Joseph Mooney cosplays as alt-right hypocrite
Joseph Mooney cosplays as alt-right hypocrite
Written By:
- Date published:
10:11 am, September 21st, 2025 - 100 comments
Categories: uncategorized -
Tags: academic freedom, free speech, Joseph Mooney, southland, us politics
I have been reflecting on the Charlie Kirk news of late, and one thing that strikes me is how much absolute control the right have over the media and narratives.
Besides the lengthy media coverage we saw, in New Zealand, Professor Mohan Dutta, a Massey University Professor, has been attacked by right wing agitators for saying it was completely inappropriate for NZ Parliament to pay tribute to Kirk, and to be careful of those try to import it. (ACT’s motion to pay tribute to Kirk in Parliament was blocked)
Southland MP Joseph Mooney led the charge, calling for Dutta’s firing, as others clamoured to say Dutta should be deported.
But in New Zealand, academic free speech is protected under the NZ Bill of Rights 1990, Human Rights Act 1993, and Education and Training Act 2020 – something Mooney conveniently ignores.
And Dutta never celebrated Kirk’s death or any political violence. It was Dutta’s free speech Mooney was targetting, later appearing on Sean Plunket’s show to press his case.
Any violent death is tragic; who remembered the Hortmans, who remembers the terror they must have felt, murdered by a Trump sympathiser with a face mask and an artillery of weapons in their own home, and the pain they must have felt, and of their loved ones that remain?
Melissa Hortman, who lived by the Christian faith of peace through her life, was not acknowledged by the New York Yankees, nor Chris Martin’s Cold Play. There was no Capital Hill vigil, no widespread prayers, no hankering about the dangers of political violence and the impacts to those that were harmed.
In New Zealand, Mooney is not the only one trying to politically capitalise on American style politics. Brian Tamaki is another.
Joseph Mooney is in good company indeed. The only question is what the National Party today stands for.
This is an excerpt from NZ Politicians capitalise on US alt-right politics
Aye MT. Thankyou for this Post, and highlighting Nat MPMooney's actions. And TBH usually nothing is heard from Nat MP Mooney. (and IMO gotta wonder who or what has got up him about this, and his attacks on Prof Mohan Dutta ?)
As to Sean platform Plunkett, is there any depth he woudnt plunge? (I include sewers)
I too, would also like to acknowledge Melissa Hortman. I did know somewhat about her, but this….just so sad.
AI
Thus he poses challenges to those of our current coalition and also those otherwise of a white race identity centred belief in settler primacy (aka Trotter etc) as the necessity for a majoritarian order to democracy.
Yes, Mooney is an idiot who has no better a grasp of freedom of speech than the average leftist. But speaking of hypocrisy, where do people on the left imagine right-wingers got this idea that you should try to punish your political opponents for their opinions and call it "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences?" In many cases, the answer's in the nearest mirror.
The right's problem with Dutta has a lot to do with his continual use of 'white' as a pejorative. Bigoted loons like this do the left no favours with the general public.
Link?
https://x.com/search?q=mohan%20dutta%20white
can you be more specific? I just did a similar search and he's mostly talking about white supremacy. There are now compelling reasons for moving on from that kind of superficial sound bite social media, but it's not the same thing as using white as a pejorative.
also, looking at the people getting pissed off with your commenting style, I'm going to suggest that generally you start giving examples and receipts, because there's no way to argue against people reacting by calling your comments non-sensical and posturing in the absence of examples.
I'll put more effort into providing examples. Re Dutta, yes he usually appends 'supremacist,' 'mediocrity' or maybe 'imperialist' onto 'white,' but imagine how keen ordinary white NZers are to hear a foreigner accuse them of "white mediocrity," or how white right-wingers respond to hearing that right-wing views make them "white supremacists." This stuff is toxic to political discourse and he should be hearing that from his own side, not just the people he doesn't respect.
Why don’t you argue and defend your specific bold claim that I quoted @ 2.2? Or was it just an attack hook to set up your hypocrisy narrative? You appear to make an inordinate effort to discredit Dutta’s challenge to paying tribute to Charlie Kirk and NZ Parliament!?
