spinofflive
Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

MediaDecember 12, 2022

How an open letter in The Listener set off a still-boiling battle over free speech

Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

In July 2021, a letter to The Listener helped launch a domestic battle over free speech which echoed around the world. Stewart Sowman-Lund reports on a North & South cover story (and related butt-dial) which kicked it all off again.

From the outside, the open letter seemed harmless enough. Magazines like The Listener often publish pieces on potentially controversial topics. But it’s unlikely any of the group of academics responsible, now identified collectively as The Listener Seven, anticipated the furore that followed. 

Titled “In Defence of Science”, the letter was signed by University of Auckland professors Kendall Clements, Garth Cooper, Michael Corballis, Douglas Elliffe, Elizabeth Rata, Robert Nola and John Werry. The group objected to the inclusion of mātauranga Māori and criticism of the role that science had played in colonialism in the school science curriculum. More specifically, the academics were concerned with one aspect of a proposed NCEA course that “promotes discussion and analysis of the ways in which science has been used to support the dominance of Eurocentric views… and the notion that science is a Western European invention and itself evidence of European dominance over Māori and other indigenous peoples.”

While Māori knowledge could, the group stated, play some role in the preservation of local practices and in management and policy, it “falls far short of what can be defined as science itself” and “it may help… but it is not science”.

‘If you value The Spinoff and the perspectives we share, support our work by donating today.’
Anna Rawhiti-Connell
— Senior writer

The Listener Seven’s letter prompted furious critiques on social media, blowing up beyond the pages of the magazine itself and prompting a wave of condemnation. There was also some support, notably from National MP Paul Goldsmith, who told Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking that Māori understanding of the world should be taught – “but not at the expense of our expertise in what the rest of the world call science”. 

It even echoed beyond domestic politics. Prominent British scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins defended the seven, writing a letter to the Royal Society of New Zealand titled “Myths Do Not Belong in Science Classes”. British conservative commentator Toby Young agreed, penning an article in The Spectator that commented: “In a rational world, this letter would have been regarded as uncontroversial”. With a somewhat indignant tone, Young stated that Māori children – “among the least privileged in the country” – could be “patronised” by teachers in the classroom. “Knowing about Rangi and Papa won’t get you into medical school,” he added.

Beyond the initial reaction to the group’s views, The Listener Seven article proved to be a catalyst for a still-raging battle over what should be considered acceptable speech. One of the most notable responses to The Listener Seven was an open letter in response, publicised first by microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles and Covid modeller Shaun Hendy, but ultimately cosigned by thousands of academics from across the country. The letter “categorically” disagreed with the views outlined by the Listener Seven. “Indigenous knowledges – in this case, mātauranga – are not lesser to other knowledge systems. Indeed, indigenous ways of knowing, including mātauranga, have always included methodologies that overlap with ‘Western’ understandings of the scientific method,” the response said. “However, mātauranga is far more than just equivalent to or equal to ‘Western’ science. It offers ways of viewing the world that are unique and complementary to other knowledge systems.”

The Listener Seven letter was far from the first free speech conflict in Aotearoa, but it was arguably the most significant in recent years – enough to warrant its own (lengthy) Wikipedia entry. It took what would typically be an academic disagreement and placed it well inside the mainstream discourse, showing that when the free speech debate rears its head, it often pulls in other contentious subjects. Suddenly, people weren’t just arguing about free speech. They were debating the realities of colonialism, racism and the place of indigenous cultures in broader society.

Against the backdrop of this dispute, a veteran journalist was planning her next piece. Published in this year’s October edition of North & South magazine under the headline Voice Control, Yvonne van Dongen’s feature summarised the free speech debate, tracing its evolution from another pivotal moment in the local landscape: the decision to shut out Canadian far right speakers Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern from Auckland venues in 2018 (first, the council-owned Bruce Mason Centre in Takapuna and then the private Powerstation). Much like the debate over The Listener Seven, the decision to bar Molyneux and Southern from their speaking engagement was a turning point in the free speech debate and one that attracted a wide range of responses. 

