It's a major problem.
Declining trust in our society's key institutions undermines their credibility. Kiwis are clearly calling for a return to first principles, and the reality is, protecting free speech is essential if we are to keep public confidence in our key institutions.
When approximately only one in three Kiwis trusts politicians or journalists, you would think this ought to be a wake-up call for our key institutions.
Three damning pieces of research have come out in the past couple of weeks. The 2023 New Zealand Election Study (NZES), the 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer, and now a report from StatsNZ, too, in summary, show politicians and journalists, have reached a new low in the public standing.
While the Bill of Rights Act guarantees “the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinions”, attempts to erode the legal and cultural protections for our fundamental civil liberties, such as free speech, continues apace.
Forfeiting our lawful freedoms for the promise of “safety” is a recipe for disaster.
Attempts to introduce hate speech laws, the registering of “non-hate crime incidents” by NZ Police, and the weaponising of human rights law are all evidence of this trend. The Stats NZ results also highlighted an increase in the public’s concerns about crime. How will this improve when Police have a focus on banning gang patches and instructing their officers to identify ‘hate’ speech?
The danger of “thought suppression” should be abundantly clear in light of the work FSU is doing. Unsurprisingly, public confidence and trust are two of the first casualties when a culture of censorship is promoted.
The public is tired of being told that politicians, bureaucrats, academics, and the media know best on behalf of everyone else. When controversial discussions and debates labelled as “dangerous” are prevented from taking place, members of the public often doubt their own judgment at first.
But bitter experience means many of us eventually wise up. Is it any wonder, then, that Kiwis are growing frustrated and disillusioned with the elitist response they’re receiving from so many politicians, journalists, academics, and judges?
This is not an argument against the need for education or expertise or leadership. Rather, it is a criticism of what happens when people in positions of responsibility disregard their need for humility.
Vibrant democratic culture – as with free speech - depends on both confidence and humility. Be confident enough to share what you think. Be humble enough to allow other voices to speak and critique. Then listen and analyse.
It is not a perfect process, but it’s supremely better than the alternatives. By standing up for our neighbour’s right to freedom of speech, no matter our differences, we build trust and respect, and eventually develop tolerable compromises and solutions in dealing with the issues of the day.
The Treaty Principles Bill controversy, irrespective of what you think about te Tiriti, is a perfect demonstration of the opposite phenomenon: a paternalistic attitude towards the public.
Judges are obviously highly trained and experienced experts on questions of law. No one seriously disputes this. However, many Kiwis are beginning to question whether some of the highest-ranking members of our judiciary are being as impartial as they’re supposed to be on matters of crucial constitutional significance.
It’s possible that perceived partiality could be very different from what’s happening in reality, so I don’t claim to hold privileged information on this question. But what should be obvious is that in a democracy, public concern about judicial overreach – especially the potential for personal ideology to creep into legal interpretation - should not be dismissed out of hand.
We want those in positions of authority to be open and respectful toward the public because the average person on the street whether they’re in Auckland, Foxton, or Timaru, will readily admit that they don’t claim to be an expert on Treaty issues or constitutional law.
But ordinary citizens also don’t want to be told they’re incapable of understanding certain fundamental principles that guide constitutional decision-making.
If key institutions – the judiciary, media, politicians – can’t explain and show transparently what they’re doing and why they’re doing it, we begin to lose faith in the institutions they represent.
If we cannot even be trusted with our own freedoms, despite these being guaranteed under NZ law, the only peaceful reasonable response is to coalesce as concerned citizens in the form of civil society organisations like the FSU.
Together we are successfully fighting back because we uphold in principle and practice the essential values of democratic culture. We are chalking up wins as a movement because free speech not only makes sense, but it works.
Nick Hanne is the Education Partnerships Manager at the Free Speech Union. This article was originally published by The Platform and is published here with kind permission.
Three damning pieces of research have come out in the past couple of weeks. The 2023 New Zealand Election Study (NZES), the 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer, and now a report from StatsNZ, too, in summary, show politicians and journalists, have reached a new low in the public standing.
While the Bill of Rights Act guarantees “the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinions”, attempts to erode the legal and cultural protections for our fundamental civil liberties, such as free speech, continues apace.
Forfeiting our lawful freedoms for the promise of “safety” is a recipe for disaster.
Attempts to introduce hate speech laws, the registering of “non-hate crime incidents” by NZ Police, and the weaponising of human rights law are all evidence of this trend. The Stats NZ results also highlighted an increase in the public’s concerns about crime. How will this improve when Police have a focus on banning gang patches and instructing their officers to identify ‘hate’ speech?
The danger of “thought suppression” should be abundantly clear in light of the work FSU is doing. Unsurprisingly, public confidence and trust are two of the first casualties when a culture of censorship is promoted.
The public is tired of being told that politicians, bureaucrats, academics, and the media know best on behalf of everyone else. When controversial discussions and debates labelled as “dangerous” are prevented from taking place, members of the public often doubt their own judgment at first.
But bitter experience means many of us eventually wise up. Is it any wonder, then, that Kiwis are growing frustrated and disillusioned with the elitist response they’re receiving from so many politicians, journalists, academics, and judges?
This is not an argument against the need for education or expertise or leadership. Rather, it is a criticism of what happens when people in positions of responsibility disregard their need for humility.
Vibrant democratic culture – as with free speech - depends on both confidence and humility. Be confident enough to share what you think. Be humble enough to allow other voices to speak and critique. Then listen and analyse.
It is not a perfect process, but it’s supremely better than the alternatives. By standing up for our neighbour’s right to freedom of speech, no matter our differences, we build trust and respect, and eventually develop tolerable compromises and solutions in dealing with the issues of the day.
The Treaty Principles Bill controversy, irrespective of what you think about te Tiriti, is a perfect demonstration of the opposite phenomenon: a paternalistic attitude towards the public.
Judges are obviously highly trained and experienced experts on questions of law. No one seriously disputes this. However, many Kiwis are beginning to question whether some of the highest-ranking members of our judiciary are being as impartial as they’re supposed to be on matters of crucial constitutional significance.
It’s possible that perceived partiality could be very different from what’s happening in reality, so I don’t claim to hold privileged information on this question. But what should be obvious is that in a democracy, public concern about judicial overreach – especially the potential for personal ideology to creep into legal interpretation - should not be dismissed out of hand.
We want those in positions of authority to be open and respectful toward the public because the average person on the street whether they’re in Auckland, Foxton, or Timaru, will readily admit that they don’t claim to be an expert on Treaty issues or constitutional law.
But ordinary citizens also don’t want to be told they’re incapable of understanding certain fundamental principles that guide constitutional decision-making.
If key institutions – the judiciary, media, politicians – can’t explain and show transparently what they’re doing and why they’re doing it, we begin to lose faith in the institutions they represent.
If we cannot even be trusted with our own freedoms, despite these being guaranteed under NZ law, the only peaceful reasonable response is to coalesce as concerned citizens in the form of civil society organisations like the FSU.
Together we are successfully fighting back because we uphold in principle and practice the essential values of democratic culture. We are chalking up wins as a movement because free speech not only makes sense, but it works.
Nick Hanne is the Education Partnerships Manager at the Free Speech Union. This article was originally published by The Platform and is published here with kind permission.
No comments:
Post a Comment