Controversial British anti-transgender activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull plans to return to New Zealand.
In a Twitter broadcast, Keen-Minshull – who is also known as Posie Parker – told her Kiwi supporters that she “will be back”.
The message comes a week after her aborted two-event tour of New Zealand, after her planned speech on women’s rights in Auckland’s Albert Park was canceled amid clashes.
Keen-Minshull was doused with a bottle of tomato juice and had to be rushed out of the park by security and her supporters. She was later escorted by the police.
“We are going to win this war, women,” she said on Twitter.
“And then I come back and I come back at the invitation of the Prime Minister who wants to apologize to everyone,” she claimed.
“I mean, he’ll apologize and if it’s not him, it’s the next prime minister because he’s not going to last long…”
Keen-Minshull – who describes herself as a supporter of women’s rights – said it was “difficult to understand” exactly what happened at the Auckland event.
She thanked the police officers who brought her to safety last Saturday.
“I want to thank again the two officers who took me away, the four officers who kept me safe, the two other officers who transferred me to the airport. And for the three officers who kept me safe at the airport.” airport until my flight departed.”
Speaking of her time in the country, Keen-Minshull said that in a last-minute change of plans, the hotel she was due to stay at canceled the booking due to security concerns.
“The hotel… has decided they don’t want me to stay there.
“What they’re saying is the police have been there and now they don’t feel safe… their staff don’t feel safe.”
When she arrived at the airport, she was interrogated for two hours, Keen-Minshull claimed.
“The hotel cancels, then I arrive in New Zealand and this woman says ‘hey, I can help you shorten the queue, come this way, come with me’.
“So I go with her and we get into a room. She puts my bags down and then starts going through my bags and asking me questions about myself, my family, my husband, my kids, my business, his business, and any kind of business.” of the house in which we live.”
She claimed she was spoken to for about two hours before being allowed through.
Keen-Minshull said her troubles didn’t end there, claiming she woke up the next morning with a “threatening note” slid under her hotel room door.
“When I woke up in my hotel after being searched, I woke up with a threatening note under my hotel room door telling me what I was wearing, how much they hated me and how to leave.
“Then we went to the event. And I knew before I went, I just didn’t feel safe. There was something about it. It just didn’t feel safe.”
About 150-200 people showed up in support of Parker’s Let Women Speak event, but they were outvoted by a much larger group of about 2,000 counter-protesters. Parker then dropped out of her tour, citing safety concerns.
As she stood on the roundabout stage in Albert Park preparing to speak, a counter-demonstrator rushed over and poured a bottle of juice over her head.
The protester then sprayed more on one of Keen-Minshull’s guards.
Prior to her arrival, an online petition was launched calling for her to be kept out of the country.
Rainbow communities of gender minorities Aotearoa, InsideOUT Koāra and Auckland Pride jointly filed a request for judicial review last week to obtain a preliminary injunction to prevent the arrival of Keen-Minshull.
After a two-hour hearing at the Supreme Court in Wellington, which heard from the coalition of rainbow groups, Crown Law and New Zealand Free Speech Union interveners, Supreme Court Justice David Gendall rejected the application.
Prior to her arrival, in a video posted to YouTube, Keen-Minshull said in a speech to the Prime Minister: “Let me tell you this. Revoke my visa at your own risk. Let’s see what happens if you are a woman stop a woman who is a human rights activist when you prevent her from coming to facilitate the speech of women in your country.
“It’s totally unfathomable that people are so scared of us talking,” she added.
“You’re going to piss women off, you’re going to piss off people who care about women — and eventually that tsunami will rain down on you,” she warned.
So Chris Hipkins, roll the dice, my friend. I don’t think you’ll dare stop me from coming to New Zealand.’
Hipkins told the AM Show at the time that he would not intervene or become involved in granting access to Keen-Minshull.
“It’s a matter for the officials,” he said. “Whether someone has good character to enter NZ or not is not up to me.”
Hipkins said he believed in responsible free speech.
“People are allowed to express their opinions and oppose those they disagree with.” However, he disagreed with “incitement to violence”.
“The law has a clear line about what you can’t do and I respect that.”
Immigration New Zealand (INZ) announced earlier in the week before her arrival that, after assessing whether to allow Keen-Minshull to enter, she did not meet the high threshold for being considered a disfellowshipped person under Article 16 of the the Immigration Act 2009.
The INZ assessment took into account previous events in Melbourne, where her speaking engagement drew crowds, including those seen delivering Nazi salutes and insults, Immigration Minister Michael Wood said previously.
“Like many New Zealanders, I would prefer it if Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull never set foot in New Zealand. I find many of her views repugnant and am concerned about the way she interprets some of the most courting mean people and groups.” around, including white supremacists,” Wood has said.
“As we look at her events for this coming weekend, the well-being and safety of our transgender community is paramount. Event organizers retain primary responsibility to ensure they run a safe event and police have advised they will also attend. to ensure public safety.
“I condemn her inflammatory, vicious and erroneous worldviews and will always stand with those New Zealanders who use their own right to free speech against those who want to take society back.”
In rejecting the application, Judge Gendall said he was sympathetic to the applicants.
“My sympathy for the applicants’ position is based largely on the information provided by the applicants and the Crown, which in my view appears to clearly raise public policy issues.
“This is a balanced decision. I accept that the applicants have indeed raised a possible case which could be said to be arguable that no reasonable minister could have concluded that Section 16 of the Immigration Act should not be invoked.”