For those who believe free speech should be absolute, this decision was seen as a sign that acceptable speech in New Zealand was being unfairly curtailed. It ultimately triggered the birth of what is now The New Zealand Free Speech Union, a group which argues New Zealanders should have been free to hear what Southern and Molyneux had to say, even if many thought it distasteful. Aligned against that perspective are those who believe free speech does not mean freedom from consequences, which might include people being barred from certain public venues. The battle ultimately came to a close this week, four years after it began, when the New Zealand Supreme Court dismissed an ongoing appeal over the venue dispute. The appeal effectively hinged on whether the council was lawfully able to cancel the speakers’ event over safety concerns. The Supreme Court ruled that it was – something legal expert Andrew Geddis labelled “a bit commonsense-y and underwhelming” in an explainer for The Spinoff. “The Supreme Court’s overall approach means that these things will get judged on a case-by-case basis,” he wrote.

The North & South story wasn’t easy to get published, according to van Dongen herself. In an interview with The Platform’s Sean Plunket, who positions himself as a prominent free speech defender, van Dongen explained the difficulties she encountered during the editorial process. The younger “woke” staff at the magazine “had their hands all over it,” she said. “It’s getting harder and harder to write some stories, which is why I am so interested… in this topic,” she said. At one point, she claimed, North & South considered bringing in another journalist to rewrite the piece. Kirsty Cameron, North & South’s editor, confirmed to The Spinoff that the publication considered enlisting a “suitably experienced co-author to write on the legal aspects of free speech/hate speech”. With the redrafting of the government’s proposed hate speech legislation, this was ultimately deemed unnecessary, said Cameron.

Voice Control was North & South’s cover story, spread across nine pages of the magazine. “You can’t say that! Or can you?” the front page declared. Inside, the article began: “The battle lines over free speech – what it is, who has it, and whether it’s at risk – are being drawn.” It started with the Molyneux and Southern controversy and ended with a fairly pessimistic section subtitled “what comes next”. Along with Plunket, the article includes comment from the Free Speech Union’s Jonathan Ayling and Jordan Williams, historian Paul Moon (van Dongen says that he is “often called controversial” though has “never had his free speech curtailed”), and law expert Mai Chen. The Free Speech Union, perhaps unsurprisingly, features a lot, as does discussion over whether the group should be described as left, right, or somewhere in between. Both Ayling and Williams tell van Dongen the group is “non-partisan” and “with an ethnically and religiously diverse membership”.

The article also includes a half page “lexicon of the current debate” defining terms now widely connected to the free speech conversation. That includes “gender critical”, often a coded term for those with transphobic views, known colloquially as “Terfs”, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists. Here, gender critical is described as “the term preferred by activists and thinkers sceptical about or opposed to the idea that gender is something you can assign yourself”.

During her interview with Plunket, van Dongen implied that the impetus to write an article on free speech came from having views she sympathised with censored in the mainstream – namely, her “gender critical” views. “That was a real wake up call for me. I can’t be complacent.” She added that she thought most New Zealanders were gender critical because they “believe in women’s rights and [they] believe in science”. Other terms defined in Voice Control include trigger warning and woke.

After publication, the article seemed to receive a warm reception on social media. “I highly recommend checking out Yvonne van Dongen’s excellent article,” wrote social justice campaigner Richie Hardcore on Twitter. Juliet Moses, a spokesperson for the New Zealand Jewish Council, also directed her followers to the story. 

Print features on contentious issues can occasionally become the subjects of intense online discourse. Earlier this year, The Listener published an article headlined “The War on Men” which became a topic of widespread Twitter chatter. The Spinoff’s editor Madeleine Chapman decided instead to respond satirically from “the frontlines of the war on men”. 

Voice Control largely escaped this treatment. The closest it came to gaining online notoriety was after North & South issued an apology to Plunket himself. The Platform broadcaster asked for a correction to the piece after it included a very minor misquote of an incendiary 2017 tweet of his about disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. “In our current issue a tweet attributed to Sean Plunket in the story ‘Voice Control’ is incorrect,” a statement from North & South said. “In 2017, Mr Plunket tweeted ‘Anyone else feeling for Harvey Weinstein?’, and not, as we reported, ‘Anyone else feeling sorry for Harvey Weinstein?’. Mr Plunket says he was being deliberately ambiguous with his tweet and that we misinterpreted it. We apologise unreservedly for the error and for any implication that Mr Plunket supports sexual abusers.” 

(Van Dongen claimed that she had not chosen to include that tweet herself but that it was added by North & South. The Spinoff has confirmed this was added in the editing process.)

