rss_blog_all

  • Thugs' Veto to Silence Rainbow Event Appalling

    Posted by · February 16, 2025 9:24 AM · 1 reaction

    A hand holding a phone

Description automatically generated
    MEDIA RELEASE
     
    16 February 2025
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Thugs' Veto to Silence Rainbow Event Appalling
     
     
    Actions at a Rainbow event in Auckland taken by members of Destiny Church's 'Man Up' programme to disrupt and intimidate children are appalling, and must be condemned in the strongest terms. Those who live in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones, and setting the precedent for silencing unpopular ideas will not play out well for the group long-term, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    "Brian Tamaki and his supporters at Destiny Church and in the 'Man Up' programme are fully entitled to condemn Rainbow events with children participating, and peacefully counter protest. Barging into the facility, banging on doors, and attempting to enter the room is not free speech, though. 

    "Taking actions of this kind, especially in a context that frightened children and intimidated their parents, is the antithesis of contributing 'better ideas' into discourse.    

    "If this event is breaking the law, call the police. Parents get to choose what ideas, within the law, they expose their children to. A leader of a controversial church should value this freedom more and think carefully about vandalising the public's acceptance of this fact. Vigilante 'justice' is no justice at all.
     
    "The Free Speech Union has consistently stood against the Thugs' Veto in every context. It is not free speech to use disruption and intimidation to force others into silence. This is true at Albert Park, this is true with Rainbow events. We must work to reject this tactic and preserve the right for different perspectives to be freely shared in New Zealand." 
  • Free Speech Union announces four speakers for national tours in 2025

    Posted by · February 14, 2025 9:19 AM · 1 reaction


    MEDIA RELEASE

    14 February 2025
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Free Speech Union announces four speakers for national tours in 2025

    The Free Speech Union is proud to continue to contribute world-class commentary to the fight for open discourse and dialogue.

    In 2025, Dr. James Lindsay, Dr. Musa al-Gharbi, Michael Shellenberger, and Dr. Helen Joyce will be hosted by the Free Speech Union to meet with policy makers, politicians, journalists, academics, and Union members.

    By bringing these global voices to the fight for free expression in New Zealand, we’ll continue to protect and expand our culture of free speech, says Nathan Seiuli, the Free Speech Union's Events Manager.

    “We’re thrilled to bring Dr. Lindsay to New Zealand next month. His bestselling books, including Cynical Theories and Race Marxism, have shaped global discussions on free speech and liberal democracy. He is well known for his role behind the infamous ‘Grievance Studies’ affair along with Dr. Peter Boghossian (another recent guest of the FSU).

    Musa al-Gharbi is a Columbia-trained sociologist and author. Protégé of prominent academic, Jonathan Haidt, he is the former comms director at Heterodox Academy. His tour in May will discuss his latest book, We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite.

    Michael Shellenberger is an author, journalist, and think tank executive whose advocacy for free speech spans the world. Most famous for his work with Matt Taibbi on the Twitter Files, his tour in Spring will focus on Online Safety and Censorship.

    Helen Joyce is the former International Editor of The Economist. In addition to her work as an author and academic, she is best known for her work on gender issues. Her book Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality has sparked major global conversations. Joyce will be the keynote speaker at our 2025 annual Free Speech Conferences in Auckland and Christchurch on 8 and 9 November.

    “We look forward to touring with these champions of free speech in 2025.”

    To keep an eye on event announcements, go to fsu.nz/upcoming_events

  • Submission on the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill

    Posted by · February 13, 2025 12:13 PM · 1 reaction

  • More regulation of media will inevitably lead to even lower trust in media

    Posted by · February 12, 2025 4:01 PM · 1 reaction


    MEDIA RELEASE

    12 February 2025
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    More regulation of media will inevitably lead to even lower trust in media

    The Media Reform consultation released today by Media and Communications Minister, Paul Goldsmith, offers solutions to problems of the government’s own making. Further regulation of media will fail to increase trust, at a time when transparent, open discourse on public matters is desperately needed, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “Just one-in-three Kiwis believe mainstream media is trustworthy. Less than that (27%) agree the news media is independent of undue political or government influence most of the time, while almost half disagree.

    “The Broadcasting Standards Authority and Media Council already regulate mainstream media – the mainstream media that have squandered Kiwis’ trust. Including other media that are not currently caught by this regulation in a new regime threatens to only compound the issue, not address it.  

    “The Ministry’s Regulatory Impact Statement notes: ‘Initial high-level discussions with the BSA, Media Council, and government agencies indicate general support for [the] options.’ This is like asking whether the foxes watching the hens should be made responsible for more chicken coops. The lack of self-awareness is dumbfounding.

    “Further limitations on media, while arguably well-intentioned, stand to worsen the legitimacy of the important institution that is the Fourth Estate. The answer is a more professional (and less politicised/ideologically-driven) media, not greater powers or coverage for existing, equally-compromised agencies.

    “Speech such as incitement to violence, defamation, and libel are already illegal, regardless of the median. Beyond that, the Government should stay well-clear of imposing itself on public discourse and content in the media.”

  • 'Cultural safety'... what even is that?

    Posted by · February 11, 2025 3:00 PM · 1 reaction

    I’m writing about further abuse by professional regulators, forcing political opinions on healthcare workers. If they don’t echo the party line, they face deregistration.

    Cross-cultural assumptions can be risky.

    Just ask Christopher Columbus who upon arriving in the Caribbean believed he’d found Asia and proudly insisted, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the indigenous Carib people were ‘Indians.’

    Healthcare professionals today know this risk only too well. Cultural differences can be a barrier, so understanding your patient’s background can assist in effective diagnosis, treatment and management. As my dad, a general practitioner for over sixty years always insisted, taking the time to understand a person’s history is key to any investigation.

    But should professional regulatory bodies be imposing contested ideological positions on their members especially when it comes to matters which fall outside of a profession’s core competencies?

    Cultural ‘Safety’ Training. The term currently has had a lot of pharmacists scratching their heads. And for good reason.

    The Pharmacy Council of NZ, in its great wisdom, has decided to mandate ‘cultural safety’ for its members.


    While it might ordinarily be difficult to argue against making things safer (especially when you’re dealing with medications), it’s important to point out the Pharmacy Council is not talking about a ‘culture of safety’ in the workplace intended to minimise dispensing errors and the like.

    They’re talking about something altogether more ambitious.

    They want pharmacists to engage in identitarian politics.

    For example, consider the following passive-aggressive edict from the Pharmacy Council: “It is your patient and their family or colleague in the interaction who assesses if the interaction is culturally safe, so seek feedback where appropriate and accept this humbly without defensiveness. Recognise it is not their responsibility to teach you…”

    According to such a scenario, if a man accompanies a seemingly intimidated female relative into a pharmacy and presumes to speak on her behalf, is the pharmacist according to the direction above then simply supposed to accept that the behaviour is a private matter of “culture” and not question what is happening?

    Other examples in this training material include why “equity” is superior to “equality” and that even if a pharmacist is a member of the LGBTQ+ community, it should not be assumed that patients who are “transgender or takatapui” will feel “culturally safe” in their interactions with you. Remember, they shouldn’t be expected to teach you what is “culturally safe”. But you also shouldn’t assume that you know either...

    Reading the training material is like watching a shell game. Which is to say, that if you think you’ve worked it out, you clearly haven’t.

    So, let’s be frank.

    Professional regulators have no business imposing contested ideological strictures on their members.

    Pharmacists have better things to do like staying informed on matters of actual safety. Those who wish to pursue identitarian politics are entirely free to do so if they want, just in their own time.

    This is why we’ve written to the Minister of Health Simeon Brown and Associate Minister of Health David Seymour raising objections at cases of regulatory overreach and ideological imposition as it affects healthcare professionals.

    Patients, each with their personal experiences and stories of life, are reduced to myriad fractured classes based on identity.

    Healthcare professionals are politely asked to psychologically flagellate themselves for having the immutable characteristics of an ‘historically oppressive class.’

    Beyond healthcare, ideological imposition is no less a problem. Because these regulatory bodies are effectively monopolistic, in that they govern their professional domain without competition, they can write the rulebook and act with a certain degree of impunity.

    The courts have much less leeway than you’d think when hearing appeals from dissenters. That’s because only Parliament can ultimately check and shape the powers of professional regulators.

    And this is why we're asking you, to add your name to a public letter to the Minister for Courts Nicole McKee, urging the Government to require political neutrality from regulatory bodies.

    Sign the public letter here

    We must point out the absurd and unjust measures faced by experienced professionals who are being censured and excluded from their professions by the draconian requirements of regulatory bodies.

    The unrelenting treatment of real estate agent Janet Dickson by the Real Estate Authority of NZ is just such a case. You'll likely know that Janet refused to complete a mandatory training module in Te Ao Maori. Despite arguing that much of the content of the training material went well beyond the core competencies of her professional domain and pushed on its participants a specific religious ideology and worldview, the High Court determined that Janet’s failure to comply means she must face a total exclusion from her profession for the next five years.

    If bureaucratic institutions wish to fight this all the way to the High Court seemingly to bolster and justify their own ideological activism, this only reinforces the fact that the proposed Political Neutrality Bill we’ve helped draft is needed more than ever.

    IIt is one of a number of avenues for Kiwis who believe in fundamental freedoms of conscience, belief and expression to fight back. But we need your support.

    My dad always appreciated the diverse range of individuals who walked in the door of his practice, but he never forgot that they were human beings just like him. Bureaucrats, however, have a tendency to lose sight of this fact.

    Together with your help we can reclaim institutions for the sake of the professionals and those they were intended to serve.

    Nick Hanne
    Education Partnership Manager
    Free Speech Union

    www.fsu.nz

    PS. For too long, regulatory bodies have put policies and rules in place that silence dissenting voices. To tackle this, we've launched seven industry-specific memberships, including one for healthcare professionals. Head to our website and click 'Memberships' to see them all

    You may have noticed this isn't the only issue we're working across! The Law Commission has released it's discussion paper on 'hate crime'. This is a fool's errand. Have you used our easy step-by-step submission tool to have your say?

  • Healthcare Professional Regulators Imposing Contested Ideological Positions

    Posted by · February 10, 2025 2:12 PM · 1 reaction

  • Free Speech Union welcomes Academic Freedom Policy from Victoria University

    Posted by · February 05, 2025 12:30 PM · 2 reactions


    MEDIA RELEASE

    5 February 2025
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Free Speech Union welcomes Academic Freedom Policy from Victoria University

    Victoria University of Wellington’s newly released Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression Policy contains strong commitments to critical freedoms for the function of the university. But the policy is not without caveats, and the proof will be in the application, says Prof Elizabeth Rata, Co-Chair of the Free Speech Union’s Inter-University Council for Academic Freedom. 

    “We commend the University for its strong statements, defending both staff and student’s voices. The commitment to institutional neutrality is especially important, recognising that the university must remain agnostic on public matters unrelated to its core mission. This is an important step to ensure that staff and students can engage in open debate without retribution or restriction from the University. We hope other Kiwi universities will emulate Victoria in this.  

    However, the policy’s reference to aligning academic activities with ‘University values’ and principles of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi raises red flags. References to kaitiakitanga, manaakitanga, whanaungatanga, akoranga,and whai mātauranga are vague, and therefore vulnerable to abuse.  
     
    “While the policy recognises that universities exist to pursue truth through reason, evidence, and rigorous debate, it must also ensure that academic freedom is not subject to imprecise institutional values or ideological frameworks that constrain academic inquiry.   

    “We applaud Victoria University for its work, and its commitment to institutional neutrality. We look forward to seeing this policy implemented fully, ensuring that competing institutional priorities are not used to suppress teaching, research, or speech.”

  • 'Hate' crimes back on the agenda

    Posted by · February 04, 2025 5:33 PM · 1 reaction

    I am very frustrated with an announcement today.

    Despite canning unworkable and incredibly unpopular 'hate speech' laws at the beginning of their term, the National Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith, has instructed the Law Commission to prepare advice on creating 'hate crime' laws in New Zealand. Today, they have released the consultation document. 

    It baffles me as to why this Government would pursue such a fool's errand. 

    You likely don't need me to tell you, the inherent weakness of 'hate speech' laws is also found in 'hate crime' laws: it's impossible to objectively decide what 'hate' means. 

    Put simply, there is no logical reason to support ‘hate crime’ laws, but reject ‘hate speech’ laws. They both come from the same faulty assumption that the government can simply make ‘hate’ illegal.

    When Canada passed C-250, a ‘hate crime’ law in the mid-2000s, the bill’s sponsor MP Svend Robinson argued that it did not go far enough as it did not include ‘hate speech.’ Subsequent laws in Canada have fulfilled Robinson’s wish.

    Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia have each shown the folly of trying to address division in this way.

    Mark my words: if this Government accepts advice to create ‘hate crime’ laws, ‘hate speech’ laws will be passed within the next five years, and NZ Police will be mandated to suppress ‘wrong speech'. (Our opponents even explicitly say that is the goal).

    That is why I need your help.

    Together, tens of thousands of Kiwis pushed back against the Government trying to outlaw 'hate' previously. Up against a majority Government (the first in a generation), we defeated laws that would have been a death knell for free speech in New Zealand. 

    And that's exactly what we have to do again. 

    My team has gone to battle stations, and we will give everything we've got between now and March 13 (when the consultation ends) to convince this Government it's not a fight worth having. But to do that effectively, we need resources. 

    Tomorrow my team will launch a website we're working on right now to help facilitate tens of thousands of submissions on this consultation. We have already started fronting with media, and will be contacting every stakeholder we know to get them in the fight.

    Would you join us now and ensure that we have the ability to fight back: a $100 donation today (or even better, joining as a member), will mean we're able to save free speech.

    If we don't win this one, the implications for tomorrow are clear. Just look at what 'hate crime' laws have done in Canada, which non-criminal 'hate' incidents have done in the UK, how the Government has regulated online speech in Australia.

    We have stood in their way to accomplish the same in New Zealand; let's do it again.

    ******  

    What actually makes a ‘hate crime’ different to other crimes?

    Being ‘tough on hate’ certainly makes us feel like we’re achieving something. Laws usually act to some degree as deterrents for criminal behaviour. But as I told Whena Owen from Q+A, ‘hate crime’ is unavoidably subjective.

    For instance, was the attack on a Treaty of Waitangi display at Te Papa Museum in 2023 a ‘hate crime’?

    When pro-Palestinian protestors threw red paint on an MP's office, was that a 'hate crime'?

    What about a car doing burnouts on the rainbow crossing on K-Road? 

    If you feel inclined to brand one a ‘hate crime’ but not the other, this ought to be reason for caution.

    Without some broad agreement as a society on what we deem ‘hateful’, we’re treading on shaky ground. Who gets to call it?

    That's why we've written a public letter to Minister Goldsmith, calling on him to reject advice to implement 'hate crime' laws. Would you sign it now?

    In NZ law, intent – what someone seeks to do – and motive – why they do it – are already central factors in determining guilt and sentencing. Though not always easy to prove, these two factors can be reasonably demonstrated to a court.

    But figuring out which crimes we call hateful is impossible in reality. Some acts may well seem obvious – fire bombing a synagogue or viciously assaulting a man because of his skin colour might easily fit the bill. But beyond these sorts of cases, things get tricky.

    We can be against crime that is hateful, yet still against ‘hate crimes’ laws that will only give a big stick to those who want to beat, not just criminal activity, but wrong-thought.

    Aside from the obvious use of the word ‘hate’, which elicits a strong emotional response from the public, there is no evidence that ‘hate crime’ laws have reduced the sort of offences they were designed to address. Laws of this kind in the UK has been a prime example of this failure.

    In fact, evidence increasingly suggests that such laws have actually been counter-productive in combatting the kinds of extremism they were supposed to address.

    Building public pressure to tell the Minister 'no' was crucial in fighting 'hate speech' laws. Will you join us in telling Goldsmith to reject bad advice? 

    <<Sign our public letter calling on Paul Goldsmith to reject advice to implement 'hate crime' laws>>

    Preserving an open society where thought and speech are free, and everyone is held accountable under the same rules - that is the best path to fighting hate. 

    Thanks for your partnership. I'll be in touch shortly with an easy way to submit to the Law Commission on this issue.

    Jonathan


    Jonathan Ayling
    Chief Executive
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    P.S. The Law Commission has announced their consultation on 'hate crime' laws the day after a man in the UK was arrested, and the week after another man was killed, for burning a Quran. 

    As Andrew Doyle wrote yesterday, "I do not much like the destruction of books... The symbolism of a burning book [is] the repudiation of the very notion of freedom. And yet this same freedom means that we must be able to burn books if we so desire."

    We don't have to speculate what the implications are of overreach like 'hate crime' laws; we only have to look overseas. What I see there makes me certain we must do everything we can to ensure free speech is preserved in New Zealand. Would you please help us make sure this is possible? 

  • Law Commission’s consultation on new ‘hate crimes’ a fool’s errand

    Posted by · February 04, 2025 11:05 AM · 1 reaction

    A hand holding a phone

Description automatically generated
    MEDIA RELEASE
     
    04 February 2025
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    Law Commission’s consultation on new ‘hate crimes’ a fool’s errand
    The Law Commission’s discussion paper on proposed ‘hate crime’ laws once again underscores the fundamental issue with defining ‘hate’ in law—its inherent subjectivity, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “As we saw with the backlash against ‘hate speech’ laws, determining what qualifies as a ‘hate crime’ is entirely subjective. The questions the Law Commission is asking are in vain and threaten to simply create a bigger stick with which to beat unpopular views.

    “Criminal acts motivated by hate are already illegal and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, categorising an existing offense as a ‘hate crime’ means punishing not just the action, but the perceived thoughts or motivations behind it.

    “New Zealand law already permits judges to consider motivation as an aggravating factor under the Sentencing Act. This is the right approach—judges daily use their subjective discretion in determining appropriate punishments.

    “Throwing red paint on an MPs office in response to the conflict in Gaza? Defacing an installation of the English version of the Treaty in Te Papa? Vandalising a rainbow pedestrian street crossing? All of these are criminal offences- all should be addressed appropriately under the law. But who decides which is a ‘hate crime’?

    “No jurisdiction in the world has created an objective standard for ‘hate’. Trying to legislate against something so subjective will lead to confusion and inconsistency in enforcement. There is far too much room for ideological interpretation when deciding if a crime constitutes as ‘hateful’ and to what extent.

    “The Free Speech Union successfully opposed ‘hate speech’ laws and will maintain our position against ‘hate crime’ laws, leading a campaign with our supporter base of over 100,000 Kiwis.

    “Internationally, ‘hate crime’ laws have proven to be easily weaponised. The rule of law is too important for our democracy to get caught up in subjective and ideological debates that undermine clear legal standards.”
  • Feelings over facts

    Posted by · February 04, 2025 10:18 AM · 1 reaction

    Feelings over facts... 

    Such is the rationale behind moves by senior civil servants in the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) to silence public criticisms made by a Kiwi think tank.

    We have another concerning story of how the Harmful Digital Communications Act (HDCA) is being used to censor individuals. 

    The directors of the Israel Institute of New Zealand (IINZ) – Perry Trotter, Ashley Church and Dr David Cumin (who, we note, is also on an advisory council for the Free Speech Union) - face legal action under the HDCA. The grounds for censorship are remarkably simple. Certain senior MFAT officials allege they have suffered significant emotional distress as a result of their names being cited publicly in IINZ’s online criticisms.

