I found the national news coverage of this was researched poorly, going on a lot of heresay and very one sided – as we know the NZ public sucks that sort of thing up.

There was no mention at all of the laws of buggery in Jamaica to put his upbringing and thoughts in context.

This discussion will pop up again as I know there is talk of a solo tour to Australia in 2010, likely to be picked up and promoted in NZ also.

Signed – a reggae DJ.

Saying that denying a platform and denying free speech are two different things is utter claptrap. That this piece of sophistry is showcased as the primary defense for effectively banning from New Zealand by proscriptive liberals is disappointing, but not a surprise.

I am rather sad that the organisers have decided – purely for business reasons no doubt – to axe him. What would have been so terrifying with letting him play, and trusting in the wisdom of the crowd to decide?

Someone you find highly offensive is a confession of ad hominem. Fine – so you want to suppress free speech beyond the scope of hate speech – your analogy is that if David Irving were to publish a recipe for banana cake, you’d ban it.

Buster – you’ve no right to do anything of the kind. You’re a bad ‘un. But then, what good is a right that doesn’t include trampling on other people’s eh.

Thankfully, free speech is not confined to buffoons like you.

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/11/gay-puerto-rican-teen-decapitated-dismembered-and-burned.html

Sorry. I’m not calling for his prominent homophobic statements to be illegal. I see no inconsistency in asking that people who do not endorse homophobia pay him to stand behind a microphone, even if he promises to avoid the subject.

What we have here is a vocal, allegedly liberal, minority attempting to prescribe the public taste. You would do well to remember that this kind of prurience is the feature gender rights campaigners object to in organised religion. If you don’t like it, don’t do it.

Does it occur to you that people might actually sincerely genuinely not want to attend an event that is prominently hosting someone who actively promotes anti-homosexual hate speech?

No, because much of what he has to say is unrelated to gender politics.

His statements are not incidental to his music, they form part of his music. And he hasn’t renounced his anti-homosexual hate speech, at least not as far as the evidence I’ve seen suggests.

I and others have every right to object to someone we find highly offensive being at an event we would like to attend, and to ask that others do not give him a platform from which to legitimise himself.

There is no free speech argument here.

No, because much of what he has to say is unrelated to gender politics. And, as a performer, microphones are his thing. We have perfectly adequate laws that would apply if Beenie Man had indulged in hate speech.

What we have here is a vocal, allegedly liberal, minority attempting to prescribe the public taste. You would do well to remember that this kind of prurience is the feature gender rights campaigners object to in organised religion. If you don’t like it, don’t do it.

I reply:
Well, you’re the one who brought up same sex marriage, dear. I’d note the rather glaring fact that he’s the one in Parliament, not us, and perhaps THAT issue would be a significantly better use of his time and energy.

Should David Irving be allowed into the country? Yes. Should his words be illegal? No. I disagree with Chauvel on this point, and should have made that clearer. In both cases this is because we consider freedom of speech a right that deserves a particularly high protection, and should only be limited in extreme cases.

Should every right-thinking person deny him their platforms to speak? Absolutely yes. He is free to his opinions, but his views are both abhorrent and harmful, and we are under no compulsion to give him our microphones. Putting his speech in front of the Press Club, or in newspapers and magazines is to give him credence he does not deserve. Even if he did not talk about the holocaust or history, the venues that hosted him would still be saying that he is a person of note and worth listening to.

Denying fascists a platform to express their views works. There is the idea that the public sphere is unlimited, and that the answer is to give these people our forums and let our arguments win out. This is a falacy however. There is not the room or time to have everybody in the world given radio interviews and concert spots. In practice, those considered more important are given these spots. Furthermore, our arguments do win out, but their arguments are given much more credence by the mere fact that we publicly consider them worth putting in front of our microphones. Giving them the stage increases their audiences, and the evidence shows that this allows them to create more harm than when their views are denied such public space. More attacks on mosques and synagogues, greater membership of these organisations. Real harm, an infringement on the rights of these victims caused by well meaning people who think that a person having a right is the same as us having an obligation to allow the greatest exercise of that right.

Having Beenie Man on stage, when he is not performing his torrents of support for hatred and violence, legitimises him as a person, and says that this a person that we consider worth paying attention to. If the BDO considers that he is not worthy to grace their stage, he is still free to enter the country, and still perform at some lesser event.