Unconvincing Excuses: What Will the Left Say When the Right Starts Cancelling Its Speakers?
HERE’S ONE for the “We told you so!” file. Ever since Auckland Mayor, Phil Goff, personally declared Stefan Molyneaux and Cheryl Southernpersonae non grata in his city, or, more accurately, in the venues controlled by his city, the Editor of The Daily Blog and I have been warning that such bans can, and will, be used by authoritarians of all stripes to suppress freedom of expression.
Daily Blog Editor, Martyn Bradbury, also warned that such a heavy-handed example of censorship by the Left would be seized upon by the Right and turned to the electoral advantage of its principal representatives – the National and Act parties. In this regard, he has been proved entirely correct. Act’s leader, David Seymour, in particular, has emerged as Parliament’s most effective standard-bearer for Free Speech – a cause formerly associated, almost exclusively, with the Left.
At the time of Goff’s ban, I waited impatiently for the New Zealand Civil Liberties Union to come out swinging on behalf of this most precious of civil liberties. When no such defence of free speech was mounted from that quarter, I felt morally obliged to throw in my lot with the Free Speech Coalition – the group of mostly conservative activists summoned into existence by Goff’s high-handed intervention. That “coalition” has now become the Free Speech Union, an incorporated society modelled on the British interest group of the same name.
Right on cue, just as the FSU had finished putting on its armour and was in the process of sharpening its sword, the Labour Government released its proposed legislative remedies for “hate speech”. Something tells me that the drums of a full-scale propaganda war will soon be beating on this issue. The government and its friends should be looking to their own harness. The fate of the Left seems likely to turn on the outcome of this looming ideological encounter.
And if the Left loses? If issues like Hate Speech and He Puapua carry the Right to a stunning victory? What should the Left expect then?
One possible version of the future was played out this week in the US state of Texas.
According to the left-wing American publication/website Mother Jones, two radical historians, Chris Tomlinson and Bryan Burrough, were supposed to give a talk at the Bullock Texas State History Museum in Austin about Forget the Alamo, a new book they co-authored with Jason Stanford.
Written in the same anti-colonialist spirit as our own proudly revisionist New Zealand history curriculum, their book “sets out to dispel the myths of the Republic of Texas’ founding”. [The Republic of Texas was founded in 1836 by land-hungry American settlers seeking to add another slave state to the USA, and to get around the highly inconvenient problem that in the newly independent Republic of Mexico, of which Tejas was still a province, slavery had been abolished.]
But, when news of this event reached the ears of the Republican state government of Texas, its representatives on the “Preservation Board” of the museum peremptorily cancelled the authors’ talk.
“I think we’ve been censored”, Tomlinson told the media. Texas’s Lieutenant-Governor, Dan Patrick, was only too happy to confirm the author’s suspicion. “As a member of the Preservation Board, I told staff to cancel this event as soon as I found out about it. Like efforts to move the Cenotaph, which I also stopped, this fact-free rewriting of TX history has no place”, Patrick tweeted.
Now, if this story is ringing your memory bells, then so it should. In its shape, the Texas incident not only conforms neatly with the behaviour of Mayor Goff in response to the visit of Molyneaux and Southern, but also with that of the Vice-Chancellor of Massey University who “cancelled” Don Brash, and also with the local authorities that denied their venues to the trans-gender-sceptical group “Speak Up For Women”.
Were the New Zealand equivalents of Tomlinsin, Burroughs and Stanford to be denied access to Te Papa by a right-wing New Zealand Government, similarly citing the authors’ “fact-free” re-interpretation of New Zealand’s colonial history, their supporters would be outraged. They would not, however, find it easy to mount a credible objection. Their failure to speak up for freedom of expression in the cases of Molyneaux and Southern, Don Brash and SUFW, would undermine any objections they attempted to make, and expose them to charges of inconsistency, double-standards, and the most rank hypocrisy.
No doubt they would find reasons why “their” case was different. No doubt “progressive” speech must always be considered exempt from censorship. The right-wingers de-platformed by mayors, vice-chancellors and local authorities would all, I’m sure, be dismissed as “hate speech” criminals with no rights worthy of protection. What’s more, in the ears of their comrades such defences would sound entirely convincing.
Alas, in the ears of those who still believe in that classic defence of free speech (customarily attributed to Voltaire) “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” my guess is that the Left’s self-serving justifications will sound a lot more like excuses.
Unconvincing excuses.
Fuck the unemployed professors of humanity.
Well said Chris though it’s far from clear anymore what is left and what is right on a lot of these issues. The feminists wanting to protect women’s rights and privacy or the “trans lobby” wanting in on it?