    Yup, you read that right. Senior government officials, each paid handsome salaries to craft and implement our foreign policy, claim they are emotionally distressed by a lobby group's tweets. 

    Forget those pesky details called ‘facts’ when we can just resort to punishing people based on feelings.

    Here's the story:

    IINZ, by its own description, is an “independent think tank dedicated to providing New Zealanders with a better understanding of the State of Israel through accurate analysis, insightful commentary, and effective advocacy.”

    (Before we go any further, I will just note that questions related to Israel are highly contested; I understand that - especially since October 7 and the most recent Gaza war. Our work isn't about that at all, it's about the fact that in a free country like New Zealand, I respect your right to hear others opinions, and make up your own mind. I also respect your right to disagree with me and express that. Unfortunately, it seems some MFAT officials don't have the same respect for you). 

    This Kiwi organisation has for over five years consistently called on MFAT to rethink its practice of sending more than $1million annually to a heavily-compromised United Nations agency (UNRWA) operating in Hamas-controlled Gaza.

    Evidence offered by IINZ in support of its claim includes a damning report by a European Union taskforce expressing grave concerns over UNRWA activities such as Gazan schools openly promoting violent Hamas propaganda in classrooms and the glorification of suicide bombers.


    Despite repeated warnings to MFAT about UNWRA’s alleged failings over more than five years, NZ officials continue to refuse to acknowledge IINZ’s concerns. MFAT has shown no desire to engage in debate over this issue.

    No matter your position on the Gaza conflict, one would hope there exists a basic consensus in NZ that we should be free to publicly criticise senior government officials, who are leading our nation to give money overseas to parties some find highly dubious.

    Without that freedom to criticise, how can we ensure transparency and hold decision-makers accountable?

    To be very clear, this isn’t doxxing we’re talking about. No private addresses or vital statistics are being splashed all over the internet. This is simply about calling out a handful of prominent officials whose job titles are either openly listed on a government website or mentioned in official correspondence.

    This is where the HDCA is proving to be a handy censorship tool. You only need to follow a few easy steps! 🤦‍♂️

    The complainants (in this case, certain MFAT officials) begin by lodging a complaint with Netsafe, the “approved agency” tasked under the HDCA with receiving and assessing “complaints about harm caused to individuals by digital communications”.

    Netsafe then looks at the claim, mediates between the parties concerned and, in some instances, produces a statement supporting the claims of the complainant if the latter decides to pursue legal action through the District Court.

    Yet on closer inspection, the HDCA is fundamentally flawed both in theory and in practice.

    With one hand, the HDCA holds up the protection of the Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA). But, on the other hand, it hollows out that protection by making provision for complaints on grounds of “serious emotional distress.”

    Interfering with the right to tell the truth about others promotes fake news and fake reputations. The HDCA allows a complainant to exploit the courts and suppress criticism by claiming “serious emotional distress”, irrespective of truth.

    Of course, what counts as “serious emotional distress” is largely in the eye of the beholder, therefore framing any argument on the complainant’s terms.

    Without an external gauge for such alleged harm, it isn’t clear from the HDCA that Netsafe is allowed to doubt the subjective experience or consider whether the complainant’s emotional reactions are proportionate to the speech in question. But what is clear is that Netsafe does not have to investigate or take seriously “vexatious” claims. Some discretionary power, therefore, exists in this respect.

    So, why has Netsafe chosen to investigate IINZ then? Your guess is as good as mine.

    Free speech as a defence was therefore forfeited in the HDCA from the moment “serious emotional distress” was admitted as grounds for complaint. Unlike a defamation lawsuit, truth under the HDCA is no longer a defence in a NZ court of law.

    Let that last sentence sink in for a moment.

    Compounding this travesty of justice, some judges appear to have attached significant weight to the expert opinion of organisations like Netsafe, having assumed their report is a generally comprehensive assessment of the context and evidence as it affects both sides.


    Ironically, Netsafe, until recently, had assumed judges believed the reverse was true and regarded their own contribution as merely one piece of the puzzle rather than a comprehensive review of all the evidence.

    For context: Netsafe was originally set up to offer a socially beneficial range of services in the areas of online education, research and mediation, particularly in matters of bullying and exploitation affecting children and teens. This is important work, but even the non-profit accepts it's difficult to pair that at times with the role handed to it by the HDCA.

    A recent case involving a Kiwi Chinese journalist and an alleged China Communist Party proxy in Auckland perfectly illustrates this point. You might remember Portia Mao's story - you can read it again here

    The Free Speech Union is assisting both IINZ and Portia Mao in the exercise and defence of their free speech rights. More importantly, we're also working to have the HDCA amended, so that it can no longer be weaponised to silence dissenting voices. 

    And we know that other cases exist, but because some decisions have not been published by the courts, we are still attempting to establish the total number. But the two outrageous cases above should be more than enough reason for the NZ Government to amend the HDCA, or, even better, replace it with something that doesn’t undermine section 14 of NZBORA.

    This law is proving to be hate speech legislation by another name.

    Would-be-censors maintain that free speech is used to suppress the rights of minorities. But the cases discussed reveal how this is utter nonsense.

    In one instance, a critic of authoritarian China, and in the other, those campaigning against state funding of a foreign terrorist organisation, are facing censorship under NZ law.

    Hate speech laws, in their various guises, introduce an element of emotional subjectivity that can trump the principles of proportionality, reason and evidence.

    Free speech, on the other hand, levels the playing field.

    If we can restore this value, we can protect Kiwis from the censorial tendencies of crybullies rather than indulge the vexatious emotional complaints that have now become a fixture of the NZ judicial system.

    Thank you for your support. 

    Stephen Franks
    Council member

    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    P.S. In response to stories like Portia Moa, NZII, and others who are hounded and silenced by the HDCA, we are working to pressure the Government to review this legislation and ensure it can't be used by those who want to censor dissent.

    This is just one of dozens of ways we are currently fighting to protect and expand your right to think and speak freely. Fighting for our freedom isn't free, but it's essential. Would you once again chip in for the fight?  

  • Harmful Digital Communications Act must be reviewed

    Posted by · February 03, 2025 5:47 PM · 1 reaction

  • Importance of open dialogue and dissent in effective public service

    Posted by · January 24, 2025 5:02 PM · 1 reaction

  • Academic freedom: the sine qua non of open debate and progress in universities

    Posted by · January 24, 2025 8:45 AM · 1 reaction

  • Professional regulation is about confidence for consumers, not ideological imposition

    Posted by · January 22, 2025 5:43 PM · 1 reaction


    MEDIA RELEASE

    22 January 2025
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Professional regulation is about confidence for consumers, not ideological imposition

    Today, the Free Speech Union has drafted and released the Real Estate Agents (Political Neutrality) Amendment Bill 2024, and calls on the Government to adopt this legislation to protect professionals’ speech rights within the Real Estate profession. The Real Estate Authority (REA) has abused their authority and used it to impose ideological conformity. They must be brought into line, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “This afternoon, the Free Speech Union contacted almost every real estate agent in the country, urging them to sign a public letter calling on the Minister for Courts, Hon Nicole McKee, to implement The Real Estate Agents (Political Neutrality) Amendment Bill 2024.

    “Increasingly, professional regulators demand professionals complete training that has little to do with the function of their professions, and more to do with the particular views that are held and espoused by the individual idealogues in charge. This is inconsistent with the purpose of good professional regulation which is to ensure the confidence and safety of practitioners and consumers - not to act as moralising imposers.

    “The Free Speech Union has drafted The Real Estate Agents (Political Neutrality) Amendment Bill 2024 in response to the ideological overreach the Real Estate Authority has demonstrated amongst its members.

    “An example of this is the story of Janet Dickson, a case currently before the High Court. Dickson lost her registration as a real estate agent for refusing to take training on spiritual views different from her own.

    “Regardless of the outcome in this case, Dickson's story represents a much broader issue, and it’s time something is done about it. The Free Speech Union calls on the Government to pass legislation across key sectors where professionals are silenced and face retribution if they don’t toe the line."

    See legislation here.

  • Real Estate Agents (Political Neutrality) Amendment Bill 2024

    Posted by · January 22, 2025 5:40 PM · 2 reactions

  • Free Speech Union Submission on the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill

    Posted by · January 17, 2025 9:36 AM · 1 reaction

  • Do you want 'truth' determined by 'fact-checkers'?

    Posted by · January 16, 2025 2:42 PM · 1 reaction

    This is not always easy, but it is important: one of the most basic roles we have here at the Free Speech Union is to make the case for free speech, even when everyone else is lined up against it. 

    That's exactly what happened this week in response to Mark Zuckerberg's announcement that Meta (which owns Facebook and Instagram) will no longer use fact-checkers in content moderation. 

    Unsurprisingly, this has drawn a lot of opposition. When I spoke with 1News about this on Sunday night, they introduced the story by claiming, "There's growing concern recent changes to social media giant Meta are going to leave minority groups vulnerable to abuse and violence."

    The story went on to include breathless commentary from the National Women's Council and the Federation of Islamic Associations that removing fact-checking will mean 'vulnerable groups' suffer.

    Of course, it would be too much to expect them to note that it is actually the vulnerable and minority that suffer the most where there is no free speech (as I wrote about a while ago in an opinion piece in The Herald).

    This week, I was invited to write another opinion piece in The Herald in response to Meta's decision. And this is what I claimed

    Critics of Meta’s move (of which there are many) would do well to consider the alternative. A world where tech giants act as gatekeepers of truth is a world where dissent is stifled, innovation is curbed, and trust in democratic institutions erodes further. That is where content moderation has led us.

    ***

    Fighting for free speech isn't to say that all speech is good. It's to say that censorship is a cure worse than the disease. The better path is one where citizens are empowered to engage critically with information, where robust public discourse allows ideas to rise or fall based on their merits, and where the principle of free speech remains paramount.

    Meta's recent announcement to replace 'fact checkers' with community notes is a big step in the right direction for speech online, regardless of the motives that may be behind it. 

    Article after article claims this change will lead to misinformation running rampant, the distortion of public debate, and the polarisation of communities; these are such narrow-minded responses. 

    What it boils down to is this: would you rather leave the deciphering of 'truth' up to a select group of so-called 'fact-checkers'? Or would you prefer a diversity of views can be aired and deliberated on?

    I know what I'd rather.

    But let me be clear: I don't see this as a principled move by Mark Zuckerberg and Meta, who have supported censorship when it has suited them, as I explained in my op-ed.

    I can still think it's the right move for free speech, though. And it's important that in the face of the would-be-censors lining up to call this the end of the world, someone is boxing the other corner.

    Censorship is a natural impulse to ideas we don't like. Many will advocate for it with good intentions. But the freedom of our thoughts and speech should not be in the hands of corporations or the Government. 

    Instead, we need to focus on being equipped to recognise and reject harmful falsehoods. This is the most sustainable way to combat misinformation without stifling legitimate expression.

    Better ideas, and the ability to identify and promote them, are the best tools for defeating bad ideas, not censorship.

    ***

    We fought against 'hate speech' laws and won. We fought against an online censorship regime and won. Changes like this from Meta are encouraging, but there are plenty of people out there who disagree with this stance.

    If we're to keep our speech free, we cannot become complacent. 

    That's why this year, one of our strategic goals is to focus on protecting online speech. It's highly contested, and there needs to be leaders advocating for freedoms within this modern-day public square. The reality is, though, we can't do it without you. 

    Thanks for joining us in the fight. 

    Jonathan


    Jonathan Ayling
    Chief Executive
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    P.S. You don't need me to tell you; it's an uphill battle, making the claim that everyone should be free to think and speak for themselves. We can't win this fight, if we can't keep the lights on.

    Would you donate today to ensure that in 2025, we can continue to speak out for those who are silenced?

  • Make No Small Plans

    Posted by · January 03, 2025 1:45 PM · 1 reaction

    Have you ever visited Chicago? 

    I've just come in from pulling some weeds in my garden, and happened to be thinking about the first time I visited there.

    For an otherwise troubled city (famous, in part, for its tragically high gunviolence), it has a stunning, sprawling waterfront. I took this photo of a plaque there about 10 years ago. It's message has stuck with me ever since:

    "Make no little plans.

    They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will not themselves be realized".  

    It struck me then, and still does, how often we settle for small plans, when really only grand dreams will do.

    In reality, we will likely fall short of what we imagine, but far better than compromising for what anyone can envision. 

    At the Free Speech Union, our team has a great dream: to make New Zealand the freest nation in the world to speak and think. I am convinced that if we achieve this (and I think we're well on our way), there is not a single part of our society that we'll fail to impact.

    Free speech is so much more than a civil liberty, one alongside others, that we can dismiss or discount. It is the foundation on which our way of life has been built. Those who insist we discard free speech now, knowingly or unknowingly, insist we embrace a radically different view of the world.

    I have said from the very start of our adventure here at the Free Speech Union that if it is just me, and our staff, and our Board, we will achieve little and fail soon.

    But if it is a broad coalition of over 100,000 Kiwis who otherwise agree on little, except that we must each vigilantly defend the right for all to think and speak, then, then I believe our plans must be daring. 

    We have 4 workstreams that guide our work: Cases, Campaigns, Content, and Coaching. 

    • Cases: last year, we took on major legal cases, and sought to set new precedents by:
      • holding Council Chief Executives accountable for their actions so they can't just run up legal fees on the ratepayers' credit card;
      • holding School Board of Trustees accountable for the why principals and teachers instruct their students on free speech;
      • holding Police accountable, by defending those they wrongly arrested, suing them for this abuse, and overturning censorial guidelines. 
    • Campaigns: we ran campaigns to change the way our institutions respect free speech, which saw several new pieces of legislation introduced to Parliament:
      • including a major amendment to requirements on universities to defend the right (it is their most basic duty) for academics and students to think and speak;
      • we launched 7 new professional members, for academics, lawyers, teachers, medical professionals, public servants media professionals, and religious leaders. These are the critical battlegrounds of our fight.
    • Content: we were referenced over 300 times in the media, held events that reached thousands, with 5 speaking tours with international VIPs discussing the importance of free speech for issues like Gender (Graham Linehan), Race Relations (Prof. Nigel Biggar), Academic Freedom (Jonathan Rauch) and COVID-19 (Toby Young).
    • Coaching: we held Speak Up! sessions for college students across the country, sponsored the Nation Debating Society, and offered professional development for public servants. 

    Undoubtedly, you have plans for 2025. I hope they are not small and that they stir your blood. We are also preparing for our biggest year yet. But the simple reality is, without you and your support, that won't be possible. 

    I'm writing to ask you for two things: 

    1. Your ideas - in addition to what we're doing above (we'll keeping running cases, campaigns, content, and coaching in 2025), how could we better protect and expand free speech in New Zealand (and overseas - the FSU NZ is now one of 6 Free Speech Unions around the world that we support and work with)? 
    2. Your partnership - I don't stutter or blush when I acknowledge that this work won't happen without financial partners. Our team of twenty-something-year-olds have gotten some phenominal wins under our belts. We're keen to keep going, but we can't do the work and foot the bill. 

    Those who believe in freedom believe that through respect for one another and cooperation, New Zealand's best days are ahead of us.

    This is something we will always have over our opponents who rather than motivated by hope are motivated by fear and resentment; that is why they must silence their opponents - and it is why they must (and will) lose. 

    I hope you have a glass of Liberty Blush available to toast to 2025. Together, let's make it a year of daring, blood-stirring ambition for the freedoms and rights that guarantee our way of life. 

    Jonathan


    Jonathan Ayling
    Chief Executive
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

  • We're still getting wins in the final days of 2024!

    Posted by · December 20, 2024 11:20 AM · 1 reaction

    What. A. Year.

    As our team crosses the finish line to their summer break, I want to show you what you've helped us achieve in 2024. But first! We're still getting wins in the last minutes of the working year...

    Government legislation on academic freedom sign of new hope for universities

    Yesterday, the Government announced their plans to release legislation next year to protect academic freedom in universities.

    We're proud to have worked closely with the Government in developing this, and believe it has the potential to help put universities back on a path to where they were meant to be all along: places where knowledge advances through reason and debate. 

    We know for a fact that many academics feel unable to express their opinions. This goes directly against academic freedom and shows how crucial it is that change needs to come quickly. 

    Diversity of opinion can only be maintained when the playing field is kept equal for all free speech.

    Once the legislation comes into effect, universities will have six months to develop a free speech statement and get it approved. There will also be processes for holding universities to account through annual reports and robust complaints systems to ensure that universities meet their legal obligations under the Education and Training Act.  

    We anticipate this legislation will have significant positive impacts on academic freedom across the country. What a fantastic announcement to finish off the working year!  

    __________________________________

    Reflecting on a year of victories

    This year, we've had more significant wins, setting important precedents with local councils, the NZ Police, Immigration NZ, universities... we've won in the court of public opinion, and in the Court of Law.

    Just look at what, together, we've achieved:

    Legal cases - 20+

    Letters sent - 80

    Media releases sent - 75

    References in the media - 300+

    Tours run - five

    Town Hall Meetings - 17

    Events held - 55 

    School sessions run - 15

    Students reached - 2,000

    Professional memberships created - seven

    And a whole lot more!

    The team has challenged me to pick my top win of the year. That's tough, so I've snuck in three ;) :

    In my mind, the stand-out victory is our pushback against the unlawful training the NZ Police were putting their officers through to 'recognise, report, and respond' to 'hate speech'. This was no small feat, but it was essential we pushed back before your speech was policed, literally. We did push back, and they listened. 


    Close second would have to be our victories for Paul Burns and Candace Owens. Paul was arrested after engaging in debate, but we defended him, and his charges were dropped.

    Then there was our fight against Immigration NZ, who barred Candace Owens from New Zealand simply because of the views she held. Well, we pushed back against that, too, and we were successful. 

    I also love the fact that one of the Founding Members of our Council, Dr. Melissa Derby, has been appointed Race Relations Commissioner. In a time when dialogue on race relations is fraught, we have a leader in place who is truly dedicated to open discourse. 

    But really, I can't go through all our successes here; you had to be along for the ride - and I know you were. So very simply. Thank you.

    __________________________________

    The Free Speech Union is nothing if not the 100,000 Kiwis that support our work, and 11,000 donors who make it possible. I hope you feel proud of what we've done together. 

    This is simply just a taste of everything we've been up to - check out our annual report from earlier in the year for more!


    Some of our team caught up yesterday to discuss their own highlights - listen to what they had to say here! (I thought it was a pretty fun podcast)

    We have a committed Council and a thriving team, but none of this could happen without you.

    If the past couple of weeks tell us anything, it's that next year is shaping up to be another big one. Together, we'll continue to keep the bullies at bay and build a culture that defends your voice.

    But for now, have a great summer, and remember to exercise your free speech at the Christmas dinner table 😄. 

    Merry Christmas. 

    Dr. Roderick Mulgan
    Council Chair

    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    In just over 3 years, with your help, the Free Speech Union has become the largest organisation in the country defending civil liberties, and a national institution politicians, bureaucrats, and stakeholders have to take into account. 

    We've got big plans for 2025, but it comes down to brass tacks: will we have the resources? Would you consider making a donation to our work, so we can keep taking back ground for free speech for all Kiwis next year?

