A win for a nurse, banks & culture wars, Hutt City Council news and more

Just as every cancellation further degrades our democracy, every win for free speech further strengths it. I feel like every time I write to you I express how busy my team is and this week is no exception! 💪

We're defending individuals, challenging city councils, submitting on legislation, ensuring banks stay in their lane, hosting tours with international guests, taking media interviews, and more! Read on! 📢

A win for mental health nurse with 45 years of experience 

Yesterday, Hannah from our team supported one of our members, a nurse, after helping him prepare a response to a complaint made to the Nursing Council before the Professional Conduct Committee. 

Robert Laroche has over 45 years of experience, and a background in psychiatric and mental health. He had a complaint made against him by a junior doctor who is a member of the Medical Council over content he reposted on Facebook over the past four years that was critical of the COVID-19 vaccine.  

We’re thrilled to share the outcome with you: no further action will be taken. And rightly so! 🎉 

Becoming a nurse doesn’t silence your voice. Robert should not have been hauled before the Professional Conduct Committee for his opinions in the first place.  

Robert is the second nurse we’ve supported in the past week. We were in Wellington last Friday supporting Catherine Simpson, a nurse in a similar position over a handful of posts she made on X, and await an outcome.  
 
We encouraged the committee to consider the implications of what they’re doing investigating speech-related complaints, not just for the speech rights of nurses, but for public trust in the nursing profession at large.  
 
Shouldn’t nurses be able to discuss and debate ideas? Aren’t we actually all better off if they can? Trust in our medical profession grows when they’re free to speak, not when they’re silenced. 

Hutt City Council affirms commitment to free speech, court case settled ⚖️

Following our legal battle with Hutt City Council over their censorship of inserts on Council sites, we have agreed to settle.   
 
It is not the role of local councils to decide what ratepayers do and don’t read. We took Hutt City Council and its Chief Executive, Jo Miller, to court when they refused to resolve the matter with us. Local ratepayers deserve better! 
 
The Council will make several public statements affirming its commitment to free speech, and its role as a gateway for information, not a gatekeeper. They’ve acknowledged that the right to impart and receive information and opinions is a critical part of our society and that ratepayers should be free to access information.

Hutt City Council also acknowledged that if similar situations arise in the future, the Council would be likely to adopt a different approach. 

Local councils around the country should take note. They can’t pick and choose when Kiwis’ speech rights apply. Ratepayers not only deserve, but also have a right, to decide whether to engage with content or not.

Hear Nathan from our team discuss the story here.

Banks should stay out of culture wars 

Banks need to stay in their lane, providing essential services, without wading into culture wars. The Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment (Duty to Provide Financial Services) Amendment Bill (yes, it’s a mouthful!) addresses a real and growing threat to freedom of expression – the use of financial infrastructure to enforce ideological conformity. 
 
Access to banking services is essential for full participation in society, and ideologies should not determine if someone has access to these services or not. 
 
We submitted in support of the Bill but strongly urged that wording is altered to ensure banks cannot punish unpopular speech by withdrawing essential services. 

“But Jonathan”, I hear you say. “What about the rights of businesses?” 
 
Private companies have the right to deny service, but in a captured market, common-carrier principles apply to prevent exclusion from essential services based on lawful beliefs or expression. 

We’ve offered specific concerns and recommendations in our submission to ensure the Bill effectively protects the right to freedom of expression, namely particular wording that risks inadvertently narrowing protection by listing only four prohibited grounds, which implies that other forms of discriminatory debanking remain permissible. 
 
Hear my conversation with Sean Plunket this week on the issue. 

Our oral submission on the Education and Training Amendment Bill today 

You've heard us say it all before. But universities must respect free speech and academic freedom if academics are to fulfil their role in society. 

Today, Geoff Plimmer (FSU Council member) and I gave our oral submission on the Education and Training Amendment Bill in Parliament. 

We made our case: universities are publicly funded. They have an obligation to be politically neutral in order to facilitate robust debate and the progression of knowledge.

Universities exist to stimulate debate, and inform discussion. We're disappointed that the government has to get involved. But at this point, we believe it's entirely necessary now so that universities stay in their lane.

What would nurses like Robert and Catherine do if it weren't for the Free Speech Union? Who would hold local councils accountable when they limit what information ratepayers can access? Who else is defending your speech rights before Parliament? 

You make this possible, and we couldn't be more grateful.

Jonathan Ayling | Free Speech Union

PS. A supporter recently said to us, "If you lose free speech you're buggered!" He's hard to argue with. 😄 We don't take your support for granted. Together, we're ensuring our voices remain free.