The current government seem to be more than willing to place expedience above principle, or perhaps they’ve never thought to, or chosen not to, properly wrestle with the fundamental issues. This business of funding for media was always going to arouse concerns over government influence. They’ve just blatantly gone and done it, bribed the media into compliance with the most important and contentious issues we’ve faced as a nation. What the hell sort of a precedent is that to set?
“The fact is the issue is not going to go away no matter how much Ardern blusters in Parliament. And, unfortunately for her and the media recipients of government largesse, it is an explosive and corrosive predicament for both.
Most obviously, it is easily painted as the government buying an editorial point of view to suit its purposes – just as Collins and Seymour alleged. This, in turn, immediately raises suspicions about the media’s independence, with all the dismal consequences that entails for the trust their audiences place in them.
As Seymour noted in Parliament, the guidelines that determine eligibility for the millions of dollars on offer make it very explicit what position media must take on the Treaty.
The section describing the fund’s goals recommends “actively promoting the principles of Partnership, Participation and Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Māori as a Te Tiriti partner“.
And the first of the general eligibility criteria requires all applicants to show a “commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to Māori as a Te Tiriti partner”.
https://democracyproject.nz/2021/07/08/graham-adams-a-question-about-the-55m-media-fund-made-ardern-laugh-but-not-for-long/
Good article, communication is essential for us to have the knowledge we need to make correct decisions & removing the ability of those we don’t like to communicate can only lead to wrong decisions at some stage.
Wow …. cogent …
But hypocrisy seems to have outlived its use …
Fear not Chris!
This isn’t Texas and there is no ‘right wing’ here. National are mostly just wishy-washy neoliberals and ACT are mildly libertarian.
Thanks Chris. It’s a very worrying situation.
I see the free speech union has made a formal complaint to the Upper Hutt council about remarks made by their Mayor about SUFW. The mayor duly said if SUFW wanted to have a meeting at their facilities, he would suggest they do so in the rubbish bins.
I would encourage people to visit SUFW website. They have been accused of being a hate group, but a High Court judge ruled this wasn’t the case. Four libraries cancelled their bookings and of course the High court judge over turned that.
SUFW have been accused of not being a feminist group. But if you go to their website it lists the activism their members have been involved with over the years, including setting up thr SOS service for women who needed abortions (flying them to Australia) when they were illegal in NZ. They are being painted as anti-trans, but from what I have read this isn’t true.
If you are in Wellington on 15th 6- 7pm think about attending their meeting at the Michael Fowler Centre. This meeting is to talk about a piece of legislation, the gender self ID Bill. It is chilling that four libraries took it upon themselves to shut down these women’s democratic right to meet and discuss a piece of legislation that they believe impinges on their sex based rights.
Thank you Chris and Martyn for continuing to write about these issues
Phil Goff could hardly be called a leftie. The Labour party are not lefties either. Are you sure this is a “left” thing? Irrelevent anyway what side this is coming from. Brash, Molyneaux and Southern are grade 1 Racists bordering on white supremacists. I don’t remember too many people crying about their cancelation given the agenda they are always pushing.
No mate. If you can’t absolutely curb stomp Brashs, Molyneaux and Southern racist arguments in open debate then sit the fuck down and make way for those who can. It’s so easy to curbstomp them. First make it a voice debate so there is absolutely no room to hide behind texts.
“It’s so easy to curbstomp them”
Well Paddy Gower certainly made a complete fool of himself trying to.
BTW Sam, you do understand the provenance of that expression? You think it’s appropriate to have as a goal in a debate?
Don’t really care what the conditions for winning a debate is.
If you’re an abolitionist and your definition is incoherent, I have news for you: your abolitionism theory is also incoherent.
No different than one who wants to abolish square circles.
Probably best to be coherent about the thing you want to abolish.
Don’t care what the conditions for victory is.
If you’re an abolitionist and your definition of is incoherent, I have news for you: your gender abolitionism is also incoherent.
No different than one who wants to abolish square circles.
Probably best to be coherent about the thing you want to abolish.
Don’t care what the conditions for victory is.
If you’re an abolitionist and you’re dedicated to asking questions in order to remain confused, I have news for you: your abolitionist theory is also incoherent.
No different than one who wants to abolish square circles.
Probably best to be coherent about the thing you want to abolish.
I’m with you Sam; I am.
Greenbus: Tell me why you think Brash is racist.
Really can’t be bothered. If anyone doesn’t know this by now, they never will. I welcome free speech but not damaging free speech perhaps named hate speech.
All this talk of National/Act winning next election because of a discussion document proposal just makes me laugh. It’s good ammunition to mount an attack on you righties (and there is plenty of you on this blog) so please keep it up Kraut, your good self Andrew and all the rest. Dreams are free and nobody can take those away can they?
