If you have been following my articles at all you will well remember the article about conversion therapy legislation in New Zealand. Which was followed by an informal part 2 on the Posie Parker protest. This article now follows on from that.

In that first article I questioned the motivation of politicians regarding why they were so eager to give trans ideology unprecedented protection in this country.

That legislation killed freedom of speech, freedom of religion and parental rights in one fell swoop as my first article explains.

I also questioned the motive… was it because they perceived the ideology to be vulnerable? Or because it was infallible?

As I mentioned in my article on the Posie Parker incident. The timeline of events is very clear…

2022 Parliament passes legislation giving trans activists unprecedented and elevated protection. Violating our equal rights in this country

2023 Emboldened by this legislation, trans activists went out to take a women’s rights activists freedom of speech away. In addition to trying to prevent Posie Parker from even entering the country.

During that incident there was more than one assault against women who were present, ironically the event was called “let women speak”, making the motive of the counter protestors blatantly obvious.

Now before I precede to the present day. As far as and decent person in our society is concerned, everyone has the right to free speech, and I also support a persons right to protest within reason.

But what happened that day wasn’t a protest… it was a counter protest.

Now a counter protester hasn’t organised a day to have their say. What a counter protestor does is goes out with the intention of taking another persons rights away.

Basically, they are scum sucking dirt bags.

That also applies to right wing counter protestors, I don’t discriminate.

They are all pieces of crap with no decency.

If you don’t respect other peoples right to disagree… you don’t belong in a free society.

To put it another way… the right to disagree is the price you pay for not living in a totalitarian society.

That is assuming New Zealand is still a free country. Frankly because of the Conversion Therapy act… we aren’t.

Now in 2024 one of those straightforward common assaults from the Posie Parker Protest came before the courts.

The case is simple, a man in his 20’s who was trying to take free speech away from women… audaciously punched a 71 year old women in the eye.

He didn’t just punch once… he did it repeatedly. After storming through a barrier to get to her.

However the outcome is sad and predictable.

This guy ended up in court, the court had no choice but to convict since guilt was undeniable. However the judge then decided to discharge without conviction.

“If a person who is charged with an offence is found guilty or pleads guilty, the court may discharge the offender without conviction, unless by any enactment applicable to the offence the court is required to impose a minimum sentence. A discharge under this section is deemed to be an acquittal.”

So he was acquitted.

Now I know of no other incident when an elderly lady has been bashed by a thug, a young guy who thought his world view gave him the right to assault. A PC thug, a liberal brown-shirt, a hitman from the rainbow mafia, a liberal enforcer.

But the question is… why was he acquitted?

Because if we are all equal before the law (we should be if we are a free society) then the following must apply in other situations…

An anti abortion activist who punches a pregnant women must also, now, by the liberal “justice” system… also be let go?

A Nazi who punches a Jewish Women.. by our new “liberal” justice system… must also be let go?

I sincerely hope not. Because if that’s the case we are really screwed.

That’s not to say that we aren’t already screwed. Because applying this exemption to trans supporters only is even worse. Because it would prove political bias in our justice system.

Which would mean our justice system is failing… or has failed already.

Now you may say that this person had some mental health problems, sure, a lot of people do. But that isn’t an excuse for what happened, and isn’t sufficient to justify letting someone completely off the hook.

My understanding is that laws like those covering assault are there to deter actual harm and punish people who cause physical harm.

So intent is all important.

I imagine past instances where a person may have been acquitted would involve an accusation where it could be demonstrated that the accused did not intend to harm the person… even though it appeared that way.

A theoretical situation that might be suitable would be if a person was walking and heard a woman scream, she looks over and seems a man on top of this woman who has been scratched and bruised.

The police lay charges and at the trial a video comes forward showing that he tripped on a rock and it was all just an accident. He did strike her, but there was no intent to harm so… perhaps that would be a rare, suitable situation for an aquittal.

However in this case… no one can claim this 20 year old had right intention. His fist didn’t slip on a banana peel… did it?

That raises another important question… did the judge actually accept the argument that the ends justified the means? That the attackers desired outcome made his actions justifiable.
If that’s the case then our justice system isn’t broken… it’s going to hell in a handbasket.

Now this situation is especially noteworthy because there is a second assault from this counter protest. The person who assaulted Posie Parker personally is to appear in court in the future.

In this case the assault was a lesser incident, with juice being poured on Parker.

However in that case mental health isn’t as big of an excuse.

So if Eli Rubashkyn (the attacker) does get properly convicted in the future there is a glimmer of hope that our justice system can get it right without political bias. In other words that this incident was just an anomaly and a lone mistake from a single judge.