My "bold" claim that many on the left have been no better than Mooney at recognising and supporting freedom of speech? I suppose it's true that people who aren't on X or Bluesky won't share my experience of liberal leftists describing freedom of speech as a right-wing dog-whistle, endorsing the prevention of people expressing contested views or hearing them expressed, doxxing opponents and harassing their employers, peddling slogans like "hate speech isn't free speech" or "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences," calling the Free Speech Union "fascist" and so on, but if you need a specific example, the Let Women Speak event at Albert Park on 26 March 2023 covers it nicely.
Almost, but you changed your framing!?
I didn’t and still don’t ask for examples per se, I’d like to see robustly reasoned arguments that address and stick to the point raised. NB neutral language is more constructive than using loaded words, pejoratives, and insults.
the point raised, being the post?
"Many," "average," whatever, I'm not claiming to have carried out a sociological study.
If you think my comments don't address the point raised by the post, feel free to explain why you think that. I believe the left's hypocrisy re freedom of speech and Dutta's characterisation of any right-wing or conservative views as far-right or white supremacist are very relevant to the OP.
Thanks for the red herring; there’s something fishy about your insistence on deflecting and diverting to avoid addressing my specific point that I first made @ 2.2.
Repetition is not evidence.
It’s not that hard to follow that I raised a specific point @ 2.2 about a specific claim by PM – it was stated as a claim. Yet, PM has been deflecting and diverting.
In the Post, Mountain Tui referred to Mohan Dutta “saying it was completely inappropriate for NZ Parliament to pay tribute to Kirk, and to be careful of that try to import it.” No more nor less. However, not until 6:50 pm @ 4.2.1 did PM agree with denying a tribute in Parliament. Mountain Tui further writes that the Right saw this denial as a signal to target Dutta for purging and it seems that some on the Left (e.g., PM) were quite supportive of this too although for other reasons, but the effect is the same. In other words, people on both Left and Right attack the messenger rather than the message and/or fabricate their own versions of ‘the message’ in order to attack the messenger (i.e., Dutta and, it seems, even Mountain Tui – thanks Terry).
at 2.2 you replied to part of PM’s comment,
I don’t see you raising a specific claim, I see you taking a potshot at PM without explaining.
If your issue is with the assertion that the average leftist doesn’t have a good grasp of freedom of speech, why not just say so?
PM has since given a number of comments explaining his position. I think you will find if you talk with him that he is concerned about the impact on academics and he says as much in regards to the problems with Dutta’s approach. This is not the first time I have seen him talk about that.
It’s actually ok for people on the left to critique the approach of other people on the left. I would say it’s essential, and I’m hoping that the resistance to it here is more to do with PM’s commenting style than say people not wanting that critique to happen.
I raised a point about PM’s claim, repeatedly, with clearly quoted text that wasn’t too long to grasp.
See above; I explained and elaborated @ 3:46 pm (https://thestandard.org.nz/joseph-mooney-cosplays-as-alt-right-hypocrite/#comment-2044950) and @ 7:17 pm (https://thestandard.org.nz/joseph-mooney-cosplays-as-alt-right-hypocrite/#comment-2044992), for example.
There were two parts to PM’s nonsense claim, connected through a flawed comparison. Why only focus on only one aspect? It appears there’s a selectivity bias at play.
Nope. PM continued to be evasive only pushing his own narrative.
Not possible when the other party is unwilling to listen and engage.
He’s got a counter-intuitive way, to say the least, of expressing his concern by fiercely attacking Prof. Dutta and chastising some of the Left. I’d go as far as to say it’s counter-productive.
Where’s this coming from? Not all critique is equally useful, some is constructive and positive, some is destructive and antagonistic, some is performative, etc.
Indeed, but critique can be aimed at any aspect of deliberative discussion; I’d like to comment as meta-critic, which I see as a logical (and necessary) extension of being a Moderator & Author here.
So your point is that PM needs to make arguments instead of just expressing his opinion?
I asked him to here and here
https://thestandard.org.nz/joseph-mooney-cosplays-as-alt-right-hypocrite/#comment-2044945
https://thestandard.org.nz/joseph-mooney-cosplays-as-alt-right-hypocrite/#comment-2044946
And when he came back later he did in fact do that. To which you replied that he wasn’t addressing the point, and when I asked what the point was you said in a round about way (as far as I can tell) that the point is making an argument.
I know you feel you are being clear, but I still don’t know what you are talking about. Would you mind stating directly what point you want him to make an argument for?
