Pages

▼

3 Jul 2025

Bob Vylan Censored While Gaza Genocide Ignored

The recent blacklisting of British punk-rap group Bob Vylan, following their provocative chant of “death, death to the IDF” at Glastonbury 2025, exposes a chilling double standard in Western governance.

The swift and heavy-handed response, launching a criminal investigation, revoking the band’s visas, cancelling future concerts, and seeing them dropped by their agency, stands in stark contrast to western government's silence on Israel’s ongoing atrocities in Gaza. 

This is not merely an attack on free speech; it's a grotesque display of selective outrage, where dissent against a genocidal military machine is punished while mass starvation and slaughter is ignored.


Yesterday, The Irish News reported:

Police investigate Bob Vylan over ‘death to IDF’ call at gig before Glastonbury

Punk duo Bob Vylan are being investigated by police after allegedly calling for “death to every single IDF soldier out there” at a concert one month before Glastonbury.

The pair are already being investigated by Avon and Somerset Police over their appearance at Worthy Farm when rapper Bobby Vylan led crowds in chants of “death, death to the IDF (Israel Defence Forces)” during their livestreamed performance at the Somerset music festival last weekend.

In video footage, Bobby Vylan, whose real name is reportedly Pascal Robinson-Foster, 34, appears to be at Alexandra Palace telling crowds: “Death to every single IDF soldier out there as an agent of terror for Israel. Death to the IDF.”


Bob Vylan’s chant, raw and unfiltered, was a cry against the Israel Defense Forces’ documented brutality, which has seen over 56,000 Palestinians killed since October 2023, many of them women and children. The United Nations has described Israel’s actions as consistent with genocide, yet Western governments continue to arm and defend Israel while condemning artists who dare speak truth to power. 

Bobby Vylan’s words, far from inciting violence, we're a justified response to a military force that has shot unarmed Palestinians seeking food aid, with soldiers admitting to using “unnecessary lethal force” against civilians. This is the real scandal, not a musician’s chant, but the West’s complicity in a humanitarian catastrophe.

In New Zealand, the hypocrisy is equally glaring. Free speech advocates like David Seymour, who once championed unfettered expression, have been conspicuously silent or contradictory when it comes to Bob Vylan’s case. Seymour’s libertarian rhetoric falters when the speech challenges Israel, revealing a selective commitment to free expression that bends to geopolitical convenience. 

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Winston Peters has sat on his hands over what is clearly a terrorist group, the IDF, as New Zealand quietly removed the Proud Boys from its terrorist list, despite their history of violent assaults, including the January 6 Capitol riot in the US, which caused the deaths of nine people, including police officers.


Today, RNZ reported:

It's no longer illegal to be a proudly violent Proud Boy

Then, in 2022, the New Zealand government took a bold stance, listing the Proud Boys as a terrorist entity, a move that made global headlines and was praised by anti-extremism campaigners.

"It was big news... and what it would mean in practice was that anyone who supported or funded or participated in Proud Boys actions here was committing a criminal act, imprisonable by up to seven years, so it was a big deal," Penfold says.

But then last month, without any fanfare, the group slipped off the list of designated terrorist entities.

The only statement on the move was released on the website of the New Zealand Gazette - the newspaper of the government. Penfold describes it as bland and brief.

"The designation had been made under the Terrorism Suppression Act... and every three years that designation will expire unless the prime minister seeks to extend it."

When asked why he didn't extend it, a response to Penfold from the prime minister's office "didn't specifically answer that", but she was told "the Proud Boys remain on the radar... and if any new information comes to hand, they will consider it."

"Those who monitor terrorist organisations and far-right extremist groups... are really concerned at this step that the designation has been allowed to lapse", Penfold says.

So as New Zealand grapples with the rise of conspiracy-fuelled protests and declining trust in democratic institutions, the Proud Boys' shadow, although faint, may still be felt.


Unless they've been living under a rock, the government should not be ignoring the Proud Boys' role in spreading white supremacist propaganda, propaganda that has lead directly to people dying. This leniency towards far-right extremists, who have incited and committed real violence, contrasts sharply with the heavy-handed crackdowns on pro-Palestinian voices.

Brenton Tarrant, the Christchurch mosque shooter, was radicalised on websites like 4chan and 8chan, where white supremacist narratives, including the "Great Replacement" conspiracy, festered in unmoderated forums. These same platforms, known for their extremist subcultures, were also used by the Proud Boys to propagate their "Western chauvinist" ideology, share memes, and recruit members, creating an overlapping digital ecosystem of hate.

