Letters

The poem

Regarding a poem “I Slam”. Sorry but I missed the issue that caused the furore, I haven’t read the article, what I am irked by is the clamour to deny free-speech – “because I don’t like it”.
Censorship from any quarter is what our forefathers fought against, what our principles uphold today – free speech.

This clamour to stifle and deny is positive discrimination, one party sensibly countered this Islamophobia with a countering poem of anti-discrimination, the rest called for censorship – shame on you! 
What gives you the right to decide what can or can’t be printed – by all means exercise your hard-won right to free speech and COUNTER the sentiment.

The editor / paper should not apologise, stand up for yourself – you are not a politically motivated or oriented vehicle (as many are these days) you do right thing, publish (and be …..) and let common sense and humanity decide.

Peter Kennedy

I-Slam

There seems a mistaken view that the Martinborough Star, as a community paper, is somehow owned by the community and which reflects the views of only those in the community who see themselves as right thinking and the protectors of the souls and morals of the rest of us. They see something in the Star that somehow offends their sense of what is right and they spring to the attack.

Well, I’m sorry but I see the Star as a true participant in the principles of journalism. As such the Star should reflect the interests and views of everyone in the community not just the self-appointed righteous few. And it should uphold the principles of journalism.

I for one find the atrocities performed in the name of Islam as being abhorrent and in many cases crimes against humanity. My father and his father went to war to stamp out such aberrant social behaviour and much of what New Zealand has achieved as a modern all-inclusive society in the last 30 years runs counter to what radical Islam is bringing to large groups of humanity.

I therefore find it strange that people in this community think it is okay to lambast the Star for printing a poem written by a member of our community who wants to list all the horrors and social injustices being perpetuated in the name of Islam. By all means comment on the writer but why attack the Star. So what if you were offended and you hold fundamentally different views to the writer or that you think his sentiment is regressive. I personally think his openness to such matters is necessary for us to do something about it. New Zealand servicemen have died this century trying to halt radical Islam.

The letter writers in the July Star have no right not to be offended or have their sentiments upset. And for the editor to apologise is just plain wrong. No one, least of all the media, has an obligation to protect you from views that run counter to yours. You should not impose labels such as ‘hate speech’ to close down debate. You should foster debate. You should support free speech. I suspect John doesn’t hate Islam, rather he hates what is being done in the name of Islam.

I for one think that Evelyn Beatrice Hall had it right when she said “I disapprove of what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”
Paul Hocking

MAKING THE POET’S POINT
 
For several years I’ve been happy to respond to your requests for poems, most of which have been lighthearted.
 
My ‘I Slam’ poem in June, (which you showed great courage in printing), was my heartfelt reponse to 22 Manchester girls and mothers being torn apart by exploding nails in the 30,958th Islamic terrorist atrocity since 9/11.
 
Despite the poem being little more than a rhyming list of facts about the ‘religion of peace’ and its appeasers, four of your 2000 readers responded by tearing me apart. In their parallel universe, telling the truth is ‘hate speech’ and cataloguing cruelty is cruel.
 
I thank Kate Throp, Mish Warrington and Emily Greenberg for making my point about female cosseting of history’s most anti-female ideology.
 John Ansell

All of last issue’s letters lambasted the editor for running the poem. This issue’s criticised him for subsequently apologising for running it – who would be an editor?

The subject is now closed – Mike