It may well be counter intuitive, but how would that be a problem?
I don’t see his comments as fierce attacks, but beyond that it’s entirely possible to strongly criticise the approach of an academic out of concern for academics. Academics aren’t any more free from critique than anyone else. Likewise parts of the left.
If it’s counter productive, can you please explain how?
"That's a non-sensical claim" is itself a claim, not a point. I'm no better able to understand what you're asking of me than weka is. If you want to me to explain why I characterised Mooney's failure to understand freedom of speech as no different from the average leftist's, I've done that in a couple of places: not least, in the sentence immediately after the one you quoted in 2.2, but also here:
If there's some other point you think I should address, please state explicitly what that point is.
Useless link for folks without X-account.
you can put the URL here and it will display the tweet
https://xcancel.com/
Ta
I cannot get it to work
I can find the post by going back to my account there.
A look to his account, rather than a linked post is also more relevant
https://x.com/mjdutt
There is no reference to white race nationalists that would provide evidence to infer this refers to conservatives in general etc.
They will show a regard for the Treaty and also support for Palestine that sets off some – the Trotter and Rainbow types.
There is a lot of convergence on Twitter – it is conservative leaning after all, as per gender identity and support for Israel.
It's not my fault he posts on X and my knowledge of his views is from those posts. The text could be screenshotted but much of it consists of videos.
Take responsibility for posting links to support your reckons that others cannot access or only through backdoors if they know them. Do you have a link to a video or something by Dutta that specifically addresses that tribute in NZ Parliament that’s mentioned in the OP? As it stands, your comments are nothing but a broad-based attack on Dutta.
No, I dont have X (and as Incognito commented, useless for those who also dont..)
However, IMO there is plenty of search available. And Prof Dutta does indeed have an interest in far right groups….however not so sure of your stating his "continual use of 'white' as a pejorative." ?
I used AI for a looksee with the following search. (and within this there are links to RNZ, Stuff, Massey University et al..)
Which brought up :
I'm OK with my Leftness. Have been, and will continue to be, on the Left side.
I'm starting to think it's not possible to understand what PM is saying without a twitter account.
You know PM is left wing, right?
Can you understand why right-wing or conservative NZers might have a problem with his continually portraying right-wing or conservative views as "white supremacy," "white mediocrity" etc?
Source.
Calling an academic working in his field, a bigoted loon, as you did, sounds more like opposition to his area of work than anything else.
And that says more about you than him.
Would it kill you to Google Mohan Dutta white supremacy? There's a rich vein to mine there, but right near the top is "Whiteness and calls to dialogue with far-right infrastructures of white supremacy," in which we learn that dialogue with political opponents we've deemed beyond the pale is pointless, and that a protest featuring a large number of Māori participants was "deeply rooted in the ideological apparatus of white supremacy."
You do realise that noting (finding examples) white race supremacy is part of his wider academic field?
Finding references to it in a search does not provide evidence of your claim of him conflating white race supremacy with all right wingers or all conservatives.
You do realise far right infrastructures of white supremacy refers to a subset of the right, right?
Sounds like you're the one with the problem.
I get it, classic liberals who are conservative and white can sometimes have a problem with "intersection politics" of postmodernism where it includes race and a questioning of the impact of conservative western tradition identity on those of another culture.
Did you get that the objection wasn’t to analysis of race and racism but to how it is applied to the right?
This seems pertinent, again from leftist, feminist philosopher Jane Clare Jones, link down thread,
So he shouldn't mention "white" in the context of white supremacy?
He shouldn't declare "white supremacy" or "white mediocrity" or "whiteness" or "colonialism" every time he discusses right-wing or conservative views. It's counter-productive, it only convinces people on the right that humanities and social science academics can't be trusted, and I wish he'd stop.
You do realise what his academic field is?
You think a branch of academia should not exist because some white people (not only right wingers obviously) might have a problem with it?
Aye SPC. Summed.
Just reading this Substack from leftist feminist philosopher Jane Clare Jones, and this particular paragraph seems pertinent here,
https://culturewarblues.substack.com/p/free-speech-and-the-f-word
It’s not the critique of racism that’s the problem, it’s the frame that it gets done with. I don’t know yet whether Dutta is using an identitarian frame or a class analysis frame, but I’d certainly like to know. And I would hope that on TS this distinction would be both understood and matter.