In March 2022, several months before Voice Control’s publication, Siouxsie Wiles received a text from van Dongen. Wiles was one of the cosignatories of the response to The Listener Seven article, and was asked whether she would like to be interviewed for the story. No formal interview would actually take place but, in texts seen by The Spinoff, Wiles was questioned on claims that the open letter she had cosigned had actually been an example of bullying. “Wouldn’t you like the opportunity to respond to [lawyer Deborah] Chambers’ claim that you and [Shaun] Hendy were the bullies in the Listener 7 open letter?” asked van Dongen. “Also whether the letter was an attempt to shut down the 7 writers thus preventing a dialogue about the issue.” 

In the article, van Dongen quotes Chambers: “It’s no good saying we believe in free speech and then when we read something contrary to our views we will be immediately sending an email to all academic colleagues.”

As a science expert, Wiles may not seem the typical focus of a story on free speech. However, her involvement in The Listener Seven saga, along with her outspoken views on issues like Covid-19, have made her a common target for free speech advocates online. A quick search through the Media Council archives brings up about a dozen results for cases against or about Wiles’ writing since the pandemic began. She told The Spinoff that signing the open letter response kicked into motion a “year-long campaign of harassment, out of proportion to what we had said or done”.

Wiles responded to van Dongen’s text: “It’s telling that the ‘Listener 7’ have been free to write their letters and reiterate their talking points over and over to media both here and overseas, but an open letter signed by people in support of their colleagues impacted by racism in the academy is called bullying.” However, when Voice Control was published, Wiles said she became concerned that the comments in the article “did not match the text records” she had. There was even a note stating that Wiles had declined to talk about a Media Council ruling, though texts between the pair reveal this issue was never raised.

In a statement published in a subsequent North & South issue, Cameron said she and van Dongen stood by the article, though as the editor acknowledged “there was an error made” and that some of Wiles’ views were misrepresented. Asked by The Spinoff about the difficulties in getting Voice Control published, Cameron said that “[free speech is] a massive, nuanced, complicated issue”. She added: “Even with the pages North & South can devote to such a topic, you’re never going to get every angle reported to everyone’s satisfaction”. Wiles and her colleague Shaun Hendy were ultimately provided the opportunity to write an 800 word response addressing their concerns with Voice Control and how it portrayed their involvement in The Listener Seven saga.

With Voice Control in print, and Wiles given the opportunity to correct the record, the scientist expected that was the end of things. But then Van Dongen called her by accident. The journalist would later tell Wiles that she had butt-dialled her and unintentionally left a three minute voicemail that included a conversation with another individual. Wiles is mentioned in the voicemail. Though much of the conversation is inaudible, one line in particular can be heard: “She doesn’t believe in biology [and] she’s a fucking biologist.” 

It’s believed van Dongen is planning to write at least one forthcoming article on issues related to the transgender community. She said as much during her interview on The Platform and several recent posts on social media suggests that she is critical, even dismissive, of the transgender community. “If you want to have some fun today, check out Twitter now Musk is in charge – so many people tweeting ‘men can’t get pregnant’,” she said in one post. In another, van Dongen said she can’t wait until New Zealand media outlets like RNZ and Stuff examined their “stance” on transgender issues. “Many of the children who identify as trans, if left alone, happily identify as gay. It’s why I believe the movement is both misogynistic and homophobic in practice. It’s an unscientific religious movement, i.e. a cult.” Wiles and Hendy, in comments to The Spinoff, said they believed it was “unethical” for van Dongen to be writing on issues like free speech given her views about the transgender community.

‘Media is under threat. Help save The Spinoff with an ongoing commitment to support our work.’
Duncan Greive
— Founder

It’s understood that van Dongen is hoping to have her article published in The Listener – the same magazine that helped launch the recent free speech debate for many New Zealanders. The magazine’s editor Karyn Scherer told The Spinoff that “no decision has been made on upcoming issues” of the magazine. Asked about the backlash to The Listener Seven saga, Scherer would not comment and said it was before her time as editor. 

Van Dongen elected not to comment to The Spinoff. “I’ve… decided that I’ve said all I want to say on the topic at this point,” she said.

While the Supreme Court may have ruled this week on one aspect of the free speech battle, it’s far from over. Social media remains filled with debate over the subject – take the recent return to Twitter of divisive figures like Jordan Peterson, for example. Closer to home, The Platform’s weekly Friday panel is called “Free Speech Friday”, giving an opportunity for personalities whose views often see them excluded from mainstream media to air them on Plunket’s online radio station. 

The Listener Seven are still very much in the minds of the academic community, too. Late last month, the University of Auckland held its first mātauranga Māori symposium. The event took place on the campus marae and, according to Te Ao Māori news, “showcased multiple aspects of mātauranga Māori”. 