Other white supremacist figures linked to the Proud Boys and similar online spaces include Dylann Roof, who massacred nine Black worshippers in Charleston in 2015 and was active on sites like Stormfront...and Patrick Crusius, the 2019 El Paso shooter, who posted a manifesto on 8chan echoing the same anti-immigrant rhetoric embraced by Proud Boys, which is earily similar to the rhetoric used by Donald Trump to justify the illegal ICE abductions. The shared use of these platforms underscores a broader network of far-right radicalisation fuelling violent acts.


On Tuesday, the NZ Herald reported:

Christchurch mosque attacks: Podcast questions lone wolf theory

Tarrant was asked to join the Lads Society, an Australian white nationalist and Islamophobic extremist group, in 2017.

Following Tarrant’s attack in Christchurch, the group’s members posted to a closed social media channel.

Some celebrated the attack, others questioned if it was a false flag, possibly to restrict firearms access in New Zealand.

“This one’s not a false flag. Take my word for it,” the group’s founder Thomas Sewell said.

“He seems to know more than the others,” another member replied.

“What do you mean, take my word for it. That almost sounds like you know the cobber.”

Sewell then responded – Tarrant had “been in the scene for a while”.

Sewell later compared Tarrant to Nelson Mandela, saying he would be imprisoned until “we win the revolution”.

 
In stark contrast, the designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist group for spray-painting planes and buildings with red paint is another grotesque overreach. This non-violent protest group, which seeks to disrupt western arms supplies to Israel, is branded a threat to national security, while Israel’s starvation policies and bombing of civilians in tents and aid sites go unchallenged.

In Gaza, hundreds have been killed near food distribution hubs, with Israeli soldiers openly admitting to treating starving women and children as a “hostile force.” Western governments offer tepid criticisms at best, while their actions, continued arms exports and diplomatic support, enable the carnage.



The hypocrisy extends beyond individual cases to systemic patterns of enforcement. Across Western nations, authorities deploy extraordinary measures against pro-Palestinian demonstrations while showing remarkable restraint toward far-right rallies that openly promote racial hatred. Police forces that brutalise peaceful protesters demanding an end to the collective punishment in Gaza then turn their attention to escorting white supremacist marches safely through diverse communities.

Free speech advocates who once championed absolute protection for controversial expression now perform intellectual contortions to justify censoring criticism of unjustified military actions. These same voices, who defended the rights of Holocaust deniers and racial provocateurs under abstract principles of open discourse, suddenly discover compelling state interests that justify silencing uncomfortable truths about contemporary violence.

This selective censorship reveals the true nature of Western liberal democracy's commitment to free expression: it extends only as far as speech that doesn't threaten established power structures or challenge strategic geopolitical relationships. Artists, activists, and ordinary citizens who dare name ongoing atrocities face swift punishment, while actual violent extremists operate with relative impunity.

The Bob Vylan controversy thus represents far more than an isolated incident of artistic censorship. It exemplifies a broader authoritarian drift wherein Western governments abandon foundational democratic principles when confronted with dissent that threatens preferred narratives. When free speech becomes conditional upon political convenience, democracy itself withers.

This is the West’s moral collapse: a world where punk bands are vilified for decrying genocide, but white supremacists and war criminals are indulged. Bob Vylan’s blacklisting isn't just an attack on art; it's a warning to all who dare challenge the status quo. As socialist Jewish activist Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi noted, suppressing outrage against a “televised genocide” only fuels its expression. If New Zealand and its Western allies truly valued free speech and justice, they would hold Israel to account, not silence those who speak for the oppressed.

2 Jul 2025

Democracy Under Siege: NZ Government Gags Youth MPs

In a development that epitomises authoritarian overreach masquerading as administrative procedure, the Coalition of Chaos government has decided to censor Youth MPs during the 11th Youth Parliament, an event that was meant to amplify the free voices of our young people.

The revelation that youth representatives, invited to Parliament to debate the very issues that will define their futures, have been forced to water down or outright remove criticisms of government policy represents a fundamental assault on the democratic principles this coalition once claimed to champion.

Yesterday, RNZ reported:

 
Youth MPs accuse government of 'censoring' them, ministry says otherwise

The government is rejecting accusations it is censoring Youth MPs, saying the protocols followed are the same as 2022 and the young people get the final say on their speeches.

However, the email sent to one Youth MP carries the subject line "changes required", and stated the ministry "have had to make some changes".

