“You can’t joke about that”.

This was the response I got from a local commissioner to what remains my dream project — a comedy show based in a South Auckland instant loans company.

The chap was dead wrong, of course. The bleakness and danger these businesses pose to lower-socio-economic communities is exactly why they so desperately required ridiculing.

A good comedic grilling can be every bit as effective as investigative journalism. If anything, the comic has the advantage in that laughter is the sweetest medicine available to aid the consumption of some incredible bitter pills.

Dave Chappelle’s latest Netflix special “The Closer”, has generated controversy over his alleged “hate speech” aimed at the trans-community. At times, it echoed Richard Pryor’s disastrous appearance at a Hollywood Bowl gay rights fundraiser in 1977. At the event, a high-as-a-kite Pryor both confessed to having had gay sex (a huge admission for a major star in 1977) and launched an abuse-laden tirade at the audience for not being better allies to the black community. Chappelle also took aim at the LGBT community, telling his audience at one point “Gay people are minorities until they need to be white again”. A cursory understanding of wokeism makes clear why such a statement would be so wounding. But surely a black comedian has every right to level such a criticism, if that’s what they truly believe? The outrage at the special seems a strange abandonment of the woke imperative to listen to minority voices.

The saddest irony of the allegations of hate levelled at Chappelle by his would-be cancellers is that (SPOILER ALERT) most of us were brought to tears by his account of the death of his friend that rounded out the special, a transwoman named Daphne Dorman, who was incidentally harassed by an online mob for having previously supported Chappelle, only days before she committed suicide. With so many activists determined to associate the trans community in the wider public’s eyes with fear and censorship, the importance of his deeply moving and humanizing sketch can’t be underestimated. With it, Chappelle exposed that the oft-promoted suspicion — that society is bogged down with latent hatred, is really a fraud. Like Chappelle, most people are questioners — on a range of topics — yet we rarely forget the humanity of our fellow citizens.

By communicating this, Chappelle proves (as if there was ever real doubt) that the funniest people in the room are also more often the smartest. And it’s this penetrating insight, this truth, and the balls to come out and say it, that makes comedy so dangerous to anyone who holds to an orthodoxy.

Free Speech doesn’t just protect disagreeable speech — by allowing for it, it actively encourages it. This is precisely so that orthodoxies will always be under attack, never safe, constantly made vulnerable.

Received wisdom, no matter how good the intention, represents the end of progress. Comedy represents the earthquakes under institutionalized thinking and does us the crucial service of turning to rumble anything that cannot pass the stress test.

Maybe we should be rating this special using the Richter Scale.

Dane Giraud is a comedy and screenwriter and is a spokesperson for the Free Speech Union.

Two years ago in Christchurch, New Zealand was subjected to an horrific act of extreme violence, in the name of ideology.

Yesterday, another terrorist attack was carried out, this time in Auckland.

Both of these despicable acts of terrorism on New Zealand soil were committed by cowards.

Both targeted innocent people who were simply going about their lives. Both used weapons instead of words. Both used violence and terror in an attempt to further their extreme agendas.

Violence in the name of ideology is the polar opposite of free speech. It is the ultimate attempt to silence those who do not share your worldview.

Differences of political and religious opinion must be navigated with reason and dialogue. Never through violence. Never through fear.

Those who refuse to resolve ideological differences with words are the ones who turn to violence. Those who refuse to respectfully engage in civil dialogue with those they disagree with are the ones who become hateful extremists in the first place.

Freedom of speech — the fundamental human right to peacefully express one’s opinion — is an inherently non-violent principle. This is why we seek to protect it.

The blame for each of these horrendous attacks is solely on the terrorists. They alone are responsible for their actions. The Muslim community of Aotearoa — still grieving and healing from March 15 — is no more represented by this extremist individual than our Australian community were represented by the Christchurch shooter.

Our deepest sympathies are with the victims of this attack and their whānau, and all those affected by it.