The symposium can be viewed as a direct response to perspectives expressed by the Listener Seven – and the immediate reaction the group faced. But if their letter was a Pandora’s Box for free speech, we’re still a long way from closing it.

Keep going!
SIS.png

Pop CultureDecember 8, 2022

The stunning rise and puzzling stall of NZ’s most exciting TV show

SIS.png

The darling show of NZ On Air’s recent funding rounds leaked its debut season prior to the official release date and has now accused NZ On Air of not paying out its funding. Madeleine Chapman reports.

The creator and director of SIS, the Polynesian sketch comedy show whose pilot was the darling of publicly funded media in 2021, has levelled a number of claims at NZ On Air including not paying out the funding for the show’s first season and silencing the producers, as well as suppressing attempts to post on social media about the aforementioned disputes.

Hanelle Harris, creator of Baby Mamas Club and SIS, posted the claims on her personal Instagram account on Monday night. “We need your help!” began the post to her 5,000 followers, before inviting readers to tag the official NZ On Air account in the comments. “NZ On Air are ignoring our request to meet & are now avoiding paying money owed to us for delivering [SIS].

“This is an abuse of authority & is unacceptable! This is taxpayer money & shouldn’t be held over our heads when we have done the work & we have outstanding costs from making the show.”

Promo for the pilot of SIS, left, and the SIS team announcing its protest and leak (Images: supplied and Instagram)

Accusations of non-payment is simply the latest chapter in what has been a tumultuous and at times devastating two years for the once-darling comedy show, with its social media platforms now dedicated entirely to the protest.

The pilot

In September 2019, NZ On Air announced its funding decisions from a targeted funding round calling for “projects by newer storytellers from the Pasifika and Pan-Asian screen communities”. Creator and director Harris, who is Māori and Lebanese, submitted a Pasifika project proposal for a 44-minute SIS pilot with her production company Culture Factory. The proposal was accepted and funded for $499,864.

The resulting pilot for Comedy Central showcased Pasifika creatives in comedy sketches that, when split into segments, spread to Pacific viewers in Australia and around the world. NZ On Air jumped on the success of the pilot, using the show’s visuals in presentations to demonstrate the funding approach was working.

The funding

Exactly a year later, Harris and her production team applied for and were granted $1,751,342 (after Covid subsidies, $2,096,954 has been paid to date) to make a debut season of SIS, with 6 x 22-minute episodes to be delivered in 2021.

That funding amount falls at the average-to-high end for scripted comedy in New Zealand. Ratings favourite Wellington Paranormal has received $2-2.5m per season and dystopian comedy Creamerie received a little less for its first season, while TVNZ comedy Kid Sister was given $878,802 in 2021.

The delays

For reasons that are yet to be made public, SIS did not air in 2021. The delta lockdown delayed most things and SIS was one of many funded projects given Covid-19 relief funding, with the production company being paid top-ups amounting to $59,852.

The show was eventually delivered in July 2022, and it wasn’t until October that first mentions of a release date were made, and that date was a mere two weeks later, October 18.

Another promo shot from the pilot. No promotional material has circulated for the new season (Image: Supplied)

The leak

In order to receive funding, production companies must partner with platforms in order to guarantee distribution to a known audience. The primary platform for SIS season one was Prime, with support from Comedy Central and Neon.

On the evening of October 17, the official Instagram account for SIS posted an eight-minute video featuring director Harris as well as producers and writers Destiny Momoisea, Maiya Thompson and Jaydin Leslie. The video’s caption begins “An Open Letter To Film & Television Industry #Protest”. In the clip, the makers of the show are seated with notes ready to deliver. “Our show is scheduled for a release tomorrow on a respected platform,” begins Momoisea. “After months of trying to fight for an equal seat at the table for our own projects about our communities and our stories, we have had enough trying to compromise in this broken system.

“Last week, days out from launch, we learned information that our platform could be trying to scam not only us but, more importantly, you.”

The Sis producers announcing the leak and protest on Instagram

Harris speaks next. “We refuse to be complicit in a system that forces us to go against our values. In protest of our screen sector here in Aotearoa New Zealand, we are leaking SIS ourselves.

“We understand that there may be legal and financial consequences to this, but we give this show back to you, the people, free of charge to access around the world.”

