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:
“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.
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.
7 comments:
Agreed Simon. But if it is an employment contract matter, which both of these cases seem to be, the free speech may have been contracted out.
When sports teams may have taxpayer funding and they use their profile to try to influence political policy that was voted for by a democratic majority, that is the time when our fourth estate, currently missing in action, should be highlighting the issue.
Likewise, when an employee of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet comes out with subversive comments where is the fourth estate?
I think she should have been gone by lunchtime the same day and in saner times she would have been.
MC
Yes I am very much in favour of free speech too Simon, but do you think there is an extra dimension to the debate, which is the role and position of the utterer? The late Queen Elizabeth kept her opinions to herself, not because she didn't have them but because she knew that her role limited her freedom. I accord each of the Hurricanes and Kidman the citizen's right of free speech but question their appropriateness qua footballers and especially Director of Research ( Whadda plonker! free speech - thought I was getting a bit pompous there).
Both the Haka and Kidman can go bye bye.
There is free speech then their is incitement to civil disobedience.
As we know, in NZ free speech extends to granny bashers but not the granny herself.
Free speech anticipates both sides of the argument but not in NZ.
Hurricanes Poua prop, Leilani Parese, led a racist haka that deliberately confronted and demeaned all non-Māori team members, non-Māori Hurricanes supporters, and indeed all non-Māori New Zealanders.
Those who participated in this outrage did so in front of a live audience, on public television, in their workplace, on work time, while wearing their employer’s uniform, and after having signed Code of Conduct undertakings specifically precluding bringing their employer and their sport into disrepute.
Imagine a Youtube video of a bunch of uniformed white McDonalds burger flippers rapping: “Obese brown people, puppets of the fast food industry…”
Deliberately disrespecting a substantial customer base?
Gone by lunchtime?
Gone by morning smoko, I’d say.
Everyone associated with this racist haka—front of house or backroom—should have their contracts torn up.
A possible exception for the white girls, who were doubtless cry-bullied into going along with it in the interests of ‘team solidarity.’
Sickening!
It's a war dance and should have no place in sport. We now see the All Blacks wielding a spear, the Hurricane women brandishing a club. Add to that the eye rolling (yes the eyes were considered a delicacy by cannibals), sticking out the tongue (we want to eat you) and throat cutting gestures. The haka is an expression of all things violent in NZ, and is not the sort of culture we should be promoting in sport.
I think you mean Liam Napier ;). But yes, his lack of consistency is mind-boggling.
On Kidman, what's the status of this centre she runs? If it's just part of VUW, then she's certainly entitled to say whatever she likes, however misinformed. But if it's directly funded by government, and thus is effectively a government department, then it's a somewhat different story.
Post a Comment