Thursday, July 6, 2017

Golriz Ghahraman: A reign of terror?

Well I have just been crucified by Golriz Ghahraman (all my posts deleted from her facebook page). Golriz is a prominent New Zealand Green party candidate who, I predict, will be used as the dominant commentator on Islamic immigration in New Zealand.

Not only have all my posts been deleted but she has blocked me from making any more contributions, even though I was nearly the only intelligent (and respectful) commentator interested in doing more than just praising her.

But no matter. I knew the block would happen sooner or later, anyway.

The big concern I have with Golriz is that she will, in time, very likely have a huge stage on the Islam issue in New Zealand. Yet, she is not answering the enormously important questions around the dangers of Muslim immigration.

Already, she is using blunt labels towards those who are worried about Islam at its worst. She's already come out making reference to "Islamophobia", bigotry, prejudice and racism...etc.

From what I have seen, Golriz's articles do not yet get to what's real. As I have stressed to her recently and back in time, she can call us all "Islamophobes" etc, if she can first, please, address the very legitimate and understandable concerns that the so-called Islamophobes have.

And this is what I am worried about. This soon-to-be prominent New Zealander seems to be more interested in shutting down the real discussion than confronting it - thus far, at least. This isn't good enough for a prospective politician who wants to change New Zealand's laws. In fact it can be downright dangerous.

The purpose of presenting my deleted posts, that I screenshotted, is to make my case and add some pressure to the end of having the real conversation opened up [see my video here].

You can ask yourself if my comments were of the kind that could reasonably justify deletion and blocking. Again I am worried that Golriz may simply want to shut the real conversation down.

Remember, all I am asking from the Green party is to do their job. That is, respond to the real questions and concerns, and provide some real answers - please.

--Best of luck to your political future, Golriz. I have no doubt you mean well!

Note: The screenshots are not in exact order to the time posted. Benign comments have been omitted.


Here is the video link to "Islam and Hate Speech":

A direct link to the Greens policy position on Syria: Here

....Part 2. Here.


  1. This is probably the most respectable and balanced video on the Islamic terror threat that I have seen. A must watch! - 15 minutes.

  2. A remarkable interview.

    Political Islam and religious Islam (one thing - just Islam, really) is an incredible machine. This comprehensive interview with Bill Warner discusses it very humanly and very well.

  3. Andrew, your comments on Islam are very ignorant and show a very shallow understanding of the faith. The Quran is not a 'set of instructions.' The vast majority of the Quran is dedicated to telling religious stories, many of them from the Bible.

    Your arguments aren't based on reality because you have no understanding of how Muslims practice their faith. To you, anyone with an Arabic name who commits a crime is a 'devout Muslim' whose actions are motivated by Islam.

    Islam would not have 'collapsed' if they didn't punish apostasy. After all, Christianity is still around, isn't it?

    It's interesting, you people claim you 'hate Islam' because it's anti-woman, yet you direct such hatred and vitriol towards women who come from Muslim backgrounds.

    1. In you head, Snoop (love the gutless anonymous name).

      To your first paragraph. The Quran does indeed direct Muslims to invade and conquer non Muslim nations. That is what matters. Or is that wrong? No.

      To your second paragraph. No.

      And you accuse me of vitriol towards Muslim women. Really? Is that what it sounds like? Btw, I do have a problem with stuff like honour killings and FGM and the death sentence for apostasy. If I didn't then I would be a very sad man indeed. You really are arguing from a pretty desperate position, chap.

  4. Bill Warner isn't a credible source. He's not a historian and he's widely been debunked in academic circles. He's a Christian apologist who portrays himself as having a phd in history, when in reality, it's in chemistry.

    1. I often have a lot more respect for the opinions of the highly intelligent independent researcher, with a lot of relevant experience, than some politically correct product pushed out of an academic factory.

  5. Andrew, stop having a random go at Muslim women, It's like you think the Muslim Pope in the Muslim Vatican has chosen her as his delegate to the state of Andrew Atkin. Get a sense of perspective dude, you're just 'that guy': "Oh god Golriz, here's another one having a go at you about Islam, that's the third today"

    1. Moke - I will do exactly what I like.

      My only real objective is to get the conversation that Golriz wants to shut down, opened up.