The clip goes on to reference sexism and racism in the film and TV industry, as well as mention the #MeToo movement. The group also launched a petition alongside releasing the full series of SIS on Vimeo. The petition is vague in its demands, but includes a request to meet with various government ministers. As of writing, the petition has 3,452 signatures.

The access

The makers of SIS accused “a respected platform” – in this case their platform partner is Prime/Sky – of “trying to scam” New Zealand audiences. I spoke with the makers shortly after the leak and they confirmed that the issue was around access to the show, particularly for Pacific communities in Australia. (It is understood that the streaming platform in Australia would not be releasing the show at the same time as New Zealand, and would have a paywall in place for the initial release.)

NZ On Air funding is given on the strict condition that all projects are available free to view for New Zealand audiences. Following the leaking of the show, and on the day it was scheduled to be released officially, a Sky spokesperson disputed the claim that the platform was attempting to “scam” both the makers of the show and the viewers.

‘Love The Spinoff? Its future depends on your support. Become a member today.’
Madeleine Chapman
— Editor

“The agreed distribution plan mirrors that of the pilot episode of SIS, with the first window being free to view on the Comedy Central website (accessible in New Zealand), followed by Prime and Neon,” read the statement.

“As originally agreed by all parties, today at 8am SIS became available on the Comedy Central YouTube channel where the entire series is freely available.”

The breakdown

The dispute appears to be regarding the definition of “freely available”. For NZ On Air (funded by NZ taxpayers) and local platforms, “freely available” means freely available to New Zealand audiences. For Harris and the SIS team, “freely available” means freely available to everyone in the world at the same time.

The contract

Following the recent posts by Harris claiming NZ On Air hadn’t paid the production for goods delivered, NZ On Air released a statement addressing the claims as well as background on the show’s funding, release and legal requirements.

“The producers [of SIS] did not uphold the contract between NZ On Air, the producers and Sky when they published the series online in protest,” it reads. “Prior to this action they had not communicated with NZ On Air about any concerns.”

Shortly after the leak, NZ On Air contacted the SIS team’s lawyer to raise the issue of a contract breach and asked the producers “to clarify what steps they are taking to rectify the apparent breach of their Production and License Agreement with Sky.” (The lawyer has since ceased representing the producers on the matter and the producers are now representing themselves.)

The payment

On the matter of non-payments, NZ On Air confirmed that it was withholding the final 2.5% of funds ($49,592 + GST to be exact) from the production. “We have advised the producers that prior to any payment of the final instalment of NZ On Air funds, we have commissioned an independent project audit, as per the terms of our contract. We have prioritised this work to happen prior to Christmas. NZ On Air conducts several audits a year as a matter of course.”

NZ On Air “utterly refutes” Harris’s claims on social media, including that the agency had attempted to block her posts on Instagram. The statement concludes by noting that NZ On Air “has to date supported every application for funding by the team behind SIS (since Baby Mamas Club in 2016) and has consistently supported them to realise their ambitions for the SIS series to be scaled up.”

‘Love The Spinoff? Its future depends on your support. Become a member today.’
Madeleine Chapman
— Editor

The stalemate

There has been contact between SIS and NZ On Air since the leaking of the show on October 17. Where the stalemate occurred is in the order of next steps. On November 14, Jadin Leslie requested, for the second time, a meeting with NZ On Air to discuss and explain the breakdown of his team’s relationship with Sky that led to them leaking the show early. NZOA requested time to convene before responding and on Monday, December 5, informed the SIS team that, given the way the show was released, an independent audit would be conducted before final payments would be made.

On Monday evening, Harris posted her claims about NZ On Air withholding payments to Instagram.

The fallout

The pilot of SIS was a breakthrough project for Pasifika creatives, particularly women, in Aotearoa. It cemented Harris as the rising star of indigenous storytelling and development, and suggested a new way to fund and distribute projects within New Zealand’s minority communities.

Harris’s latest post ends with a final plea to NZ On Air. “We are trying everything we can to sort things out ‘the proper way’, however, the tactics being used to silence us are shocking & we will not stand for this! Do the right thing NZ On Air. We are watching and hoping you will be on the right side of history.”

It’s unclear where any party is currently standing but while NZ On Air and the SIS team attempt to resolve their disputes, the show – that took three years and more than $2m of taxpayer funds to make – sits unremarked upon on Comedy Central’s YouTube channel, freely available to New Zealand audiences. The first episode is the most popular, with 477 views.

madeleine@thespinoff.co.nz

But wait there's more!