Some of the Youth MPs involved say they will not be suppressed and the issue has fuelled the fire to make their voices heard.

 

Coalition parties spent years in opposition decrying Labour's supposed nanny state mentality, lambasting what they saw as overbearing governmental control. Yet here they stand, dictating what young people can say in a forum explicitly designed to foster free expression and democratic participation. This isn't the bold, open democracy that Chris Luxon promised, it's a masterclass in hypocrisy that would embarrass even the most cynical political operator.

The current Youth Parliament involves 123 young people aged 16-18, selected by MPs to represent their constituencies. But despite this broad church of political views, these voices are being systematically silenced when they dare to speak truth to power. 

The Ministry of Youth Development's decision to issue emails with the subject line "changes required" to approximately half of the Youth MPs preparing to address Parliament reveals breathtaking audacity from a government that has transformed from opposition critics into zealous practitioners of the very control they once condemned.

Youth MP Thomas Brocherie, co-director of Make It 16, cut straight to the heart of the matter:


However, the Youth MPs spoke to reporters at Parliament with one - Thomas Brocherie, a spokesperson for Make it 16, a group pushing for a voting age of 16 - saying the approach taken to the speeches was diluting the value of the Youth Parliament.

"We have been told to not argue on either side of contentious issues such as the pay equity reforms or the Treaty Principles Bill for the excuse that they are current topics in the current Parliament. This is not just illogical, it is censorship," he said.

"We cannot say we value democracy unless we actually show and prove we value democracy. Silencing the stakeholders of the future does not value democracy."

Another Youth MP Nate Wilbourne, a spokesperson for Gen Z Aotearoa, said rangatahi were being silenced and censored.

"We've been told to soften our language, to drop key parts of our speeches and to avoid criticizing certain ministers or policies. This isn't guidance. This is fear based control."

Brocherie said the emails being titled "changes required" was "not at all a suggestion, that is blatant editing, they want us to change something to suit their purpose, to suit their agenda".

Youth MP Lincoln Jones said they were provided with "a PDF of edited changes... delivered to our inbox, and that was the expected requirement, that we speak that speech".

"It's honestly like they've gone through with it with a microscope to find any little thing that might be interpreted wrong against, I guess, the current government."


These young people's arguments carry particular weight when considering the existential nature of the issues they're attempting to address, climate change being foremost among them.

Two-thirds of New Zealanders expect severe climate impacts in their area over the next 10 years, whilst New Zealand ranks 41st internationally as a "low climate performer". These are not abstract policy debates for young New Zealanders, they represent the scaffolding of their future. When Youth MP Nate Wilbourne speaks of the "war on nature" and attempts to name ministers responsible for environmental vandalism, he exercises the fundamental democratic right to hold power accountable on matters of existential urgency.

The government's justification for this censorship reveals either breathtaking ignorance or calculated dishonesty. Minister for Youth James Meager insists speeches are not being censored whilst simultaneously defending a process that removes criticisms of government policy, edits references to environmental action, and sanitises language deemed "too political." This isn't guidance; it's censorship dressed up in bureaucratic doublespeak.

However, the decision to abandon livestreaming of this year's Youth Parliament, citing "resource constraints" represents perhaps the most cynical element of the government's censorship regime. Previous Youth Parliaments were fully livestreamed, allowing young New Zealanders across the country to witness democratic participation in action. Youth MP Lincoln Jones rightly identified this change as an attempt to "ensure that speeches that don't fit the narrative of this government are not getting out to the general public."

Youth MP Sam Allen noted that participants have gone "from what should be a really exciting event" to "just feeling quite scared" about potential consequences. This erosion of confidence in democratic participation reflects something far more troubling than isolated administrative overzealousness, it's symptomatic of a broader democratic crisis that extends well beyond Parliament's youth programme.

This pattern of democratic erosion has not gone unnoticed by New Zealand's most respected institutions. The New Zealand Law Society's recent watershed report painted a stark picture of rule of law deterioration, highlighting "unequal access to justice and concern at an increased failure to follow good lawmaking processes." 

The Society warned that "accelerated legislative processes have restricted public consultation and select committee review through the use of urgency and Amendment Papers," cautioning that "without deliberate action and adequate investment public confidence in the justice system, and the principle that all are equal before the law, will continue to erode."

On Friday, NZ Lawyer reported:

Access to justice barriers and poor legislative and policy making processes were two major threats

The New Zealand Law Society | Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa has released a watershed report that has cautioned against the rule of law being eroded.