      Would you like to see no-go zones developing in New Zealand like they have in Europe? That's what happens when people like me are seen as nothing more than "Islamophobic".

  6. I love the disconnect between people who would cry "psychological abuse!" if a white bloke told his partner what she was allowed to wear & who she was allowed to be friends with, but when a muslim does it, it's their culture.

    1. We expect less of people who are not white, male and western. Our true racism breathes through our condescension.

  7. I would like to elaborate on the "discredited" comment from Anonymous, in relation to Bill Warner.

    I've seen accusations of 'discredited' everywhere, all the time, and always directed at people that camp-Leftist don't like. It has one obvious purpose. To stop the followers of a political position from even hearing a leading political opponent out. And usually it works.

    Far-leftist followers hear these accusations secondhand from their guru's, and they take their message on faith. Especially if their guru's saying what they already want to hear (confirmation bias). The mere accusation of 'discredited' as all they usually need to maintain ideological isolation.

  8. Andrew if you troll facebook with multiple posts criticising a religion and promoting your own youtube channel you will usually get blocked, but then I suppose you already knew that. To be fair that's hardly a conspiracy. Sadly human propensity for violence towards each other can be found all over the world, yes even western christian countries. Don't forget to check out this link please, as you said education is important...

    1. My focus was hardly to promote my own youtube channel, though I tend to link to my stuff when I think it's relevant. I largely created my youtube channel for the purpose of giving the option to others to understand the things I talk about better. Especially on housing affordability (where the lack of understanding has had a devastating toll).

      Everyone should be free to respectfully criticize Islam, and the Greens and Golriz, which is all I did. And to suggest Islam, with all its morbid character, should not be criticized and analyzed very carefully is just insane.

      Your included link had nothing to do with my arguments. Political terrorism is not about body counts, it's about intimidation for the sake of control. People hardly care about mass shootings. They care about being targeted if they dare say or do the wrong thing. I myself have already been warned by others that I should be more careful about what I say online, for my personal safety's sake.

      Btw, If I'm a 'troll' then any critical thinker is a troll.

  9. Anonymous: I will be entirely honest. I'm actually glad Golriz blocked me, and I'm glad she tried to use me as an example to promote her victimhood. Although I stand by what I have said, of course, she basically just gave me the excuse to make these posts.

    The only thing I'm really interested in is promoting the need for an honest conversation on Islam - before New Zealand makes some serious mistakes. Golriz was just an opportunity for me to try and do this. Outside this, she means nothing to me and nor do her bans.

    And to say, what people think of me personally means nothing. What they *think* means everything. This is why I can appear a bit shameless at times. Within boundaries I just don't care.

  10. Hey Andrew do you have any idea of the irony within your comment "put human rights above both religion and national borders"?

    You are trying to say people seeking refuge from human rights violations should go back to their country because of their religion. Golly, you're a twit.

    1. Please actually read the content. At least try to understand it.

  11. Golriz Ghahraman gives a speech from the depths of her victimhood, about hate speech. And of course it's about people like me. People who are critical of the (supposed) victims she identifies with.

    But what's interesting, is that the most ugly and horrible speech comes from people representing her camp. In fact the hate against people who are critical of Islam is so intense, that level-headed people who are well known can't even talk publically talk about it without bodygaurds and frequently changing locations. And most common people won't talk about it because they are afraid of being called a racist and a bigot and an Islamophobe.

    Regardless, she wants to create hate speech laws. No matter what your political position is, you should absolutely resist this. Because the bottomline is the legal meaning of such actions. The Greens, in their glorious useful idiotness, are trying to create the legal infratructure to shut down free speech - and all in the name of defending speech.

    No, Greens. You are fools. The far-reaching legal impact of your poicy is the only thing that matters in the end. No hate speech laws, thank you. None!

    24 minutes in:

    Andrew Atkin