The introduction of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill (CPP Bill) to Parliament by Minister for Justice Kris Faafoi was a long-awaited win for many Kiwis in the Rainbow Community, and wider. For others though, it represented yet another ideological over-reach by the Government, legalising what is still disputed.

We accept that members and supporters of the Free Speech Union may hold different opinions on this Bill, and to us, that is OK. Even within our team, there were differing strongly held opinions. As a Union, we accept that we will not agree on everything, yet our commitment to stand for, support, and extend the freedom of speech for all Kiwis still applies.

With this belief in mind, and leaving aside the substantial elements of the purpose behind the CPP Bill, the Free Speech Union found it necessary to draw attention to aspects of the Bill which undermine free speech. As we state in our submission, “The wider goals of this Bill aren’t of concern to our organisation, and should the concerns we raise in this submission be addressed we would have no more to contribute to the matter.”

Our submission draws attention to three key concerns related to the ways in which the Bill undermines free speech:

• The inconsistency in stating an intention of the Bill is to promote respectful and open discussions, yet it limits free speech;
• The limitations on an individual’s freedom of speech and right to open dialogue, preventing consent from operating as an exemption;
• The insufficient recognition of ‘applied theology’, and the freedom of religious expression and speech, which translates into action.

One of two listed purposes of the Bill is to ‘promote respectful and open discussions regarding sexuality and gender.’ This is a laudable goal. Facilitating free speech by promoting and opening up discussions is the surest path forward to limit harm and abuse. Yet, despite this admirable intention, the substance of the Bill goes on to shut crucial conversations down. As such, amendments to the legislation must be made. Advice provided by Crown Law states that the bill causes a significant limitation on freedom of expression,’ and that there could be a ‘chilling effect on legitimate expressions of opinions’. We believe exemptions must be included, such as a parental exemption, which will limit this ‘chilling effect.’

Further, we believe that consent for therapy for adults should be an exemption under this Bill. It has long been recognised that the rights of minors are and should be limited by the law in order to protect their own moral and mental development and wellbeing. This includes the right to free expression, both in exercising this right and witnessing it from others. However, this Bill is not content with protecting children. It insultingly questions the maturity and capacity of adults to exercise their own autonomy and ability to engage with speech of their own choosing. This Bill is for the satisfaction of the busy-bodies, and nosey neighbours. It seeks to empower them with the tools to butt in and silence conversations they are not invited to. They will be able to complain to the Human Rights Commission despite not being an aggrieved party. Their pearl-clutching will have a chilling effect on honest and sincere conversations. This is unacceptable.

Finally, this Bill fails to recognise that there is no difference between ‘the expression only of a religious principle or belief made to an individual that is not intended to change or suppress the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression’ which is the exemption currently provided to religious communities, and the application of that religious principle or belief- this is the concept of applied theology. Broad commandments or prohibition do not simply exist as hypotheticals. As such, this so-called religious exemption isn’t worth the paper it is written on. A stricter allowance is needed to ensure that this Bill does not seriously infringe on Kiwis freedom of religious expression.

The work of the Free Speech Union is to ensure no question is off the table- no perspective excluded outright. With the particular intent of this Bill to one side, accepting that Kiwis will have a variety of views on the subject itself, we submitted on this Bill in order to ensure that it stands by New Zealander’s freedom of expression and speech. Simply put, a number of amendments are necessary to accomplish this, and we will continue to work to ensure they are included.

📣 #FromThePodcastVault The Free Speech Union's Dr. David Cumin and Dane Giraud dig into the six proposals being offered up as the government's new hate speech laws. Our petition is still live. Sign @ www.savefreespeech.co.nz 📣

The Free Speech Union unequivocally supports the free expression of seven distinguished New Zealand academics who recently authored a letter to The Listener, titled, In Defence of Science as well as the free expression of their critics.