The Strengthening the rule of law in Aotearoa New Zealand report indicated that significant and urgent threats included access to justice barriers, poor legislative and policy making processes, and sustenance of the judicial system's independence.

"Predominantly, what we heard focused on unequal access to justice and concern at an increased failure to follow good lawmaking processes. Issues with access to fair justice processes were particularly prevalent in the conversations. The barriers vary, including unaffordability of legal services, underfunded legal aid and duty lawyer schemes, and delays in courts and tribunals", Law Society President Frazer Barton said.



Outgoing Auditor-General John Ryan delivered an equally damning assessment in his final report, noting that "public trust in government is declining." His observation that "trust is the lifeblood of a well-functioning democracy but it is vulnerable" proves particularly prescient when examining how this government treats criticism from any quarter, whether from teenagers, councils, or democratic institutions themselves. 

Ryan identified that Māori, disabled, and Pasifika communities, who "experience disproportionately worse outcomes," show less trust in the public sector, a crisis compounded when young advocates for these communities face systematic silencing.

Yesterday, the Controller and Auditor General reported:

Public trust in government is declining

The public sector represents about one third of the economy. To be successful as a country, we need an effective and efficient public sector that demonstrates that it provides value and is trusted by the public. Although there is much to celebrate in the quality and resilience of New Zealand’s public sector in recent years, the public’s trust in democratic institutions is declining.

Trust is the lifeblood of a well-functioning democracy but it is vulnerable. We saw, for example, in the latter stages of the Covid-19 pandemic how disinformation and a breakdown in trust in parts of the community negatively affected how some responded to public health messages, guidance, and restrictions aimed at protecting the health of all New Zealanders.

We know that levels of trust vary considerably between different population groups. Māori, the disabled, and Pasifika communities experience disproportionately worse outcomes in health, education, housing, employment, and justice. It is likely no coincidence that they are less inclined than the rest of the New Zealand population to trust the public sector.

In my view, the persistent inequity of outcomes needs to be tackled if we are to increase and maintain the trust of all New Zealanders in our system of government.

 

This government’s penchant for undermining democratic processes is further evidenced by its handling of the Fast-track Approvals Act, passed in December 2024.

The government's authoritarian legislation, which allows ministers to bypass standard regulatory processes for infrastructure and resource projects, was rushed through Parliament with limited public consultation and minimal transparency. Documents detailing the 149 projects included in the bill were withheld from MPs until just 72 hours before the final vote, severely restricting scrutiny and public debate. 

Critics, including the Waitangi Tribunal, have raised alarms about the Act’s potential to erode Māori rights under the Treaty of Waitangi, particularly in relation to seabed mining off Pātea. This blatant sidelining of democratic oversight and indigenous voices underscores a troubling willingness to prioritise corporate interests over public accountability.

Equally concerning is the government’s suspension of three Māori Party MPs in June 2025 for performing a haka in protest against policies perceived to undermine Māori rights. This heavy-handed response to a cultural expression of dissent within Parliament, a space meant to embody free speech, signals an intolerance for any opposition that runs counter to their authoritarianism.

The haka incident, coupled with the coalition’s broader moves to review the Treaty of Waitangi and reduce the use of Māori language in government, has sparked widespread protests and accusations of rolling back decades of indigenous progress. Such actions suggest a government more interested in consolidating control than fostering inclusive debate.

The government’s moves to override local councils through Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms further exemplify this democratic erosion. By centralising decision-making powers and sidelining local authorities’ ability to reflect community priorities on housing and environmental protections, the coalition has effectively neutered local democracy. 

These reforms, driven by a top-down approach, limit public input and undermine the ability of councils to represent their constituents, echoing the same authoritarian impulse seen in the censorship of Youth MPs. This pattern of stripping away local agency betrays the coalition’s earlier promises to empower communities, revealing a government more concerned with control than collaboration.

When teenagers can't criticise ministers over climate inaction without bureaucratic interference, when councils can't represent their communities without central government override, and when proper legislative processes are abandoned in favour of urgency and expedience, we witness democracy's foundations being systematically undermined by a government that treats participation as an inconvenience rather than a cornerstone of good governance.

This government must immediately reverse its shameful censorship of Youth MPs, restore transparent democratic processes, and abandon its attacks on local governance. The warnings from our legal and auditing experts are clear, we stand at a crossroads between democratic renewal and authoritarian drift. New Zealand's democracy cannot survive when those in power systematically silence criticism and circumvent accountability. Our young people deserve better, our communities deserve better, and our democracy demands nothing less.