  • Government legislation on academic freedom sign of new hope for universities

    Posted by · December 19, 2024 12:23 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE 
     
    19 December 2024 
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  
     
    Government legislation on academic freedom sign of new hope for universities  
     
    Legislation changes announced by the Government today signals that academic freedom can still be restored to university campuses. New Zealand universities have consistently shown they’re not fulfilling their obligations to uphold academic freedom; this is a strong move to address this issue, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.  
     
    “The Free Speech Union has advocated for legislative intervention to bolster academic freedom, working with the Government to develop this policy. It is a victory to see it take place. We welcome the Government announcement today of strong measures to ensure free speech on our university campuses. 
     
    “We know from our own surveys and research, as well as a host of other evidence, that threats to academic freedom are now entrenched and pervasive throughout New Zealand universities. The new legislation promises to counteract these threats. 
     
    “We’re pleased to see a stipulation to uphold institutional neutrality. In recent years, instances of universities taking a substantive position on contested issues has had a stifling effect on staff and students who hold an opposing view, but don’t feel they can express it. 
     
    “Diversity of opinion can only be maintained when the playing field is kept equal for all free speech.   
     
    “The inclusion of processes for holding universities to account, through annual reports and robust complaints systems, is also critically important, to ensure that universities meet their legal obligations under the Education and Training Act.  
     
    “We commend the Government for demonstrating such a strong commitment to restoring the state of academic freedom in our universities.” 
  • Letter to NZ First: Proposed changes to Policing Act ripe for abuse

    Posted by · December 18, 2024 2:21 PM · 1 reaction

  • Letter to ACT: Proposed changes to Policing Act ripe for abuse

    Posted by · December 18, 2024 2:19 PM · 1 reaction

  • Misrepresentation of Private Member’s Bill obscures potential for abuse

    Posted by · December 18, 2024 2:02 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE
     
    18 December 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    Misrepresentation of Private Member’s Bill obscures potential for abuse
     
    Forcing private outfits, (including grassroots groups, cultural associations, and possibly churches) to pay for public policing is so open to abuse and weaponisation, would-be-censors across the country must think Christmas has come early, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.
     
    “Since discussing his Member's Bill with media on Monday morning, Greg Fleming MP has consistently made three claims that are clearly and patently false about his attempts to make it easier for Police to recover costs from private events. We don't believe he is doing this intentionally - it simply seems Fleming and the New Zealand National Party haven't done even half their homework on this Bill. Sloppy drafting can have a big impact.
     
    “We've asked three times since Monday for Fleming to show us where we're wrong- he hasn't come through.
     
    “The first false claim is that this would apply to only large events. He keeps using the example of rugby games with tens of thousands, telling me explicitly that it would mean nothing for the 'small provocative events' we're concerned could be targeted. There is nothing in the legislation that exists, or that is proposed, that even references 'large events.' The word 'large' doesn't feature at all.
     
    “The Amendment Bill explicitly amends the law to widen events, defining them as 'sporting, cultural, religious, or entertainment event, conference, meeting, convention, or exhibition.' The net is cast so wide that it's hard to see what public event might not be included in this.  
     
    “The second error Fleming makes is that Police can already require events to pay for Police. There's nothing to see here, he suggests, it's just a technical change! This is glaringly false, as the current law says these charges can be 'provided only on the request of an individual or organisation'. This is the very clause removed by the amendment Bill.
     
    “An example in the law used to show what this could be used for is Police vetting, where a private outfit (like a children's play group) requests Police help in ensuring those they are hiring/associating with don't have Police records. That example, included in the legislation, is worlds apart from what the proposed changes would be.  
     
    “The third incorrect statement is that the proposed law change in the United Kingdom (which this law is referenced off) is not open to abuse or weaponisation. But in the UK, these laws have been used to require organisers to pay for pro-democracy events and antisemitism awareness marches.
     
    “Why would that not happen here? The Amendment Bill is about making it possible for Police to compel the use of their services for security, and hand out the cost. We understand why some citizens, especially if they disagree with the substance of the speech, want others to have to pay for the security costs of public expression.
     
    “But in a liberal democracy, this is one of the core functions of State, to guarantee the ability to exercise basic freedoms. Out of everything we pay taxes for, this is one of the most foundational.”
     
  • Free Speech Union launches memberships to protect voices of media professionals and religious leaders

    Posted by · December 17, 2024 11:26 AM · 1 reaction

     
    MEDIA RELEASE 
     
    17 December 2024 
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  
     
    Free Speech Union launches memberships to protect voices of media professionals and religious leaders  
     
    The Free Speech Union has launched its final two professional memberships, for media professionals and religious leaders, bringing the total number of professional membership options up to seven. Media and religious leaders rely on the fundamental human right of free speech as they inform the way Kiwis think about issues both personally and in their communities, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.  
     
    “Our democracy depends on a free and open press that will hold our institutions, and the individuals who represent them, to account, by asking the tough questions, delving into controversy, and fearlessly investigating questions of social interest. 
     
    “The Free Speech Union stands with media professionals by supporting their right to report issues freely while upholding principles of objectivity and transparency in their work.  
     
    “Religious leaders and believers are likewise increasingly finding themselves under considerable censure. Ideas that have previously been kept as demonstrable truths are increasingly being branded as ‘misinformation’, ‘hate speech,’ or ‘bigotry’. 
     
    “The Free Speech Union stands with religious leaders who seek to preach and speak openly about their faith in their communities. 
     
    “Our liberal society has grown and flourished on a bedrock of deeply held religious convictions. Individuals must be free to seek, receive, and question teachings from religious leaders without fear of penalty or punishment. 
     
    “We are calling on our media professionals to restore impartiality to the Fourth Estate, and our religious leaders, to bolster and encourage freedom of religion as a cornerstone of our civil society. We are here to help them achieve it.”  
     
  • Should you have to pay for Police protection at an event? We don't think so.

    Posted by · December 16, 2024 5:03 PM · 1 reaction

    Are we winding down for Christmas? Not a chance!

    Last week we contacted you with three big wins, but we can't put our feet up just yet... not until the would-be-censors go on their Christmas break!

    Law change to allow Police to charge for presence at public events: ripe for abuse by would-be-censors

    If you want to run an event, should you have to pay for police to stop thugs from trying to shut it down? 

    Greg Fleming, MP for Maungakiekie was on Newstalk ZB this morning, talking about his push to allow Police to charge for their presence at events, which he claims is a distraction from their real jobs.

    But this change is a slippery slope that would see trumped-up security costs used as a way to suppress 'provocative' opinions from being discussed. That's why our team has swung into action contacting the Minister and Associate Minister of Police.

    If you allow Police to charge for their presence, this invites abuse of the system to use this law prejudicially against certain groups and organisations who hold particular viewpoints.

    Not to mention the fact it's likely to put off grassroots and not-for-profit organisations from holding events.

    When our CEO spoke with Greg Fleming today, the MP agreed that it could likely mean at our next AGM, we'd have to pay extra to have Police present.


    Police have a duty to protect the public from physical harm, and the public fund them to do so. Aren't our taxes already paying for them for this?

    Event organisers should not be hindered by costs for Police because others might break the law. 

    Should Speak Up For Women have to pay for Police protection at an event in a library if a counterprotest gets out of hand? We've seen processes like this weaponised already for private security.

    There's no way we're going to let it happen for publicly funded police, too.  

    Democracy relies on free speech; charging for Police presence at events is likely to shut down discourse and inhibit debate. We'll continue to push back against such a silly notion. 


    Nurses don’t give up their basic rights when they sign up to serve

    Talking about deterring free speech... Yet again, we're up against the Nursing Council.

    They recently produced new registered nurse standards of competence that are bound to have a chilling effect on some nurses, and it's just like the criteria that NZ teachers have to meet.

    There are six standards of competence, and unsurprisingly they leave little room for differing beliefs. 

    The first of these standards include "an understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, kawa whakaruruhau, cultural safety and health equity [as a] fundamental to patient safety", "nurses are also required to demonstrate kawa whakaruruhau by addressing power imbalances and working collaboratively with Māori", and "can describe the impact of colonisation and social determinants on health and wellbeing". 

    This assumes all nurses share the same perspectives on these issues and I simply don't believe that is the case. 

    These requirements make assumptions on contested political issues and their impact on healthcare, impose them on the whole profession, and threaten to drive out anyone who disagrees. 

    But we believe nurses should get to make up their own minds on ideological issues. These new standards pigeonhole nurses into holding certain perspectives. 

    We've contacted the Nursing Council with our concerns, asking them how they'll ensure that nurses are guaranteed their rights to freedom of expression to debate contested issues. 


    Nurse investigated by Nursing Council over Facebook posts

    You may remember Jenny Hobson, a nurse we recently told you about who has been investigated over a handful of Facebook posts claiming that she thought Dragqueen Storytime at a local library was wrong.

    Jenny met with her employer, NZ Health, (along with our Free Speech Union lawyer for good measure) last week to discuss the outcome of the disciplinary investigation.

    They told her they wouldn't take the investigation further, but they gave her a letter of expectations to make sure it doesn't happen again. 

    They said if it does, the outcome would be different. 

    She shouldn't have been investigated in the first place. If she comes up against this nonsense again, we're ready to defend Jenny further, and we've told Health NZ as much. 

    Both the new standards, and the story of Jenny Hobson show exactly why the Free Speech Union needs to be fighting in our healthcare for free speech, and why we have launched a membership precisely for those who are in these professions. 

    Do you work in a Healthcare profession, or know someone who does?

    This membership means we can stand up against the bullies pushing ideology, when all they should be requiring is medical excellence. Join today, get us in your corner, and help us push back against this tide of intolerance.


    Massey takes a political stance on the Treaty Principles Bill: so much for 'institutional neutrality'

    Free speech can only be defended if the playing field is kept even. 

    Recently, Massey University gave their staff an email signature to use that takes a supportive stance on the Treaty Principles Bill. Was there a email signature for those who wanted to support the Bill? Now come on, don't be silly! 

    If Massey is to be a place where ideas can be discussed and debated, they shouldn't take a stance on political issues at all.

    Sure, the email signature is optional; no one has to use it, but by sending this to staff, Massey is essentially putting their thumb on the scales.

    Universities are funded by the taxpayers and have obligations to uphold academic freedom; it's up to the university staff and students to take a stance, not the institution. We've contacted Massey, asking how they can justify adopting a stance on the Treaty and the Treaty Principles Bill when they're funded by the public. 

    Hear Dr. Michael Johnston, member of our Inter-University Council for Academic Freedom, discuss this with Sean Plunket last week. 


    Earlier this year, we began to introduce our profession-specific memberships. I am so pleased we did, because it seems more relevant than ever. 

    This is where my role comes in. I work with, and advocate for, each of these professions, and all our members, to ensure that Kiwis' speech rights are being upheld in these crucial workplaces. 

    In the past week, we've launched a professional membership for media professionals and religious leaders which completes our seven professional memberships!

    Check out the complete set on our website... Maybe FSU memberships are the perfect way to tick off that Christmas shopping list...? 🎁

    Steph Martin
    Stakeholder Relationship Manager
    Free Speech Union

    www.fsu.nz

    PS. Our recent tour with Dr. Peter Boghossian was a great success! He is all about communicating across divides and his message seems more important than ever. 

    If you missed it - check out this great range of interviews. Hear him chat with Sean Plunket, Andrew Urquhart, Damien Grant, Simon O'Connor, and read Yvonne van Dongen's write up here. 

  • Push for Police to charge for presence at public events a deterrent on free speech

    Posted by · December 16, 2024 3:47 PM · 1 reaction


    MEDIA RELEASE

    16 December 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Push for Police to charge for presence at public events a deterrent on free speech

    The push by Maungakiekie MP, Greg Fleming, to allow police to charge organisers for their presence at public events will inevitably be weaponised and act as a deterrent to free speech, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “If you allow Police to charge for their presence, there’s risk that this will be abused and used prejudicially against certain groups and organisations who hold particular viewpoints. It will also likely hinder grassroots and not-for-profit organisations from holding events.

    “Police have a duty to protect the public from physical harm, and the public fund them to do so. Event organisers should not be put off hosting events due to imposed costs from Police.

    “For example, should Rainbow Storytime be charged to have the Police present to ensure a counterprotest remains peaceful? Should Speak Up For Women have to pay for Police protection at a rally if a counterprotest gets out of hand?

    “This proposal will let the “heckler’s veto” win; threats of disturbance and violence will increase the need of Police presence, resulting in more costs for event organisers.

    “The democratic process relies on speech that is free; charging for Police presence at events is likely to shut down discourse and inhibit debate.

    “We have written to the Minister of Police challenging him on his support for this legislation and calling on him to oppose the adoption of the Member’s Bill as a Government Bill.”

    ENDS

    Note to editor: please see the letter sent to the Minister and Associate Minister of Police here.

  • Proposed changes to Policing (Cost Recovery) Regulations likely threat to free speech

    Posted by · December 16, 2024 2:43 PM · 1 reaction

  • Health NZ pushes staff self-censorship

    Posted by · December 16, 2024 2:17 PM · 1 reaction

  • Huge news for free speech! Candace Owens allowed entry to NZ after all

    Posted by · December 12, 2024 3:37 PM · 2 reactions

    We have fantastic news to share with you. And it's not just one victory either. It's a whopping three victories. 

    1. Minister amends Immigration decision, allows Candance Owens access to New Zealand

    Two weeks ago, our team came out in force when we heard Candace Owens was denied entry into NZ.

    The ‘provocative’ American speaker (we’ll let you decide whether that’s the right term for her or not) was barred simply because, get this, the Australians had decided they didn’t want her.

    When did we out source our immigration decisions to Australia?

    You and I both know it was simply not right, and set a very dangerous precedent, no matter what you think of Candace's views.

    Well, thanks to the pressure thousands of you put on the Associate Minister of Immigration, and the appeal our legal team submitted, we’re pleased to say that she has been granted a ‘special direction’, and will be given a work visa. 💪🎉

    Without a doubt, this is the only right call, and Chris Penk deserves credit for setting his officials (who were the ones who made the decision) straight.

    But it is also sad that this whole fight was ever needed. What about the people who face similar censorship that aren’t able to call the Free Speech Union in? 

    If it shows one thing, it’s that an outfit dedicated to keeping officials honest, and speech free, is still desperately needed. And that’s a sad state of affairs.

    We’ll keep working to do ourselves out of a job. 

    2. Gun licence revoked: Police urged to ‘respond to crime, not speech’

    Do you remember a story we told you about Gareth*, the man who had police turn up on his doorstep over some comments he made online under an anonymous account? 

    The officers seemed to think it was their duty to police Gareth's thoughts and speech, because, surely there aren't actual crimes to focus on, right? 

    Consequently, Gareth's gun licence was revoked. Not only that, Police turned up at his house a second time, trying to force their way in, and then reported him to Oranga Tamariki because the kids were upset. No kidding!

    Thankfully Oranga Tamariki promptly closed the file shortly after, saying they had no concerns, and rightly so. Read more of Gareth's story here.

    Gareth is a hard-working family man (with triplet daughters) and was caught up in a storm over a few comments on social media. Can you imagine the stress he's been under after two visits from the Police? 

    Our team provided both legal support and pastoral care to Gareth, and wrote a submission to the Fire Arms Safety Authority containing references from our team and Gareth's friends and family. Revoking his licence over a handful of comments was a poor precedent to set, and it needed to be challenged. 

    We recently had the excellent news that Gareth's gun licence has been reinstated (even though he doesn’t even have any guns).

    This is the right outcome for Gareth. In fact, it's the right outcome for all of us, really. 

    The Police should be policing crime, not thought, and we've made sure they know it. Again, where would Gareth be without you, me, and the thousands of others who, through the Free Speech Union, keep the pressure on? 

    *Name changed for privacy. 

    3. Conflict at Taupo District Council resolved: a victory for free speech

    You may have seen in the media recently a great result with Taupo District Council!

    Last year an event with Julian Batchelor was cancelled at a Taupo public venue, so we lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal; the Council doesn't get to dictate which views are and aren't platformed at a ratepayer funded venue.

    Well, Taupo District Council came to the party. I sat down with them last month, and we were able to resolve the issue together in good faith, without taking the complaint any further. 

    There are two fantastic outcomes: 

    ✅The Council has invited us to come and run training on free speech for staff and councillors. 💪

    ✅The Council has invited us to help draft a free speech policy. 🎉


    We're proud to have come to this agreement with the Council, preventing more costs to local ratepayers and highlighting the importance of open debate and free speech within local government. 

    _________________________

    Once again, I question what kind of situation we'd all be in if it weren't for our team or the tens of thousands of supporters behind us. 

    Every act of censorship sets the precedent for the next. We must continue to be principled defenders of free speech; together, we're making a huge difference.

    Thank you!

    Jonathan Ayling
    Chief Executive
    Free Speech Union

    www.fsu.nz

     

  • Minister reverses visa denial, allows Candace Owens access to New Zealand: Massive win for Kiwis’ free speech

    Posted by · December 12, 2024 3:26 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    12 December 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Minister reverses visa denial, allows Candance Owens access to New Zealand: Massive win for Kiwis’ free speech

    Associate Minister of Immigration, Hon Chris Penk, has amended Immigration New Zealand’s decision to bar Candace Owens from the country, granting her a special direction under section 17 of the Immigration Act 2009. This is a huge win for the speech rights for all Kiwis, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “We’re pleased to announce that the Associate Minister of Immigration committed to granting Candace Owens a work visa, allowing her entry into the country.  

    “We applaud Chris Penk for doing the right thing and defending the speech rights of Candace Owens and all Kiwis.

    “When someone is cancelled, it doesn’t just deny the speaker’s speech rights; it denies the rights of those who want to listen too.

    “It’s up to individuals to decide who they want to listen to, not the Government. The Associate Minister has made the correct decision.

    “It was appalling to see Immigration New Zealand follow in the footsteps of Australia and deny Owens’ entry on spurious grounds. It’s a dangerous situation to be in when the State begins to cherry-pick which voices we hear from.

    “Those calling for censorship should take note: denying Owens’ entry into the country has simply widened interest in her. Censorship is an immature response to ideas we don’t like.

    “Those who disagree with Owens should channel that into counter speech and peaceful protest – cancellation won’t get us anywhere.”  

  • Hutt City Council isn't backing down, so neither are we

    Posted by · December 09, 2024 12:51 PM · 1 reaction

    Some fights take a little longer than others. 

    While the FSU team has been confronting the NZ Police, professional bodies, Immigration NZ, high schools, media outlets, and other would-be-censors, we've also been working away in the background on another case. As a member of the Union, I know this is an issue you'll care about. 

    Back in March, we told the story of Hutt City Council censoring the work of a respected Māori leader, Sir Āpirana Ngata, calling it misinformation.

    When we hear of acts of censorship, our first step is to give the benefit of the doubt: does the censor know what they were doing?

    After all, censorship can be a natural impulse to ideas people in authority don't like. Often, we get a peaceful resolution by just explaining the law. 

    But not this time. 

    Hutt City Council has had plenty of time to back down. But they haven’t budged. That's why today, we are suing them in the High Court for breaching the Bill of Rights Act, and abusing Kiwis' freedom of expression.

    ___________________________

    The backstory: An insert of Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation’ by Sir Āpirana Ngata was published in 31 NZME and Stuff newspapers by the New Zealand Centre for Political Research (NZCPR) in February this year.

