Free speech. We have taken it for granted, as a given, as something we assume will always be with us. We all hold it dear to our hearts—or so we believe. For there exist a very vocal, very stupid, and very few people who are offended and outraged by the concept of free speech itself.
Unfortunately, a good share (if not most) of our deluded bureaucrats have their collective blinkers on, and, for the life of them, cannot and do not realise the importance of free speech.
One of these deluded bureaucrats, Phil Goff, though soon-to-be Dictator Goff, believes that not all free speech should be free as we've seen with his appalling actions with regards to right-wing Canadian duo, Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux.
Above: Dictator Goff of Auckland
Indeed, everybody who cherishes the ability to criticise our leaders should be alarmed. We should be marching in the thousands for Dictator Goff's resignation—but we aren't. We raise our fists in anger at the television; perhaps we put Dictator Goff in the bad books for a week or two; some people do nothing at all.
If we cherish free speech so much, we must take action: short-term outrage will not work. If we want free speech to survive, we must unite, we must rise, and we must protest.
Down with Dictator Goff. Down with those who suppress free speech.
Hey, Nathan!
ReplyDeleteThis is a very well-crafted piece of writing. I love your use of language features (the multiple uses of anaphora were my favourite) and how you deliberately varied your sentence structure for effect. I also like how you wove in elements of satire throughout your piece.
To be honest with you, I haven’t actually followed this issue, besides a casual look over an article some time ago. In fact, this may prove to be a good opportunity for you to educate me on what has occurred and the issues contained within.
From my limited understanding, a controversial Canadian right-wing duo were denied a venue for their talk at the very last moment, cancelling the event. On the surface, this is very concerning, because your fundamental thesis is fundamentally true;
the right to free speech is very important.
(As an aside - I heard you have read Orwell’s Animal Farm. If you haven’t already read it, I think you would thoroughly enjoy 1984. It portrays a world where totalitarianism has been enforced, to the extreme. Freedom of speech is totally obliterated; ‘Big Brother’ is always watching your every move with a mass-surveillance system, and the minds of the masses are heavily manipulated by the media.
Orwell’s warning of the dangers of totalitarianism still ring very true to this day!)
If we examine the current events in Bangladesh and Venezuela, we can see the direct importance of the right to free speech and the freedom to protest, especially while under an oppressive totalitarian regime.
Going back to the issue at hand, I remember reading something about Phil Goff being concerned about the safety of the event and worrying that violence may occur. I believe there was also something in the article about him saying (and I’m paraphrasing, here) that he was not obligated to provide a council venue to speakers who project ‘hate-speech’ and racism, which is the antithesis of the diversity and acceptance that Auckland stands for.
I have a few questions for you:
One for you to educate me.
One for you to articulate your thoughts and opinions.
One to challenge your thoughts on the concept of free speech.
Why do people find these speakers so objectionable? Could you tell me some of the most controversial things that these people say? Was Phil Goff correct in saying there was a risk of upheaval and violence? Are they really racists who are spreading ‘hate-speech’? (If you like, you can comment on the concept of ‘hate-speech’ and what may define it.)
Should the government be obligated to provide council facilities to those who project discriminatory language? Were the speakers also denied a private venue? On one hand, you don’t want to stifle debate and you want to allow people to become more educated through discussion. Logic, evidence, and compassion should prevail over all. Do you agree? On the other hand, (and I’m not really sure of the speakers’ message) why should the government have to allow toxic ideas to be spread at a council venue? (If the ‘toxic ideas’ description does not apply specifically to the speakers, just talk on the issue generally.)
This next one is an interesting one, because, as you have most likely already surmised, the concept of free speech is a human construct, and therefore does not exist objectively. Here is my question to you: can you think of any instances where free-speech should be denied? Are we dealing in absolutes, here, and saying that free speech must be protected at all costs? Or, are there some situations in which it is justified to shut down an event like this? In your answer, consider these aspects - risk of violence - risk of destabilizing government/economy/social order - spreading negativity and hurting people’s feelings.
Hopefully that gives you a bit to work with!
I look forward to hearing your response.
Mr Taylor
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAlex Jones has been banned from all social media platforms. He is being denied his right to free speech. Tommy Robinson has been banned from Instagram. Where is his right to talk. You may or may not agree with their views but denying them their voice sets a very dangerous and slippery slope.
ReplyDeleteAs a conservative - I believe that we need to make the left-wing who are constantly outraged at life & death situations need to take a dose of their own medicine and stop being hypocrites.
For example, where is the outrage over the new New York Times columnist who has openly racistly abused white people on Twitter?
