OPINION
The issue I discuss below has continued to be promoted by the likes of mainstream media, the Green Party, and others. As you will read, these groups seem to think there should be one set of rules for them, and a completely different approach for those they disagree with.
Simon O’Connor
Husband, step-father, and longtime student of philosophy and history. Also happen to be a former politician, including chairing New Zealand’s Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Committee.
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 Maori 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 is 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.