Good luck to the righties, you will need it. Countryboy and bert are on the money IMO, and I’m entitle to my say, as are your lot. Happy days.
https://www.top.org.nz/why_don_brash_is_racist
Go to the national library in wellington and at the Treaty exhibition watch and listen to the video of Don Brash saying how the savages didnt even have a proper system and they needed the clever white man to come and save them. Then come back and say he’s not a racist prick.
NZ is in the process of being morphed from a covertly fascist state into an overtly fascist state.
Expect the best job opportunities over the period of collapse that we have entered to be in the fields of crowd control and protection of gated communities, as the scumbags who gained control of NZ decades ago and their in-power-at-the-moment acolytes work hard to preserve their ill-gotten gains from the hands of the constantly-lied-to and increasingly-impoverished masses.
And all of this is drama is being staged against a backdrop of environmental meltdown,, energy decline, financial collapse, economic collapse and social collapse….. the natural consequences of decades of corruption and lies and counterproductive policies* in official circles.
*Counterproductive for society, but generating massive short-term gains for banks, corporations and opportunists.
Hi Chris. Sorry, I can’t help my pedantic self: personae non gratae.
Hah! I knew I’d be corrected – thank you! Now I know how to say it proper-like.
Well, in light of what is happening, I concede and stand corrected regards the issues of Molyneaux, Southern and free speech. At the time I defended the move to deny entry to them as I resented their message and found it offensive that long after they had left we were left to pick up all the pieces of the societal damage they may have caused. However I must say also that not many of us saw the Hate Speech laws coming and none of us knew the future regards the Christchurch terrorist.
That being said, I and others, have perhaps learnt a valuable lesson about the power of free speech as more than just a good ideal and that we cannot just take it for granted because its ‘always been that way’. It is almost surreal to watch what is happening now in our fair but sleepy Isles under this Labour govt, so I must extend my thanks both to Mr Bradbury and Mr Trotter and others who argued vigorously for the rights to ‘speak freely’.
Holy crap! A human being that can change their mind in the face of new evidence. Everybody stop and stare and point in slack jawed amazement. I salute you and thank you for making my day 🙂
Its easy, if one has seen the evidence, and taken heed of those who perhaps in this one issue have more farsightedness, then it behooves one to take notice. It is to be teachable.
The cavalry goes before the infantry as the eyes and ears of the generals, and the general is informed by such, therefore to remain bloody minded despite the evidence is a grievous harm.
It is a small thing to admit error, smaller still to admit ones error and own it, but the test is if one learns from it. Extrapolating, I was aware that in NAZI Germany, a chief method was to close down all criticisms of govt ideology and dissent,…that is the weakness of censorship. Therefore, if adequate platform is given to opposing the odious ideology, so be it.
But would there have been?
In light of the woke identity politic, perhaps.
But the Left have failed miserably for 36 years in the most odious of all : neo liberalism.
Bury Me in Southern Ground
https://youtu.be/Hq7Pbu7zaus?t=4
Chris – this is what annoys people about the position you have taken.
1.) The left is already well-used to having its voice suppressed – you do not need to imagine, as you have done here, some future hypothetical in which this happens. It already has, over and over again. Think of McCarthyism and of Chomsky & Herman’s decades-old work on the filters that operate within popular and especially corporate-owned media
2.) Yet the moment there is a suggestion of pushback against right-wing speech – some of which is within a nod and a wink of endorsing the harming other people – suddenly ‘free speech’ gets screamed at us from the right, who now seem to fear some contemporary crumbling of their previous hegemonic dominance of acceptable opinion.
My own inclination is actually to leave speech alone as much as possible – because it is a swamp that spawns unwinnable culture wars. But you cannot be surprised by people pointing out that your recent championing of free speech is (uncharacteristically for you) annoyingly ahistorical.
Some good points, however,….
Parliament uses hurty speech sometimes and I feel sad
I have a box of tissues,…
The left have no voice already.
Free speech no longer exists.
What the hell. The voice of the Left have been cancelled everywhere already.
It is why we have to protest and march in in the streets to get any hearing at all.
What a load of tosh.
A good Scots reasoning. However, one must reckon on faulty reasoning in those in power… reactionist’s, if you will,…who use a false moral virtue to hide behind to pass legislation that entraps us all. Such is , what’s happening here with Adern and her govt. Its good in so many ways, least of which is to destroy the neo liberal. Of which Adern is the heir of Douglas. The neo liberal darling.
Matters not what label nor tag they adopt, … the neo liberal is the neo liberal and must be politically destroyed. In all shapes and guises.
I’m looking forward to a future TDB post about how so many of the cancellations pervading throughout our culture are on parties offering alternatives to the left right dichotomy, offering an ability to put party alignments to rest and build a truly democratic society where we work towards better outcomes for all, not just for those on the left or those on the right. This black and white thinking is called splitting in psych circles. I for one would be relieved to see the press actually recognising the value of bipartisan debate and encouraging it.