In a related note to the "shift from thinking about oppression in terms of material classes to thinking about it in terms of identity.".
Often it is hard to discuss or debate contentious issues when talking about something generally or as a group and not getting tangled up with someone's personal experience. One can either tip toe and not say what is meant or go in guns blazing hitting inadvertent targets.
In the gender reality korero, There is plenty of empathy, compassion and goodwill expressed for those (often) young people working their way through who they think they are, but that doesn't mean that compassion extends to opening the doors to all and sundry (males) to women's environments -Rape Crisis, changing rooms, sports teams etc.
that is one of the central problems with identity politics. We end up over-identifying and taking things personally.
No, I'm thinking that an academic who appears incapable of encountering any right-wing or conservative view without declaring it "far right" or "white supremacy" isn't doing the academy any favours.
I'm sure you do. Certainly from your, IMO, pejorative characterisation of Prof Dutta as a
Your particular bias is definitely showing……
That’s a non-sensical claim and you’re lashing out to Left and Right (and anything in between?) that does no favours to anybody except perhaps yourself, ironically.
PM isn’t lashing out left and right, he’s pointing out the hypocrisy on both sides. He certainly has a better grasp on reality than some others who are commenting about Charlie Kirk. So I guess that makes him dangerous to those who use political tribalism as a tool for coercive control over others.
It's pretentious posturing from a supposed higher ground.
I wouldn’t say calling out hypocrisy was pretentious or posturing. It’s essential for integrity, reform and credibility.
Questioning the integrity and credibility of the left and suggesting it needs to reform is why you are here.
Yes, PM is: “idiot”, “the average leftist”, “Bigoted loons”.
Ironically, under a Post with the word “hypocrite” in the title. How’s this helping?
That’s your value statement and your authority bias.
That’s just meaningless waffle that adds nothing of substance but you seem captured.
are you objecting to people's word choices? Why?
MT called a RW MP a hypocrite. PM pointed out that the left are too and that this is a problem. How is that not helpful?
The context conveys the meaning of and behind words, the words per se are (generally) not the issue.
It’s political ping-pong that doesn’t help us move forwards let alone transcend our thinking and communicating.
👍
MT along with Dutta, and others do more harm to the left than good
Do not be surprised, Terry is not here to support the left, but will make comments about it.
there's value in having to stand our ground and argue for our values in beliefs. It sharpens our tools. Terry's criticisms are pretty lightweight compared to what is happening out there in the big bad world.
how so? The liberal left has been pushing for restrictions to freedom of expression for many years now, and has engaged in practices that seek to prevent FoE from political opponents.
What the right in the US have been doing in the past 10 days is the mirror image, only on steroids because they have more power atm, and willingness to abuse it.
I was clearly and specifically addressing PM’s nonsense claim here, which was a matched pair of insults based on personal beliefs.
ok, well why don't we all just resort to assertions of whatever instead of explaining ourselves 🙄
yes, it's personal belief. I share some of that personal belief, and because I know what his arguments are, his comment made sense to me. Calling it nonsensical because you don't understand it, takes us down a deadend. Instead of say asking what he means.
I've asked him to start providing examples and receipts so people know what he means. Maybe others can too.
shrug
But, crucially imho, not at the ballot box. The liberal left's (? Alison Mau & Grant Robertson?) strategy has recently been one-upped by the CoC's voter suppression bill, which seeks to limit perhaps the ultimate FoE in a representative democracy. Even our Attorney-General and previous leader of the National party has concerns.
https://thestandard.org.nz/this-trick-of-national-could-win-them-the-2026-election
Be better, left – especially the NZ liberal left.
Seems like all political factions are as bad as each other
I'm sure that people who've lost their jobs will find consolation in that 😉
Thanks weka – my comment @2.2.2.2 wasn't intended to console, but I suppose some might. Tbh, I'm struggling to see the connection between job losses (due to people choosing not to get vaccinated during the pandemic?), and voter disenfranchisement during a cost of living crisis, but I will think on it.
As a country, we should analyse the downstream effects of (far-reaching) political and/or public health actions taken during a cost of living crisis or a public health emergency. Should the CoC's Electoral Amendment Bill pass into law, then I will look forward to a Royal Commission or some other independent inquiry in due course.
https://www.covid19lessons.royalcommission.nz/reports-lessons-learned/main-report/part-two/8-5-our-assessment-vaccination-requirements
Thanks for your now repetitive attacks on the average leftist (sarc).