We neither support nor oppose the argument in question, but instead defend the right to express honestly-held views, free of individual or institutional attempts to diminish or suppress them. In this regard the authors and some of their critics differ: Whereas the letter to The Listener comprised only a reasoned argument – whether or not it is deemed valid and sound – some critics have resorted to ad hominem attacks on the authors, in particular accusing them – both directly and by implication – of racism. We encourage critics to engage in a constructive, evidence-based way, rather than making allegations that seem intended to damage reputations or careers.

Indeed, one of the defining characteristics of New Zealand universities (under s 268(2)(d)(i)(E) of the Education and Training Act 2020), is that they perform “a role of critic and conscience of society.” This, in turn, requires universities to provide an environment in which academic staff can express ideas without fear of retribution or persecution – where they can question and test received wisdom and to state controversial or unpopular ideas [s 267(4)(a)]. It also creates an expectation that university authorities will tolerate a broad variety of views, and will defend staff from any pressure they may face as a consequence of expressing those views.

It is, therefore, deeply concerning that among the critics were Professor Dawn Freshwater, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Auckland – where all of the authors of the letter are resident – and the Tertiary Education Union, to which many academics belong. The criticisms levelled by these organisations warrant especial comment.

In a public statement, Professor Freshwater affirmed the authors' right to express their views, but also implied they had disrespected mātauranga Māori, asserting that "mātauranga Māori [is] a distinctive and valuable knowledge system". There is nothing, however, in letter to The Listener that contradicts that assertion, and by making this a caveat to her affirmation of the authors right to free expression, Professor Freshwater risks impugning their reputations unfairly. In their letter, the authors argue that mātauranga Māori and science are epistemically distinct, and that "indigenous knowledge is critical for the preservation and perpetuation of culture ... and plays key roles in management and policy". A charitable reading of their letter would therefore suggest that the authors agree with Professor Freshwater that mātauranga Māori is valuable.

It is worth noting that The Science Learning Hub – Pokapū Akoranga Pūtaiao, an integral component of the New Zealand Government’s Science in Society Plan seems to agree with the authors, stating that "Mātauranga Māori is a knowledge base in its own right. It is Māori knowledge, including values and culture. It is different from modern science" (emphasis added).

Scholars within a university frequently disagree, and the role of university itself is to maintain the ground on which that disagreement can take place, in good faith and in a scholarly fashion. That means that the university, like the FSU, ought to take a neutral stance, to defend unequivocally the right and duty of its academics to make good-faith arguments, and to defend them from unfair attacks on their reputations. Instead, Professor Freshwater’s statement has made it more difficult for academics at her university to voice honestly-hold views on contentious topics in the future.

Dr Barry Hughes, also at the University of Auckland, wrote a letter on behalf of the TEU to the authors. Like Professor Freshwater, he opened by affirming that the authors are entitled to express their views, but informed them that “[TEU] members found your letter “offensive”, “racist”, and reflective of a patronising, neo-colonial mindset in which your undefined version of “science” is superior to – rather than complementary to – indigenous knowledge”. Dr Hughes went on to accuse the authors of being confused about what science is, of taking it to comprise “a set of indisputable facts about the world” and of “[presuming] that nothing is really known until it is known scientifically”. He concluded by asserting that “[the authors’] letter was damaging without being enlightening”. There is nothing in the letter to The Listener that, to our reading, justifies any of those acerbic accusations. It is outrageous for a representative of an organisation with a duty to protect academic freedom to make such baseless claims, and in such heated terms, in response to an argument put forward in good faith. Like Professor Freshwater’s statement, such a missive can only serve to make academics feel less safe to venture honestly-held views on contentious issues in the future and to render statements affirming free expression as lip-service only. We are not confident that the TEU would wholeheartedly fight for the free speech of members they disagree with should they need to.

It is lamentable that the Vice Chancellor of the University of Auckland and the TEU have taken such strong stances against the letter to The Listener, rather than encouraging respectful debate. In this context their comments about free expression come across as hollow platitudes. The net effect of the comments will be to chill scholarly debate, not to promote it.

The Free Speech Union is committed to supporting all academics to freely engage in debate. If you would like to join us at the Free Speech Union, go to fsu.co.nz.