Andrew Eberhard

Slow runner and teller of dad jokes.

[Andrew Eberhard @AndrewENZ]

@CCguerilla Lol. My uni moved us from Google Drive to One Drive a few years back because of this. I can't wait for us to be notified.

[Andrew Eberhard @AndrewENZ]

@sfrantzman Compulsory police body cams have really shown us the world as it is not as it is said to be.

[Seth Frantzman @sfrantzman]

What is the protocol and training for law enforcement in the UK if they arrive at a scene and one man who is standing and healthy says “this man said something racist and hit me” and the other man is curled up on the ground, incapacitated and says “I can’t breathe, I’ve been stabbed.”

Two men. One is on the ground unable to move, clearly the weaker and less threatening party to the incident.

Why would police immediately handcuff the man on the ground. No interview or discussion with him. No examination. No assistance or aid rendered. No investigation, just automatically handcuff one man, the obviously weaker and incapacitated one; and leave the other man standing without handcuffs?

What procedure leads to this. The man on the ground didn’t threaten anyone, he was barely able to speak. He said he’d been stabbed. But police automatically believed the stronger party, the one standing over him.

Why?

What training and doctrine tells them to arrive at a scene and automatically believe one man, among two, who claimed to have been in an altercation? And why would they handcuff a person who can barely move and already be reading him his rights without ANY investigation or interviewing both parties.

The dying man on the ground wasn’t armed or dangerous or doing anything. Why would he immediately be placed in handcuffs. What’s the procedure that leads to that.

Anyone in the UK or visiting the UK should want to know. If one is a victim of assault or a stabbing how does one not get handcuffed for being the victim?

What could the victim have done or said so that police wouldn’t immediately handcuff him and accuse him and basically judge him guilty without interviewing both parties to the altercation they believed had taken place?

Is there anything that the victim could have done to get police to render assistance? He said he had been stabbed and couldn’t breathe. Two officers (at least two) dismissed this and automatically judged him guilty and were inclined not to believe him.

What training tells an officer that they shouldn’t believe a wounded person who is curled up on the ground saying he has been stabbed…and instead believe the stronger man standing over him?

What is the protocol and training that leads to this?

It should be investigated and the entire training changed so police are trained to render aid and assist and not automatically believe the perpetrator of a crime and dismiss the victim

This isn’t “he said-he said” or “both sides”…they never interviewed the dying person, Henry Nowak; they just put him in handcuffs. Why?

Everyone should be shocked by this case and demand more answers

We need to know why the officers did this. Anyone walking the streets of the UK should want to know.

[Andrew Eberhard @AndrewENZ]

@money_cruncher CHECKLIST

[🗣 Free Speech Union ✊ @NZFreeSpeech]

Self-censorship rarely arrives as an official ban. It arrives as professional risk. 

A six-slide breakdown of how professional regulation is increasingly being used to police speech - and what that's doing to the voices we most need to hear from. 

If something here sounds familiar, we want to hear from you. Your story builds the picture. 

Policymakers can't fix a problem they can't see.

[Dries Van Langenhove @DVanLangenhove]

A very sad announcement.

I have just been convicted a second time for 'hate speech' and it is only due to a technicality that I could not immediately be sent to jail —to the judge's frustration.

In an ironic turn of events it's actually thanks to my previous prison sentence (for memes in a private group chat) that I am now still free —in a physical sense, at least.

Call me naive but I didn't think they would take it this far, given that this precedent criminalises many of the arguments used by even the most moderate politicians critical of mass migration.

In February 2024 I gave a lecture at Catholic University Leuven wherein I linked mass migration to crime and a deterioration of our quality of life. Every single point I made was 100% the truth and based on scientific evidence.

Cynically, even the judge that convicted me admits as much by writing in his verdict: “Even if all of the statements made by Van Langenhove are based on scientific evidence and statistics, it makes no difference to the criminal intent. Van Langenhove is not charged with spreading false information. He is charged with presenting facts in a way that incites hatred against persons on the grounds of one or more of the protected criteria in the Anti-Racism Law.”