Your constant gaslighting of the left here is a form of self-righteous supremacism bordering on narcissism.
would you like receipts for the average leftist not having a good grasp of freedom of speech? Myself, I use the term liberal, but I've been met with the same kinds of denial, so maybe we should just start laying out the evidence (not under MT's post though).
True, I should stop saying 'leftist' and 'the left' because it includes us. I guess 'liberal left' in the sense of liberal the opposite of conservative rather than classical liberal is a good term, but I also think of it as the postmodernist left.
I think either liberal left or postmodernist left would make things more clear.
Lol "gaslighting?" At one time, the left stood for freedom of speech and many of us were materialists and rationalists. Yes I do think those things were and are superior to post-modernism and authoritarianism, and I'd like us to get back to them. I'm not particularly smart or particularly well-educated and have no particularly useful insights to offer about society, but I do know that materialism beats ideology every time.
Rationalism was a way out of the authoritarianism of established religious culture and associated autocracy. Classic liberalism.
That is a statement based on prejudice against the left. That is sourced in your ideological distaste for post modernism amongst some progressive liberals (which is not the position of average left wing voter/party member).
And preference to classic liberalism to progressive liberalism – whether post modernist or not?
So a shared concept of classic liberalism with (some) conservatives and a resentment at progressive liberalism/post modernism.
That would be an ideological position by the way.
As for the materialism (I presume you are not going into monist philosophy) vs ideology – post modernism does include a position on inequality – based on intersection of class, sex, race etc. Very real matters.
I don't "resent" postmodernism or have a "distaste" for it, I reject it because I'm a materialist. That used to be common on the left, now it's uncommon. And when I use the term "ideology" I don't mean personal beliefs, I mean Marx's distinction between materialism and ideology, ie whether you prioritise reality or the ideal. Religion is ideology because it posits a metaphysical world outside of and more important than the real one. Likewise, it's standard on the left now to believe that personal identity claims outweigh reality. I reject that.
Calling out hypocrisy when it happens isn’t gaslighting, it’s calling out hypocrisy.
An example of gaslighting (could apply to those on the right and/or the left); gleefully “cancelling” someone for having opinions you disagree with, then denying they were “cancelled”…
PM isn’t indulging in self righteous supremacy bordering on narcissism, PM is just somewhat smarter than the most of us. Perhaps PM’s intellect is a reflection of what you are not.
Your average right winger need to exalt another, because they attack the average left winger, is noted.
Pack mentality is so right wing.
Maybe, but he's still a step-up from his predecessor Hamish Walker, imho.
Re bigoted loons, the time and place for analysing them is a matter of personal choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk#Political_positions_and_activities
Na, out of the same mould as both his predecessors, just hasn't fucked up publicly, yet. You really have to wonder about National's selection criteria in the south. Previously we had capable, senior National MPs who could generally command some respect from both sides of the electorate with Warren Cooper and Bill English. since then they've selected absolute plonkers who haven't been able to grow into the job, and unravel, first two quite spectacularly, incumbent not yet but waiting for it.
In matters of freedom of speech, in my opinion there is a qualitative difference between social actors instigating 'cancellations', and state actors using (or threatening to use) the legal authority of the state to punish people.
The liberal-left's rather puerile and politically impotent use of outrage and cancellation may not have helped the cause of rational discourse, and it may have kindled a thirst for revenge on the right, but in general it can't be characterised as an abuse of state power. Cancellation of this sort is really just people disagreeing with each other in a way that is made obnoxious by other characteristics of contemporary culture – such as it being instantaneous, emotionally heightened, and tending to centralise all discourse on the self.
Mooney however is a member of the legislature, and that carries responsibilities. I would suggest that when the right puts the free speech control boot on the other foot as they fully intend to, they will go beyond the schoolyard ostracism mentality of some on the liberal left, and gradually turn it into a policy of state-sanctioned opinions. The Trump administration is already there.
completely agree that those with state power need to be much more careful in their use of commentary. I think also others with large amounts of power (Musk is the most obvious), and that presents even more problems because how does society reign in the excesses?
