Previous FSU guest arrested in UK for... tweets?!
The Free Speech Union - with your crucial help - beat back the proposed expansion of hate speech and hate crime laws here in New Zealand. We warned then that any new laws would be used, not so much to address hate, but to muzzle unpopular or controversial opinions. Our critics scoffed, called us alarmists, insisted Kiwis had nothing to worry about.
If only there were a recent example to prove our point. Oh wait… There is.
“Irish comedy writer Graham Linehan arrested for tweets in UK.”
Now, this one is personal. Graham isn’t just one of the greatest comedy writers the UK has produced since Ben Elton of The Young Ones fame. He’s also a buddy of mine, and a good friend of the Free Speech Union.
When he recently visited New Zealand, I tried organising a get-together with local comedy writers. You’d think these people would leap at the chance for a personal audience with the guy who co-created Father Ted. I sure did! Instead, many in my industry were too afraid to even be seen with him. That’s how deep the chill has set in.
And now? Graham has found himself trapped in what’s long been a global joke: the UK justice system.
Except we’re not laughing.
Here’s how it went down: Graham lands at Heathrow Airport, only to be met by five armed police officers who hauled him off into custody. His crime? A few posts on X.
Yes, you read that right. Arrested, detained, and released only on the condition he wouldn’t post - or even access X - while in the UK.
Sir Mark Rowley, Britain’s top cop, defended the arrest, saying police were caught “…between a rock and a hard place” (Really?!) and will likely “make similar decisions in future” unless the law is changed. Translation: we don’t really know what the law means, but we’ll keep arresting people anyway.
Even Robert Jenrick, the Shadow Justice Secretary, couldn’t believe it: “This is ridiculous and a complete waste of police time… The police only respond to 1 in 5 shoplifting offences but deployed 5 armed officers to arrest a comedian over three tweets.”
This isn’t a blip or a clerical error. This is exactly what happens when a country has vague, subjective, undemocratic speech laws. They are instantly weaponised. It is no stretch to say the UK has a thought-police force. The promise of living in a Western democracy was that this type of stuff could never happen. That promise has been shattered in the UK, and we still have operators wanting to do the same in New Zealand.
We at the Free Speech Union called it, and many of you believed us and supported our fight. We were right! But it’s hard to gloat when it’s happening to someone you know personally. Thoughts and prayers to our good mate, Graham.
Let’s not pretend the work is over. Governments – of every stripe - will always be tempted to sneak in these laws, maybe through the back door. Regulatory bodies are already limiting professionals’ speech. And speaking of weaponised the Harmful Digital Communications Act is clearly being abused by bad faith actors (including foreign governments!) to silence voices they don’t like, which is why we must continue the fight. I thought you’d also be interested in these stories, %recipient.first%.
Will you join us in standing up to this censorship?
Harmful Digital Communications Act used yet again to silence unpopular speech.
you’ve heard us bang on about the Harmful Digital Communications Act already and I am sorry to say it looks like we won’t stop discussing it any time soon.
Take journalist Yvonne van Dongen, a long-time supporter of our work. She recently wrote a piece on Substack expressing her gender critical views. One complaint later, she gets a call from Netsafe suggesting she take the piece down. Why? Because she referred to someone by their biological sex. That’s it. “Delete it and this all goes away.”
Understandably, Yvonne felt pressured to remove the post and subsequently Katrina Biggs drew attention to Yvonne’s story and reposted her comments. Netsafe have explicit powers to refuse to investigate, should they have weighed in here pressing for removal? You be the judge?
Now, you may disagree with Yvonne, or Graham for that matter. But that isn’t the point. Even the most contentious speech should be protected in free societies. Why? Because in a democracy those in power don’t get to declare, upon pain of punishment, what is and what isn’t the truth.
If this complaint goes further, we’re ready to come to the defense of Yvonne’s speech rights.
This is yet another story of the Harmful Digital Communications Act being weaponised by individuals to silence voices they disagree with.
We’re continuing our thorough review of the HDCA which we know is an arbitrary and highly censorial law being used to silence Kiwis.
Lawyer punished for engaging in public dissent over local council conduct
We can also look to lawyer Kirsten Murfitt who has encountered backlash for speaking out against the conduct of her local council.
Kirsten, a principal of her law firm, performs pro bono work for Lobby for Good, a group raising concerns about a controversial land deal involving Tauranga City Council.
She was asked to write a public letter to the Minister of Local Government outlining concerns about the sale of ratepayer-owned land and alleged conflicts of interest involving a former council executive. She also recorded a podcast about the story, and both went on her social media.
What followed? Defamation threats, formal complaints, and the kind of professional pressure that makes others think twice before speaking out. Is this really about harm, or people using vague, oppressive laws to shut down criticism?
Kirsten offered to make things right if she had, in fact, defamed a council staff member involved. The complainant didn’t take her up on the offer and instead doubled down. Kirsten has legal representation already, but we’re keeping in touch with her as the story develops.
Signing an open letter on matters of public interest should not get a lawyer in trouble. Yet again, the law is being weaponised against legitimate speech, undermining Kiwis’ speech rights, and wasting time and resource in the process.
Transparency is key for public trust, and the ability to criticise your local council is part of democracy; someone’s career should not be threatened because of it.
Poor Graham’s ordeal is a nightmare – and a clear warning for us. A warning of how close we came in New Zealand, and how vigilant we must remain.
The establishment isn’t going to defend free speech. That job falls to you and me. And we can only keep doing it with your backing. Every time you support the Free Speech Union, you’re making sure that the next Graham, Yvonne, or Kirsten doesn’t get left to face the censors alone.
No one knows comedy better than Graham, and he’ll tell you censorship is no joke!
So, will you stand with us?
Dane Giraud | Free Speech Union
SHARE THIS POST