That's a lot of words just to say he wants to send me to prison for speaking the truth.

Even the regime media write: "It did not matter to the court that Van Langenhove was quoting scientific sources. The judge argued that Van Langenhove's main message was that a big part of the societal problems like insecurity, housing shortages and lowering educational standards are due to mass migration."

You may think the regime media are being sympathetic to me in the first sentence, but in reality they are warning people: even if you speak the truth, if you go against our narrative, we will crush you in every way possible.

Both the public prosecutor and the judge did not present a single real argument as to how or against whom I would have incited hatred. So even if I would accept their crazy, dystopic law, I still did not break it.

The only argument they present is that I created a "hostile atmosphere of us versus them” in regards to migrants. But even this silly argument (which is not even a punishable offence) is not true. To me, the deadly disease is self-hatred and one of its worst symptoms is replacement migration. My enemy is thus NOT the migrants themselves but those orchestrating the mass migration.

Sadly, in Belgium, evidence is not needed and ‘vibes’ are enough to put someone in jail.

Given the fact that I have another court case coming up in September and that I have a dozen active criminal investigations for hate speech, time is running out for me. I have already paid more than €420,000 in legal fees and there is no ending in sight. I have been in an intense battle of attrition for eight years and must now regroup to make sure I can still win.

If you want to help me, you can do so via the links below. If you can help in other ways, please contact me via DM.

If you live in a country that still has free speech, never let them touch it, however noble they make the motives sound, because this is where it leads to.

[Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1]

Are the jury blind?

[Luca Dellanna @DellAnnaLuca]

The reactions of many researchers on finally being held responsible for having read the very paper they submitted are... something.

[Hannah 🇮🇱 🥑 @nice_cuppa]

Here are the Austrian Young Greens showing us what a Green Party could be like if it isn't filled to the brim with racist cranks.

[Joseph Mooney MP @JosephMooneyMP]

You would be well served brushing up on all of those points. Starter for ten:

First: Parliament is the supreme legal authority in New Zealand. The Supreme Court itself acknowledged Parliament has a long history of legislatively overriding tort law - including abolishing the right to sue for personal injury in negligence to establish the ACC scheme. That precedent matters here.

Second: one of the three claims the Supreme Court allowed to proceed is a proposed new “climate system damage” tort. This tort did not exist in New Zealand law before this decision. The Supreme Court has not resolved the case - it has simply declined to strike the claims out. But in doing so, it has effectively opened the door to a brand new area of tort liability that Parliament never created and New Zealand courts have never recognised.

Third: The IPCC’s latest reports highlight that climate attribution science is constantly evolving. Courts are poorly placed to manage a highly complex issue underpinned by evolving international science - especially when New Zealand contributes around 0.17% of global emissions. Attributing individual individual or company liability for climate effects felt in New Zealand is not a question courts can answer with any precision or fairness.

Fourth: The proper mechanism for internalising climate costs is the Emissions Trading Scheme - Parliament deliberately designed it to price emissions. That is a democratic policy choice. Courts duplicating or overriding that framework through newly invented tort law would create legal and economic chaos, ultimately passing costs onto ordinary New Zealanders while doing nothing meaningful about climate change itself.

Worth noting that no-one asked me to do this. I did it because New Zealand deserves evidence based law focused on building a strong country for all of us - not outcomes that enrich lawyers while leaving the real problems unsolved.

[Mark Hubbard. @MarkHubbard33]

Oh FFS. Our most exciting and successful company, $RKLB has put us on the map and generated huge wealth for many Kiwis.

But if you vote the Neanderthal's in @NZGreens then they will try to close Mahia launch pad down coz they have US defence contracts, our ally.

We can’t hate these miserable antisemitic human hating Green clowns enough.

[Winston Peters @winstonpeters]

It has been reported that police have recently visited Renee-Rose Schwenke about a so-called 'offensive' social media post she posted. Not threatening, not inciting violence, just that it allegedly offended someone.

If this report is true, this is '1984 thought-police' level overreach. It should seriously frighten every New Zealander who believes in freedom of speech.

