IMAGE: TINA TILLER
IMAGE: TINA TILLER

PoliticsJuly 12, 2018

All the times our new Free Speech Coalition really hated free speech

IMAGE: TINA TILLER
IMAGE: TINA TILLER

A newly formed Free Speech Coalition has raised $50,000 in one day to support the rights of two racists to speak at the Bruce Mason Centre. Hayden Donnell catalogues a few times some of the coalition members have been less fervent in their defence of free speech.


David Farrar has written about his inclusion in this post here – noting that while he wrote in support of the free speech coalition, he was neither a part of it nor a donor to it. While our piece does make that distinction, our editorial team on balance acknowledges that it’s an important one, and that he has a fair point.


“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say racist stuff at a council venue of your choosing”
– the Free Speech Coalition

It’s hard to get people to give money to worthy causes. Climate change. Poverty. Fuel taxes. There are so many issues, and we’re all stretched thin. But this week we’ve found out there’s still one cause that can compel hordes of mostly rich, white people to enthusiastically part with large sums of cash: making sure racists can book council facilities.

The orgy of philanthropy was prompted by Auckland mayor Phil Goff demanding the cancellation of an event featuring Canadian speakers Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern at the Bruce Mason Centre. A Free Speech Coalition led by Don Brash launched on Monday, with the aim of raising $50,000 to mount a legal challenge to Goff – and the council’s – decision to abort the event. The coalition raised the money in a day.

But who were they defending? Brash told Radio New Zealand he didn’t really know. He would’ve been annoyed if he’d bothered to find out because it turned out the people whose speech he was trying to protect were despicable racists. Molyneux peddles the grotesque, debunked race science of writers like Charles Murray. He believes black people, and particularly poor black people, are inherently less intelligent than white people, and has repeatedly warned of “rapey” immigrants invading Western society. Southern was once detained by the Italian Coastguard for trying to stop a ship saving refugees from drowning.

Nevertheless, the Free Speech Coalition was pressing on for freedom. “If Mayor Phil Goff is allowed to cancel the bookings of people who want to do hate speech, what’s to stop Mayor Judith Collins cancelling bookings from people who want to do good things?” left-wing supporters asked. “If racists can be banned from council halls, who will be next? Me?” right-wing supporters opined. They want to make sure racists and white supremacists are not only allowed to share their views in New Zealand – they are – but that public agencies like Auckland Council will be compelled to offer them a public platform. To take that stance, you have to be confused (bad), racist (very bad), or a free speech absolutist who objects to any curbs on speech that isn’t directly threatening or violent, no matter how offensive or potentially harmful it may be (a potentially defendable position). Happily there is plenty of evidence to suggest many of the coalition members fall into that latter group. They truly believe all views should be supported…

Except for when Don Brash, after hearing Te Reo Māori on Radio New Zealand, called for the publicly funded station’s bosses to remove that “pointless” speech from the airwaves.

Or when he obtained a High Court injuction to delay the publication of Nicky Hager’s 2006 book The Hollow Men.

Or the time Free Speech Coalition supporter David Farrar called for the government to take away Homebrew Crew’s grant money after they released an anti-government song, saying “They’re entitled to call [John Key] what they want, but I’d rather not have the taxpayer fund it”.

Or when time Farrar wrote sympathetically about efforts to sanction Kim Dotcom for leading a “fuck John Key” chant.

And when he wavered on whether Immigration New Zealand should deny a Visa to Odd Future on the grounds of incitement to violence.

There was also when Free Speech Coalition member Jordan Williams sued Colin Craig for defamation over some ridiculous pamphlets.

And when Williams called on Eleanor Catton to return her grant money after she was critical of the National government.

Or when Free Speech Coalition member Stephen Franks called for legal penalties against people who burn flags, saying flag burning is “not speech” and shouldn’t be protected.

And when Free Speech Coalition supporter, Cameron Slater, praised Ethnic Communities Minister Sam Lotu-liga for his “nice strong words” after he said Muslim cleric Shaykh Dr Mohammad Anwar Sahib anti-semitism and misogyny could be banned as hate speech – one of countless examples of Slater looking to curb the free speech of radical or anti-semitic Muslims…

It’s definitely uncomfortable to see a politician dictating what speech is permissible in council venues, and there is legitimate debate as to whether Goff has done the right thing. It’s also uncomfortable to see white supremacists drumming up support inside a public venue in New Zealand’s most diverse city. Arguably the council should apply speech limits stricter than “precursor Nazi rallies at the North Shore’s biggest public venue”.