If conservative voices are being shut down and banned - then why not liberal voices too.
At the end of the day, if you dont like what a person says - so long as it is not inciting violence and committing an actual crime - then dont listen. Who is going to hear a tree fall in a forest if there is no one around.
Nathan, like you, I believe protecting the freedom for people to express their views is hugely important. But a couple of comments.
ReplyDeleteFirst, when challenged by lawyers for the Free Speech Coalition, Phil Goff's lawyers admitted that in fact he had no power to ban the two Canadians from council-owned facilities, and the ban had been put in place by Regional Facilities Auckland (the council-owned organisation which controls access to council-owned facilities) solely on "health and safety grounds".
Second, the good thing which has emerged from all this controversy, including the banning by the Massey University Vice Chancellor of my speech about my time in politics, is that there is very strong support for free speech right across the political spectrum. That's got to be cause for celebration.
Don Brash
Wow, Nathan you have expressed yourself well and may your continue to question what is happening in Aotearoa. I must say that Mr Taylor obviously enjoys responding to your blogs and asked some interesting questions which you took the liberty to answer. As far as the Canadians, I question their purpose and like true capitalists, it's all about the money - actually the making of money. To be honest, I had no idea of who they are and what I did read re the dangers of diversity, did not bode well with my philosophy about homo sapiens. There is only one world and one race, the human race. Protesters in Auckland were speaking freely and to be honest, I lost no sleep about them leaving without making any money Interestingly that you want to rid Auckland of Phil Goff for being a 'dictator'but, correct me if I am wrong, I have the distinct impression that it is a role you would cherish. Anyway keep me posted on your blogs as I do enjoy your style of writing and single mindedness. “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”. ps After 1984, try Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.
ReplyDeleteNathan
ReplyDeleteYou are clearly not afraid to tackle big issues (and good on you).
I would place myself perhaps more towards the 'liberal' end of the spectrum in this debate than you, and ask this fundamental question: what is the price of freedom (or free speech)?
We are quick to talkjabout rights in this 21st century age, but I stiill see little mention of the responsibilities that this bestows on us.
In itself this is a question on which there may be little agreement because it is indeed subjective. However what we can say is that societies typically end up (via political processes amongst other things) with some sort of concensus about what that looks like. However it is a fine balance, a very fragile state, as Mr Minto's examples illustrate. Those who have lived through such cycles tend to (understandably) be far more sensitively attuned to the issues than those whose experience is more removed, either by time, or by geography, from situations in which freedoms have been abused.
Our freedom is a very precious thing, something to be treasured and nurtured. We tend to take it for granted in New Zealand (perhaps because of our geographic separation) rather more readily than perhaps we should.
Ngā mihi
Good evening Mr Minto,
ReplyDeleteI understand your concerns on the consequences free speech may have on minorities—as in the discrimination they may encounter due to the existence of free speech.
However, where do we draw the line? That is, what is free speech and what is so-called 'hate speech'. There is no defined line which we should never cross with regards to what we say as we are all individuals; thus the drawing of the line is subjective.
For example, if I was to say that Jews are evil, most of the world would be disgusted (and rightly so)—and thus for those people I've stepped over the line. Although, there would be a small number of people who (for whatever reason) similarly believe that Jews are evil—and thus, for those individuals, I haven't stepped over the line.
I disagree with your point, "handing out leaflets saying 'Allah is a gay God' is not expressing an opinion". It's an opinion. Once again, where do we draw the line on what is (and what isn't) an opinion—it's impossible. You may disagree with that opinion, but it's still an opinion. It may be a hateful opinion to you, but it's still an opinion.
Hate speech is free speech deemed hate speech by those who hate free speech. Or, more briefly: free speech is free speech.
No limits must there be with free speech; free to say, listen, agree or disagree, debate, and so forth.
Many Thanks,
Nathan.
What are the limits of free speech. In my opinion, there are three (and I am always open to listening to other peoples opinions - because they have the right to free speech too.)
ReplyDeleteThe first limit is about 'credible threats'. You can not say that you are going to physical hurt anyone. Physical violence is wrong. And the threat needs to be credible. Saying you a going to sail the Titanic through your house is obviously not credible. Context is also important.
The second limit is around inciting violence. You are allowed to say you hate _____ but you cannot then incite people to grab a baseball bat and attack them.
Along this line is also the 'shouting fire' scenario. If you are in a theatre and shout "Fire!" then that will cause violence as the crowd stampedes to the door.
The third limit is defamation. This is where there is slightly more grey areas when it comes to defining what is defamation. What constitutes defaming someones character. I will put some more thought into this post a response.
Sorry Natan
ReplyDelete