and openly abuse those who line your pock­ets and cry “I spit on you!” every­time some­one with a dif­fer­ent cul­ture, skin colour or view might legit­i­mately ques­tion your actions or words. Even those of the same ilk it would seem.
Please don’t tell Cameron, but I’m a teacher… and as some­one who earns from the pub­lic purse, I don’t ever know of a time when I’ve been able to take my spouse to a con­fer­ence and get it all paid for… and again, if I ever called my stu­dents or fel­low pro­fes­sion­als (Yes Cameron…some of us are…grin) “MOTHERF…..S” …. I wouldn’t have a job.
Also when I even­tu­ally retire after x num­ber of years work­ing on the pub­lic purse….I don’t get these free rides on air­craft that these folk do…… or a knight­hood…… or free rent…… or a lucra­tive posi­tion over­seas….. but silly me…. know my place…. I’m just another “white moth­erf****** who has been rap­ing lands and rip­ping folk off for cen­turies” and I have to accept this because accord­ing to Heta Hingston….“There is a Maori way of see­ing things and a Pakeha way,” and I’m just a silly Pakeha.
But of course…its ok for Hone…..in fact…its encour­aged by many fac­tions of Maoridom and our esteemed Human Rights Comissioner.

Odd thing is…my Maori friends all seem to be embar­rassed by Hone’s words and actions over the years and don’t think he speaks for them………..

Spanishbride November 7, 2009 at 10:37 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Cameron mar­ried a teacher so don’t take every­thing he says about teach­ers too much to heart as actions speak louder than words :) His prob­lem was that some of his teach­ers at his so called top school were not cre­ative or hard work­ing. Also his style of learn­ing was defi­nately not catered to there.
My daugh­ter like me can cope with the pub­lic sys­tem but our son like Cam is bet­ter served out of it in a more stu­dent cen­tred envi­ron­ment where he is free to be cre­ative and study what inter­ests him as well as the basics.
I wish Cam could have had the oppor­tu­nity our son now enjoys. Like his Dad he is so intel­li­gent it blows me away and his cre­ativ­ity is amazing.

Theresaj November 7, 2009 at 8:08 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

well put whale..and as another poster said..this sets a prece­dent. We are all enti­tled to free­dom of expression.

mediatart November 7, 2009 at 11:37 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

If any­body thinks that Hawawaira has breached the Human Rights Act, then lodge a com­plaint. And see if Joris de Bres is right.
As I under­stand hav­ing an ‘opin­ion’ is not a defence.
But the way it was done as a pri­vate email , which was released by another per­son, could mean the views are not ‘public’

Theresaj November 7, 2009 at 11:41 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I heard last night that about twenty peo­ple had made complaints.

naylor November 7, 2009 at 11:50 pm

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I’d be more con­cerned about that ginga.

jabba November 8, 2009 at 12:03 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

only 20 com­plaints .. I would have expected 1,000’s. I won­der who the other 19 are.

Skillbuilder November 8, 2009 at 12:42 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I’m one, and I bloody well expect some action.

apeteryx November 8, 2009 at 12:39 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Hi all.
I think we made a mis­take in leg­is­lat­ing against hate. If there is a crime com­mit­ted, then the issue of moti­va­tion can come up in sen­tenc­ing.
If a KKK man assaults or kills another, they should be con­victed of assault or mur­der. The fact they hated the other is no excuse.
If a poor excuse of a politi­cian insults the eth­nic­ity, gen­der, pref­er­ence or reli­gion of another, and this dam­ages the other’s rep­u­ta­tion, there are libel laws.
But… leg­is­la­tion against hatred means the racists choose to be oppressed and accuse any who oppose or con­demn them of hatred. This is a form of cen­sor­ship.
The act should be repealed. Forthwith