But I'm curious how you see the liberal left's use of cancel culture as being politically impotent. Do you mean they haven't cancelled many people, or that the LL didn't manage to get the state on board?
Agree with you about Musk et al. – when private power grows excessive it is always a bad thing. The best measure is to prevent agglomerations of private power from happening in the first place. But where it already exists, regulate media industries properly and with teeth for standards of discourse – and do it as objectively as possible (which is hard).
I meant that cancel culture was impotent because it had no effect in reducing the prevalence of the opinions that it tried to cancel. Stuff doesn't go away by social (or even legal) banning of it. That is maybe 'socially impotent' rather than 'politically impotent' (I could have phrased it better)
ok, that makes sense. And in some cases it increases the prevalence of opinions it tried to cancel.
The techbro oligarchy is extremely worrying, not least because states seem unwilling or unable to address it.
I agree. Also, I would expected a member of the legislature to be aware that NZ academics have academic freedom, and therefore "one of [NZ's] universities" is exactly where an academic can say this kind of thing without fear of consequences.
That said, Labour members of the legislature spent some time attempting to implement "hate speech" legislation, so Mooney has plenty of company. The last couple of weeks has seen US conservatives doxxing people and trying to get them fired for expressing satisfaction about Kirk's death. If the USA had no 1st amendment and had implemented hate speech legislation of the king the previous government was proposing, the victims of the doxxing would be facing much worse than the possibility of losing their jobs.
Pot, kettle, black…
Any grown up should know this, when someone dies, if you can’t say something good about them, then don’t say anything at all.
There is a time a place for analysis of the man, now is not that time.
that might be true if it weren't for the right using Kirk's death politically. I've seen some heinous commentary from liberals on Kirk's death, and thinking through whether to do a post on it or not, but if the left had been a paragon of virtue in the pas 10 days, the right would still be making hay.
Further, when fascism is rising, there is no appeasement via silence. The people celebrating Kirk's death need some Aunties to give them a good talking to, but the people pointing out who Kirk was have the right to speak out against his sainthood.
TBH, both the tribal left and tribal right are using his death to their benefit. That’s to be expected. It’s up to the grownups, especially on the left, to let the dust settle, unfortunately people like MT hand the tribal RW nut jobs ammunition to fire back to the left, and then it’s tit for tat…
[lprent: Let me explain something to you again. It never seems to penetrate amongst your various handles on this site.
Do not attack authors of posts on this site. You are welcome to deal with the content of their posts. But authors of posts are pretty much off limits to commenters. It is very clear in the policy under self-martyrdom offences in the banning section.
The other authors and moderators on the site will do any moderation of authors that is required. They are far more likely to have an effect than your ridiculous concocted argument.
As you haven’t been a nuisance to the moderators since the last time I looked at you, I won’t bother banning you. Unless I see a repeat of this stupid behaviour, and then I will be happy to go to an extreme – whatever handle you use..
BTW: The point about this site is that we like people to offer alternate viewpoints in the debate. But it has to be a debate not one of your silly diatribes full of assertions without giving any of the argument or logic.
We expect authors to offer an opinion with supporting argument and links. The content of what they offer is there to start debate and arguement. The authors themselves are not.
Arguing against tit-for-tat as a reason to suppress debate is about as silly an idea as I could imagine. That kind of idea was what gave New Zealand the smothering blanket of dumb bigotry that was the 50s and much of the 60s – when I was a kid. FFS you haven’t even managed to do something as simple as to say why tit-for-tat is a bad or good idea. Try looking up wikipedia on various kinds of game theory. ]
See mod note.
Who’s the “pot”, is it Mohan Dutta or Mountain Tui?
“Who’s the pot?” In this case Dutta, MT, & the National and ACT MP’s making the man’s death about themselves.
Even Machiavelli would have waited until after the funeral…
Conversing with you would make one going potty in a pottery.
for clarity, here are the tweets,
https://x.com/JosephMooneyMP/status/1966427922740420705
the day or after Kirk's murder, David Farrar tweeted this,
https://x.com/dpfdpf/status/1965980788702482694
Next day, Mohan Dutta tweeted a screenshot of that tweet, saying,
https://x.com/mjdutt/status/1966271209336873341
Then Mooney tweeted,
https://x.com/JosephMooneyMP/status/1966427922740420705
My reading of that:
It's ok for DPF to want the tribute of a political figure he respects. It was good for parliament to refuse (we're not the US, Kirk won't be widely known here, probably to partisan)
It's ok for Dutta to point say that the tribute wasn't ok, and that Kirk was a white supremacist, far right figure (although as I said above I think the white supremacist language is no longer politically viable).
