Protesters noisily disrupting political rallies seem to be guaranteed for the few weeks left of this election season. So far, members of Brian Tamaki’s Freedoms NZ party have disrupted meetings held by both Christopher Luxon and Chris Hipkins — including Labour’s glitzy campaign launch in Auckland’s Aotea Centre on September 2.
Hipkins had to grin and bear it as security personnel evicted a handful of Freedoms NZ protesters from among Labour’s supporters so he could revel in the applause for his dental policy. It proposes gradually extending taxpayer-funded dental care to all those under 30 — or as economics analyst Bernard Hickey sardonically put it: “Labour promises some free dental for some people in a couple of years.”
The Prime Minister also wasn’t best pleased when protesters’ horns and loudspeakers meant he had to cut short his appearance at the Ōtara market last month.
When he was asked after a walkabout at Auckland’s Avondale market this week if he had “a message” to give to protesters, Hipkins adopted a pious stance: “Elections fundamentally should be about the contest of ideas. Not about shouting each other down. So my message to the Freedoms people is: ‘If you’re so confident about your ideas, go out and share them with people. Don’t try shouting other people down.’”
Just six months ago, the Prime Minister didn’t seem quite so ready to chide those who were happy to disrupt speakers engaged in a “contest of ideas”. He never publicly rebuked his own Justice minister, Kiri Allan, for shamefully encouraging trans activists to make it impossible for women’s rights campaigner Posie Parker and her supporters to be heard at the “Let Women Speak” rally in Auckland’s Albert Park on March 25.
When asked by journalists for her opinion of Parker’s visit before she arrived, the now-disgraced former Cabinet minister said: “Let’s do what we do, Aotearoa — stand up, make some noise and support our trans whānau by showing up and drowning out any bigotry that seeks to divide and hurt our whānau.”
After Parker’s visit, Hipkins condemned the violence at Albert Park but praised the trans rights protesters who did not use violence: “That was about supporting fellow New Zealanders and I think that is something we should celebrate.” In short, he was evidently happy to have the protesters drown out Parker.
However, now that he is on the receiving end of noisy, disruptive protesters himself — although none who have put his life at risk as Parker’s was — he has concluded that democracy requires speakers to be allowed to be heard.
Just how steadfast he is in this belief will be put to the test when Parker returns to Auckland to attend the court appearance of transgender activist Eli Rubashkyn on September 20. Rubashkyn has pleaded not guilty to a charge of assaulting Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, aka Posie Parker, after tomato juice was tipped over her on March 25.
With Parker promising to hold another rally in Auckland, will the Prime Minister make it clear that she should be allowed to speak without disruption, or will he pander to those who see her as the devil incarnate by slyly intimating that the rules of public civility he would like applied to himself don’t apply to her?
If his comments at the last post-Cabinet press conference before the election are a guide, he intends to make Parker an exception to the rules of the civilised behaviour he now apparently champions. Although he started out promisingly, telling reporters, ”We have a country where free speech is valued and cherished and encouraged, but I don’t think people should use that deliberately to drown out the voices of others,” he didn’t seem to want this principle applied to Parker.
The Prime Minister was keen to make a distinction between disrupting meetings held by the Leader of the Opposition — and presumably himself — and disrupting meetings being held by someone like Posie Parker.
In reference to Luxon having been repeatedly interrupted by a Freedoms NZ protester at a media conference in Pakuranga last month, Hipkins said National’s leader “was actually just trying to conduct a peaceful media stand-up press conference. There was no justification for disrupting that whatsoever and I don’t think he should have been subjected to that, and I actually think it’s not in keeping with the democratic tradition that we have in New Zealand.”
However, it appears Parker is fair game. “Posie Parker is entitled to share her views; other people are just as entitled to strongly state that they disagree with that. Now, where people are expressing their views in an inflammatory way and people are expressing their views back in an inflammatory way, that’s — you know, that’s the nature of democratic protest.”
Hipkins was asked again later in the press conference: “When someone as divisive as [Parker] comes to New Zealand, what do you see your role as being, especially in a campaign period?”
Hipkins doubled down: “I think it’s important that New Zealand maintains free speech, and that does include hearing from people who we strongly disagree with and whose views we may find abhorrent. I think it’s important that we create an environment where people can strongly contest that and can strongly disagree with that and can be respected in the process of doing that, and that is certainly my goal as Prime Minister.”
It is very difficult to interpret Hipkins’ statements in any way other than he thinks Parker’s views make her a legitimate target for a crowd determined to not allow her to speak or be heard. And that using the ‘thug’s veto’ against her is not only warranted but should be “respected”.