As you can see though, the Free Speech Coalition disagree, and they’re willing to put their money where their mouth is by paying thousands of dollars in legal fees on behalf of racists. They have always really believed in free speech, with limits only on direct threats of violence…

Except for when they’ve done and said things that make it look like many of them do want limits on speech. Because if you don’t make an exception for those things, it can look like some of them aren’t free speech absolutists at all – and that they just want the boundaries of acceptable speech moved to include overt racism and white supremacy. And that would be truly offensive.


The Bulletin is The Spinoff’s acclaimed, free daily curated digest of all the most important stories from around New Zealand delivered directly to your inbox each morning.

Sign up now


Keep going!
tobs (1)

PoliticsJuly 10, 2018

The mystery of the disappearing ‘bitch’ at the heart of NZ’s democracy

tobs (1)

Did a National MP really call a Labour MP a “bitch” in parliament? And if so why did it vanish from the official Hansard record?

It was just another ennui-inducing debate in the House of Representatives. A scattering of rostered MPs were debating, if you must know, the Appropriation (2017/18 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and Imprest Supply (First for 2018/19) Bill at its second reading. For all the best efforts of Deborah Russell, the newly elected Labour MP, to liven things up by laying into the National finance spokesperson Amy Adams, most of the faces around the place stared into the middle distance, the will to live slipping ever further out of reach.

And then Nicky Wagner called Russell a bitch. Or at least according to the draft version of Hansard, the official record of NZ parliamentary debate, she did. “You are a bitch,” were the words documented by one of parliament’s transcribers. That prompted Deborah Russell to appeal to the assistant speaker that an “unparliamentary word” had be spoken, which in turn led Wagner to withdraw and apologise.

But at some point in the following days, the “bitch” disappeared. As observed by former NZ Labour Policy Council member Reed Fleming, the offending slur had been excised from Hansard in non-draft form. Where had it gone? Did Wagner say it at all? The video wasn’t conclusive.

The draft and revised online versions of Hansard

“Absolutely confident.” That’s how sure Russell was that Wagner had used the words. “It wasn’t loud but loud enough that I picked it up. I thought: bloody hell, she called me a bitch,” she told The Spinoff. “I didn’t want to repeat it. It’s such a horrible word to use … I was gobsmacked.”

Russell wasn’t surprised that Wagner would have been riled. She had been “having quite a crack at Amy Adams. Calling into question Amy Adams’ competence, having a good crack.”

But the bitch line was too much, she said. “The house is robust at times but using an epithet like that seems unusual to me … It’s well beyond the bounds of debate.”

She hadn’t thought more of it until it was drawn to her attention that the “bitch” had disappeared. “When she withdrew and apologised I thought that’s the end of the matter. By why change the record? … I don’t understand why the Hansard has been changed.”

It’s a good question. Did she really say it? Was this the parliamentary equivalent of the Shortland Street Angry Fucking Cop enigma? After all, Russell did say at the time that she “might be mistaken”. And even more importantly, had Wagner sought to have it removed?

The National MP was straight up. “I did use the word. I shouldn’t have so I apologised immediately,” Wagner told The Spinoff.

OK. How about the deletion? Did she attempt to bleach it from the public record?

“I didn’t ask for the comment to be removed.”

And according to the official parliament website, she wouldn’t have any right to do so. MPs are not entitled to “improve” what was said in the house. “They can ask for things like corrections to a wrong fact or figure. Strict rules also decide what changes Hansard editors can make to what is said in the House.”

Speakers’ rulings, meanwhile, make it clear that a withdrawal and apology does not entail the removal of the offending words. “Because words are withdrawn does not mean that they are expunged from the record; they are still part of the debate and are recorded in Hansard.”

And yet they were gone: evaporated like mildew in spring.

In search of explanation, The Spinoff telephoned parliament’s Office of the Clerk, which oversees the documentation of parliamentary business. “I can categorically say she did not ask us to take it out,” said Suze Jones, the manager of Hansard.

There were reasons that remarks might be removed from draft transcripts, she explained. For example, when no point of order is raised, interjections are not meant to be recorded, which is disappointing but understandable given the bedlam sometimes heard in the place. In this case, she said, the interjection had been removed in error by an editor who had misunderstood an esoteric rule.

If it was an error, would it be corrected? Would the word go back?

“It’s in now!” said Jones.

She sent the link. There it was.

The mystery was over, and the bitch was back.

 


The Bulletin is The Spinoff’s acclaimed, free daily curated digest of all the most important stories from around New Zealand delivered directly to your inbox each morning.

Sign up now


Politics