    Hutt City Council banned the insert from its premises on the basis that it “spread a very particular political viewpoint” and was “viewed as spreading misinformation.”

    They claimed that in order for the insert to be published, there needed to be a counter perspective. But, that's not how advertising works. 

    If the Council disagreed with the insert that much, they could have published a counter perspective themselves. Instead, they took matters into their own hands and chose to remove all copies of Sir Āpirana Ngata's Treaty explanation from the newspapers available at the Hutt sites under their control. ('No no, McDonalds, you can only advertise the Big Mac if you also let consumers know KFC also has a burger...') 🤦

    In reality, the Hutt City Council has a responsibility to uphold free speech under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Simply put, their censorship is unlawful. 

    We got in contact with the CEO, Jo Miller, at the time, expressing our concern and asking for an explanation. But she doubled down, refusing to meet with anyone from FSU and referring all correspondence to the Council's Chief Legal Officer. 

    We typically see this with people in power who want to censor unwelcome views; they claim that it is in the interests of those they serve, then hold their hands over their ears when told they are abusing their power.

    Well, it's time to hold her accountable.

    We're suing not only Hutt City Council, but Jo Miller, too, personally, with Jack Hodder KC, one of New Zealand great lawyers, representing us. (You might remember him from our case before the Supreme Court). 

    If you think it's unusual to sue the Chief Executive of a Council, you’re right. But we’re sick of seeing people abuse council power.

    They’re funded by the ratepayer. They’re there to serve the interests of all, impartially, not just those who share their political views. The law says they must uphold your rights to free speech, which includes your right to receive information.

    Too often, they get their councils into pointless legal battles, comfortable that the cost will fall on ratepayers and expecting the other side to be crushed by the cost - so it doesn’t matter if the council position is wrong.

    We think things could change dramatically if high-handed council officers face personal liability.

    You may ask whether local councils under the sway of political bias would just meet the legal costs of their officers anyway, so what’s the difference?

    We will look closely at how the Council handles this. Councils have a conflict of interest with their officers in these kinds of situations. If an officer has acted unlawfully, and advised the Council to act similarly, then it should be outside their employment.

    They cannot be engaged to act unlawfully. There has to be accountability. 

    The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act needs to be taken seriously, which is exactly what we're doing. We cannot sit by while bureaucrats think they get to call the shots, cherry-picking what you do and don't hear. If we don't fight this, we'll continue to see this again and again.

    Taking legal cases to court isn't cheap, and our team endeavours to resolve situations without reaching that point. However, in this situation, we've exhausted our other options, and it's now worth a battle in Court.  

    We can't have local Councils dictating what information ratepayers can and can't see in their newspapers. It's really as simple as that. 

    Succeeding against Hutt City Council and Jo Miller will set a precedent for other councils and their bureaucrats across the country.

    We'll only win this important fight if you stand with us.

    Will you chip in today to ensure we win this battle?

    Stephen Franks
    Council Member
    Free Speech Union

    PS. We're suing the Hutt City Council and their CEO, Jo Miller. Councils assume they can censor ordinary Kiwis, who will never have enough money to fight the “City Hall’s” control of the ratepayer credit card. This time, they're wrong. 

    Will you back us in the fight?

  • Free Speech Union to sue Hutt City Council over breach of Bill of Rights Act

    Posted by · December 09, 2024 5:00 AM · 2 reactions

    MEDIA RELEASE
     
    09 December 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    Free Speech Union to sue Hutt City Council over breach of Bill of Rights Act
     
    Today, the Free Speech Union will sue both Hutt City Council and its Chief Executive, Jo Miller (in her personal capacity), after they censored an insert at Council libraries and information centres, breaching Hutt City residents’ freedom of expression, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “Last year, the Hutt City Council removed a paid advertisement inserted in newspapers from all council sites. We believe this is an unlawful act that flies in the face of ratepayers’ speech rights.
     
    “The insert was from ‘Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation’ by Sir Āpirana Ngata and was published in 31 NZME and Stuff newspapers by the New Zealand Centre for Political Research (NZCPR). 
     
    “We’ve attempted to communicate with Miller and the Council to find a resolution, but it’s fallen on deaf ears. So now we are taking action.

    “Hutt City’s reasons for banning it from its premises were that it “spread a very particular political viewpoint” and was “viewed as spreading misinformation”.
     
    “We simply cannot have local councils and bureaucrats dictating what information ratepayers do and don't consume. It's as simple as that. 
     
    “Hutt City ratepayers deserve to think for themselves, and the Council has a responsibility to uphold free speech under the Bill of Rights Act. We’re ensuring that the Council and Chief Executive are held accountable.
     
    “Over and over again, we see bureaucrats thinking they can cherry-pick the information others can access. It’s time to set a new precedent. Ratepayers deserve better.”
  • Concerns about contestable claims in the registered nurse standards of competence

    Posted by · December 06, 2024 5:13 PM · 1 reaction

  • Massey University takes political stance on Treaty Principles Bill

    Posted by · December 03, 2024 2:53 PM · 1 reaction

  • Free Speech Union to file High Court claim against Hutt City Council and CEO

    Posted by · December 02, 2024 3:49 PM · 1 reaction

  • Inter-University Council on Academic Freedom Submission to Victoria University of Wellington regarding proposed Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression policy

    Posted by · November 29, 2024 7:23 PM · 1 reaction

  • Candace Owens | Request for special direction

    Posted by · November 29, 2024 5:10 PM · 2 reactions

  • Waikato District Council blocks – just one – advocacy website from staff access

    Posted by · November 29, 2024 2:33 PM · 1 reaction


    MEDIA RELEASE
     
    29 November 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    Waikato District Council blocks – just one – advocacy website from staff access
     
    Waikato District Council has blocked staff from accessing one particular advocacy website, www.treaty.nz, according to a Free Speech Union supporter and employee at the Council, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.
     
    “We were notified that Waikato District Council has restricted staff from accessing www.treaty.nz on the basis that it belongs to an advocacy organisation.
     
    “However, other websites that are still accessible include Amnesty International and Awhi, and political parties such as Te Pati Māori, the Green Party, and the Act Party (however the link through to make a submission through treaty.nz is blocked). 
     
    “Restricting internet use in this way undermines the right to seek and receive information, as guaranteed by the right to freedom of expression, outlined in section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
     
    “It’s common practice for employers to restrict access to websites via staff internet. But it’s curious the Council seems to have carefully selected this particular website that provides information about the Treaty Principles Bill that is currently before Cabinet.
     
    “Given the clearly inconsistent application of this restriction, we believe the Council is failing to live up to its duties. While the Treaty Principles Bill is controversial, how does the Council blocking staff access to a website with information help this?
     
    “We have written to the Council, and await their response before considering further action to defend the freedom of expression of Waikato District Council employees.”
  • Waikato District Council blocks staff from accessing – just one – advocacy website

    Posted by · November 29, 2024 2:33 PM · 1 reaction

  • Candace Owens barred from entry into New Zealand.

    Posted by · November 27, 2024 10:38 PM · 1 reaction

    I was just putting my kids down to sleep, and was called by a journalist to comment on the Candace Owens story. 

    I thought- 'What's happened now with Candace Owens?' 

    If, like me, late this afternoon you missed it, Immigration New Zealand has barred Candace Owens from entering New Zealand. It seems (incredibly) the best response New Zealand now has to opinions that some find distasteful or wrong is to exclude them from the conversation entirely. 

    Like many Kiwis, you may not even know who Candace Owens is.

    A conservative commentator from the United States (formerly on the Daily Wire with Ben Shapiro), she has been accused of 'far-right' and extremist views. For this reason, since she announced her tour of Australia and New Zealand, would-be-censors have been campaigning, like they did with Posie Parker, to have immigration officials block her entry. 

    They succeeded in having Australian officials do this last month. Now, the same thing has happened here. 

    A sophisticated country is able to deal with opinions that some find controversial, distasteful, or even dangerous. The most mature way to deal with these views is to challenge and rebut them, not to exclude them from the conversation. 

    Immigration New Zealand is arguing that section 15 of the Immigration Act requires them to exclude individuals who have been barred from entering New Zealand and who have been barred from entering other countries. "Nothing to see here, our hands are tied" is basically all they can muster. 

    Firstly, we think they are wrong. Our legal team has started burning the (almost) midnight oil, but we're actively looking at challenging this decision, on the basis Immigration is acting unlawfully. (I'll spare you the legal details, but it comes down to the technical definitions of 'excluded).

    Secondly, even if she was 'excluded', why on earth should we have law that automatically means we then barr others entry. Should we shut out Salman Rushdie because the Iranians don't like him?  

    Every year hundreds, if not thousands of less well-known people who have been denied entry to Australia have been allowed to visit NZ. 

    This action by Immigration NZ is a smokescreen.  

    Public calls by Young Labour over the past few months to exclude Owens from NZ shores is the more likely reason for the action. Anyone who’s been following this story knows this. 

    But who at Immigration NZ would be willing to risk admitting that their refusal is based on Owens’ controversial opinions, right? 

    It’s easier for officials to fudge their reading of the legislation than to admit they’re vetting a person for expressing personal beliefs which, though highly controversial, are still permitted under section 14 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act. 

    But we know censorship has a nasty way of boomeranging back on censors. 

    Mark my words: Candace Owens will come to New Zealand eventually to hold public events. And when she does, many more people will attend than otherwise would have, as a result of these attempts to shut her out. 

    Here's what we've done (in the past 2 hours): 

    1. We've written to the Ministers of Immigration (Erica Stanford is the Minister of Immigration, but Chris Penk, as the Associate Minister, is actually responsible for these decisions).

    We're calling on the Government to exercise discretion and allow Owens entry. 

    2. Our legal team is working to challenge this decision. In our minds, this isn't about Candace Owens herself. It's about the principle, that the Government blocking individuals from speaking in New Zealand because we dislike their opinions is a dangerous road. 

    3. We've contacted media: while some Kiwis will think it's a 'victory' that Owens has been excluded, I'm confident that New Zealanders around the country are big enough to deal with others' perspectives, whether they agree or not.

    We need to ensure the public is aware of this decision and the Government is held accountable. 

    4. That's where you come in! We need your help to put pressure on the Government, and to ensure we are able to fund this legal work.

    Chris Penk ([email protected]), is the Associate Minister of Immigration who has the authority to use his discretion to allow Candace Owens is. Seeing as there is no legitimate argument to exclude her (other than 'the Australians did' - what, are we an Australian State now? -), he should grant her entry. An email from you, saying exactly that, will help get his attention. 

    Nadia, this is the Free Speech Union rapid response unit leading the way.

    The day we stop caring about the right for people to make their case, no matter whether we're entirely convinced or think it entirely daft, is the day our freedoms die. And New Zealand cannot prosper unless it is free. 

    Jonathan Ayling 

  • Decision to bar Candace Owens from entry into New Zealand arguably unlawful: action pending

    Posted by · November 27, 2024 10:24 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    27 November 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Decision to bar Candace Owens from entry into New Zealand arguably unlawful: action pending  

    Immigration New Zealand claims that since section 15 of the Immigration Act requires them to exclude individuals who have been excluded from Australia, they have no discretion in the case of Candace Owens (whose visa was rejected in Australia last month). However, we do not believe Immigration New Zealand is applying an accurate interpretation of ‘exclusion’, which did not occur in this case. We are preparing to take legal action against the Crown to defend Kiwis' freedom of expression rights. This includes the right to hear others' opinions (whether they agree with them or not), says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “Section 15 of the Immigration Act refers to individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes with imprisonment of more than five years. The de facto exclusion applies most frequently to individuals who are deported or removed from another country. It is not the same thing, to be refused entry as to be excluded, and Immigration New Zealand should know this.

    “Owens’ exclusion appears to come as a result of technicalities of law, not an explicit decision by officials. However, the fact that some, such as Young Labour, have already been calling on Immigration New Zealand to refuse Owens entry, they needed to be more certain of the legal requirements in order to avoid the perception of political partiality.

    “A sophisticated country is able to deal with opinions that some find controversial, distasteful, or even dangerous. The most mature way to deal with these views is to challenge and rebut them, not to exclude them from the conversation. History is replete with examples where individuals sought to censor the most dangerous ideas, not challenge or rebut them. This has frequently been an especially costly mistake.

    “We have written to Chris Penk, calling on him to exercise his discretion and allow Candace Owens entry. There is no reason to think that Candace Owens poses any threat to Kiwis other than forcing them to consider perspectives some deem controversial. 

    "We believe Kiwis are up to the task of thinking for themselves." 

  • Immigration New Zealand follows Australia’s appalling example

    Posted by · November 27, 2024 10:19 PM · 1 reaction

  • Free Speech Union and Taupō District Council agree to resolve conflict over Julian Batchelor event cancellation

    Posted by · November 25, 2024 3:09 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    25 November 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Free Speech Union and Taupō District Council agree to resolve conflict over Julian Batchelor event cancellation

    The Free Speech Union and the Taupō District Council are pleased to announce they have brought to a close the legal complaint made by the Free Speech Union over the cancellation of the Julian Batchelor event in April 2023. Both parties agree to move forward in good faith pursuing a constructive relationship. 

    “The Free Speech Union has committed to withdrawing legal action against the Council with respect to their cancellation of the Batchelor event. We welcome the Council’s proactive response to this situation, and together have formed a constructive plan to move forward,” says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “We were pleased to meet with the Free Speech Union to resolve this matter. We are committed to respecting the speech rights of all Taupō residents,” says Julie Gardyne, Chief Executive of Taupō District Council.

    Gardyne adds, “It was unfortunate that it was not possible for the Batchelor event to go ahead.

    “The Council has extended an invitation to the Free Speech Union to come and meet with Elected Members and Council staff and to run a workshop on free speech in the local government space. The Free Speech Union is also invited to support Council in developing a Council policy on free speech, which will be used to help guide future decision-making by the Council.”

    “We’re pleased to have come to this agreement with the Council,” says Ayling. “We look forward to conducting training at Taupō District Council and assisting with their free speech policy to ensure the speech rights of all Taupō residents.”

    The Free Speech Union and Taupō District Council are pleased to have been able to find a path through this situation, avoiding costs for Taupō ratepayers, and demonstrating the importance of open debate and free speech in local government.

  • Alarming policy from Association of Psychotherapists Aotearoa New Zealand on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

    Posted by · November 22, 2024 3:35 PM · 1 reaction

  • Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill

    Posted by · November 22, 2024 2:01 PM · 1 reaction

  • Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill likely to restrict access to information, polling shows most oppose

    Posted by · November 22, 2024 1:30 PM · 1 reaction


    MEDIA RELEASE

    22 November 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill likely to restrict access to information, polling shows most oppose

    The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill (FDNBB) proposes large digital platforms be compelled to negotiate payment for their use of mainstream media content. Polling shows many fear the Bill will restrict access to information, a fundamental liberty guaranteed by Kiwis’ right to freedom of expression, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “The Bill, if enacted, will allow news media companies to strike deals for compensation from various Big Tech companies such as Google and Meta for using their news content.

    “Google has already threatened to pull all news content search results if this legislation is passed. This Bill has significant implications for the right of all New Zealanders to ‘seek, impart and receive information and opinions’ as guaranteed under section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act.

    “At first glance, the Bill could look like a positive way to support journalism, and mainstream media have shown support for it. However, polling shows that voters are sceptical.

    “Results from a poll suggest that should Google and Facebook no longer provide links to NZ news, there’d be considerable annoyance amongst NZ voters.

    “The results show that 65% of respondents would be very annoyed or somewhat annoyed if they couldn’t access New Zealand news stories through search engines or social media sites.

    “Interestingly, 75% of those in the under 40s age bracket said they’d be somewhat or very annoyed about this, highlighting how younger demographics keep up with current affairs.

    “At some point, the Government is going to have to address Big Tech in a way that not only keeps the marketplace competitive, but also democratic.

    “It’s vital for our democracy that we can freely share and access information, and clearly, many Kiwis care about this. The Government needs to listen and rethink their approach.”

  • Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill a risk for our democracy

    Posted by · November 22, 2024 1:20 PM · 1 reaction

    By Nick Hanne | Free Speech Union

    The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill is set to have its second reading in Parliament next week. What happens next has significant implications for the right of all New Zealanders to "seek, impart and receive information and opinions" as guaranteed under section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act.

    The Bill, if enacted, will allow news media companies to strike better deals for compensation from various Big Tech companies such as Google and Meta for “using” their news content.

    According to the Bill, the NZ Government would play a role in ensuring the funds are collected from Big Tech and doled out to NZ news media companies via a proposed distribution scheme.

    Google has pointed out that it doesn’t actually use news content, but instead links users to such stories. For those of us old enough to remember, this is akin to listing your business in the Yellow Pages. If my memory serves me correctly, the Yellow Pages were offering a service to our businesses, not the other way around. How is Google’s role as a directory substantially different?

    The immediate problem though is what happens if Google, for instance, comes good on its threat to pull all news content search results if the legislation is passed. Such a move would effectively produce a news blackout on the search engine. Users and news media would be the biggest losers. Google and co. may feel a slight dip in profits, but the prognosis would be far from terminal. Recent examples of similar action taken overseas only support this claim.

    Now consider how unpopular this move would be with the public. According to polling results just released, the prospect of a news blackout as threatened by Google is proving very unpopular. 75% of those under the age of 40 responded that they would be somewhat annoyed or very annoyed if platforms and search engines came good on the threat, with even 52% of those over 60 feeling this way too.

    Approximately two-thirds of total respondents from the polling would be somewhat or very annoyed. Particularly telling, are the political leanings of respondents with those on the left reporting more negatively than those on the right.

    The coalition Government doesn’t want to subsidise public journalism, fully aware the Public Interest Journalism Fund introduced under the last Government was highly unpopular. But while it’s holding the purse strings tight, the current Government doesn’t want to be blamed if the NZ news media sector dies on its watch. If newsrooms go down in this country, the arrangement of mutual convenience that most political parties have with reporters will disappear with it.

    Allowing the Government to dole out shares of the spoils to different media groups via a levy system – whether public or private companies – is no less dubious an arrangement than the PIJF deal proved to be.

    Recent evidence from around the world suggests that an independent fourth estate works best when these kinds of relationships – financial or otherwise – are avoided altogether. If news media cannot maintain a significant degree of political neutrality, then it is unethical to funnel taxes and/or levies towards them, no matter how nostalgic we may feel about TVNZ or some similar media institution.

    News media companies have succeeded in popularising the narrative that Big Tech is responsible for making good journalism economically unviable in NZ. There may be some truth to this. Advertisers have long been migrating away from traditional media to online platforms. Yet journalists and editors still seem largely unwilling to do the necessary soul searching as a profession and recognise that public trust in the fourth estate has been dropping for a number of years now because of a perceived ideological bias considered to be rife throughout news reporting and commentary.

    The effects of the PIJF only turbo-charged this decline in consumer confidence. Without the Government to subsidise them, newsrooms around the country will have to reinvent their business models. Yes, that will be extremely risky for them in the short term. Some companies will go under. But it will not be the end of news, just the end of news in its current form. It will be the beginning of a necessary reinvention.

    The big questions going forward are two-fold.

    If Big Tech firms concede and get their tickets clipped for news content, where will this hunt for revenue end? Given that companies like Google are mainly acting as conduits for news stories by directing people to news websites, retired judge and IT legal expert David Harvey has pointed out that news media already benefits from this arrangement and has come to rely on it over the past ten years.