Unfortunately, self-awareness doesn’t seem to be the Prime Minister’s strong suit. He seems incapable of acknowledging that many voters find him, and the government he leads, every bit as reprehensible and abhorrent as some transgender activists find Posie Parker. The visibly distressed middle-aged man who was shouting angrily at him during his walkabout at the Avondale market after having lost his home and business because of the Covid mandates was a stark reminder of exactly that.
The essence of free speech is recognising that many sincerely held views will be seen as distasteful or even repugnant by other sections of the community and it is best in a democracy to allow these to be expressed openly, despite the discomfort some may feel. That is the “contest of ideas” Hipkins professes to support, but apparently wants confined to circumstances that conveniently include him and his fellow politicians.
With Parker’s planned visit less than a fortnight away, the honourable approach, of course, would be for Hipkins to echo the remarks the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, Paul Hunt, made after the mobbing of Parker / Keen-Minshull:
“As much as we may disagree with her, Keen-Minshull is entitled to share her views, without being assaulted, intimidated, or shouted down… The state had a human rights responsibility to make arrangements for Keen-Minshull to speak without being assaulted, intimidated or shouted down. That did not happen.”
With his back to the wall as Labour’s fortunes plummet in the polls, it seems very likely Hipkins will show yet again that his principles will always be subordinate to possible political gain. But if he thinks that encouraging — tacitly or explicitly — a repeat of the shameful silencing of Parker and her supporters on March 25 is a wise career move he should really think again.
The Prime Minister seems to have little idea of how much of the trust that many held in the government, the mainstream media and the police was destroyed that day. Or how much simmering fury it unleashed among voters — female and male — who simply want the right and opportunity to hear women speak.
Graham Adams is an Auckland-based freelance editor, journalist and columnist. This article was originally published by ThePlatform.kiwi and is published here with kind permission.
The Prime Minister also wasn’t best pleased when protesters’ horns and loudspeakers meant he had to cut short his appearance at the Ōtara market last month.
When he was asked after a walkabout at Auckland’s Avondale market this week if he had “a message” to give to protesters, Hipkins adopted a pious stance: “Elections fundamentally should be about the contest of ideas. Not about shouting each other down. So my message to the Freedoms people is: ‘If you’re so confident about your ideas, go out and share them with people. Don’t try shouting other people down.’”
Just six months ago, the Prime Minister didn’t seem quite so ready to chide those who were happy to disrupt speakers engaged in a “contest of ideas”. He never publicly rebuked his own Justice minister, Kiri Allan, for shamefully encouraging trans activists to make it impossible for women’s rights campaigner Posie Parker and her supporters to be heard at the “Let Women Speak” rally in Auckland’s Albert Park on March 25.
When asked by journalists for her opinion of Parker’s visit before she arrived, the now-disgraced former Cabinet minister said: “Let’s do what we do, Aotearoa — stand up, make some noise and support our trans whānau by showing up and drowning out any bigotry that seeks to divide and hurt our whānau.”
After Parker’s visit, Hipkins condemned the violence at Albert Park but praised the trans rights protesters who did not use violence: “That was about supporting fellow New Zealanders and I think that is something we should celebrate.” In short, he was evidently happy to have the protesters drown out Parker.
However, now that he is on the receiving end of noisy, disruptive protesters himself — although none who have put his life at risk as Parker’s was — he has concluded that democracy requires speakers to be allowed to be heard.
Just how steadfast he is in this belief will be put to the test when Parker returns to Auckland to attend the court appearance of transgender activist Eli Rubashkyn on September 20. Rubashkyn has pleaded not guilty to a charge of assaulting Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, aka Posie Parker, after tomato juice was tipped over her on March 25.
With Parker promising to hold another rally in Auckland, will the Prime Minister make it clear that she should be allowed to speak without disruption, or will he pander to those who see her as the devil incarnate by slyly intimating that the rules of public civility he would like applied to himself don’t apply to her?
If his comments at the last post-Cabinet press conference before the election are a guide, he intends to make Parker an exception to the rules of the civilised behaviour he now apparently champions. Although he started out promisingly, telling reporters, ”We have a country where free speech is valued and cherished and encouraged, but I don’t think people should use that deliberately to drown out the voices of others,” he didn’t seem to want this principle applied to Parker.
The Prime Minister was keen to make a distinction between disrupting meetings held by the Leader of the Opposition — and presumably himself — and disrupting meetings being held by someone like Posie Parker.
In reference to Luxon having been repeatedly interrupted by a Freedoms NZ protester at a media conference in Pakuranga last month, Hipkins said National’s leader “was actually just trying to conduct a peaceful media stand-up press conference. There was no justification for disrupting that whatsoever and I don’t think he should have been subjected to that, and I actually think it’s not in keeping with the democratic tradition that we have in New Zealand.”
