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?
We believe spending billions on new aircraft is unacceptable when money is needed for hospitals, motorways, and people crying out for more funding for cancer funding.
However, the Government intends to spend it on Defence Force toys for the boys. Also, affordable housing at around $600,000 is a joke, the cost, in our view, is because councils want large amounts for resource consents.
Back in the 1970s and 1980s, we built houses when a building permit was only required. There were no leaky buildings and that was affordable but now the cost of resource consents is out of control.
Society is becoming stuffed because Government and councils have got too much control.
Why are councils issuing building consents when they should be running a city and leave it to private enterprise where everyone is accountable and have the expertise.
Rae and Ken Whittle