However that is unlikely, because in law precedents matter. If a trans activist gets away with beating the shit out of an old lady, the next protester will say…

“I’m not as bad as that guy so you have to let me go.”

So once again we are seeing a Pandora’s box being opened and the consequences are predictable.

But make no mistake whether Eli Rubashkyn gets of or not we are screwed either way, one way proves the judge overweighted the excuses for the violence or asserted that the ends justifies the means, the other way proves trans people are a protected and unaccountable new class in our society. Like the samurai of old… don’t you dare look at them the wrong way or speak out of turn… or else.

Then of course the political fallout has been, well interesting.

ACT MP Laura Trask it seems wasn’t impressed with the sentence…

“A 71-year-old woman attending a women’s rights event was physically attacked by a man who thought his political opinion trumped her right to safety,” said Trask in a statement.

“Using violence to suppress opinions you disagree with is a singularly ugly act and this discharge without conviction sets a disappointing precedent for the consequences of political violence.”

“ACT will continue to advocate for a country where freedom of speech is protected at all costs and where using violence to suppress this fundamental right is punished accordingly.”

Of the three quotes above… the first I basically agree with but is slightly problematic in terms of “safety”, the second quote is brilliant, but the third is just fascinating.

Lets get into why it is absolutely one of the most fascinating quotes I have ever heard.

I would like to tell you why.

Around 7 or 8 years ago… a huge percentage of the country had never heard of transgenderism. If people heard trans that may have though of transvestites.

When the poorly named “conversion therapy” Orwellian legislation was passed, without the knowledge of most of the population our fundamental rights to free speech, freedom of religion and parental rights were stripped from us.

The Act party was well aware of this, choosing to make a stand on the parental rights issue only.

Now act did comment on the conversion therapy act, and I confess I am taking this quote out of context a tad so I encourage you to read the whole page here…
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20220215_20220215_28

That being said this is what Act Party deputy leader said about the act at the third reading…

“So we want to make sure that when we’re getting the law right, we are getting it right, and we’re doing due diligence, because we need to make sure that we are getting that balance between protecting people from harm and not overreaching into the family home. So we did voice our concern that people had raised in select committee about finding that line between what is a criminal act and the ability to converse in the family home. Because we did not want parents to be in fear of prosecution for expressing their concerns, for expressing their religious beliefs, and having freedom of expression to be themselves. There are difficult conversations that occur between family members when it comes to people’s sexuality and their gender identity, and parents shouldn’t be in fear of thinking that they may go to jail for expressing their own view”

To be clear, the conversion therapy act is so totalitarian and overreaching… it even outlaws encouragement!

So the act party were well aware of the huge risks and the reality that this legislation would destroy our rights.

However, the entirety of the Act representatives, they all voted for it.

Now the reason they voted for it is somewhat comical, it seems the entire Act party assumed the word “assist” would legally protect someone who disagreed. That certainly is a comical goof. If the intent of the act was to protect a persons right to thoroughly disagree at a fundamental level then instead of saying “assist” the words “disagreed” or “opposed” would have been included in the legislation.

However if the Act Party disagree with my “goof” assessment, they can surely get every judge in the country to hand sign a get out of jail free card for parents and send them to every house in the country. Easy.

They were wrong to put it bluntly. There is no protection for parents free speech or anyone else for that matter.

So the very party who is now lecturing us in the effect stage of this process, supported this legislation by voting for it in the cause stage.

They are responsible for giving that 20 year old the political license to view his views as superior and beyond criticism. Now he has been given a license to assault as well.

Now while I do appreciate that the Act Party do want him to face charges for taking away her right to not be assaulted.

When you consider they are responsible for taking away all of our rights in the first place, which did cause this whole mess… I am not very impressed.

Now if any party in New Zealand did this it wouldn’t be so bad.

But remember Act is (supposedly) our Libertarian party.

Have they forgotten about Maybury’s two Laws…

1 Do all you have agreed to do
2 Do not encroach on other persons or their property.

Now it’s the second one that is relevant to this discussion.

I, and the Act Party as well, should have supported the Conversion Therapy Legislation if it merely supported peoples rights.

However the conversion therapy legislation is rife with encroachment.

To be clear… any restriction on mere speech (speech without the threat of illegal action) is encroachment, because speech can never harm, and freedom of speech is the right to offend. They are one in the same.

If we continue on this path we might as well rename New Zealand as “Ardern’s thunderbox”. That’s how bad things are getting in this country.

On a final note the statement from Act Deputy Leader Brooke Van Velden also stated this, when discussing the unintended consequences of this very legislation…

“we’ve seen what happens when legislators get the law wrong”

You certainly have, haven’t you.

Perhaps a motion to repeal is in order? So we don’t have more fists slipping on banana peels.