This is not about whether this particular post was offensive or not. There will always be personal responsibility and consequences for people voicing their opinions that are viewed by some as tasteless or gormless or offensive - but those consequences should not be by way of a police visit.

No one has the right to not be offended, nor do they have the right to be protected from having hurt feelings. In fact it is precisely the right to be able to offend which is the foundation of freedom of speech in our country.

This has happened overseas with more regularity where social media posts, opinions, views, expressions, and even jokes are now deemed offensive by some authoritarian power and have been met with threats from police, arrests, or even convictions in court.

We never thought we would see this happen here and it has a chilling effect on where we are going as a country.

As Oliver Wendall Homles Jr said, freedom of speech also comes with responsibility of speech - you cannot falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre without there rightly being a consequence. We already have laws around 'responsibility of speech' ranging from defamation to incitement of violence, and that is important - but people's freedom to have their own free opinion is something which should be aggressively defended.

We don't all have to agree with each other's opinions, but we should all fight for each other's right to have them. This is the essential foundation of our free democracy.

If we start to accept this kind of overreach by police to curtail individual freedom of speech, our democracy will fall into the type of totalitarian oblivion that will destroy our country.

[Andrew Eberhard @AndrewENZ]

@PronouncedHare @MedRest1 @PronouncedHare you are correct and my understanding was wrong.

[Andrew Eberhard @AndrewENZ]

@MedRest1 @PronouncedHare Heh... People don't read the whole decision before getting outraged.

[Suit and tie @Suitandtie9999]

Beyond farcical.
Media allowing Chris Hipkins to spin three different stories.

NZ Herald: Chris Hipkins denies seeing advice about Covid-19 vaccine doses for teens despite cabinet paper in his name.

The Post: Chris Hipkins defends not making advice public.

Stuff: Chris Hipkins says advice about Covid vaccine risk for teens arrived too late.

[Andrew Eberhard @AndrewENZ]

@TheHughAnthony They didn't tweet about it.

[Campaign Against Antisemitism @antisemitism]

We are absolutely heartbroken that this is how low Britain has sunk. This horrific act truly plumbs new depths.

Hatzola is a volunteer-run ambulance service run by the Jewish community but catering to everyone, Jews and non-Jews alike, working with the NHS to save lives as fast as possible. They provide outstanding medical care at lightning speed every hour of every day, and fundraise to buy ambulances and equipment. They are truly a shining example of the Jewish community coming together to help everyone in the most fundamental of ways by giving the gift of life.

Burning their ambulances in an attempt to put them out of action is a truly repulsive act of antisemitic hatred in a Britain where Jews now have to keep everything from schools to synagogues under constant guard. Our society has become infested with the sickness of antisemitism.

In this case it is not only about catching the perpetrators and restoring the ambulances, but about politicians accepting that by tolerating everything from hate marches to hate preachers, they have created this sickening mess, and time has run out for them to act. The law must change, fast, but so must society.

The people spewing obsessive conspiracy theories about Jews, Zionists and Israelis are not social justice warriors, they are hateful bigots who are feeding this madness and must be stood up to and told as much by ordinary decent people.

[David Knight Legg @KnightLegg]

A tale of two Iranians

1. - A 19 yr old national champion wrestler. Executed today for the crime of marching with 30,000 other murdered young people who just wanted freedom. Canada said nothing.

- A Shia cleric of that Islamo-fascist regime. Just given Canadian citizenship. Marching in support of the regime at an al quds parade in Toronto in his first week in Canada.

If there’s a way for Canada to be on the wrong side of history, this is it.

Thx to @AlinejadMasih for keeping everyone informed. Here’s to a free Iran.

[Eyal Yakoby @EYakoby]

Today, the Islamic Republic hanged multiple Iranian civilians, some of whom were just teenagers.

Amnesty International? Silent.

The UN? Silent.

Human Rights Council? Silent.

The Red Cross? Silent.

[Brad Zubyk @Bzubyk]

If the war keeps taking out murderous Iranian political and security leadership I am concerned that there will no longer be suitable candidates to lead the UN Human Rights Council.