    But it’s easier for news media to blame the new technology, than it is to ask the tough introspective questions about the internal nature of their own sector. So, this isn’t, in principle, about Big Tech stealing intellectual property. Rather, news media wants a bigger piece of the profit pie and companies like Google and Meta are going to be forced to pay for the privilege of publicising news content. This doesn’t make sense.

    However, let’s not forget about the herd of elephants in the room.

    What do we do long term about the oligopoly Big Tech firms have over our online information highways?

    Foreign owned Big Tech firms like Google and Meta hold most of the cards. With a near complete digital stranglehold over this country, the experience of the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill ought to be a giant wake-up call to us all.

    Our politicians are scared of Big Tech, and so they should be. But at some point they’re going to have to address it in a way that not only keeps the marketplace competitive, but also democratic.

    Whether it’s the risk of Government acting as an arbiter in news media funding, or Big Tech holding the nation to ransom, we cannot allow our fundamental civil liberties to be threatened.

  • Portia Mao's story

    Posted by · November 22, 2024 1:14 PM · 1 reaction

    As you know, one of the things we do here at the Free Speech Union is go into battle daily on behalf of Kiwis facing censorship. This morning, we've been in Court in Auckland defending a member - I think her story is an important one for you to hear.

    The cases we take on are almost always homegrown: would-be-censors attempting to control what fellow Kiwis say.

    But Portia Mao’s case is different in one crucial respect.

    She’s attempting to speak out against foreign interference in NZ by the world’s most powerful authoritarian regime: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

    Portia is a Kiwi journalist who has worked on some of NZ’s most challenging investigative news stories. Portia and her family enthusiastically embraced the many freedoms of a democratic society when they emigrated here from China over two decades ago.

    Most recently, she worked as a researcher with the Stuff Circuit team on a major exposé into the alarming rise of foreign interference in NZ by the CCP in a documentary released this year called The Long Game.

    By having her name in the credits, Portia knew she could become a target.

    Despite the risks, Portia’s research and reporting over many years has documented the experiences of a growing number of prominent pro-democracy dissidents from Mainland China and Hong Kong as well as supporters of Taiwanese independence who have been the targets of blackmail, surveillance, asset seizure, hacking, and even violence and kidnapping, much of this occurring on NZ soil.

    Unfortunately, it doesn’t end there.

    Politicians from both the National and Labour parties (and probably others, too) have been courted by suspected CCP proxies in an ongoing influence campaign. MPs from both parties have also been suspected of links to the CCP.

    A small number of brave former MPs highly critical of CCP influence such as National’s Simon O’Connor and Labour’s Louisa Wall as well as academic Professor Anne-Marie Brady were even the targets of concerted surveillance and hacking by China during 2021 as revealed earlier this year.

    Portia’s opponents would therefore like nothing better than to discredit her, if not silence her for her work.

    And then, shockingly, in July this year the District Court helped Portia’s critics do just that.

    All it took was legal action. The complainant, a man running in local body elections in Howick, East Auckland (and someone Portia had investigated back in 2019) had been repeatedly attacking Portia on a Chinese chat forum for her involvement in the Stuff documentary.

    For a time, she ignored the man’s many derogatory articles and posts about her. But when he accused the NZ Government of being a “lackey to the United States”, Portia decided she’d had enough and retorted that in fact it was he who was being a “lackey” for the CCP.

    The literal translation of the specific Chinese insult they both used for each other is “running dog”, or someone blindly loyal who does another’s bidding.

    According to the complainant in his affidavit to the Court, receiving this label in a chat forum had caused him “serious emotional distress”. He requested the Court defend his honour, citing the Harmful Digital Communications Act (HDCA).

    Portia was, therefore, barred under the HDCA from engaging in criticism of the complainant. This ban also extends to Portia encouraging anyone else to criticise the man. Violation of the order will result in a fine of anything between $5,000 and $20,000. Yes, this is happening in New Zealand, not China. 

    You’re probably wondering what Portia said in her defence? Surely no NZ judge would take the complainant’s claims seriously?

    Think again.

    Not only did the judge decide in favour of the complainant, but Portia wasn’t even able to give a defence.

    Why?

    Because Portia was never notified by the Court about the case in the first place!

    The first thing she knew of the legal action against her was when a friend told her the complainant was gloating on a chat forum about his win. He’d even posted the Court summary online for everyone to see.

    When Portia spoke to the District Court clerk, she discovered that only one attempt had been made to notify her by email of the legal proceedings, an email which had bounced back. Turns out, the court didn’t even have her correct email address!

    This isn’t the first instance of ‘lawfare’ being waged against journalists by the individual in question. Another Kiwi Chinese journalist, Justin Wong writing for Stuff, has since been targeted with similar legal action for reporting on Portia’s experience.

    If we don’t help Portia push back against this cynical manipulation of a poorly drafted law, her experience will serve to intimidate anyone else in the NZ Chinese community who dares to speak up.

    The Free Speech Union is funding her defence. We have had longstanding concerns about the Harmful Digital Communications Act (with fears of manipulation just like this one). We have expressed these concerns to Ministers and other decision makers, but this case just proves our point.  

    The very simple point is, despite all your or my good intentions and concerns about free speech, if we don't have donors enable this work, it will stop. The Free Speech Union is a rapid response unit, ready to counter the attacks of would-be-censors. But we can't do it alone.

    The FSU is assisting Portia in her legal challenge, and that is only possible because of the generous support of lawyers who offer very cheap rates, and the generous support of donors. 

    Not only have we organised representation for Portia, but we want to get her story out to as many Kiwis as we can. A situation like this one requires people power, moral support, and resources.

    “Courage is the greatest of human qualities,” wrote Aristotle, “because it is the quality which guarantees all the others.”

    In this respect, Portia’s courage as a journalist is the epitome of democratic citizenship.

    If that isn’t truly Kiwi, then I don’t know what is.

    Roderick


    Dr. Roderick Mulgan
    Council Chair

    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    P.S. Citizenship in a democracy isn’t simply about a piece of paper. And it certainly isn’t about where you were born.

    Every ANZAC Day, we honour the brave sacrifice of Kiwis who fought to defend fundamental democratic rights such as freedom of speech and due process of law against dictatorship.

    If we don't stand with Portia now, who will? Would you consider supporting our work today?

  • Free Speech Union welcomes Government’s intent to put ‘name suppression’ decisions into hands of sex offense victims

    Posted by · November 21, 2024 4:33 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE
     
    21 November 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    Free Speech Union welcomes Government’s intent to put ‘name suppression’ decisions into hands of sex offense victims
     
    The Government has proposed an amendment to the law that decides whether sex offenders are able to acquire ‘name suppression’. The amendment would put the power in the hands of the victim to ensure their voice is at the heart of our justice system; it is the right decision, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.
     
    “Gagging victims from naming offenders compounds the crime, making a double wrong. We welcome this announcement.
     
    “Usually the judge decides whether a convicted sex offender acquires name suppression or not, a decision that is made after the victim’s perspective is considered. The proposed changes would mean victims now would have the right to choose themselves.

    “In certain instances, victims of sex offending may prefer for the offender to be unnamed publicly. This is, of course, legitimate. However, too many instances exist where victims' preferences have been overruled, and judges have used their discretion to grant name suppression nonetheless.
     
    “An open system is vital for justice to occur, and this transparency and accountability is only possible through free speech. We applaud the Government’s proposal to protect the speech rights of victims.”
  • New Police Commissioner must ensure speech rights are at heart of law enforcement

    Posted by · November 21, 2024 3:39 PM · 2 reactions


    MEDIA RELEASE

    21 November 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    New Police Commissioner must ensure speech rights are at heart of law enforcement

    The Free Speech Union has written to incoming Police Commissioner, Richard Chambers, congratulating him on his new role and offering support to ensure Kiwis’ speech rights are upheld in New Zealand, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “Free speech is inextricable from the rule of law and our democracy. We’ve contacted Commissioner Chambers to extend our support as he ensures the speech rights of all Kiwis are upheld. We highlighted recent examples where this has not been the case within the Police force.

    “We reiterated our concerns over Police training officers to ‘recognise, record, and respond’ to ‘hate speech’ and highlighted the subjective nature of dealing with ‘hate crime’ also.

    “We detailed the case before the High Court against the Attorney General for the unlawful arrest of a peaceful protestor, our defense of Paul Burns, the man who was arrested for engaging in debate, and our support of the man who had Police aggressively show up at his house due to comments he made online.

    “Our concern for the gang patch ban was also included as an example of current overreach in New Zealand by Police.

    “We acknowledged that Police have their work cut out for them, but that censorship is not the answer to increasing tolerance and upholding democracy.

    “We noted we’ve had positive engagement with the Police in the past and look forward to working with Commissioner Chambers to continue the necessary and crucial work of defending Kiwis’ speech rights.”

    Find the letter to the Police Commissioner here.

  • Introduction of the Free Speech Union to the new Police Commissioner

    Posted by · November 21, 2024 2:15 PM · 1 reaction

  • Free Speech Union releases membership for healthcare professionals to unite against culture of censorship

    Posted by · November 20, 2024 4:32 PM · 1 reaction


    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    20 November 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Free Speech Union releases membership for healthcare professionals to unite against culture of censorship

    The Free Speech Union has released a membership especially for healthcare professionals to ensure that speech is free within New Zealand’s healthcare system. This is for the benefit of both healthcare workers and their patients, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “The practitioner-patient relationship is sacrosanct. Honesty and trust lie at the heart of that. Practitioners need to be free to talk openly and sincerely with their patients without censorship or fear of censure.

    “But far too often, we see healthcare professionals silenced and disciplined by governing bodies for speaking freely. The effect of this censorship is large, resulting in others in the field self-censoring for fear of retribution.

    “We need to know that we can rely on our medical professionals to advise us openly, honestly, and knowledgeably. Regulatory bodies and professional standards need to return to being guided by quality, not ideology.  

    “This membership is the fifth of eight industry-specific memberships that we’re releasing this year to ensure Kiwis’ voices are free in all contexts. The release of this membership is timely as we represent yet another nurse, Jenny Hobson, who’s under investigation by Health NZ  for simply expressing her views online.

    “Healthcare professionals do not give up their rights when they join the profession, and it’s time their speech was protected.”

    Find more information about our membership for healthcare professionals here https://www.fsu.nz/healthcare

  • Review of Local Government Codes of Conduct, and other reform

    Posted by · November 20, 2024 1:54 PM · 1 reaction

  • Rotorua Lakes Council uses copyright conditions to silence elected Councillor

    Posted by · November 14, 2024 3:10 PM · 1 reaction

  • Another nurse under fire for a couple of Facebook posts

    Posted by · November 14, 2024 1:50 PM · 1 reaction

    We exist as a rapid response team, ready to come alongside individuals whose voices are being threatened for expressing an opinion. 

    Jenny Hobson is a registered nurse from Hawke's Bay who's recently come under investigation for expressing her opinion online

    She's yet another individual within the healthcare profession who's come up against censorship simply because of her opinions. And as always, we've stepped in. 

    Let me tell you about Jenny. She is an experienced nurse who's worked in a variety of roles across her career. She even spent time with the Red Cross in Africa.  

    Last month, she received a letter from her employer, Health NZ (Te Whatu Ora), inviting her to a meeting about a potential disciplinary matter.

    Why? 

    Because a member of the public saw comments Jenny made on social media that they disagreed with, and complained to Health NZ.

    The comments Jenny made were on the Parents Against Gender Education New Zealand page.

    The first one was over cultural training her workplace was conducting on 'Rainbow Awareness'. 

    She said, "As a nurse, working for the Hawke's Bay district health board, it's so amazing that whilst we have a 'hire freeze' on for nurses and frontline staff due to budget constraints... ..the health board see the need to fund workshops like this for staff to attend. Really? How about hire some staff to make our workplaces safer for both the workers and our patients?! 😡"

    In the other post, she encouraged protests against Rainbow Storytime at the local library. 

    It's ridiculous that the Health NZ called the meeting in the first place. We wrote to Health NZ telling them as much, but they persisted.

    I was pleased to support Jenny and attended the meeting with her. 

    What was discussed at the meeting is confidential, but I can tell you they are investigating whether or not Jenny's posts amount to:

    1. Conduct that has the potential to bring Health NZ into disrepute.
    2. Public disparagement of Health NZ’s initiative to create a safe, inclusive environment for all patients.
    3. Concern that personal beliefs may impact the safety of those receiving care, particularly anyone in the rainbow community.

    Yet again, 'inclusivity' is used as a reason to, what? Exclude someone? 

    New Zealand has a nursing crisis. Jenny has a heart of gold, as does anyone prepared to dedicate their career to caring for the sick and vulnerable. 

    So, why are these professional bodies going after nurses and their opinions? 

    Whether you agree with Jenny's comments or not, she has the right to express them.

    I am appalled that these professional bodies think they can dictate the thoughts and speech of their employees. They're spineless, caving to complaints from the public, rather than sticking up for the rights of their staff.

    The letter Jenny received advising her of the complaint and requesting the meeting included a note instructing Jenny to remove and refrain from making any posts that identified her as an employee of Health NZ. 

    Nurses don't have fewer rights than anyone else. Yet organisations like Health NZ and the NZ Nursing Council think they can keep nurses under their thumbs.

    How many nurses feel like they need to sit down and shut up? How many only feel like they can voice their opinions because they know we'll come alongside them?

    I was able to accompany Jenny at the meeting with Health NZ, but that's only because there's a team of us ready to push back against the would-be-censors.

    We're now preparing to respond further should Jenny's voice or job be threatened further.

    We're only here, ready for whatever comes across our desks, because you're in the fight with us. We think Jenny's voice is worth defending, and we can't do it without you. 

    Jenny's livelihood is under threat over a few comments she made online, and that's not good enough. Would you contribute once again to keeping the would-be-censors at bay? 

    Hannah Clow
    Senior In-House Legal Counsel 
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    PS. New Zealand is experiencing a nursing crisis, but Health NZ is happy using its time to police the speech of nurses. Stand with us now as we stand for the speech rights of all Kiwis

  • Free Speech Union endorses Carter’s Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill, but it raises questions

    Posted by · November 13, 2024 12:37 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE
     
    13 November 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    Free Speech Union endorses Carter’s Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill, but it raises questions
     
    The Free Speech Union is pleased to support Kahurangi Carter’s Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Members’ Bill to protect artists and creatives in using satire and humour to get messages across, says Dane Giraud, Council Member of the Free Speech Union.
     
    “Using parody, satire and humour is a key feature in public discourse, whether it’s making light of difficult situations or pointing out hypocrisies and contradictions to hold leaders to account.
     
    “Satire is only effective if it strikes at something true, so naturally, individuals may be offended. But causing offence is not illegal. Free speech, including satire, is what prevents disagreements becoming physical conflict.
     
    “The Bill raises some questions, though. Satire is subjective and differs from one person to the next. The Green Party were in favour of the proposed ‘hate speech’ laws. Where would they say satire ends, and ‘hate speech’ begins?
     
    “This Bill highlights the fundamental issue with ‘hate speech’ laws: what is ‘hate speech’? Would the Green Party agree that one person’s ‘hate speech’ could be another person’s satire? Or would they say there’s a bright line?
     
    “These impossible questions are precisely why speech, even offensive or distasteful speech, should be free.
     
    “We commend the Green Party’s Bill to protect the speech rights of creators, artists, and commentators who are regularly targets of censorship. We hope this represents the turning of a new leaf in their defence of all speech rights.
     
    “Speech must be free for our democracy to flourish.”
     
  • Massive free speech victories, another successful tour, and lots of quality listening for your weekend

    Posted by · November 10, 2024 9:15 AM

    What a week! There's a lot to celebrate:

    Two huge wins for free speech in NZ...

    ✅Police withdraw charges from Paul Burns.

    Police backed down on policing 'hate speech' in response to pressure we put on them together. 

    One fantastic tour...

    ✅Three successful events with Prof. Nigel Biggar. (One at Parliament in Wellington, another in Christchurch, and then our AGM today in Auckland.) 

    ✅11 meetings with supporters and universities with Prof. Biggar. 

    ✅13 media interviews and appearances between our team and Prof. Biggar. 

    You won't want to miss the coverage we've had this week.

    Listen to Prof. Biggar speak to Sean Plunket on The Platform, Duncan Garner on ROVA, the team at the New Zealand Initiative, Leighton Smith at NewstalkZB, and Simon O'Connor on Speak Freely.

    Look out for a write up by Janet Wilson in Stuff, Emile Donovan's interview on RNZ Nights, the Different Matters podcast with Damien Grant, and Andrew Urquhart's conversation on Rhema.

    I also caught up with Paul Brennan on all the fights we've been juggling this week, Sean Plunket and Andrew Urquhart about Oliver Jull, the year 11 school student we're currently defending, and Nick Hanne from our team was referenced in Stuff, too. Phew! 💪

    A highlight for me was our event at Parliament. Not only did Prof. Biggar speak to a lively bunch of free speech advocates, we had David Seymour share with us on a panel discussion, and Oliver Jull open the event with his speech that was barred at New Plymouth Boys' High School from the 'podium of truth' itself. 🥳

    We had an incredible day yesterday at our annual conference and AGM with over 200 FSU supporters and special guests. We celebrated the year's wins, and looked ahead to next year which is shaping up to be another big one. 


    Thank you once again for standing with us. I got to chat with many supporters this week, and it always gives me courage to have thousands of individuals believing in our work, chipping in, spreading the word, and championing the cause with us.

    Jonathan Ayling
    Chief Executive
    Free Speech Union

    www.fsu.nz

  • Free Speech Union launches professional memberships for teachers to defend free speech in the classroom

    Posted by · November 09, 2024 11:00 AM

    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    09 November 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Free Speech Union launches professional memberships for teachers to defend free speech in the classroom

    The Free Speech Union is proud to release its fourth profession-specific membership especially for teachers to ensure free speech is upheld in the education system, a crucial pillar of any democratic society, says Nick Hanne, Education Partnership Manager for the Free Speech Union.

    “Our education system has become an ideological battleground where political pressure plays into even the smallest of decisions within the classroom.

    “We’ve got to be free to teach our young people how to think, not what to think. The future of our democracy depends on freethinkers and speakers who can tolerate differing perspectives and stand up for their own.

    “If we’re to achieve this, our young people need to see it modelled to them. That’s where our teachers can come in.

    “Our industry-specific memberships allow individuals to be united with those working in similar environments so that they’re not alone when they choose to speak on issues important to them.

    “Our teachers’ membership is open to all New Zealand teachers who want to be free once again to express themselves without fear of retribution.

    “Being a teacher is complex enough without their speech rights being threatened. That’s where we come in. We’re ready to stand with teachers against conformity and sticking to the status quo.”

    Find more information at https://www.fsu.nz/teachers

  • Police back down on policing 'hate speech': a massive win for free speech

    Posted by · November 05, 2024 5:24 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    05 November 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Police back down on policing 'hate speech': a massive win for free speech

    After the Free Speech Union exposed the NZ Police’s extrajudicial training of their officers to 'recognise, record, and respond' to 'hate speech', we are pleased and grateful to announce they have backed down and made significant changes, opting to police actual crime, not opinions, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “We are thrilled that the NZ Police have seen reason. They have committed to entirely revising the training, changing the framework, and reviewing every file they had flagged with 'hate'.

