Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[Damo]

Interesting commentary:

There’s something deeply rotten in New Zealand’s political culture right now, and the Julian Batchelor saga has dragged it into the open.

If you challenge race based politics or co‑governance, you don’t get argued with. You get labelled. Smeared. Treated as a problem to be neutralised rather than a citizen to be debated.

Batchelor went on the road. He spoke to ordinary people. He questioned a political direction that many New Zealanders feel they were never properly asked to consent to.

And for that, he wasn’t countered with better arguments — he was branded.

Once the media sticks words like dangerous, harmful, or racist to your name, the debate is already over. Employers back away. Venues cancel. Friends distance themselves. The punishment happens long before any court ever looks at the truth of the claims.

That’s not journalism. That’s social execution.

Why this court case really matters. This defamation case isn’t a side show. It’s a line in the sand.

It asks a very simple question: are powerful media organisations still accountable when they destroy someone’s reputation — or are they untouchable as long as they’re on the “right side” of politics?

If the answer is that media can say anything about you as long as your views are unpopular, then free speech in New Zealand already died — we just didn’t bother to hold a funeral.

The panic you can sense from parts of the media isn’t about press freedom. It’s about precedent. Because if one man can successfully push back, others might follow.

The unspoken power imbalance. The media loves to posture as brave truth‑tellers holding power to account. But when they are the power, scrutiny suddenly becomes “harassment” and pushback becomes “dangerous rhetoric”.

Here’s the part the commentariat refuses to acknowledge: co‑governance is not beyond criticism. Believing in one person, one vote is not hatred. Questioning race‑based political structures is not extremism. Wanting laws to apply equally is not violence.

You don’t have to like Julian Batchelor. But if you’re cheering the attempt to erase him rather than challenge him, you’re not defending democracy — you’re dismantling it.

Because once speech is policed by narrative and punishment replaces persuasion, the system no longer belongs to the public.

It belongs to those who decide which voices are allowed to exist.

If you hold TPM to account for saying racist things like being 'superior', then Batchelor saying things like a whole race lacks character also needs to be held to account.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

If you hold TPM to account for saying racist things like being 'superior', then Batchelor saying things like a whole race lacks character also needs to be held to account.

Agreed but from the article:

‘You don’t have to like Julian Batchelor. But if you’re cheering the attempt to erase him rather than challenge him, you’re not defending democracy — you’re dismantling it.’

 

[Damo]

Agreed but from the article:

‘You don’t have to like Julian Batchelor. But if you’re cheering the attempt to erase him rather than challenge him, you’re not defending democracy — you’re dismantling it.’

How is he being erased though? He's suing for an online article saying he used racist rhetoric. If anything, Batchelor is more in the news due to his own court case.