Free Speech Union (New Zealand) Incorporated
Dear John,
Some of our supporters may find this harder to believe than others, but Chlöe Swarbrick made some pretty good points yesterday in an interview with Jack Tame about 'Hate Speech.'
Challenged over her use of the chant 'From the River to the sea, Palestine will be free' late last year at a pro-Palestinian rally, Swarbrick told Tame that while she knew that many in the Jewish community consider this chant to be 'hate speech,' she disagreed that it was.
She also said that if her ideas made people uncomfortable, perhaps we needed to 'embrace the discomfort', which, again, is a pretty solid free speech argument.
Just because something is uncomfortable doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it.
It's just a pity that when it's not her expressing what others consider 'hate speech', but when others are expressing ideas she doesn't like, she's keen on them to be put in prison for 3 years.
John, it reminds me that few things stink so much as hypocrisy. Or as another individual once embroiled in a Jewish conflict put it, 'Hypocrisy is the yeast of the Pharisees.'
But that's precisely what we have to constantly deal with when it comes to fighting our would-be-censors.
There was another recent example of this. Last weekend, former Minister of Defence Peeni Henare spoke at Waitangi as the Opposition Parties were welcomed onto the marae.
In his speech, he said, “This is a fight that will not be fought just in Parliament. I lift my gun, and I let the shots do the talking.”
He quickly clarified: “That’s a figurative gun, not an actual gun.”
I, for one, am willing to accept that he spoke figuratively. Incitement to violence is a bright line for free speech advocates - we're very clear that 'true threats' aren't protected by free speech, but this wasn't a true threat; it was colourful language.
Peeni Henare
Just like it wasn't a true threat when, several months ago during the election campaign, David Seymour claimed that he would 'blow up' the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, Seymour said, "In my fantasy, we’d send a guy called Guy Fawkes in there, and it’d be all over, but we’ll probably have to have a more formal approach than that."
Both David Seymour and Peeni Henare used violent imagery to convey their point, but neither meant their words to incite violence. I'll let you decide whether they could have communicated their intent better, but I hope we can agree that they both should have the right to speak freely.
This is where the hypocrisy comes in.
Both have the right to speak freely. But one was castigated by the media and online trolls for weeks, while the other was given a free pass.
But free speech only works if permitted for both sides.
This is what I said to Chlöe Swarbrick when I wrote to her today: "We have always said that there is no way to define hate speech in an objective, neutral way for the purposes of criminalising it. Speech may be considered hateful on subjective interpretation, and those who write hate speech laws will always have views themselves that others would be all-too-willing to employ against them for their own ends. We trust this is a reality you would now be well aware of yourself."
If we believe in free speech for the opinions we agree with but think that free speech doesn't apply to the positions we disagree with, then that's not a commitment to free speech; it's a commitment to our opinions.
There is no doubt that Chlöe Swarbrick is fully committed to her opinions- and again, she should have every right to be.
But there is real doubt whether her belief in the right to say things that make others uncomfortable on one issue means others have the right to make her uncomfortable on a different issue.
Here at the FSU, we're constantly working hard to check our own biases and John, I know that you and the tens of thousands of other supporters of the Union are willing to call us out if we stray from the principle.
One of the reasons I think people are losing faith in free speech is not because they disagree that people should be allowed to speak freely. It's because they're sick of the hypocrisy that allows some to speak, but silences others.
In a New Zealand that is more polarised than ever before across many issues, let's stick to the radical idea that even our opponents deserve the right to speak.
We hope that the next co-leader of the Green Party agrees (though we're not holding our breath). One way or the other, we'll be here to hold them to account and keep them to the principle that Kiwis' free speech matters, no matter who they are.
Thanks for joining us in the fight to keep free speech for all.
Jonathan
Responses « Back to index | View thread »