I think it's a problem to talk about making a list of who the far right supporters are in parliament on the basis of who wanted the tribute. Not least because Kirk has excellent PR and many MPs and their staffers wouldn't necessarily have known Kirk's politics beyond the good PR. But also, does the left really want to start talking about making lists?
Mooney's an idiot, and shouldn't be tweeting like this using his position of power as an MP in calling for the sacking of an academic. Seriously, this shouldn't be happening.
But he has a point about divisive politics. Dutta tweeted the day after a popular RW political figure was assassinated, and used that to insinuate that RW MPs are white supremacists. People can say what they want, I just want to know what the leftist strategy is at this point, how do people actually see this playing out, or are now just stuck in a reactionary tit for tat mutually assured destruction (except we won't win because the right have bigger guns).
100% agree.
I read US news daily (along with a lot of other international media), mainly for seeing how the shit-show is looking like in the insular state. We have subscriptions of NYT, Washington Post. Plus things like the The Hill, Politico, and a whole lot of US political links in aggregations.
I can't recall ever reading anything about Charlie Kirk before he got assassinated. I certainly don't want to waste parliamentary time on it.
To me, the relevance to NZ to me seems to be about zero. Apart from too many weapons aspect – but that is a problem we share with the US.
There are probably something close to a million bolt-action rifles in NZ, many of them similar to a Mauser model 98, re barrelled to a .30-06 (similar to the old WW1 and WW2 303s).
Perhaps parliament could spend time looking a bit more thoroughly at policies on weapons rather than leaving it up to a gun lobbyist to mismanage. Nicola Kees appears to be pretty irresponsible to me.
Kirk was on social media. Don't know how much he was in MSM but given his things was converting young people to his conservative views, I don't think that matters. eg his twitter account has 6M followers, tiktok 9M, not sure how many before he was killed but still influential. I would see his tweets sometimes because I'm following the culture shifts in the US and UK, but I wouldn't expect MPs to necessarily know who he is, or to see the more controversial content.
Can't believe National are going to water down our gun laws. Must be some heavy duty lobbying.
My take: Kirk held no official position in America, and his activities were nothing to do with this country. So why should the NZ Parliament be expected to mark his passing? No-one suggested commemorating Robert Redford too, an equally noteworthy and far more meritorious figure.
Fwiw, I agree there was no basis for NZ's Parliament to offer tributes to this particular murder victim. Yes, people on the right are very upset about it, as we'd be if a left-wing activist were assassinated, but offering eulogies to deceased social media influencers isn't the role of Parliament.
However, by declaring every right-winger in Parliament to be far-right and a supporter of white supremacists, Dutta invited a backlash and doesn't deserve any sympathy if he received one.
Dutta's 2:49 minute video on X is accessible (for me) from the above article – others might have to listen to the vid a few times before they hear Dutta declare "every right-winger in Parliament to be far-right and a supporter of white supremacists"
Dutta probably isn't on this watchlist – yet!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Watchlist
And there's no need to list him, because a National party MP is saying that Dutta should find himself another job – RWNJ derangement syndrome strikes again.
No need to watch any videos, he put it in a tweet: https://x.com/mjdutt/status/1966271209336873341.
For those without an X account, it reads:
"Charlie Kirk is a white supremacist far right figure. That there was an attempt to pay homage to him in the NZ parliament should give you a full list of who the backers of the far right are in NZ mainstream politics."
Fwiw I agree Mooney made a fool of himself and needs to become acquainted with the concept of academic freedom. Not to mention the Bill of Rights Act 1993.
Not need, of course, although I found it informative.
Thanks for the Dutta quote – I guess we see what we want to see, for our own purposes.
And indeed DMK. Cutting through as always.
Charlie Kirk got shot. Right, ok. What the heck does that have to do with NZs parliament. Some US social media influencer got shot. If ACT, Mooney, Tamaki etc are upset about it put something up on your facebook or website and that's it. Nothing of global significance has occurred necessitating our parliament to make any proclamation.