This was a cue for Goff to ask the Foreign Minister; “President Trump has restored the bust of Churchill to the Oval Office. But do you think he really understands history?”
This was Chatham House so the rule should have been that you can repeat what was said but not by who. Perhaps Goff felt that would hold despite the event being live-streamed.
The former opposition leader is now untethered from the burdens of diplomacy and free to write opinion pieces for Stuff on Trump’s failings. Last week he wrote Kiwis “… expect policies which are considered and based on evidence rather than a spontaneous appeal to the prejudice of a leader’s hard-core supporters.”
Let’s go back a little. To July 6, 2018.
The country was in a state of excitement because two Canadian attention seekers, Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, were on a speaking tour. The Bruce Mason Centre, a council owned facility, had agreed to rent them a theatre and there was some excitement as Auckland Peace Action were threatening to wave placards.
Goff, in a very Trumpian approach, cancelled the event via tweet. “Council venues shouldn't be used to stir up ethnic or religious tensions. Views that divide rather than unite are repugnant and I have made my views on this very clear. Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux will not be speaking at any Council venues.”
Goff, who was the mayor, superseded his judgement about what we could hear over our own in a, well, spontaneous appeal to the prejudices of his hard-core supporters.
The event was formally cancelled because of the threat of disruption. Health and Safety.
The issue went to the Court of Appeal where it was ruled that the right of free speech, contained in the NZ Bill of Rights Act was limited by a clause that stated “… the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
This case was the origin story of the Free Speech Union and last week I sat down with its spirited CEO, Jonathan Ayling, to discuss free speech, its limits and the difference between New Zealand and the United States.
The Americans have the first amendment which is free of the‘ reasonable limits’ caveat and the Southern and Molyneux case may have been decided differently across the Pacific. Ayling believes that the first amendment is a weakness; “It makes them lazy” because “Freedom of speech needs to be based in culture, not law.”
This is interesting but larger issues are at stake. Should you have a right to say your piece if that comes with serious consequences? A study in the United Kingdom supports other analysis that show a direct link between hateful comments online and real-world racist attacks.
A challenge I put to Ayling was that the basis of his argument is utilitarian; that free speech produces a better outcome than censorship; which forces us to weigh the costs and benefits.
Yes. Ayling conceded, that is the standard approach. He accepted that the populism of Protestantism created by the printing press led to religious wars but it also gave us the industrial revolution. Free speech works like science; a flawed thesis need only be disproved once.
Perhaps. But last time I checked some folks still believe in astrology, Jesus and veganism so I am unsure of the utility of the rationale.
The origins of free speech in the modern era can be traced to the Glorious Revolution, where parliamentarians won free speech for themselves, and it trickled down to the populace over time, but should this value still apply today?
Free speech once consisted of a few angry pamphlets and an unauthorised bible. Now it means people claiming Covid came from a lab leak, anonymous trolls spreading vile incendiary material and foreign states manipulating public square.
How do we justify this liberty when the costs are escalating to the point that the utilitarian calculus, being the greatest good for the greatest number, could tip towards censorship?
“Logos” Alying responds, implying a sacred aspect to the right of the individual to be sovereign. To be oneself you must be free to say what you wish. To be otherwise is to be less than your potential.
The challenge for those defending the right to speak, and to listen, is to acknowledge the consequences of our position. It comes at a cost. Sometimes, as in Phil Goff’s case it is a comfortable post-career sinecure. In others it can be deadly.
Free speech isn’t free....The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
The former opposition leader is now untethered from the burdens of diplomacy and free to write opinion pieces for Stuff on Trump’s failings. Last week he wrote Kiwis “… expect policies which are considered and based on evidence rather than a spontaneous appeal to the prejudice of a leader’s hard-core supporters.”
Let’s go back a little. To July 6, 2018.
The country was in a state of excitement because two Canadian attention seekers, Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, were on a speaking tour. The Bruce Mason Centre, a council owned facility, had agreed to rent them a theatre and there was some excitement as Auckland Peace Action were threatening to wave placards.
Goff, in a very Trumpian approach, cancelled the event via tweet. “Council venues shouldn't be used to stir up ethnic or religious tensions. Views that divide rather than unite are repugnant and I have made my views on this very clear. Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux will not be speaking at any Council venues.”
Goff, who was the mayor, superseded his judgement about what we could hear over our own in a, well, spontaneous appeal to the prejudices of his hard-core supporters.
The event was formally cancelled because of the threat of disruption. Health and Safety.
The issue went to the Court of Appeal where it was ruled that the right of free speech, contained in the NZ Bill of Rights Act was limited by a clause that stated “… the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
This case was the origin story of the Free Speech Union and last week I sat down with its spirited CEO, Jonathan Ayling, to discuss free speech, its limits and the difference between New Zealand and the United States.