notamotherf.....r November 8, 2009 at 1:10 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Hone Harawira makes no apol­ogy for lump­ing all white folks into one rap­ing pil­lag­ing bar­rel of motherf…….rs. He gen­uinely believes this. If that is his rea­son­ing, then I have no hes­i­ta­tion in con­sign­ing him to being the same vio­lent trash that was Jake the Muss. He’s a vio­lent thug, from a long lin­eage of met­ing out vio­lence on folk who dis­agree with the Harawira way of think­ing.
But he does not rep­re­sent the view of New Zealan­ders in gen­eral, no mat­ter what colour or creed…and should be barred from being a rep­re­sen­ta­tive in the future. New Zealand is served well by peo­ple who ques­tion and debate and challenge…but to espouse hate gives him no place as a rep­re­sen­ta­tive of this won­der­fully flawed and unique lit­tle nation.

jabba November 8, 2009 at 3:29 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

good on you skill­builder .. 18 to go.
nota­moth­erf .. have you noticed that many are ignor­ing the white moth­er­fucker com­ments and wank­ing on about the Paris trip .. to use Hone’s clas­sic phrase, I couldn’t give a shit about it, MP’s have been doing that sort of thing for years but I gather JK is try­ing to change the rules to stop it. I don’t like the idea that a toss pot like Hone can call me a white moth­er­fucker .. I have never meet the guy even though I might me, he doesn’t know that. And shit for brains de Bres HAS to go.

Ciaron November 10, 2009 at 8:25 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

The whole com­mis­sion HAS to go.

Chiefsfan73 November 8, 2009 at 4:35 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Joris De Bres, is noth­ing more than a hang­over from the social­ist vision of die Klarkenfhurer, he should offer his res­ig­na­tion. He and his ilk are were never wanted or needed by the NZ pub­lic. They were fois­tered on us by the likes of Klark. She’s gone her flunkies should follow

thor42 November 8, 2009 at 8:19 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Agreed, Chiefsfan73.
I’ll use my “enti­tle­ment to free­dom of expres­sion” and say that dick­head De Bres should f**k off to New York and join Clark (whom he no doubt wor­ships – prob­a­bly has a shrine to her).

Ciaron November 10, 2009 at 8:27 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I’d rather offer him a pis­tol, but doubt he’d have the hon­our to use it.

emmess November 8, 2009 at 10:22 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

How would the slimy lit­tle prick square his judge­ment against the Dan­ish car­toons?
For fuck sakes, do these com­mie scum­bags even try to mask their hypocrisy at all these days?

Theresaj November 9, 2009 at 2:57 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I agree Chiefs­fan..
Hate­speech laws are remov­ing free speech..Currently going thru in the US..also in the com­mu­nist repub­lic of the EU…soon crit­i­cis­ing islam will be an offense in the UK and Europe. The UN has been bang­ing on about defama­tion of reli­gion forever…No prizes for guess­ing which reli­gion will be totally protected.

Harpoon November 9, 2009 at 10:32 am

Like or Dis­like: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Actu­ally, Cameron … no. You’re wrong. You should go to the orig­i­nal mate­r­ial — not dif­fi­cult to find, since it’s on the HRC front page right now: http://www.hrc.co.nz/home/hrc/newsandissues/

In par­tic­u­lar, you might choose to note this bit:

Every per­son com­mits an offence who, with intent to excite hos­til­ity or ill-will against, or bring into con­tempt or ridicule, any group of per­sons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or eth­nic or national ori­gins of that group of per­sons;
(a) Pub­lishes or dis­trib­utes writ­ten mat­ter or broad­casts words which are threat­en­ing, abu­sive or insult­ing; or
(b) Uses such words in any pub­lic place; being mat­ter or words likely to excite hos­til­ity or ill-will against, or bring into con­tempt or ridicule, any such group of per­sons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or eth­nic or national ori­gins of that group of per­sons.
Sec­tion 131 thus requires not only a like­li­hood that the words will excite hos­til­ity, con­tempt or ridicule, but also an intent to do so.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: