The so-called Safe Areas Bill will have its second reading in Parliament tomorrow. It’s a brazen attack on freedom of speech and the right to protest, made more offensive by the fact that some of the MPs who support it cut their political teeth exercising that same right.

The Bill, sponsored by Labour MP Louisa Wall and subject to a conscience vote, would allow the Minister of Health to designate 150-metre “safe areas” around abortion clinics from which protesters would be barred. It appears to be a unique protection accorded no other public buildings.

Officially named the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill, the legislation threatens to curtail the right of anti-abortion activists to maintain even silent, passive vigils outside abortion clinics.

It has been promoted on the pretext that vulnerable patients attending abortion clinics risk being intimidated, obstructed and harassed. Yet the Christchurch-based anti-abortion group Right to Life submitted Official Information Requests to 20 district health boards inquiring whether patients or staff had suffered any such harassment or intimidation during the two years from 2019 to 2021, and none reported any.

So the need for “safe areas” has not been demonstrated and the Bill should be seen for what it is: an attempt to shut down legitimate protest against a practice that conservative Christians regard as profoundly wrong, but which is celebrated by the political Left as a defining triumph of feminism.

The Bill passed its first reading last March by a margin of 100 to 15 with two abstentions, but that’s not necessarily an indication of how MPs will vote the second time around. ACT’s 10 MPs all voted in favour of the Bill then, but party leader David Seymour said he had concerns about freedom of expression and wanted the Bill properly examined by a select committee. 

Only three Labour MPs – Anahila Kanongata’a Suisuiki, Jamie Strange and Rino Tirikatene – voted against it. All Green MPs supported it and National was split: 19 in favour and 12 against. Christopher Luxon, who has since become the party leader, was one of those opposed.

Trevor Mallard and Chris Hipkins supported the Bill. Both were arrested for protest activity before they launched their political careers but later had their convictions overturned. They apparently see no inconsistency in denying others a right they once vigorously asserted for themselves. 

The Bill will become law because of its overwhelming support from Labour and the Greens, but interest will centre on whether any MPs change their position now that the Bill has been through the select committee process. The vote will be a test of their commitment to the principles not just of free speech but of freedom of assembly and religion.

Seymour wasn’t the only person concerned about the threat to free speech. Even David Parker, who as Attorney-General was statutorily obliged to report to the House on whether the Bill complied with the Bill of Rights Act (BORA), conceded that a clause which would have criminalised the act of “communicating” with abortion patients in a manner likely to cause distress was “overly broad” and appeared inconsistent with BORA.

In its submission opposing the Bill the Free Speech Union agreed with that conclusion, but pointed out to the select committee that the legislation wasn’t necessary in the first place because protection against intimidation or threats is provided under existing law. The Summary Offences Act, for example, makes it an offence to direct insulting or threatening words at another person. There is also a legal prohibition against harassment – a word whose definition, the union said, would be expanded under Wall’s Bill.

The union went on to say: “It is not the speech of the majority that requires vigilant protection. It is the speech of the few that must be jealously guarded.” The union cautioned that the traditional legal test of what is “reasonable” was in danger of becoming one of what was “comfortable”. 

In a spirited defence of the right to dissent, it said: “We are flummoxed by the suggestion that in a democracy, where government is created by people of different interests and beliefs, some ideas are deemed too different or disagreeable to be allowed. This suggestion is antithetical to democracy.”

The Bill that’s returning to the House tomorrow gives the impression of having been toned down, but it’s illusory. While the clause that failed the BORA test has gone, that doesn’t make the Bill any more palatable. Under the amended version, any person who “engages in protest about matters relating to the provision of abortion services” within a “safe areas” zone would be committing a criminal act. 

It’s hard to imagine a more sweeping provision. The new section would give activist judges – who have proliferated in the 32 years since the passage of BORA, as the union noted in its submission – licence to convict people for doing nothing more menacing than silently praying on a public street anywhere within 150 metres of an abortion facility.  This can only have a chilling effect on the right to protest. 

Regardless of their views on abortion, those who believe in free speech and the associated right to protest should take careful note of how MPs vote. National and ACT MPs, in particular, will be watched to see whether their votes align with their parties’ supposed commitment to freedom.

Written by Karl du Fresne, reprinted by request from his personal blog.  

■ Disclosure: The writer is opposed, in general terms, to abortion on demand but views that as irrelevant to the issue of free speech and freedom of assembly.

Disagreement, even vehement disagreement, is not abuse nor ‘harassment’.

There is little pleasure to be found in ‘I told you so’ when inevitably those who have perpetuated cancel culture and attempted to prohibit others from speaking freely are in turn subject to similar behaviours.

Nonetheless, just as any Kiwi should be able to do their job free from threats to their lives and safety, Professor Shaun Hendy and Dr Siouxie Wiles are right to expect that they should not experience such behaviour as a result of their public work. The pair have filed complaints against their employer, University of Auckland, arguing that it hasn't protected them against "a small but venomous sector of the public" that has become increasingly "unhinged".

There are some distinctions to be made as to whether the University of Auckland is responsible for adverse reactions to the academics’ public communications, but the following points from the Employment Relations Authority ruling merit highlighting:

1. The University of Auckland admitted they advised Hendy and Wiles to reduce their public commentary as an option to reduce Health and Safety risks. This is wrong. The academics should not be expected to stifle themselves in order to be safe. It is disappointing to learn that University of Auckland executives would apparently want to allow a “thug’s veto”.
2. The University of Auckland attempts to argue that Hendy and Wiles’ public commentary is not part of their employment, despite Wiles' contract including a 40% portion for science communications. This is a core matter for the Employment Court, but it seems prima facie to be clear that the science communication of Dr Wiles is part of her work. 
3. Hendy and Wiles take their complaints beyond physical intimidation and threats, and refer to "targeting by harassment and abuse of Māori academic researchers who comment on racism and race issues, sexism directed at academics who comment on the gender pay gap...". This appears to be an opening for quasi-hate speech laws, where employers may have to 'protect' employees from social media comments. If the Employment Court decides that employers must protect employees from online abuse around contentious issues, then it would be justification for their apparent want to simply shut down any controversial discussions.

Academic experts play a vital role in leading and participating in public discussions and have the right to not have their contributions met with violence (of the actual kind) and threats. Threats of violence are ultimately a matter for police. The university should take reasonable steps to enable academics to do their job, for example they may intervene to reduce the use of university facilities and resources by those found to be contravening university policies or the law.

This includes academics with whom Hendy and Wiles might not agree and includes threats to employment.

While we want to make our condemnation of threats clear, it is important to recognise that part of expert academics’ role in the public sphere is to facilitate the exchange of ideas, be the “critic and conscience of society" and "promote community learning".

Both Hendy and Wiles have publicly taken part in attempts to silence colleagues they disagree with. They have signed open letters, levelled unfounded accusations of racism, and aggressively sought to discredit fellow academics who either disagreed with their covid commentary or asserted that Mātauranga Māori is not necessarily science. 

Public communications engaged in by academics should not be treated as edicts handed down, not to be questioned. Indeed, science itself is the process of testing and questioning and adding to a wider, proven body of knowledge. In expressing an expert opinion, academics should be willing to engage with critique and challenges in good faith. Disagreement, even vehement disagreement, is not abuse nor ‘harassment’.

A certain degree of robustness should also be expected from public figures, particularly those engaged in political work of any kind. We need to draw a line between what is illegal threatening behaviour and what is unpleasant (sometimes downright nasty) commentary made by an impassioned critic.

To silence and punish rude or subjectively offensive speech in this context would have a chilling effect on all who seek to criticise or question particularly controversial topics. For example, we would not want to see New Zealanders prohibited from expressing the strength of their feelings in protests against Government action as many did during the TPPA marches even though some of the rhetoric was potentially offensive to then Prime Minister John Key. Being rude or offensive should never be a crime.

As New Zealand’s union for freedom of speech, we advocate for an academic environment in which academics like Hendy and Wiles do not find themselves in a situation of ‘live by the sword, die by the sword’, so to speak.

Reciprocal respect for the rights of others to express and defend their views ensures that when situations of threats and abuse arise, the entire community feels able to speak against it.

We encourage the University of Auckland to reflect on how a robust policy of free speech that is not vulnerable to the “thug’s veto” would bring greater confidence and solidarity to its academics. It would also allow the university more time and resources to deal with the kind of threats and doxxing Hendy and Wiles raise in their case.

Dear Supporter,

As the end of the year approaches, we thought it the right time to look back at our work to date – work that you have made possible with your support.

Since launching the Free Speech Union in May, we’ve been laser-focused on defending and promoting free speech in New Zealand. The enemies of free speech hunt in packs – this union was formed so that defenders of free speech can band together too. 

🗣️ Speak Up For Women vs Palmerston North City Council ⚖️

The feminist group, Speak Up For Women opposed the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill (the bill that would allow people to change their sex on their birth certificate), saying it risked unintended consequences for women's sex-based rights. They were on a speaking tour to discuss the Bill and made bookings at council venues around the country for these events, including the Palmerston North City Library. The Library later told SUFW it was cancelling their event and would only host a debate where “all views” would be represented.

We quickly went into bat for SUFW by organising a crowd funder and making an application for judicial review.

In his decision, Justice Nation granted the sought injunctive relief: forcing the Palmerston North City Council to host the event. the Judge said the Council's decision involved a "significant failure to recognise SUFW's right to freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly." He also found that putting conditions on the event which insisted that SUFW could only present their views on the Bill if they were countered by speakers with an opposing view could not be considered a reasonable limitation on those rights.

The Auckland Council got the message too. With Palmerston North's case as a backdrop, Auckland Council settled with SUFW and the Auckland event went ahead in the Council Chamber. Similarly, Dunedin City and Wellington City Councils backtracked and allowed the SUFW's bookings. The latter accepted SUFW's booking at the Michael Fowler Centre after sending lawyers to the Palmerston North's High Court hearing to see if they could get away with not allowing the Michael Fowler event. 🤦

Leave to appeal to Supreme Court granted in Moncreiff-Spittle

While the Court of Appeal judgement in the Moncrieff-Spittle case represented a substantial improvement on the High Court judgment, we think we can do better. The Court was given a perfect opportunity to deal head-on with the heckler's veto concept but they weirdly passed that ball into space: saying all the right things about the value of free speech, but not taking the last step to put the onus on authorities to prevent situations of the heckler's veto.

We are appealing on grounds that the Court of Appeal did not give adequate weight to freedom of speech when concluding that Auckland Council (Auckland Regional Facilities)'s decision to cancel the 2018 event was reasonable and justified.

The Supreme Court decided that the case is important enough to accept our application for leave to appeal. It is set down to be heard at the Supreme Court in Wellington on 22 February 2022. 

Hate Speech Campaign 💬 🚫

A primary focus of the Free Speech Union in 2021 has been preventing the introduction of hate speech laws. We're proud that more than 40,000 Kiwis signed our petition calling on the Government to can their hate speech proposals and more than three-quarters of submissions received by the Ministry of Justice on the hate speech proposals came from our supporters using the FreeSpeechSubmission.com online submission tool.

That's important. It means the Government can't claim public support for their dangerous 'hate speech' laws.

And it is pleasing to see so many of the submissions were from members of minority communities. Contrary to claims by the likes of the Human Rights Commissioner, Kiwis are waking up to how free speech protects diversity and minority interests.

It is deeply concerning that the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice have failed to answer clearly when asked what speech would and would not be criminalised under the proposals. If the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice can't easily explain what 'hate speech' is being criminalised, how is the average citizen supposed to know? 

Vague intentions make bad law and overseas experience has shown that the introduction of such laws has resulted in law enforcement consistently missing the mark, and has created a structure allowing for legal harassment of the state against citizens, even if they are ultimately found not guilty. 

There has however been some good news out of the United Kingdom this month with a landmark judgement from the Court of Appeal that the recording of non-crime hate incidents is an unlawful interference with freedom of expression. As the Court says, the knowledge that such matters are being recorded and stored in a police database is likely to have had a serious “chilling effect” on public debate.

But the fight isn't over. It appears that rather than backing down, the Government will be releasing their hate speech legislation in the new year. Rest assured we are gearing up to fight it at every stage of the legislative process so watch this space! We’ll let you know how you can get involved in stopping these laws in the New Year.

Raymond Richards vs Waikato University 🦕

After the Tertiary Education Union refused to help, we stepped in to support a Waikato University lecturer’s fight for academic freedom. Dr Raymond Richards faced potential disciplinary action for his lectures about methods of critical thinking in history after he referred by way of example to “religious cranks” who said the earth was flat and that dinosaurs and Adam and Eve had met. 

Following a student raising a concern, the Head of the Social Sciences School summoned Dr Richards to a meeting. They did not reach an agreement but HR later wrote to him saying they “do not expect to have a repeat of these matters”. The Head of School also cancelled an in-class test of the students’ understanding of the methods of critical thinking.

Our lawyers lept to the defence of free speech reminding the University of its responsibility to uphold academic freedom. They subsequently u-turned on their treatment of Dr Richards – a significant victory. 

Richard Dawkins also tweeted a link to our press release:

Defending the Listener Seven 🖋️‍🔬

As you probably know by now, much of our efforts of late have focused on defending the academic freedom of seven distinguished professors who authored the now infamous The Listener letter, which took issue with a government working group’s proposal to incorporate Mātauranga Maori concepts as an equivalence of “western science” in the school science curriculum.

This time, the Tertiary Education Union not only refused to defend the professors’ right to state controversial opinions, but it put out a statement describing the letter as “damaging”, and said, “members found it offensive, ill-advised and racist”.

We have since been contacted by a number of academics appalled and outraged to have found out that their Union made a statement condemning The Listener letter on behalf of members without any consultation. 

After we released news of the Royal Society’s investigation to the media and launched a crowdfund to cover the professors legal fees, we leveraged our international connections in the hopes that drawing more attention to the issue internationally would make the Royal Society feel the heat. 

With Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker and Jerry Coyne having weighed in, the Royal Society now knows that the eyes of the world’s science community will be watching when they announce the outcome of their investigation into Cooper and Nola.

We will update you on the progress of the investigation when we can. But regardless of its outcome, the fact that they instigated this ridiculous witch hunt means they’ve already tarnished their reputation on the world stage. Organisations should be aware they can pay a heavy price when they join in on the pile-on to appease the mob.

Meanwhile, Auckland University's Vice-Chancellor, Dawn Freshwater, seems to have had second thoughts now that the University's international reputation is on the line. After rushing to condemn the seven scientists on behalf of the University in July, saying their words "caused hurt and dismay" she has now announced that the University will host a symposium on the issue: 

In his latest piece, Graham Adams suggests a public apology to the seven professors would show it was more than a PR stunt. 

Local Government Codes of Conduct 🗳️

Earlier this year we wrote to the South Wairarapa District Council urging them to remove an outdated anti-democratic clause from their Code of Conduct that stifled free speech.

We are pleased to now see it reported in the media that the Council has adopted a new Code of Conduct that omits the troublesome provision which forbade criticism of council decisions and policy. 

Similarly, we were pleased to have supported Otago Regional Councillor Michael Laws after a Code of Conduct complaint from the Chief Executive landed him under investigation after comments he made to the media. The complaint was ultimately not upheld, and we received feedback that the letter we sent to the Chief Executive was instrumental in the outcome of the investigation, and the complaint later being dropped. This just shows the way these complaints are lobbed about to intimidate councillors! 

We foresee Codes of Conduct as being a major battleground for the Union in 2022. There is a worrying trend of Codes of Conduct within organisations being weaponised to undermine free speech. This is true across numerous sectors, not just local government, where vague provisions can be twisted to suit just about any purpose. 

Member Advocacy ✊ 

Of course, it hasn’t been all court cases and crowdfunds. We’ve helped a number of members in employment and other situations this year. As a Union, we need to put the interests of our members first, which means we don’t always inform the membership of every case we take up. 

One example we can share is that the Union defended a member who was intimidated at their place of work by a senior Council employee. Their crime? Writing a submission to the Council on Maori wards that took an opposing view to the one held by the employee. 

We laid a Code of Conduct complaint against the employee, pointing out that citizens have every right to participate in local democracy without being harassed and intimidated by Council staff for expressing their views. In exchange for not naming the Council or employee, the Union negotiated an apology and retraction from the employee.

The member wrote us a kind note of thanks saying; 

"I contacted the Free Speech Union looking for help after being intimated in my place of work as a result of my political views. Jordan and the team jumped into action and did more than I could have hoped to support my right to have an opinion. At every stage, I always felt in control of what the union was doing on my behalf. I now feel comfortable in my place of work knowing that even if a similar incident was to occur, the Free Speech Union would have my back and ensure there was a consequence to intimidating me because of my political opinion. I am so grateful that this amazing union exists"

As you can see, it's been a tremendous year for the Free Speech Union but the fight is only getting started. Membership means you'll have a team in your corner if someone comes after you because of your speech. Whether it's with embattled professors, local councillors or activist groups, we have a track record of standing up for our member's speech — and winning. If you're not already a member, click here so we can hit the ground running in the New Year.

Alternatively, you can make a confidential donation (without joining) using the link below. Your support will mean we can continue the fight into the New Year.

BFD intelligence report: Free speech issue, or surveillance state? 👮

Earlier this month we were alerted to the revelations Police intelligence staff have been monitoring Government critic and blogger Cameron Slater and his blog site "The BFD". Reasonable minds can differ on whether this is a civil liberty/surveillance state issue, or a purely free speech matter. We concluded that it is the former, also guided by the fact that as far as we can tell no laws or human rights have been broken (meaning there's no "cause of action" involved). Other than publicise the Police's misjudgement there is not a lot we can do.

In a blog post published earlier this week, Mr Slater has taken strong objection to our lack of action. We've done our best to present both side of the debate on our website here. 

On behalf of the whole team, wishing you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for 2022. Thank you for your support. 

Dane Giraud Spokesperson Free Speech Union

Many of our supporters would have heard that the New Zealand Police have been keeping a watchful eye on Cameron Slater. Revelations from Police’s response to an Official Information Act request have shown that the Police’s “Scanning and Targeting Team” produced a file on Mr Slater and his blog site the BFD, flagging them as “anti-government” and “racist”. The Team produced an allegedly error-ridden intelligence brief on Mr Slater, and supposedly floated the suggestion that the Police visit Mr Slater for questioning.

Mr Slater recently published an article on the BFD chastising the Free Speech Union for its supposed failure to come to his support or express outrage that the Police have decided that he is a public figure worth watching. In a rather partisan fashion, the BFD has decided to discontinue its support of the Free Speech Union in its publications. The Union is disappointed by this knee-jerk reaction, but we understand that some of our supporters are sympathetic to Mr Slater and deserve an explanation.

Simply put, the Council of the Free Speech Union concluded that the story is not one around free speech issues, rather civil liberties. Mr Slater has not had his freedom of expression infringed in any practical way. The Police’s internal report, even if riddled with errors, does not impede Mr Slater from writing a column, sending a tweet or standing on a soap box. Indeed, the internal correspondence uncovered in the OIA response shows that the report was (rightly) slammed by more sensible heads within the Police.

We can disagree on the interpretation of ‘anti-government’ sentiment, and debate whether denigrating Labour Party policies should be a high risk concern to New Zealand’s Police. Most of us would accept that the Police have a legitimate role of monitoring places online and off-line where extremists may congregate. Most of us think the Police showed very poor judgment in thinking Mr Slater's blog is one of those places. But these are not free speech issues. Had the Police sent officers to Mr Slater’s home for no reason other than to threaten him for his publications, we would have considered it a matter of concern and would almost certainly have jumped to the BFD's defence. But we will not take an anti-Police stance for the sake of those with whom we share a common enemy (the Woke).

Mr Slater would agree that New Zealand should be a country of laws, with a strong and capable police force which ensures the proper observation of those laws. Such a country requires an objective police force with no allegiance other than to the rule of law. To demand immunity from the Police’s proper function falls prey to the same absurdity as those crying for the Police’s defunding. We have seen the result of such policy put into practice in the United States. It is not a sentiment New Zealand should import.

The privilege of privacy Mr Slate claims against the Police is not one he would grant to preachers of radical or fundamentalist sects of Islam, woke anarcho-communists, union organisers who “detest scabs”, of even on those TradeMe selling secondhand jewellery. He, like many others, would welcome the Police’s watchful eye to ensure the protection of person and property. But policing is paradoxical in a free society, and one cannot expect an objective police force to persecute one’s political enemies while applying leniency to one’s friends.

The views among the Council differed. But a deciding factor was that there is really nothing to be done here. There is no cause of action (in a legal sense), and the Police appear to have realised immediately the error of their ways. If it's simply about publicity and justified criticism of the Police (which appears to be the main remedy for Mr Slater) the BFD has a far bigger megaphone than us! We understand the blog is one of the most well-read in New Zealand.

When the Free Speech Coalition changed the Free Speech Union, it became better equipped to challenge what we saw as one of the most pressing threats to free speech in New Zealand: woke employment policy. What did not change was our commitment to a bi-partisan approach when supporting free speech. We continued to believe that in order to preserve Kiwis’ rights, we could not make free speech a right-left issue. Many of our most ardent supporters are of the Left who have seen the insanity of woke censorship.

There have been calls for the Free Speech Union to take up a more aggressive role in the ‘culture war’. Many of these demands conflate freedom of expression with more partisan issues and expect our broad (and growing) coalition to take a side. These calls often abandon normal boundaries, explained away with “the ends justify the means”, by applying double standards for the Right and Left. This is not the Union’s function.

We have come to the aid of teachers, professors, local government workers and have spearheaded the most significant free speech legal case in modern New Zealand history. This is all thanks to the broad-church of supporters.

And, contrary to the claims made by Mr Slater in his blog post, the idea we do not defend conservatives and only willing to defend the 'woke' is ridiculous. The raison d'etre that brought us together was to defend the rights of New Zealanders to hear from two controversial Canadain speakers regularly smeared in the media as "far-right".

But our continued success will depend on a collective defense of free speech. This means rejecting calls to abandon persuasion for coercive action. It means supporting the Police who are tasked with surveillance and keeping the peace. But above all, it means not alienating our base by paying attention to the content of political speech and choosing a side in issues we are not unified on.

We are not crusaders against a surveillance state (although many of us have grave concerns about this as well as free speech), advocates for privacy law, nor are we crusaders for right wing causes. This Union's function is to promote and protect freedom of expression. And with the support of all New Zealand, we will prevail.

These cases are not clear cut - and to highlight that reasonable minds can differ on these matters, we are republishing (with permission) a recent blog piece by fellow free speech advocate Karl du Fresne. 

New Zealand: where being "anti-government" results in police surveillance

Things are worse than we thought. 

Blogger Cameron Slater recently learned from an OIA request that the blog he’s associated with, The BFD, was under police surveillance. An unnamed police intelligence analyst was concerned Slater would “continue to publish uncorroborated information to denigrate labour [sic] party policies and individuals linked to them”.

Yes, you read that correctly. There are people in the police hierarchy who apparently think that anyone who criticises the government should be watched. This was also the mentality of East Germany’s Stasi, South Africa’s BOSS (the Bureau of State Security) and Haitian dictator Papa Doc Duvalier’s murderous Tonton Macoute.

(Vladimir Ilyich Lenin didn’t care for dissenters either, as he made clear in a 1920 speech: “Why should a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to be criticised? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinion calculated to embarrass the government?” Lenin subsequently set up the OGPU, which eventually morphed into the KGB, to ensure he wasn’t bothered by such irritations. Someone like Slater would have gone straight to the Gulag.)

The documents released to Slater also included a request from an unnamed officer, couched in military-style jargon, describing him as racist and “anti-government” and asking for a “rundown” on him. The documents note that Slater’s reporting on Siouxsie Wiles, whom he labelled a hypocrite for appearing to flout lockdown restrictions that she had urged the public to comply with, was “consistent with past behaviours” such as defamation, breaching name suppression and “publishing erroneous reports on political opponents” – all of which are matters for civil, not criminal law, and therefore not the business of the police.

Ominously, a police intelligence briefing disclosed concern that Slater “will continue to public voice opinions on topical matters which may add to conspiracy theorist engagement across social media”. And an unnamed senior sergeant wondered whether the cops should pay Slater a visit because he posted “possibility [sic] controversial racist comments” about the September terrorist incident at LynnMall.

It’s hard to take this alarmist nonsense seriously, but we must. The documents reveal there are people in the police who think it’s their function to protect us against the free exchange of ideas and opinion – a right guaranteed to New Zealanders under the Bill of Rights Act. To put it more bluntly, these commissars-in-waiting apparently regard democracy as dangerous.

So being anti-government is now seen as a potential threat to public safety? This is the type of state paranoia that ultimately leads to monitoring of phone calls and knocks on the door at midnight. Slater was right to describe it as sinister.

As recently as two years ago I wouldn’t have imagined this sort of thing happening in one of the world’s most open democracies, but it’s surprising how quickly freedoms can be eroded. It starts with the marginalisation of unapproved views (the mainstream media are complicit in this) and advances rapidly to the point where dissent is denounced, suppressed and even made illegal. All it takes is a passive and apathetic populace – oh, and politicians too timid and too unsure of their own values to make a stand for individual freedoms.

Couldn’t happen in a liberal democracy like New Zealand? Don’t be so sure. During the 1951 waterfront dispute a National government invoked extreme powers under the Public Safety Conservation Act. These gave the police power to censor all publications, broadcasts and even private letters; seize printing presses and typewriters; arrest people who provided food, money or other support to striking workers and their families; ban public meetings; arrest people without warrant; and enter and search properties without a court order.

All of these powers were exercised by the police on the pretext that it was for the public good – and what’s most disturbing is that a compliant public and press went along. Who can say that under an equally determined government of the left, supported by a similarly sympathetic media, police won’t again be empowered to interfere with basic democratic freedoms? The appetite appears to be there, at least among some officers with dangerously inflated (and deluded) ideas about their function. 

What next, I wonder. Will we hear people like Slater described as “enemies of the state” or “enemies of the people” – phrases used by brutal totalitarian regimes of both the extreme right (Nazi Germany) and extreme left (the Soviet Union) to justify the incarceration of troublesome individuals on the pretext that it’s for the good of society?

In this case, thank God, the unnamed police busybodies were over-ruled by wiser and more grounded senior officers. But the realisation that this type of censorious zealotry exists within the police should strike a cold chill in the heart of anyone  who values open democracy – and all the more so when it remains possible that under so-called “hate speech” laws, the police will be given power to determine what we can and cannot say.

Disclosure: I haven’t met Cameron Slater, but I have written guest posts for The BFD and it has republished some posts from my blog by agreement. I have publicly disagreed with some of Slater’s tactics in the past. But freedom of speech is not a right that depends on the acceptability of the opinions expressed. Orwell (as so often) put it best: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

As international criticism mounts, Auckland University’s Vice-Chancellor pledges a symposium next year to debate the role of Māori knowledge in science education. Graham Adams suggests a public apology to the seven professors would show it was more than a PR stunt.

Reading the statement last week by Dawn Freshwater announcing a symposium to be held next year to debate the relationship between mātauranga Māori and science, it was impossible not to feel at least a little sceptical about her new-found enthusiasm for free speech.

After all, in late July the Vice-Chancellor of Auckland University effectively hung seven professors from her own university out to dry soon after their letter “In Defence of Science” was published in the Listener.

The professors’ 300-word letter was written in response to plans to include mātauranga Māori in the school science curriculum and to give it equal standing with “Western/ Pakeha epistemologies” — which means subjects such as physics, biology and chemistry.

The professors acknowledged the value of indigenous knowledge as “critical for the preservation and perpetuation of culture and local practices” and that it “plays key roles in management and policy”. But, while it “may indeed help advance scientific knowledge in some ways”, they concluded, “it is not science”.

Freshwater’s immediate reaction was to disown the letter writers. Her brief statement began:

“A letter in this week’s issue of The Listener magazine from seven of our academic staff on the subject of whether mātauranga Māori can be called science has caused considerable hurt and dismay among our staff, students and alumni.

“While the academics are free to express their views, I want to make it clear that they do not represent the views of the University of Auckland.”

Some were surprised the university actually has official “views” but apparently — in Freshwater’s eyes at least — it does.

In the wake of the firestorm sparked by the professors’ letter, Freshwater had another go at articulating her position in a longer statement on August 10. It appeared in part to be an attempt to remedy the evident shortcomings of her email on July 26. This time, the possibility of hurting other people’s feelings or dismaying them was ruled out as a reason for her academic staff to bite their tongues:

“The freedom to express ideas is constrained neither by their perceived capacity to elicit discomfort, nor by presuppositions concerning their veracity.”

Nevertheless, the idea that the university may deem some views acceptable and others unacceptable was repeated, although its chilling effect on freedom of expression was downplayed:

“Our seven academics were entirely free to express their views, however the University was also free to disagree with those views. That does not mean the University is censoring or trying to silence our academics, it is merely making clear that such views are not representative of the myriad views within the institution; and that the University may at times disagree with the views expressed by its academics. That is healthy in a university.”

It was hardly a convincing statement of academics’ rights to air their opinions. In what way, for instance, does your employer reserving the right to point out publicly that it does not approve of your views not function as an act of censorship or an attempt to silence?

And how could any particular group’s views ever be “representative of the myriad views within the institution”?

For that matter, in what universe is it “healthy” for a university to “disagree with the views expressed by its academics”? In fact, some would see it as a symptom of serious underlying illness.

In last week’s statement promising a symposium, Freshwater appeared to have given up on wrestling with the complex problem of what academic freedom and freedom of expression might mean in practice. She simply declared repeatedly that the university is in favour of it.

The question of the university approving some views and not others had disappeared and the whole debate was thrown over to the panel for discussion next year.

It is not impossible that in the past five months Freshwater has had a Road to Damascus experience about the value of free speech and academic freedom. But it is also evident that things have recently become a lot more uncomfortable for Auckland University and for the Royal Society Te Apārangi, our premier academy for the sciences and humanities, over their apparent hostility to views they find unacceptable.

In November, news broke that Robert Nola, Garth Cooper and Michael Corballis — the three Fellows among the seven professors who had signed the Listener letter — were to be put under disciplinary investigation by the society for their role in writing it. (Corballis has since died.)

New Zealand’s mainstream media has almost entirely avoided covering the debate but the society’s disciplinary action — and its earlier statement rejecting the professors’ views as “misguided” with the potential to cause “harm” — has sparked international outrage and condemnation from heavyweight public intellectuals.

Celebrated scientists — including Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker and Jerry Coyne — have trained their sights variously on the Royal Society NZ; the open letter denouncing the professors’ views written by Auckland University academics Drs Shaun Hendy and Siouxsie Wiles; and Dawn Freshwater herself.

Influential journalists have joined the fray too. Toby Young, writing for The Spectator, described Freshwater’s July 26 statement as a “hand-wringing, cry-bullying email to all staff at the university” — a characterisation repeated in the Daily Mail.

Columnist Rod Liddle weighed in on the issue in the Sunday Times in an article headed “We’re Screeching into a New Dark Age” (and included Freshwater’s comment about “considerable hurt and dismay”), and Times Higher Education — the international bible for academics — has covered the debate in detail.

Given the fame of Dawkins, Pinker and Coyne — and the extensive reach of the media outlets mentioned — it’s easy to imagine the question of Auckland University’s international standing beginning to prey on a VC’s mind.

Perhaps that is why Freshwater felt compelled in her statement last week to remind us that her university is “a world-class, research-led university” — just in case anyone mistook it for a parochial institution struggling to understand the difference between science, myth and creationism.

Certainly, being blasted by Jerry Coyne — professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the highly ranked University of Chicago — would have helped focus her mind about the damage to Auckland University’s international reputation.

A fortnight ago, the best-selling science author wrote on his blog: “It’s not clear whether the Vice-Chancellor has any authority to declare what the ‘views of the University of Auckland’ are, nor whether there are any official views.

“It’s clear she is demonising the professors at the same time she says well, they have the right of free speech — but note that the University can officially criticise them and the Royal Society can punish them!

“As for the Vice-Chancellor emphasising the ‘considerable hurt and dismay’ at the university, I consider that a ludicrous form appeal to emotion rather than reason.”

Coyne’s comments have been noticed at Auckland University. He reported that Todd Somerville, its Associate Director Communications, had sent him a “letter of complaint” about his original post, in which Somerville defended Freshwater ”at great length”.

Announcing a symposium at some as-yet-unspecified time in the first quarter of 2022 will undoubtedly seem to the VC to be a very effective circuit-breaker that will provide a breather for her and her beleaguered university.

Freshwater will no doubt also be hoping that by then the fates of Professors Cooper and Nola at the hands of the Royal Society NZ will be known — preferably, perhaps, concluding with a discharge on the grounds that a letter is not research and therefore isn’t covered by the society’s Code of Conduct — and that much of the heat in the debate will have dissipated over summer.

Such optimism is evident in her promise of a symposium “in which the different viewpoints on this issue can be discussed and debated calmly, constructively and respectfully”.

“I envisage a high-quality intellectual discourse with representation from all viewpoints: mātauranga Māori, science, the humanities, Pacific knowledge systems and others.”

It certainly sounds noble, but who exactly in New Zealand will want to put their head above the parapets to argue that matauranga Maori is not scientific, and should not be part of a science curriculum, as the seven professors did in July?

Perhaps some of the professors who signed the Listener letter will be willing to risk further public vilification and adverse consequences for their careers and reputations by arguing their case at a symposium. But why would they?

As well as the disciplinary action taken by the Royal Society against Corballis, Nola and Cooper, others among the seven professors may have suffered professionally as a result of signing the Listener letter — including evolutionary ecologist Kendall Clements.

As John Ross, Asia-Pacific editor for Times Higher Education, wrote: “Co-authoring the letter in the Listener may have taken a professional toll [on Clements]. Within 12 days of the letter’s publication, Clements was removed from two collaboratively taught ecology and evolution courses that he had helped deliver for years.

“And while an email criticising the authors was distributed to staff and graduate students in the School of Biological Sciences, [Garth] Cooper’s attempt to respond through the same channel was blocked.

“The university says the school email distribution list was ‘not the appropriate medium’ for this type of debate, so its moderators were told not to allow further emails on the topic. And Clements’ teaching duties were changed to balance his workload after another academic’s departure, ‘and to ensure that the best teaching teams were in place to deliver all courses. The Listener letter was a catalyst for actioning this, but not for the decision.’”

If such luminaries haven’t been protected by their status within the academic community, why would anyone who is looking to further their own careers in academia decide to stand up publicly to defend science? Why would any researcher with even vague hopes of securing grants from the public purse in the future put their head in that particular noose?

In contrast, more than 2000 (mostly New Zealand) academics felt free to sign the open letter co-authored by Drs Hendy and Wiles heavily criticising the professors’ letter — presumably without any need for concern about the consequences for their careers.

Some commentators have suggested that in the current climate not signing the open letter could have been more dangerous professionally for many academics than signing, given the pressure to be seen to take a stand against anything that can be alleged to be “racist”, no matter how far-fetched and divorced from reality that accusation might be.

Racism has been only one of the slurs directed at the professors. Others have included the extraordinary description of them on Twitter by a professor at Victoria University as “shuffling zombies”.

In short, in such a febrile atmosphere, Dawn Freshwater’s grand vision of a truth and reconciliation symposium featuring a “respectful, open-minded, fact-based exchange of views on the relationship between mātauranga Māori and science” seems extremely optimistic.

If the Vice-Chancellor really wants to set the symposium on a firm footing, and convince sceptics it is more than a PR ploy, she could start by apologising publicly to the Auckland University professors for not supporting — much more clearly and forthrightly — their right to voice their views in the first place.

*******

Robert Nola’s academic specialty is the philosophy of science but the Royal Society is investigating him over what it claims are “misguided” views regarding Māori knowledge. Graham Adams reports.

Professor Robert Nola’s bread and butter is analysing what makes science science. And it has been his focus for more than 50 years. Yet, he is facing a disciplinary hearing by the Royal Society for expressing his views on science and mātauranga Māori (traditional Māori knowledge).

Nola was one of seven eminent professors from Auckland University who, in a letter to the Listener in July, criticised plans to include mātauranga Māori in the school science curriculum and to give it equal standing with “Western/ Pakeha epistemologies” — which means subjects such as physics, biology and chemistry.

The professors acknowledged the value of indigenous knowledge as “critical for the preservation and perpetuation of culture and local practices” and that it “plays key roles in management and policy”. But, they wrote, while it “may indeed help advance scientific knowledge in some ways, it is not science”.

For reasons best known to itself, the Royal Society felt moved to respond with a public statement: “The recent suggestion by a group of University of Auckland academics that mātauranga Māori is not a valid truth is utterly rejected by Royal Society Te Apārangi. The society strongly upholds the value of mātauranga Māori and rejects the narrow and outmoded definition of science outlined in The Listener Letter to the Editor.

“It deeply regrets the harm such a misguided view can cause.”

Unfortunately for a statement put out in the name of the nation’s premier academy for the sciences and humanities, it was sloppily worded and seemed to show a poor grasp of what the professors had actually written.

As has been noted elsewhere, the professors never said mātauranga Māori wasn’t a “valid truth” — which of course could describe anything from witchcraft (at least in the eyes of its practitioners) to the great Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Furthermore, the professors didn’t “outline” a definition of science in their letter, as the society claimed, although it perhaps could be said to have implied one.

Possibly the Royal Society’s most egregious assertion, however, was that the professors’ views were “misguided”.

That description can cover a multitude of sins, from being “unreasonable or unsuitable because of being based on bad judgment or on wrong information or beliefs” (Cambridge English Dictionary) to “led or prompted by wrong or inappropriate motives or ideals” (Merriam-Webster).

Synonyms include unwarranted, unfounded, ill-advised, ill-considered, foolish and confused.

To accuse a group of no fewer than seven outstanding professors of being “misguided” because they hold a particular view of what demarcates science from non-science seems… well… misguided. And perhaps no more so than in Professor Nola’s case.

It would certainly be news to the editors of the prestigious journals and book collections which have published his work in the philosophy of science over decades that his views are misguided. Just as it would be news to the eminent scientists around the world who have contacted the Royal Society to condemn its investigation and to back the professors’ opinion on mātauranga Māori and their right to offer it.

Professor Nola, a Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand, has an MSc in mathematics, and an MA and a PhD in philosophy.

His résumé on the University of Auckland website details his professional interests as: “Philosophy of science; metaphysics, including naturalism; epistemology; selected areas in social and historical studies of science; atheism; science and religion.”

It is difficult to imagine anyone in our universities who might have a better-informed view on the boundaries of science or why mātauranga Māori should not be included in the school science curriculum. Obviously, that is not a reason to immediately assume his views are correct but it is a reason to assume they are well considered and that he has the standing to make such a judgment in a professional capacity.

That is, of course, unless it is argued that mātauranga Māori is a form of priestly knowledge that only an initiate — presumably Māori — could understand and comment on. But if that is the case, it confirms immediately that traditional Māori knowledge is not scientific.

As the professors stated in their letter: “Science is universal” — which Nola points out can mean that it is “applicable by anyone anywhere”.

The same point was made by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in the letter he sent to the Royal Society NZ last week (and tweeted to his 2.9 million followers) that decried the disciplinary investigation against Nola and his eminent colleague, Māori medical researcher Professor Garth Cooper:

“Science is science is science, and it doesn’t matter who does it, or where, or what ‘tradition’ they may have been brought up in. True science is evidence-based not tradition-based; it incorporates safeguards such as peer review, repeated experimental testing of hypotheses, double-blind trials, instruments to supplement and validate fallible senses etc.”

In his letter to the Royal Society, Jerry Coyne, professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, made the point that only scientific method can determine what parts of mātauranga Māori can be classified as scientific knowledge:

“Māori science is a collation of mythology, religion, and legends which may contain some scientific truth, but to determine what bits exactly are true, those claims must be adjudicated by modern science: our only ‘true’ way of knowing.”

The problem for the Royal Society in rejecting what they see as the professors’ “narrow and outmoded definition of science” is that a wider and more fashionable view of what constitutes science leads inevitably to a philosophy of “anything goes”, or a sort of epistemological anarchy.

Once Māori myths and legends are introduced into the school science curriculum there is no justifiable reason not to include Creationism (the belief that the universe and the various forms of life were created by God out of nothing) as well.

Parts of mātauranga Māori are, of course, creation myths, including the roles played by Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatūānuku, the Earth Mother, in the formation of the world.

As Dawkins wrote: “No indigenous myths from anywhere in the world, no matter how poetic or hauntingly beautiful, belong in science classes.”

As it happens, Professor Nola is no stranger to an elastic view of science — and what areas of knowledge and belief might fall under such an expanded remit.

He was a lecturer in Auckland University’s philosophy department when Paul Feyerabend arrived from the University of California, Berkeley, to teach during the winter terms of 1972 and 1974.

In the second half of the 20th Century, Feyerabend was one of the world’s best-known philosophers of science — and certainly the most mischievous.

He was a charismatic showman with a prodigious intellect and astonishing range of interests, and one who reliably packed out the biggest lecture halls in the university. He argued (as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it) that “in order to maximise the chances of falsifying existing theories, scientists should construct and defend as many alternative theories as possible”.

Feyerabend’s first book, Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge — published in 1975 (and expanding on the essay version that appeared in 1970) — consolidated his reputation as a thorn in the side of the profession. He argued that there is no such thing as the scientific method.

In an era when university lecturers were still allowed to discombobulate if not alarm their students with radical ideas, he challenged his Auckland University students to convince him that witchcraft was not scientific — and prescribed the 15th Century text Malleus Maleficarum (the Hammer of Witches) as a set text.

So Feyerabend ended up likening science to voodoo, witchcraft and astrology and defending them as systems of knowledge. He also expressed support for Creationism being included in the public school curriculum.

You might even say, to echo the Royal Society’s formulation, he saw each of them as “valid truths”.

Interest in Feyerabend’s views, however, dwindled in the succeeding decades, not least because what makes science science is manifestly different to traditional belief systems such as religion. Presented with evidence that confounds their theories, scientists are obliged, sooner or later, to adapt them to fit the facts or to abandon them entirely — unlike religion.

Professor Nola has written extensively on Feyerabend’s philosophy. While freely admitting that the demarcation between science and non-science is contestable, he has rejected a Feyerabendian epistemological free-for-all.

He wrote in the NZ Herald in 2016 to warn about “post-truth" displacing “objective facts”:

"Insofar as studies in humanities have not resisted the views of post-truthers, too bad for humanities. But what of science? It would be quite alien for science to reject the search for truth and evidence, the core of its critical methods.

"In science we have models of what the rational approach to believing ought to be. If followed, they are an important way to keep the post-truth era from engulfing us.”

However, a significant problem for anyone — including the seven professors — who wants to assess the scientific nature of mātauranga Māori is deciding exactly what status it has.

Nola points out that there are two distinct camps of thought regarding mātauranga Māori — the “accommodationist” and the “exclusionist” positions.

The former accommodates the possibility of scientific testing to determine the scientific truth or validity of its claims. As Vision Mātauranga (2007) tells us: “Scientific knowledge has superseded traditional Māori knowledge in many ways, however, mātauranga Māori contains suggestions and ideas that may yet make a contribution to research, science and technology.”

The latter exclusionist view asserts that it is impossible to judge mātauranga Māori by the standards of science because they are fundamentally incompatible ways of knowing. (Feyerabend would have called them “incommensurable”.)

A quote by Professor Sir Mason Durie in the document Rauika Māngai: A Guide to Vision Mātauranga, published in 2020, made this position explicit: “You can’t understand science through the tools of mātauranga Māori, and you can’t understand mātauranga Māori through the tools of science. They’re different bodies of knowledge, and if you try to see one through the eyes of the other you mess up.”

In the same document, the exclusive nature of mātauranga Māori was further emphasised. Aroha Te Pareake Mead expressed a view about the exclusive control of mātauranga Māori which appears to preclude any non-Maori from learning about it: “Māori are the only ones who should be controlling all aspects of its retention, its transmission, its protection.”

Nola says that “lots of the claims from Vision Mātauranga Māori (2007) can be accommodated into science in a quite familiar way and with that I have no problem” — but the exclusionist position is more challenging.

It is ironic that the professors who wrote to the Listener have been roundly criticised for saying “Indigenous knowledge… is not science” when influential Māori thinkers like Mason Durie — who is one of New Zealand's most respected academics — have been making a much more radical claim along these lines for years.

In a 300-word letter to the Listener it was simply impossible for the professors to make the distinction between the accommodationist and the exclusionist approaches, but the problem remains.

As Nola puts it: “Which version of MM is the real MM? There might not be one!”