    “Instead of doubling down and pushing on, the Police Commissioner was willing to meet with us and hear our concerns that their training was extrajudicial, potentially illegal, and flew in the face of Kiwis’ basic, democratic rights.

    “Key outcomes include that the training is being completely redesigned and the definition of 'hate crime' is being reset, connecting explicitly to the Police's responsibility to protect 'physical safety'.

    “This is the right response. Police should be protecting us – but not from speech and different opinions. ‘Hate’ is entirely subjective, and it is up to each of us to make up our own minds on the opinions of others.

    “Overseas, the credibility of Police forces has been undermined by politicised policing. We are pleased to have played a role in avoiding that here. This is a massive victory for free speech in New Zealand, and we applaud the NZ Police for changing course and seeking to uphold Kiwis’ speech rights.”

  • Police back down on policing 'hate speech'

    Posted by · November 05, 2024 4:42 PM · 1 reaction

    Two months ago, we contacted you with the biggest issue we have dealt with yet. The NZ Police were wading into areas far, far beyond their remit, training their officers to 'recognise, record, and respond' to 'hate speech'. 

    This afternoon, I am thrilled to tell you that we've pushed the NZ Police back, helped them to see reason, and they're entirely revising their training, changing the framework, and reviewing every file they had flagged with 'hate'.

    This is a massive victory for free speech in New Zealand. And it's because you and I spoke up

    Instead of doubling down and pushing on, the Police Commissioner was willing to meet with us and hear our concerns. It may have been a combative meeting, but there was a lot at stake. 

    Here are the key outcomes: 

    ✅ The Police Commissioner instructed a complete review of the training material. 

    ✅ The training is being fully redesigned. 

    ✅ The definition of 'hate crime' is being reset, connected explicitly to the Police's responsibility to protect 'physical safety'. 

    ✅ Whenever 'hate crimes' are flagged, there will be a review to ensure that this is an appropriate response. 

    The NZ Police in a media release this afternoon said:

    "The Police Executive has agreed Police’s definition of a non-criminal hate incident should shift from a perception-based standard to one requiring reasonable grounds to believe an event involves or implies a significant risk of physical harm..."

    This is exactly how it should be. Where people are physically at risk, Police should step in. But differing opinions are not a reason for this.

    They also say they're training their officers to "recognise, record, respond to and resolve hate-motivated offending.Again, this is right. Police should focus on actions already against the law. Not speech.

    I want to acknowledge we live in a divided age where some people do respond to ideas they don't like with violence, and it is up to Police to protect us while keeping our basic freedoms in mind. That isn't an easy task. But the response from the Police to our campaign gets us much closer to this. 

    We still have several concerns after reading the report including that they provide working definitions for 'hate crimes' and 'hate incidents' "in lieu of legislative definitions".

    There is a very good reason why there are no legislative definitions for these. It is impossible to define 'hate'. We will continue working with Police to ensure subjective policing does not become a new normal. 

    Our fight against the proposed 'hate speech' laws was big. However, I think the original training conducted by the NZ Police had the potential to have even worse outcomes. We believe this training was extrajudicial, potentially illegal, and went against basic freedoms that Kiwis should be guaranteed. 

    Police should not be 'protecting' us from ideas. 

    __________________________

    You might wonder how the Police's approach to 'hate crime' would actually play out in reality. Well, no need to wonder. 

    Gareth's* story that we shared with you recently shows us exactly the sort of thing that's happening and will only continue to happen the more that Police focus on speech they don't like instead of actual crimes

    Likewise, Lucy's story, of being arrested on Queen Street for silently holding a sign, shows what can happen when Police think they need to manage opinions. 

    Yesterday, we also shared Paul's story. Thankfully that case had a happy outcome (with charges dropped and the case dismissed). But it shows that Police need to be told clearly, offending someone shouldn't land you in prison! 

    Kiwis don’t need Police (or any other such authority) going ultra vires – acting beyond their lawful powers.

    But when they do, we have to be ready to call their bluff and reign them back in.

    __________________________

    Prof. Biggar's first interview of our tour with him was this morning on The Platform. He said, 'Support the FSU, because the FSU will support you', and I think that sums it up. 

    When you support us, you're not just ensuring we can keep the lights on. You're ensuring that your voice stays free.

    Jonathan Ayling
    Chief Executive
    Free Speech Union

    www.fsu.nz

    PS. Along with the standard membership, the Free Speech Union also offers profession-specific memberships. So far, we have released ones for academics, lawyers, and public servants. Keep an eye out for the rest we'll release in the coming weeks. 

    Also, remember that on Saturday, we are holding our annual conference and AGM at the Viaduct Events Centre in Auckland. Honestly, even we're pretty impressed with our line up of speakers! Would be great to see you there. 

  • Police withdraw charges after arrest for engaging in debate. A huge victory for free speech.

    Posted by · November 04, 2024 11:01 AM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE
     
    04 November 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    Police withdraw charges after arrest for engaging in debate. A huge victory for free speech.
     
    This morning in Wellington, Police withdrew charges against Paul Burns, a man charged under Section 3 of the Summary Offenses Act for public disorder after engaging in public debate. This is a necessary victory for free speech after an outrageous arrest and charge. We have been proud to manage this case, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.
     
    “In March earlier this year, Burns spent his Sunday how he regularly did, encouraging public debate on his anti-abortion stance.
     
    “Burns stood on Lampton Quay holding a sign that said, ‘$100 to the 1st person who proves that slavery is more evil than abortion’ with $100 worth of notes taped to the sign. 
     
    “When approached by a group of young people willing to engage in the debate, one of them said abortion was justified due to overpopulation.
     
    “Using a typical debating tactic, Burns turned the young person’s logic around and said, “if you think that the world is overpopulated, then why don’t you kill yourself?”. Burns was arrested, taken to Police cells, and charged under section 1(4)(b) of the Summary Offences Act for 'offensive language'.
     
    “Ahead of his trial, Police outrageously upgraded his charges to disorderly behaviour likely to cause other people to behave violently. This is a disgraceful response to someone engaging in debate.
     
    “If convicted, Burns could have endured jail time, all for engaging in a debate. The arrest and charge themselves show a sorry story for the state of free speech in New Zealand, but it is a victory that these charges have been withdrawn.
     
    “It is essential that others continue to speak up without fear of unjust retribution. Dr Roderick Mulgan, a medical doctor and lawyer who represented Burns in this case pro bono on behalf of the Union, is pro-choice. You do not need to agree with Burns’ views to defend his right to express them.
     
    “Free speech is either for all, or it’s not at all.”
  • A huge victory for free speech: My charge was withdrawn

    Posted by · November 04, 2024 10:59 AM · 1 reaction

    You don't know me, but you might remember my story.

    My name is Paul Burns, and I'm not in prison... which is a way to say, I have excellent news to share with you today - thanks to the Free Speech Union.  

    Earlier this year, I was arrested for simply engaging in public debate. Yes, in New Zealand. For this, there was a chance I was going to prison.

    But thanks to the Free Speech Union, I'm not. 

    Let me explain. 

    I was standing on Lampton Quay one Sunday in March holding a sign that said, ‘$100 to the 1st person who proves that slavery is more evil than abortion’ with $100 worth of notes taped to the sign.

    This was regularly how I spent my free time. I stand by my beliefs that abortion is wrong, and I see it as my mission to get people thinking about this issue. 

    Anyway, on this particular day, I was approached by a group of young people prepared to engage with me.

    One of them proposed an argument: 'Overpopulation is a problem, so abortion is justified.'

    With that, I replied as any debater would and challenged their own logic: “If you think that the world is overpopulated, then why don’t you kill yourself?”

    Well, I was handcuffed, taken to Police cells, and charged under section 1(4)(b) of the Summary Offences Act for, 'offensive language'.

    Dr. Roderick Mulgan, Chairperson of the Free Speech Union, heroically represented me despite not sharing my opinions on abortion. 

    Leading up to my trial, outrageously, the charge was bumped up to an aggravated form of disorderly behaviour.

    We think this upgrade was simply for intimidation. And this is especially why it is an outrage:

    Public disorder charges can come with jail time. If I'd been convicted, that could have been me. I could have gone to jail. 

    But today was my hearing, and my charge was withdrawn!

    Think what you like about abortion - but engaging in a discussion about it and holding strong views one way or another should not constitute an arrest, let alone jail time.

    This could be any one of us simply standing for what we believe in. But are we all going to be bold enough to speak up when we see people being arrested for doing exactly that? 

    This is why the work of the Free Speech Union is absolutely crucial. 

    Every act of censorship, big or small, is telling person after person that it's safer to keep their mouths shut. 

    What a tragedy for democracy and our nation.

    I am immensely grateful for the work of the Free Speech Union, which I know is only made possible by your support.

    I have been telling friends and family that the best way to support FSU is by becoming a member, and today I want to tell you the same message. 

    I can't stress it enough. Back the Free Speech Union. Defend free speech. Defend the rights of those you disagree with because one day, it could be you who needs defending. 

    Join the FSU today 💪

    Paul Burns
    Proud and thankful member of the Free Speech Union

    PS. Along with the standard membership, the Free Speech Union also offers profession-specific memberships. So far, they have released ones for academics, lawyers, and public servants. Keep an eye out for the rest they'll release in the coming weeks. 

  • Can students handle views they disagree with?

    Posted by · October 30, 2024 11:56 AM · 1 reaction

    I don't know what your experience was, but when I was fifteen, school wasn’t the most exciting place.  

    Most days, I went reluctantly. Yet there was one thing that kept me engaged: the chance to argue (in the civilized sense, that is, of course, 😜). This meant I took part in every thought-provoking discussion, debate, and a bit of banter on offer. 

    So much so, when I bumped into one of my old teachers twenty years later, he exclaimed “Ha! The bush lawyer!”

    Perhaps it's for this reason I’m so concerned about the case of Oliver Jull, a year 11 student at New Plymouth Boys’ High School.

    I believe his situation is emblematic of a stifling culture of ideological conformity in our nation’s schools.

    So we're not sitting idly by. 

    You may be familiar with Oliver’s story after it was first aired on The Platform a few months ago. After being invited to participate, Oliver wrote a speech for a competition at school but soon found himself barred from speaking in the finals.

    The reason given by the school?

    Oliver’s topic was apparently likely to “upset” some members of the audience.

    Now, we can't have that, can we?! But which part of the school's motto: 'Friendship – Courage – Wisdom' is exemplified by shutting down a student's opinions? 

    In his speech, “The Decline of Western Civilization,” (which you can read here), Oliver presents his view on some factors that he believes have led to societal decline. Oliver’s speech points to the “erosion of traditional values, the decline of religion, and the impact of multiculturalism and mass immigration.” He says this as the son of non-religious parents. 

    Oliver’s an extremely bright, well-read, and articulate young man. His speech isn’t crass, nor does it dehumanise or vilify any person or group. But he also isn’t afraid to speak up. And in this case, he is saying things a lot of adults probably believe and wish they had the courage to discuss openly.

    Personally, I don’t agree with everything Oliver argues. But that isn’t the point. Whether or not you agree with his views, sensible people recognise such a speech does not deserve to be silenced.

    Oliver’s fellow students might take exception to his views; some may even take offense. But they will not be harmed by hearing it. They are free to tell him why they disagree after the competition.

    This is how free and open societies operate. The practice of free speech cannot suddenly begin the day after you graduate high school.

    To help put Oliver’s predicament in context, last year a student at his school won the speech competition when they spoke in support of co-governance. Oliver wasn’t alone in disagreeing with the ideas advanced in his fellow student’s speech, yet he fully supported that student’s right to air such views.

    When Oliver tried to appeal to various senior staff at the school, he was rebuffed repeatedly. They would not allow him to publicly share, in the words of one teacher, his “black and white and right-wing views”.

    Consider for a moment the kind of media storm that would result if such a prohibitive approach had been taken toward “left-wing views”.

    _____________________

    With his official avenues at school all but exhausted, Oliver went to The Platform to express his frustration about the culture of censorship he was facing. He even got the opportunity to read his speech on air. Support for Oliver’s free speech position was overwhelming.

    The Jull family also reached out to the Free Speech Union for help. At the FSU, we take a cautious approach with schools. We acknowledge that educators have a special responsibility to their students and have to deal with the many challenges posed by today’s education system.

    I’ve been a teacher, so I’ve learned to be careful not to rush to judgement in these situations. However, in supporting Oliver and his parents through discussions with the school, it has become frustratingly apparent to us over several months now that certain school leaders at New Plymouth Boys' High School have been less than transparent in their dealings with the Jull family.

    The word gaslighting actually comes to mind. 

    Rather than admit to suppressing Oliver’s right to free speech, the principal has stubbornly maintained that Oliver’s entry never made it into the speech final in the first place, implying it wasn’t good enough to qualify.

    There's one problem the school hadn’t realised. Oliver – frustrated with the hypocritical treatment he was receiving from certain staff – had taken it upon himself to record some of his meetings with them discreetly.

    The recordings repeatedly and very clearly show that the school accepted him into the finals of the competition, and then censored Oliver, solely for his views.

    We obviously don't recommend secretly recording others. But given what the recording shows, we think the school has absolutely no right to be lecturing Oliver about ethical standards.

    Put yourself in a fifteen-year-old’s shoes for a moment.

    When certain adults in charge aren’t willing to admit in public what they’re telling you in private, a recording is about the only thing that will prove you’re not making it all up.

    Yet even with such proof, Oliver decided not to do anything with it. He and his parents still hoped an amicable resolution could be reached.

    Unfortunately, those who attempt to censor others often have trouble admitting it. So, we thought today we’d shine a light on what Oliver has had to put up with for the last several months.

    Some will say that Oliver’s case is a storm in a teacup. Surely there are bigger battles to fight? I disagree. If we don’t stand up for our youth in cases like Oliver’s, we fail his generation as a whole.

    Informed, independent thinkers don’t magically materialise out of thin air. These qualities need to be taught.

    They are fostered through the exercise of discourse and debate.

    Teachers certainly have a duty of care to their students, but claiming that “harm” results from hearing challenging ideas is complete nonsense. And most of us know it.

    Too many educators are allowing personal and political bias to shape discussion and debate in this country. The real harm is what happens when we avoid difficult topics in favour of thoughtless intellectual conformity.

    Kiwis can do better. And this needs to start in our schools.

    We've taken a number of steps to support Oliver, including writing to New Plymouth's MP, and the Director of Education for Taranaki, to ask if they think the school's actions are consistent with its statutory obligations, and whether or not they think free speech should be upheld by secondary school staff and governing boards.

    Of course, we've also gone back and forth with the Headmaster of NPBHS, and hope to have a meeting with him soon. Our expectations are fairly low, given the way he's responded so far.

    This may seem like an insignificant case, but it's one that highlights the way some people's speech is silenced, while others is protected.

    That's not free speech, and it's not good for our society.  


    While we continue to work on individual cases like Oliver’s, we're also partnering with and supporting organisations such as the New Zealand Schools’ Debating Council as it runs competitions around the country.

    Just recently, NZSDC conducted its Northland high school tournament in Kerikeri. We commend the work NZSDC is doing with its fantastic team of volunteers around the country.


    And last Friday, I had the privilege of conducting a 90-minute Speak Up! session with over 50 senior high school students from two colleges in Whangarei.

    (Get in touch with us for more info and how your local high school might participate in FSU Speak Up! educational sessions and workshops.)

    We're working hard to inform, challenge, and inspire the next generation with the free speech message.

    Putting out fires is one thing, preventing them in the first place is another. 

    It is only because of your generous support that we're able to stand with students like Oliver, partner with the National Debating Council, and make sure students and teachers in schools understand the importance of free speech.

    Thank you for helping make this all possible.  

    Nick Hanne
    Education Partnership Manager
    Free Speech Union

  • New Plymouth Boys High School bans speech competition entry

    Posted by · October 29, 2024 4:49 PM · 1 reaction

  • Free Speech Union urges Immigration NZ not to follow Australia’s bad example and instead allow Candace Owens to visit NZ

    Posted by · October 29, 2024 3:58 PM · 1 reaction


    MEDIA RELEASE

    29 October 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Free Speech Union urges Immigration NZ not to follow Australia’s bad example and instead allow Candace Owens to visit NZ

    The decision by Australian immigration to deny Candace Owens entry into their country is a foolish choice that will only draw more attention to Owens' claims and personality. The Free Speech Union urges Immigration New Zealand not to commit the same blunder and to allow her to speak in New Zealand, says Dane Giraud, Council Member of the Free Speech Union.

    “American political commentator Candace Owens is set to visit New Zealand next month. There are pressures to deny her entry to New Zealand over her views on the Holocaust. Provocative or unpopular opinions are not a reason to deny someone’s entry into a country.

    “We urge the Minister of Immigration to uphold not just the speech rights of Candace Owens, but more importantly the right for all Kiwis to choose who they listen to.

    “We’re far better off when all ideas are out in the open. Bad ideas are beaten by good ideas, and good ideas can only rise to the top in a robust and open debate. Listening to views that go against established opinions is simply an opportunity to make your own argument stronger. If you disagree with Owens, her tour is an opportunity for this.

    “Equally, if New Zealanders don’t want to engage with Owens, they don’t need to attend her events.

    “Those pushing for Owens' visa to be denied should stop to recognise that censorship doesn’t get us anywhere. Take Australia’s decision as an example: denying Owens' entry has simply created more interest in Owens and her views than there otherwise would have been.

    “Censorship in the name of minority groups risks fostering more resentment towards our groups. We are safer challenging bad ideas.

    “It is the essence of democracy that Kiwis have the right to choose which voices they listen to, and to form their own opinions. This doesn’t stop being true simply when the opinions are controversial.”

  • Health NZ punishes nurse for personal opinions on private Facebook group

    Posted by · October 25, 2024 3:37 PM · 1 reaction

  • New union membership option available for public servants in time for national workers day of action

    Posted by · October 23, 2024 1:10 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    23 October 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

     

    New union membership option available for public servants in time for national workers day of action

     

    In line with other Union across the country today joining together to draw attention to workers’ rights, the Free Speech Union is thrilled to announce a new profession-specific membership for public servants.  

     

    “Our public servants represent a crucial backbone of our democracy and they need to be supported to speak freely without fear of censure or alienation from their colleagues. They need to be able to discuss evidence and contest ideas without the imposition of ideology and censorship, in the spirit of robust decision-making.  

     

    “In an increasingly polarised society, it is more and more difficult to walk the tightrope of neutrality. Yet this is exactly what our public servants are called to do. Kiwis rightly expect political neutrality from their public services. But free and frank advice that is built on evidence necessitates the ability to debate policy options freely.

     

    “The Free Speech Union will stand with public servants in supporting transparency and political neutrality within the walls of government.  

      

    “Unfortunately, currently, public servants only have a union option that is more likely to side against them in disputes related to their speech rights, than stand with them. The very essence of standing for speech rights is that you do not have to agree with an individual to agree with their right to speak. This principled position is exactly what we can guarantee new members to our public servants offering.  

     

    “We are calling on our public servants to champion transparency and political neutrality in the public service.”  
     
    ENDS 

    Media contact - Jonathan Ayling 021 842 215, [email protected]  

     

    Note to editor: to see more details related to the public servants membership option with the Free Speech Union, follow this link. This is the third profession-specific membership that has been launched by the FSU. 5 more will be released before the end of the year.

  • National Ethics Advisory Committee’s Ethical Standards cause for concern

    Posted by · October 22, 2024 6:09 PM · 1 reaction

  • A win for free speech: The Disinformation Project's closure

    Posted by · October 19, 2024 8:47 AM · 1 reaction

    I’ve studied 6 languages, and to me, big words can be fascinating.

    The word obscurantism, for instance, means the use of technical or overly-complex language to confuse a meaning or make understanding a concept more difficult than it needs to be.

    Even if you haven’t heard this word before, you don’t need me to tell you it is often used as a tactic by a governing class or social elite to create the impression of sophistication and superior knowledge in an attempt to buttress their authority.

    Until recently, NZ had a proud tradition of resisting obscurantism in everyday speech. We’d call a spade, a spade. How quaint that now seems!

    That Kiwi colossus, Lord Ernest Rutherford, insisted that if an expert cannot express a new idea to a layperson in language they will understand, the expert likely doesn’t understand the idea properly themselves.

    The British writer George Orwell echoed this view when he said ,“Never use a long word when a short one will do.”

    He was, as you know, deeply suspicious of jargon and pseudoscientific terms, especially when used by politicians and bureaucrats, because that’s where ‘newspeak’ comes from.

    In an environment where we are constantly responding to the latest free speech fight, it's important to celebrate the wins.

    And connected to all this, we definitely have a win worth celebrating. 

    The Disinformation Project has closed its doors. 🎉🥳💪

    Yes, the Disinformation Project (the organisation that has been platformed as ‘darlings of New Zealanders would-be-censors’, making claims of ‘trans-genocide’ and ‘infodemic’) has the right to make their case. But when taxpayers' money is being used for such a nonsense mission, it's only a matter of time before the people see past the facade.

    We'd say this is what has happened. And they've collapsed as a result - not from suppression, but from counter-speech. 

    The Disinformation Project represented so much of what is wrong with the censorship culture we’re experiencing in democracies like New Zealand today.

    The very word disinformation itself has a deeply troubling history, invented by no less a tyrant than Josef Stalin, himself.

    As editor of Pravda, a communist propaganda ’newspaper’ designed to influence and control public opinion in Soviet Russia (Pravda ironically means ‘truth’ in Russian), Stalin wanted to designate some ideas or perspectives as necessarily out of bounds. 

    Stalin in the early 1920s coined the term ‘desinformatsya’ to describe the concept. He wanted it to sound both sophisticated and French in order to reinforce the image that the ‘enemies of progress’ were diabolically devious and manipulative with languageHow ironic. (The French word, désinformation, didn’t appear till almost 60 years later). 

    Combatting ‘disinformation’ (maybe we should start calling it desinformatsya so we remember where it comes from) might sound like a good thing, but more often than not, it simply becomes an excuse to ban ideas and speech some people don't like.

    That is exactly what we saw with the Desinformatsya Project. 

    Tohatoha is another organisation that has also (thrillingly) recently shut down after losing financial backing from InternetNZ. (Tohatoha means to share, disperse and distribute, lovingly and wisely.)

    Another great intention, but of course, only the opinions they agreed with could be shared, dispersed, or distributed. Their mission statement is to ‘Enable big conversations with and within our communities, while amplifying the voices of those harmed by digital technologies and working toward solutions to build a just and equitable Internet.’

    Pravda would be proud! (While their closure is a win, there's now an offshoot running online classes under the name 'Dark Time Academy', which is committed to the same cause.)

    ———————————

    I think the closure of these groups is emblematic of a wider cultural change we’re working hard to achieve. As a society, we are waking up.

    It's up to each one of us to make up our minds on issues and decide fact from fiction - not let others 'decipher' this for us. 

    Where there are lies and deception, we must come together to expose these. Free speech is what makes this possible, not censorship! 

    As one of our generous donors/supporters who enables what we do, thank you for sticking with us. The Disinformation Project and Tohatoha have collapsed. But the Free Speech Union is bigger than ever. The fight’s not over, but I’m proud every month, we have progress to point to. 

    I’m in Nashville, Tennessee right now, having been brought over here for the Global Summit on Free Speech at Vanderbilt University. Leaders around the world have noticed what’s happening in New Zealand, and it’s driving action and change beyond our borders.   

    While the fight must go on (unfortunately, our team has several more cases we’ll be contacting you about later in the week - as they say, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance), if you stick with us, I can promise we'll keep getting runs on the board.

    Thanks for partnering with us

    Jonathan Ayling
    Chief Executive
    Free Speech Union

    www.fsu.nz

     

  • What do the medical council, universities, and public venues have in common?

    Posted by · October 10, 2024 5:06 PM · 1 reaction

    Our team is flat out defending your right to speak freely. Here are four big stories on our plates:

    ✅New Court testimony reveals NZ Medical Council actively censored doctors over COVID-19 vaccination concerns. 

    ✅University of Auckland academics rightly reject flawed academic freedom policy. 

    ✅Rights over access to public venues are clear cut, despite what some would have you believe.

    ✅Wine, AGM, and events not to miss!

    New Court testimony reveals Medical Council actively censored doctors

    A report released this week by The Centrist has brought to light some seriously disturbing behaviour by the Medical Council in relation to the Covid-19 vaccination response.  

    Richard Aston, who himself served on the Medica Council through the COVID-19 response, is the whistleblower in this case, and described a “culture change” that was “unreal and disturbing.”

    He described how most members of the Medical Council believed that any doctor who “so much as doubted the COVID pandemic directives should be heavily sanctioned and preferably suspended.” 


    He revealed in the High Court that in a ‘Guidance Statement’ the Medical Council released to all doctors, they insisted “there is no place for anti-vaccination messages in professional health practice”, and that doctors should promote vaccine benefits and not highlight risks.  

    Doctors talking about the risks associated with the vaccinations was a reason for disciplinary action. Doctors who did choose to ask questions were subjected to “harsh, vindictive even, sanctions for even the most minor cases.”  

    This is exactly what we saw with Dr Conlon, who for 30 years, had offered GP services to Murupara, Minginui, and Ruatahuna, remote communities in the Te Uruwera region. He was investigated by the Medical Council after complaints were laid against him for daring to ask questions in public about informed consent for children and pregnant women.  

    His licence was revoked and his community were left without access to medical care. You and I both can see, this is medical censorship.  

    The ‘Guidance Statement’ stripped doctors of their ability to determine what medical advice they gave their patients, and to speak freely to them about the risks involved in a medical procedure. Informed consent was lost in the process.  

    As The Centrist rightly points out, this issue "goes to the heart of public faith in the medical profession and government." We've fronted the media on this issue, and have contacted the Minister of Health, insisting the Medical Council must be held to account for their censorial and bullying behaviour.  

    Finally! Academics step up to take charge of academic freedom 

    Did you see us in the media this week talking about an incredible event that’s taken place at the University of Auckland? After more than four years in development, the University Senate (all the ‘full professors’ at the university) has overwhelmingly rejected the Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression Policy that was presented to them by the university’s leadership.  

    The policy is deeply flawed – it starts out with, not an endorsement of academic freedom, but a statement on the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi to the University (a highly disputed topic should not be the basis of a policy about the right to speak freely).

    Ironically, if the policy were to be introduced, it would actually diminish staff and students’ rights to academic freedom, enshrining the repression of academic freedom on campus. 

    The policy would introduce new restrictions on academic freedom that don't currently exist, including key phrases you and I both know will be used as excuses to censor legitimate discussion, like the guise of “wellbeing” and “health and safety” (these concepts can mean anything, now) 

    The professoriate recognise the flaws in the policy and (incredibly) they are now demanding better. That is worth celebrating, as I know you value the place of academic freedom in our universities! 

    The event, though, raises some big questions. Seriously? How has the university found itself in such a ludicrous position, where its own staff reject what leadership has spent more than four years creating? What process has led us here? 

    How is the university leadership so out of step with their own academic staff? Do they not know what academic freedom means, or do they simply not want to know?  

    The University Council must hear the message. Their academics want their academic freedom. We’ll stick at it with them until it’s insured.

    You can listen here to our interviews this week with Sean PlunketAndrew Urquhart, and the New Zealand Initiative.

    Talking of some great content our team has released this week, did you catch our recent live event on Facebook hosted by Nick Hanne? He sat down with FSU Advisory Council member, Jillaine Heather, and Ethos CEO, Alex Penk, to talk about the Law Commission's proposals to play around with the Human Rights Act.  

    Your rights when hiring a public venue

    You may have seen an article this week in the New Zealand Herald stating there is a line between freedom of speech and the right for public venues to deny controversial speakers bookings.

    The writers (two lawyers, no less) argue that having a policy that includes reference to 'health and safety' is helpful to fall back on when controversial speakers want to book a public venue.

    But you and I both know that this is nonsense.

    The bar for legitimate reasons to cancel an event because of 'health and safety' is high, and it's more often used as a way to silence unpopular ideas.

    Our Chairperson, Dr. Roderick Mulgan wrote an opinion piece in response. While we wait to hear if the NZ Herald will publish his counter perspective, you can read it here

    "Priests and princes and vain governors of every stripe have claimed that  that dissent is dangerous, and the law should suppress it. The duty of sensible people is to push back and declare that if ideas are so fragile they can’t stand scrutiny, then scrutiny is the best thing for them."

    -Dr. Roderick Mulgan

    Dates to add to your calendar

    There are so many opportunities to meet with us between now and Christmas. 

    Prof. Nigel Biggar arrives in the country from the UK at the start of the month and will speak in Wellington, Christchurch, and then at the AGM in Auckland on decolonisation, race relations, and free speech. 

    Our AGM is our biggest event of the year. Our whole team will be there, and we look forward to celebrating the wins of the past year together. Will we see you there


    In December, Dr. Peter Boghossian will join us from the US. He is a distinguished philosopher whose work focuses on enhancing critical thinking and moral reasoning. We look forward to him discussing how the freedom to think critically is crucial if we’re to have a culture that values our fundamental right to free speech. Join us in AucklandHamilton, or Christchurch

    We also have a great line up of 'town hall' meetings in WhanganuiNew PlymouthTaupo, and Rotorua over the next couple of months!

    A beautiful rosé while supporting a good cause...?

    Did you hear we're selling our very own Liberty Blush rosé especially labeled with FSU quips? It's perfect for summer and a great talking point at your next dinner party!

    Net proceeds go to the great cause of supporting the Free Speech Union to protect your speech rights. That's a pretty good deal, right?!

    Buy yours here!


    I think these stories all show that free speech is important in every context, and each one of us must work to defend it if we're to see our nation value it too.

    Thanks for making our work possible.

    Jonathan Ayling
    Chief Executive
    Free Speech Union

    www.fsu.nz

    P.S. Our Annual Free Speech Union Conference is on Saturday, 9 November, and we'd love to host you there!

    In addition to a keynote from Oxford Professor, Nigel Biggar (speaking on decolonisation, race relations, and free speech), we'll also have a host of cabinet Ministers (including David Seymour and Paul Goldsmith), prominent academics, media personalities, and more. 

    Grab your ticket now, and join us in celebrating another important year in the fight for free speech.

     

  • Concerning accounts of NZ Medical Council silencing dissenting voices must be investigated

    Posted by · October 10, 2024 4:37 PM · 1 reaction

  • Submissions for Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill

    Posted by · October 10, 2024 2:30 PM · 1 reaction

  • Is there really uncertainty about the right to book a venue?

    Posted by · October 10, 2024 10:52 AM · 1 reaction

    By Dr. Roderick Mulgan | FSU Chairperson

    Do the owners of public meeting venues have to tread a “difficult line” between the right to free speech and “wider community needs”?  A recent opinion piece in the Herald claimed so.

    Written by two serious lawyers, it purported to examine the situation faced by venue owners who want to ban speakers with unfashionable views when lawyers weigh in and say they can’t. 

    The piece claimed that the “situation” is an issue for “charitable, public, and private organisations”. Except it isn’t.

    There is no legal quandary for people who operate private meeting spaces. They can decline whoever they like. The issue, such as it is, only applies to publicly owned facilities, like a Town Hall. 

    It is currently fashionable to assert that some points of view make hearers “unsafe”.  Recent judgements of the higher courts, cited in the article, have established that this thinking does not translate to censorship of such views in  public meeting spaces. Yet the piece goes on to encourage the use of ‘health and safety’ as an alternative cancellation weapon. It implies this tactic can work if a policy is written around it. 

    The two lawyers suggested a venue operator that “regularly deals with vulnerable members of the community who require protection” could defend a decision to turn away a booking if its policy said so. This is not the law. There is no legal principle from the recent cases to justify the claim that some groups are so vulnerable that another group can be banned from public spaces, or prohibited from expressing unwelcome views in them.  

    A number of councils have tried that argument – seeming to believe that unwelcome views pollute the walls and furniture, making the space unsafe for subsequent use by sensitive folk.  The courts have consistently found against them.  An appeal to people claiming to feel vulnerable may get likes on Facebook, but there is no legal scope to write that up into a policy for running the Town Hall.  

    The  recent judgements unfortunately do leave uncertainty about how much a venue controller must do to resist what is called the “thugs’ veto”, where hostile people threaten actual violence.  It is clear that venue managers can take reasonable steps to reduce risks to  physical safety. The hall can be cleared for a bomb threat.  Threats of disturbance may suffice for cancelling a booking, but a “heavy weighting” must be given to freedom of expression. Most counter protests are more rationally managed by recourse to the police than cancellation.   

    Our forebears have been here many times before. Priests and princes and vain governors of every stripe have claimed that  that dissent is dangerous, and the law should suppress it. The duty of sensible people is to push back and declare that if ideas are so fragile they can’t stand scrutiny, then scrutiny is the best thing for them. The law on ideas is clear. The New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 protects the right to both give and receive opinions “of any kind” and various councils have squandered their rates in the last few years finding that out.  

    Instead of encouraging public venues to try to craft cunning censorship policies,  lawyers should be explaining why such attempts will waste ratepayer money in court. They should explain that public venues have a duty to uphold and to protect free speech. 

    To eliminate the uncertainties left by our Supreme Court, that appear to be tempting lawyers to encourage evasion of the NZ Bill of Rights Act,  the Free Speech Union has drafted the ‘Protection of the Freedom of Expression Bill’, along with former District Court Judge Dr. David Harvey. This Bill provides that all Kiwis will have access to publicly funded venues without spurious ‘health and safety’ claims being weaponised to silence them. This legislation was recently picked up by New Zealand First as a Member’s Bill - the appropriate next step to see free speech upheld in our publicly funded venues.

    Every society has worked out at an early stage that sorting out life’s issues means debate. What once happened around campfires now happens in universities and on street corners and in public halls. There have always been attempts by those in power to ban certain topics and to punish those who challenge them but progress means that some people can say things that other people seriously dislike. That is how it is supposed to happen. 

    Thanks to the robust laws we enjoy, and people with the wherewithal to enforce them, it still does.

  • Concerning accounts of NZ Medical Council silencing dissenting voices must be investigated

    Posted by · October 09, 2024 6:19 PM · 1 reaction


    MEDIA RELEASE

    09 October 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Concerning accounts of NZ Medical Council silencing dissenting voices must be investigated

    Reports today released in The Centrist that the Medical Council punished dissenting medical practitioners who expressed concern regarding COVID-19 vaccination, and instructed doctors in a ‘Guidance Statement’ that anti-vaccination messages regarding the COVID-19 vaccine had “no place” in professional health practice, must be investigated, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “Informed consent, which ensures patients are aware of the risks involved before they accept medical treatment, is only possible where medical practitioners are able to speak freely. This is a cornerstone of ethical medical practice, and is outlined by the NZ Medical Council themselves in their informed consent guidelines, as well as in the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights.

    “These concerning reports are not about the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine but rather whether medical professionals were able to exercise professional judgement and use their speech rights to perform their duties ethically.

    “Allegedly, the NZ Medical Council put doctors who had concerns over the COVID-19 vaccine in an impossible position where they had to choose between these principles of informed consent or the contradictory ‘Guidance Statement’ on the vaccine.

    “If the public is to trust medical professionals and be able to make informed choices, they need transparency of information, the ability to freely access a variety of perspectives, and a full understanding of the risks involved. Free speech is not just about the right to speak your mind. It’s also about the right to listen. And transparency leads to trust.

    “What has been reported on today by The Centrist is consistent with cases where we have defended nurses who were silenced and punished for giving their perspectives on the COVID-19 vaccine.

    “There are few more powerful ways to censor someone than by threatening their livelihood. The NZ Medical Council outrageously put doctors in an impossible situation where they were unable to provide patients with informed consent without facing disciplinary action.

    “If these claims are true, it is a travesty that the NZ Medical Council sought to pick and choose the views their doctors could or couldn’t share with their patients, putting them in such ethically impossible situations. These reports must be investigated in order for trust in our public health system to remain strong.”

  • A new case of policing speech, literally

    Posted by · October 05, 2024 10:00 AM · 3 reactions

    Gareth* is a husband and the father of a busy young family. He has triplet toddlers- frankly I can't imagine!

    He's a project manager, a role that comes with a bit of stress, and in his spare time, like a lot of us, he lets off some steam on social media. From time to time, he's made a dumb comment or two there, but that's not a crime... or is it? 

    On a Thursday evening in August, two police officers turned up on his doorstep, unannounced, and out of the blue.

    After an awkward interaction where the police officers asked Gareth for a private conversation away from his wife, they informed him that they'd received a complaint about comments he'd made on his anonymous social media account. 

    They were just there to check his thinking on a few issues. 

    This is the sort of case that frightens me. It simply confirms to me how essential our work is, and it's only possible because of you. 

    Gareth declined to engage with the officers. After implying they would take legal action if he didn't engage with them, eventually, they left. 

    It may not sound like much, but this experience left Gareth feeling anxious. The experience frightened his children, and he took several actions in the following days:

    1. Due to struggling to sleep that night, Gareth approached his GP for help and sought counselling. 

    2. He filed a complaint with the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

    3. He contacted the gun licence registry and informed them that, while he did hold a gun licence, he'd previously sold his guns, so he no longer had any in possession. During this conversation, he mentioned the stress the visit from the police officers had caused him, and that he'd been getting help for his anxiety and lack of sleep since. 

    A few weeks passed, and several police officers showed up again.

    But this time, outrageously, they tried to force themselves into Gareth's family home, claiming they didn't need a warrant. (Warning, it's not an easy thing to watch). 

    They issued him with a notice saying his firearms license had been suspended. 

    On what grounds?

    1. He allegedly disclosed to the gun license registry that he had a mental health condition so was therefore not fit to hold a gun licence. (He told them he'd been getting help for his anxiety and lack of sleep since the visit from the Police.)

    2. Allegedly, his posts and comments on social media were extreme and 'hateful'.

    Like with everyone we represent, we don't ask you to agree or disagree with his statements. It's about the principle of a basic right.

    Whether his comments were provocative or not, they don't meet the criteria for a response from Police.

    The situation was also made worse by the Police taking the comments out of context of the wider conversations. Because of the Police's dramatic arrival a second time, Gareth's triplets were upset again, and were crying as the Police came into the house. 

    As a result, the Police referred the matter to Oranga Tamariki, concerned for the welfare of the children. 

    You'll be pleased to know that when Oranga Tamariki reviewed the case, they raised no concerns and closed the file. The only reason the children were upset when the Police arrived, it seems, was because of the Police forcing themselves into the house. 