The Americans have the first amendment which is free of the‘ reasonable limits’ caveat and the Southern and Molyneux case may have been decided differently across the Pacific. Ayling believes that the first amendment is a weakness; “It makes them lazy” because “Freedom of speech needs to be based in culture, not law.”
This is interesting but larger issues are at stake. Should you have a right to say your piece if that comes with serious consequences? A study in the United Kingdom supports other analysis that show a direct link between hateful comments online and real-world racist attacks.
A challenge I put to Ayling was that the basis of his argument is utilitarian; that free speech produces a better outcome than censorship; which forces us to weigh the costs and benefits.
Yes. Ayling conceded, that is the standard approach. He accepted that the populism of Protestantism created by the printing press led to religious wars but it also gave us the industrial revolution. Free speech works like science; a flawed thesis need only be disproved once.
Perhaps. But last time I checked some folks still believe in astrology, Jesus and veganism so I am unsure of the utility of the rationale.
The origins of free speech in the modern era can be traced to the Glorious Revolution, where parliamentarians won free speech for themselves, and it trickled down to the populace over time, but should this value still apply today?
Free speech once consisted of a few angry pamphlets and an unauthorised bible. Now it means people claiming Covid came from a lab leak, anonymous trolls spreading vile incendiary material and foreign states manipulating public square.
How do we justify this liberty when the costs are escalating to the point that the utilitarian calculus, being the greatest good for the greatest number, could tip towards censorship?
“Logos” Alying responds, implying a sacred aspect to the right of the individual to be sovereign. To be oneself you must be free to say what you wish. To be otherwise is to be less than your potential.
The challenge for those defending the right to speak, and to listen, is to acknowledge the consequences of our position. It comes at a cost. Sometimes, as in Phil Goff’s case it is a comfortable post-career sinecure. In others it can be deadly.
Free speech isn’t free....The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
9 comments:
Free speech in New Zealand was dramatically suppressed during the covid pandemic. Anyone who questioned the government on their policies and actions were quickly labelled as "anti-science" in the most perverted abuse in the name of science itself.
Mainly thanks to the NZ mainstream media.
That quickly deterred and stymied any open and reasonable debate.
It culminated in that now infamous statement "We are the sole source of truth".
Many variations on that rallying cry have been etched throughout history from a long list of zealots, despots, tyrants and assorted nefarious mobs.
It was about then most sane people realized any government which thinks like that ought to be removed.
Here here
It’s neither here or there but it should be hear hear
A million people died from COVID in the US, many of whom would have succumbed by not wearing masks or social distancing or getting vaccinated as a consequence of believing Donald Trump's version of free speech. That's the cost of free speech. A virus is an equal opportunity killer; it doesn't check with the Bill of Rights before it infects anyone. So it seems to me "anti-science" is an accurate description of both Anon 10.42 and his/her buddy Anon 12.53. If free speech was suppressed here (and of course it wasn't - people could say what they liked) it contributed to both Anons being alive today and able to bitch and moan about a very successful public health campaign that was the envy of the world.
If we're going to be pedantic, Anon 706, that should read "It's neither here NOR there" :-))
O dear Jones Boy , back onto the speculation about the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine and the nature of the covid virus.
One group of people , the American Amish refused to be vaccinated and extravagant predictions were made about their inevitable high mortality rate. When a survey was done it was found no more than two or three old people died in any Amish settlement . This was overall about 1- 2% of their population .
Now ebola is a real threat with something like 80% mortality of a population. Covid in comparison does not qualify as anything like that. . The exaggerated threat was based on now recognized wrong statistical and computerized modelling . Daily research is coming out from reputable research centers that the vaccines cause more harm than the virus. itself. Some US states have put severe legal restrictions on future mandated vaccines .
You can prove almost anything you like with science and a strongly held ideology. That modern bio - pharmaceutical medicine and in particular gene therapy is our saviour is the current ideology.
The climate cult is another example of ideology trumping real science , as is the transgender craze.
I'm sure Gaynor is totally comfortable in his world view and that's his perfect right. However his obvious ignorance of how science works reduces anything he says about it to nothing more than noise in the system. His speech may be free, but at best, adds no value to the conversation. At worst it is a danger to society because it undermines trust in core institutions and normalises a million dead citizens. Play Russian roulette with your own life Gaynor, if you must. The rest of us know our limitations and are happy to let the advice of public health experts keep us alive and breathing. And by the way, their advice worked. So what is your problem with that Gaynor?
What about the thousands of health workers who managed to get themselves exempted from being vaccinated. What did they know we weren't told about .?
Oh dear Gaynor. Like all antivaxxers you resort to vague and sweeping generalisations about something you probably heard from your barber. Give us verifiable facts and we might take notice of you.
Post a Comment