When it comes to free speech in New Zealand, the hypocrisy (or at best, inconsistency) of many commentators is well on display during the last few days. Two very recent examples illustrate this. The first is the supportive reaction to the Hurricane’s women’s rugby team doing a haka that called the government ‘redneck’. The second is the reaction to Professor Joanne Kidman’s tweets where, again focusing on government, she decried it as a death cult.
When watching and reading the reaction to these two situations, I have been immediately struck how principles and consistency have flown out the window – particularly when it comes to the right to freely express your view. As I will note frequently, free speech matters as much for the speech we don’t like, as for the speech we do.
However, what’s been on display with these two cases is contradiction and hypocrisy. Let’s start with the Hurricane’s haka, where player Leilani Perese is unapologetic for making such a blatantly political statement. As she says in her own words:
However, what’s been on display with these two cases is contradiction and hypocrisy. Let’s start with the Hurricane’s haka, where player Leilani Perese is unapologetic for making such a blatantly political statement. As she says in her own words:
“I don’t care. I believe in what we’re saying, I stand by it. I believe that in rugby, we have a platform where people watch and listen. And why not use our platform to show our people we will never fold?”
So, sport can and should be a platform for personal views? Tell that to the likes of Israel Folau or other players who have been silenced for their views. You see, consistency matters. Either people can use their sport’s platform or not to express their views. Yet, as we often observe these days, freedom to speak only applies if you are buying into the progressive, liberal, or woke issues.
This is well-illustrated further by the ramblings of reporter Liam Hastings from the NZ Herald. He notes of the haka:
“While the translated haka terminology is jarring, freedom of speech in a democratic society is a fundamental right. Debate and dissemination are imperative to holding those in power to account. And who could possibly argue using haka as a powerful vehicle to protest Māori rights is not appropriate.”
And yet, a few years back when discussing Folau:
“Personally I don't feel great sympathy for Folau. Putting religion to one side, he repeatedly contravened agreements with his employer and eventually paid the ultimate price by detonating his career on the eve of rugby's global showpiece.”
It seems lost on this reporter that they both have contracts that state clearly what they should and should not say. The only difference is that he agrees with one view, and not the other. No wonder people are voting with their feet and wallets when it comes to mainstream media.
The other example is around tweets by Professor Joanna Kidman of Victoria University and also - importantly and ironically - a director at the Centre of Research Excellence for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism. Reacting to the newly announced ‘boot camps’ for young offenders, she wrote on X (formerly Twitter) that she “[can] only assume that this Government hates children, most of whom will be poor and brown”. She goes on to discuss school lunches and their possible removal and wrote “is this a government or a death cult?”
Cue outrage and the calls for her to sacked, including by the likes of the ACT Party. Again, do we have free speech in this country or not?
I don’t like what she says. I don’t like how she has expressed her view - it is abusive rather than academic. The irony of her using extreme language while running an anti-extremist think tank is obvious to all. But she has the right to say it.
In fact, it is such an emotionally driven absurdity that countering her views are straightforward. Yet we see from some who proclaim free speech that she should not be allowed to say such things or that there should be such consequences which would ultimately prevent this sort of speech.
Instead of looking to punish and silence people, we would do better to allow more speech and when in disagreement, to counter with more words. I have found in life, that the more emotional, absurd, crazy, or inconsistent a person’s position is – the easier it is to highlight the faults by a calm and rational response.
In these two cases, we would do better to point out the hypocrisy in play and call for society to be more consistent when it comes to allowing people to express their varied range of views. As I said at the start - if free speech matters, then it matters as much for the speech you don’t like, as for the speech you do.
Simon O'Connor a former National MP graduated from the University of Auckland with a Bachelor of Arts in Geography and Political Studies . Simon blogs at On Point - where this article was sourced.
9 comments:
Free speech is an insanity and can never actually exist because there must always be restrictions on what ideas can be expressed to maintain order in society.
As a principle, it is used as a tool of the revolution to shape the narrative of a society and undermine its culture by changing the meanings and relations of words. Free speech is in principle subversive of society and not really believed in by its former promoters as can be seen their denial of others right to speak the truth.
The only freedom that has any value when it comes to speech is the freedom to tell the truth.
Am I allowed to say that (a) the parents of poor brown kids should have used contraception if they can’t support and educate their kids and (b) given they didn’t should have brought their children up knowing how to behave, and (c) the poor brown kids are probably better off at boot camp than prison
As a taxpayer am I allowed to say that the sooner these recalcitrants are brought into line, the sooner the public is more likely to be safe from their antisocial behaviour.
Am I also allowed to say that I find outbursts like Kidman’s destructive, revolting and unnecessary and if she is a sample of NZ academia then what an embarrassment.
As for the haka, am I allowed to say I think its use as any sort of symbol of NZ is way past its use by date. NZ may be falling apart at the seams but a blood curdling incitement of death and destruction is ( am I allowed to say it) revolting and makes the NZ performers look ridiculous, rude and un sports-person like. ( I have been very careful not to say unsportsmanlike but is person ok with son in it).
Guidance on what I am allowed to say would be appreciated. Am I allowed to throw in a few obscenities to be more communicable with academia and the masses and to make my point more strongly felt?
Ardern addressed the UN twice saying "free speech is a dangerous weapon - we must control it"
Never reported in the MSM in NZ, though outrage in proper international press.
And this from a woman who wanted to introduce Hate Speech laws to NZ.
She will have read Goebbels works, and wanted Nazi type control over NZ.
Finally NZers woke up to her and banished her to Harvard where she is up to the same tricks.
Regarding the nutty professor, I suspect the outrage is more to do with her govt appointed role, than the statements themselves. Acts critics have said much worse & they’ve defended their right to say it. But these comments are such that they should render her position untenable.
The author Simon supports Professor Joanna Kidman's right to say the things she said then admonishes ACT for their 'free speech' calling for the good Professor to be sacked. Perhaps Simon needs to check his own hypocrisy.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right – it’s one of the things that totalitarian governments typically suppress quickly and brutally.
But the writer of this article doesn’t appear himself to understand that freedom of speech has never been an absolute right. The classic limitation is not knowingly harming others, such as causing the danger of a crush by shouting “Fire!” in a public building. Additionally, there is usually acceptable social limits (e.g., obscenities) or limits set because of a person’s role (e.g., a police officer not to advocate for breaking the law or a teacher not to argue against access to education).
In this recent situation with Kidman, people have rightly condemned a person charged with preventing extremism herself arguably inciting extremism.
LFC
Indeed, JamesA. "Free Speech" doesn't mean one is absolved of responsibility from what one has said. In the Professor's case, she wasn't prevented from saying what she did (nor will she be in the future), but she must now face the consequences which should result in her losing her Government appointment and thereby some of her audience and, in her case, mana. She is still free to say what she likes, but I gather she has taken it upon herself to now restrict her own platform. There was no hypocrisy or the undermining of 'free speech' in ACT rightfully calling her out.
She should have said in ‘Maori’. She would have got away with it. We are told that ugly Maori words m/expressions just sound ugly in English - remember excuses give after Waitangi Day?
Thanks, Simon, for a very good column but it contains an amusing slip-up in "the ramblings of reporter Liam Hastings from the NZ Herald".
The reporter's name is Liam Napier — which is close to Hastings but not the same thing.
Post a Comment