However, it appears Parker is fair game. “Posie Parker is entitled to share her views; other people are just as entitled to strongly state that they disagree with that. Now, where people are expressing their views in an inflammatory way and people are expressing their views back in an inflammatory way, that’s — you know, that’s the nature of democratic protest.”
Hipkins was asked again later in the press conference: “When someone as divisive as [Parker] comes to New Zealand, what do you see your role as being, especially in a campaign period?”
Hipkins doubled down: “I think it’s important that New Zealand maintains free speech, and that does include hearing from people who we strongly disagree with and whose views we may find abhorrent. I think it’s important that we create an environment where people can strongly contest that and can strongly disagree with that and can be respected in the process of doing that, and that is certainly my goal as Prime Minister.”
It is very difficult to interpret Hipkins’ statements in any way other than he thinks Parker’s views make her a legitimate target for a crowd determined to not allow her to speak or be heard. And that using the ‘thug’s veto’ against her is not only warranted but should be “respected”.
Unfortunately, self-awareness doesn’t seem to be the Prime Minister’s strong suit. He seems incapable of acknowledging that many voters find him, and the government he leads, every bit as reprehensible and abhorrent as some transgender activists find Posie Parker. The visibly distressed middle-aged man who was shouting angrily at him during his walkabout at the Avondale market after having lost his home and business because of the Covid mandates was a stark reminder of exactly that.
The essence of free speech is recognising that many sincerely held views will be seen as distasteful or even repugnant by other sections of the community and it is best in a democracy to allow these to be expressed openly, despite the discomfort some may feel. That is the “contest of ideas” Hipkins professes to support, but apparently wants confined to circumstances that conveniently include him and his fellow politicians.
With Parker’s planned visit less than a fortnight away, the honourable approach, of course, would be for Hipkins to echo the remarks the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, Paul Hunt, made after the mobbing of Parker / Keen-Minshull:
“As much as we may disagree with her, Keen-Minshull is entitled to share her views, without being assaulted, intimidated, or shouted down… The state had a human rights responsibility to make arrangements for Keen-Minshull to speak without being assaulted, intimidated or shouted down. That did not happen.”
With his back to the wall as Labour’s fortunes plummet in the polls, it seems very likely Hipkins will show yet again that his principles will always be subordinate to possible political gain. But if he thinks that encouraging — tacitly or explicitly — a repeat of the shameful silencing of Parker and her supporters on March 25 is a wise career move he should really think again.
The Prime Minister seems to have little idea of how much of the trust that many held in the government, the mainstream media and the police was destroyed that day. Or how much simmering fury it unleashed among voters — female and male — who simply want the right and opportunity to hear women speak.
Graham Adams is an Auckland-based freelance editor, journalist and columnist. This article was originally published by ThePlatform.kiwi and is published here with kind permission.
7 comments:
Too right Graham. If Hipkins thinks his hypocrisy is just a minor political expedient look out, for there's truth in the saying about hell having no fury... and many 'real' men will be only too keen to support women on this one and come October 14th we'll see the result.
Posie Parker's views are often called abhorrent but her critics don't share what she has said. New Zealand is an outlier with probably the most extreme transgender friendly legislation in the world. A couple of weeks ago the Government pushed through another bill under urgency which was really a hate speech bill under a different name. I am not sure if it was enacted but from memory make it an offence to dead name someone or not use their pronouns etc.
Now if it was a White heterosexual male at the centre of this row, I'd understand it. But it ain't. I'm not sure why a woman espousing feminist views should be regarded as so obnoxious.
Jacinda Ardern stood in front of the UN and the world and declared "Free speech is a dangerous weapon (we must control it) "
Clearly Hipkins agrees with her as he did not challenge her, nor did the NZ media which did not report her speech.
World media condemned her for it.
"A simmering fury" growing by the day as more and more wake up to the betrayal and insanity is right.
it is sad the way public appearances are now all sabotaged. I reckon trouble begins at school. I have attended concerts etc where loud barracking,cat calls etc from the audience is accepted.It is seen as culturally insensitive to discourage. Strident persons shout down most meetings. No one gets a chance to put rational argumnets, and these are not equally accepted and commented on by the legacy msm as would have been in prior times. maori women, very appropriately banned on many marae, are often amongst the most strident and irrational.
I wonder who it was that issued the order for the police to stand down at Posie Parkers rally in Auckland, because that's exactly what they did! It amazes me how men wanting to be women don't want to hear what women have to say. Seems like the height of hypocrisy to me.
Post a Comment