    'Hate speech' laws were shelved for a reason. Frankly, we should not be coming against this. 

    Police should not be turning up on doorsteps based on someone's opinions expressed on social media, forcing themselves into houses, and frightening their children.

    Yesterday, we submitted on Gareth's behalf to the Firearms Licencing Authority in defense of Gareth and included a range of references from friends and family. If we're not successful, Gareth will lose his gun licence (even though at the moment he doesn't even own a gun), all because when after Police arrived to check his thinking, he admitted he'd found it a confronting experience. 

    Gareth is a hardworking, family man with a busy family life and a demanding job. He has found himself in the middle of a storm. If Police continue on this course, this situation could be any one of us. 

    We've recently shared about the unlawful training the Police are putting their officers through to identify 'hate speech' and even the terrifying concept of 'non-criminal hate incidences'.

    I believe, if we don't keep pushing against that, this story could be the start of many more situations like this. 

    Is this really what you want our Police to focus on?

    This is the first time we've dealt with a speech issue relating to a gun licence, and I think it will set an unjust precedent if we don't all pull together now. Having a firearm licence comes with particular duties, fair enough, but it doesn't mean a basic right to free speech is taken away. 

    Currently, we have nine legal cases on the go, and frankly, it's not cheap. However, I believe - hand on heart - it is worth standing up for your right to speak your mind. But we need your support to do this.

    I am writing to ask if you would chip into our work to support Gareth and others like him, and stand for their right to speak. 

    Donate now, to stand against policing 'hate' through censorship

    By supporting our work, you're not just helping to defend Gareth's right to speak. You're also supporting us to speak out on your behalf. (My team already submitted legal filings on his behalf yesterday, and we'll be helping him meet with a psychologist who will be able to speak to his soundness of mind).  

    There is no one else in New Zealand doing what we are, and we can't do it without you.

    Will you join us in the fight once again

    Hannah Clow
    Senior In-House Legal Counsel 
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    PS. The Police seem to think it's their duty to police the speech of others. It is absolutely unacceptable. Support us to speak out on your behalf today.

    *Name changed for privacy. 

  • University of Auckland Senate rightly rejects flawed academic freedom policy after lengthy four-year development process

    Posted by · October 05, 2024 5:00 AM

     
    MEDIA RELEASE
    4 October 2024 
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  
     
    University of Auckland Senate rightly rejects flawed academic reedom policy after lengthy four-year development process 
     
    After more than four years of development, academic staff at the University of Auckland have overwhelmingly rejected the Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom Policy that was presented to Senate in September, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

     
    It is good news that the academics of the University of Auckland pushed back on such a flawed policy. It would have imposed constraints on speech creating a chilling effect on academic freedom and discourse at the university. 
     
    Senior leadership at the University of Auckland risk running roughshod over their own staff if they do not take their concerns seriously. They should listen to those who know how important academic freedom is for the health of the university.  
     
    Academic freedom is critical if academics are to be the critic and conscience of society. For free speech policies to achieve their purpose, they cannot come with conditions. This draft policy would have imposed several.  
     
    It would have curtailed free speech in the name of protecting the wellbeing of staff and students. But wellbeing is inherently subjective. Claims that speech causes ‘harm’ have been used in many attempts to censor legitimate debate and discourse. But universities must not shy away from debate.    
     
    It was also concerning that the policy would have silenced speech under the guise of ‘health and safety’. We've seen many incidents where speakers have been deplatformed and events cancelled at universities because of supposed ‘health and safety concerns. 
     
    The policy states that academics are to stay in their lane, and exercise academic freedom ‘in their area or areas of academic expertise’. But academic freedom policies should enable academics to speak publicly on any matter they wish. 
     
    “Notably lacking from the policy is any mention of institutional neutrality. But if universities start taking positions on issues, they risk intimidating dissenting academics into silence. 
     
    It’s clear that if staff had accepted this ‘academic freedom’ policy, they’d have less academic freedom than they do now. 
     
    We commend the academics of the University of Auckland who rejected such a flawed policy. Senior leadership at the University of Auckland should take this seriously. It is vital they protect academics’ freedom of expression both within and beyond the walls of the institution and their policy should reflect this. 
  • If Paul Goldsmith asks dumb questions, he’ll get stupid answers

    Posted by · October 01, 2024 5:00 AM


    MEDIA RELEASE

    1 October 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    If Paul Goldsmith asks dumb questions, he’ll get stupid answers  

    The Terms of Reference released by the Law Commission into a review of potential ‘hate crime’ laws illustrate yet again the unavoidable subjectivity of ‘hate’, and the fool’s errand it is to try and use legislation as a way to suppress it, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “This review will consider whether the law should be changed to include ‘hate-motivated’ offences as a distinct category. It is unclear what this would achieve, seeming to needlessly invite commentary on whether the law has simply been broken, or whether the law has been broken for ‘hateful’ reasons. Crime is crime, and it should be treated as such under the law.  

    “Further, it is entirely unclear what definition will be used to define ‘hate-motivation’, and it seems very likely to remain unclear as this review progresses.

    “Where individuals and groups in our society are targets of hatred, we need to work to counter this. But no jurisdiction in the world has been able to objectively define ‘hate’ through legislation, and asking our police to make this judgment is a fool’s errand for those who have much better things to do with their time.

    “‘Hate crime’ law has no place in a liberal democracy that values freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the rule of law. It has the same fundamental issues as ‘hate speech’ law.

    “Law that depends on subjectivity and ideology has no place in New Zealand. Paul Goldsmith should know better than to ask dumb questions- he'll get stupid answers.  

    “Throwing red paint on an MPs office in response to the conflict in Gaza? Defacing an instillation of the English version of the Treaty in Te Papa? Vandalising a rainbow pedestrian street crossing? All of these are criminal offences- all should be addressed appropriately under the law. But which of these is a ‘hate crime’?    

    “We successfully led the charge against the introduction of ‘hate speech’ laws, and also the DIA’s online censorship regime; we have opposed premature and extra-legal police training into ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’. We will also push back against this nonsense attempt to address a legitimate concern through the most illegitimate means.

    “The Free Speech Union will continue to reject the push for ‘hate crime’ law in New Zealand and will facilitate feedback for the Law Commission once the review is open for public consultation.”

  • 'Trust me: I know best.'

    Posted by · September 27, 2024 4:45 PM · 1 reaction

    It's a major problem.

    Declining trust in our society's key institutions undermines their credibility. Kiwis are clearly calling for a return to first principles, and the reality is, protecting free speech is essential if we are to keep public confidence in our key institutions.

    When approximately only one in three Kiwis trusts politicians or journalists, you would think this ought to be a wake-up call for our key institutions.

    Three damning pieces of research that have emerged in the past couple of weeks. To me (and I think you'll get the same impression, too), they illustrate again that without open discourse and the right to speak our mind, we will forfeit the way of life we've come to take for granted. 

    The 2023 New Zealand Election Study (NZES), the 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer, and now a report from StatsNZ, too, in summary, show that politicians and journalists, have reached a new low in the public standing.

    This is a problem - democracy doesn't fare well when trust is at a deficit. And frankly, that's impossible without the basic freedom you and I are working to preserve. It's clear, we need free speech to enable the transparency and accountability that will restore the public's trust.  

    While the Bill of Rights Act guarantees “the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinions”, attempts to erode the legal and cultural protections for our fundamental civil liberties, such as free speech, continues apace.

    Forfeiting our lawful freedoms for the promise of “safety” is a recipe for disaster.

    Attempts to introduce hate speech laws, the registering of “non-hate crime incidents” by NZ Police, and the weaponisation of human rights law are all evidence of this trend. The Stats NZ results also highlighted an increase in the public’s concerns about crime.

    How will this improve while Police have a focus on banning gang patches and instructing their officers to identify ‘hate’ speech?

    The danger of “thought suppression” should be abundantly clear in light of the work FSU is doing. Unsurprisingly, public confidence and trust are two of the first casualties when a culture of censorship is promoted.

    The public is tired of being told that politicians, bureaucrats, academics, and the media know best on behalf of everyone else. When controversial discussions and debates labelled as “dangerous” are prevented from taking place, members of the public often doubt their own judgment at first.

    But bitter experience means many of us eventually wise up. Is it any wonder, then, that Kiwis are growing frustrated and disillusioned with the elitist response they’re receiving from so many politicians, journalists, academics, and judges?

    As we pointed out last month in response to calls for 'the Government to be trusted', the emphasis should always be on the Government being trustworthy. The public's confidence will flow from that!

    This is not an argument against the need for education or expertise or leadership. Rather, it is a criticism of what happens when people in positions of responsibility disregard their need for humility.

    Vibrant democratic culture – as with free speech - depends on both confidence and humility. Be confident enough to share what you think. Be humble enough to allow other voices to speak and critique. Then listen and analyse.

    It is not a perfect process, but it’s supremely better than the alternatives.

    By standing up for our neighbour’s right to freedom of speech, no matter our differences, we build trust and respect, and eventually develop tolerable compromises and solutions in dealing with the issues of the day.


    One example that comes to mind is the Treaty Principles Bill controversy. Irrespective of what you think about te Tiriti, it is a clear demonstration of the opposite phenomenon: a paternalistic attitude towards the public.

    Judges are obviously highly trained and experienced experts on questions of law. No one seriously disputes this. However, many Kiwis are beginning to question whether some of the highest-ranking members of our judiciary are being as impartial as they’re supposed to be on matters of crucial constitutional significance.

    It’s possible that perceived partiality could be very different from what’s happening in reality, so I don’t claim to hold privileged information on this question.

    But what should be obvious is that in a democracy, public concern about judicial overreach – especially the potential for personal ideology to creep into legal interpretation - should not be dismissed out of hand.

    We want those in positions of authority to be open and respectful toward the public because the average person on the street whether they’re in Auckland, Foxton, or Timaru, will readily admit that they don’t claim to be an expert on Treaty issues or constitutional law.

    But ordinary citizens also don’t want to be told they’re incapable of understanding certain fundamental principles that guide constitutional decision-making.

    If key institutions – the judiciary, media, politicians – can’t explain and show transparently what they’re doing and why they’re doing it, we begin to lose faith in the institutions they represent.

    If we cannot even be trusted with our own freedoms, despite these being guaranteed under NZ law, the only peaceful, reasonable response is to coalesce as concerned citizens in the form of civil society organisations; just like the FSU.

    Together we are successfully fighting back because we uphold in principle and practice the essential values of democratic culture.

    We are chalking up wins as a movement because free speech not only makes sense, but it works. 

    Thank you for backing us. 

    Nick Hanne
    Education Partnership Manager
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    PS. I spoke to Corin Dann on RNZ's Morning Report this week a bit about this subject. You can listen to our conversation here. 

    P.P.S Don't forget, tomorrow is Daylight Saving!

    Why not celebrate and raise a glass of wine to free speech at the same time? Liberty Blush, the Free Speech Union's own wine (donated by our CEO from his Wairarapa vineyard) is available again, but only for a few weeks.

    Proceeds go to making sure the fight for free speech in New Zealand continues.

    Get in while you can, and order a half-case now! 

  • Liberty Blush!

    Posted by · September 27, 2024 9:40 AM · 1 reaction

    I am convinced more than ever that our work to defend free speech in New Zealand is changing history. That's why I put my money where my mouth is.

    Last year, my wife and I donated 10,000 liters of rosé from our Wairarapa vineyard to the Free Speech Union.

    Well, you loved it! Over summer, hundreds of you bought it, and thousands of bottles of our very own Liberty Blush were given as Christmas gifts and filled glasses at summer barbeques and around the Christmas table. This raised tens of thousands of dollars for our work. 

    I'm pleased to tell you, our Liberty Blush is available again to purchase now!

    Sipping a beautiful rosé while supporting a good cause - it really doesn't get much better! 

    Our Liberty Blush is labeled with conversation-sparking, free-speech quips, is sold in half cases of six bottles, and will raise thousands of dollars to defend Kiwis' speech. 

    Can you imagine the ripple effect when these bottles of wine are given as gifts, and the conversations they spark as friends catch up over a glass of wine?

    Because you enjoyed the wine last year, I wanted to tell you first that Liberty Blush is available again to purchase now. But get in quick. It'll only be available over the next couple of weeks or until we sell out - whichever comes first! 


    Last summer, the positive feedback came in thick and fast, with many of you coming back and purchasing second or third half cases. Make sure you don't miss out.  

    Let's raise a glass to free speech. Cheers! 


    Jonathan Ayling
    Chief Executive
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    PS. Raise money for the defense of free speech, prompt important conversations, and enjoy a marvelous wine all in one simple purchase. Get in quick! 

  • Macleans College bars Christian students from hosting Q&A discussion session

    Posted by · September 26, 2024 10:22 AM · 1 reaction

  • You won't want to miss this line up: AGM, two big tours, and regional meetings

    Posted by · September 21, 2024 9:00 AM

    Our team is juggling cases, campaigns, legislative work, professional membership launches, AND there's a whole host of events on the calendar before we reach Christmas, too.

    One of our favourite parts of our roles is meeting supporters like you. Without people championing our work, and spreading the word, our work would be meaningless. 

    Read on for all of our upcoming events - we hope to see you at one soon! 


    Join us for our AGM in November: Register here

    We look forward to hosting our third AGM in November in Auckland. It’s a fantastic opportunity to gather together with a range of people who may agree on nothing else but the importance of free speech for a peaceful, stable, and prosperous New Zealand.

    Register to join us here!

    We're thrilled to have Prof. Nigel Biggar over from the UK as our keynote speaker as part of a wider New Zealand tour with us. 

    Prof. Biggar is an author, Oxford Professor, and Chair of the Free Speech Union in the UK. He was also intricately involved in the drafting and progression of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act in the UK to protect free speech and academic freedom at English universities. 

    Also at our AGM, we'll facilitate four panel discussions on the state of free speech within politics, academia, media, and the legal profession with experts in each field. Keep an eye on our website for more information.

    When: 9th November, 12pm-5:30pm

    Where: Viaduct Events Centre, Auckland CBD


    Hear more from Prof. Nigel Biggar during our tour in November

    If you can't make it to the AGM, you can still hear from Prof. Biggar in Wellington and Christchurch, and see media coverage of his visit too. 

    Prof. Biggar is the Emeritus Regius Professor of Moral Theology at the University of Oxford and a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Pusey House, Oxford. A celebrated author, Prof. Biggar has written 10 books, many dozens of academic articles, and contributed to major publications such as the Financial Times and the Telegraph. His recent works include Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning (2023) and What’s Wrong with Rights? (2020).

    Along with being the Chairman of the Board of the Free Speech Union UK. Prof. Biggar lectures at prestigious military institutions. Beyond teaching and writing, he is an avid historian with a passion for visiting battlefields, including a memorable trek across Crete, retracing the steps of WWII heroes.

    RSVP to hear Prof. Biggar in WellingtonChristchurch, or Auckland at our AGM


    Join us in December to hear from Dr. Peter Boghossian

    In December, Dr. Peter Boghossian will join us all the way from the US. 

    Dr. Boghossian is a distinguished philosopher dedicated to applying philosophical tools across various contexts, including prisons, schools, and corporations. With over 25 years of teaching experience and more than 30,000 students reached, his work focuses on enhancing critical thinking and moral reasoning.


    His doctoral research, supported by the State of Oregon and the Oregon Department of Corrections, utilised the Socratic method to improve inmates' reasoning skills and reduce criminal behaviour. Currently, Dr. Boghossian serves as a Founding Faculty Fellow at the University of Austin and Director of the National Progress Alliance, while also contributing extensively to major publications like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

    His professional background includes roles as a Councilman for Oregon, Chairperson of the Prison Advisory Committee, and faculty positions at Portland State University and Oregon Health Sciences University.

    You may be particularly interested in his book, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide. Listen to Dr. Boghossian talk about this on a recent Shape of Dialogue podcast

    RSVP to hear from Dr. Boghossian in AucklandHamilton, and Christchurch in December. 

    Both Prof. Biggar and Dr. Boghossian have vastly different views (Biggar, a theology professor, and Boghossian, the author of A Manual for Creating Atheists) and they approach the fight for free speech from different directions. 

    However, what they share is the belief that without free speech, which is increasingly under threat, our societies will be more violent, divided, and poor.

    We look forward to presenting you with both guests and hope to see you at an upcoming event


    Making our way across the country: Our 'Town Hall' Meeting Series

    We're often in the main centres for our tours, but hearing from the regions matters to us too.

    While not always at a town hall, these events replicate the format of a traditional town hall meeting where you get to bring your thoughts and questions. 

    So far, Jonathan and the team have travelled between Invercargill, Dunedin, Timaru, Blenheim, Nelson, Napier, Gisborne, and Wellsford for these town hall style meetings.

    Before the end of the year, they're heading to Masterton, DannevirkePalmerston North, and Lower Hutt. And we look forward to reaching more regions in 2025!

    Come along to learn about the fight for free speech in our nation, and tell us about the free speech issues affecting your community.

    If we're hosting an event near you, we'll get in touch. Not sure if we have your address details? Let us know here so it's up-to-date!


    Legislation can only do so much. For New Zealand to have a culture that values freedom for robust dialogue and debate, we all have to defend it.

    Our events are a way to be inspired and equipped to defend your voice and the voices of those around you, no matter the context you're in.

    Sincerely, 

    Dr. Roderick Mulgan
    Council Chair

    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    PS. Have you read our annual report yet? I think you'll enjoy it. It's packed with everything the team has worked on in the past year and what we're looking ahead to as well. 

     

  • Restoring a culture of free speech essential to rebuilding public confidence

    Posted by · September 21, 2024 5:00 AM

    MEDIA RELEASE

    21 September 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


    Restoring a culture of free speech essential to rebuilding public confidence

    Recent reports reveal an accelerating decline in New Zealand’s trust in politicians and media. The only way to fix this is through accountability and transparency, which is only made possible with free speech, says Nick Hanne, the Free Speech Union's Education Partnership Manager.
     
    “As reported by the Democracy Project, the 2023 NZES (New Zealand Election Study) survey revealed a decline in the trust and respect of politicians and the integrity of the political process.
     
    “In response to: 'Most politicians act in the best interests of all', 36% of respondents disagreed, and only 29% of respondents agreed. And the ratings of 'Most politicians are trustworthy' have dropped consistently since 2017.
     
    “Similarly, the recent Acumen-Edelman survey also displays a rapid decline in the public’s trust in media, with only 36% saying they trust the media to do what is right.
     
    “Democracy depends on all voices being heard, and transparency is key for the public’s trust in our leaders. Where there is a lack of transparency, we must hold our leaders to account.
     
    “The would-be-censors continue to tell us that our speech should be regulated, but how would we keep our leaders accountable without the ability to call them out?
     
    “And how will our trust in the media improve if we limit the words available to us and the topics that can be discussed? Kiwis are already sceptical about where they get their information from.
     
    “If we limit speech and put censorial powers into the hands of a few, the lack of trust will only get worse.
     
    “Our democracy depends on all voices being heard, and this includes holding politicians and journalists to account. It is only with free speech that we have democracy.”
  • New law to ban gang patches a dangerous move for New Zealand

    Posted by · September 20, 2024 8:27 AM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    20 September 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    New law to ban gang patches a dangerous move for New Zealand

    Passing legislation to ban gang patches is the wrong move for New Zealand. It is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act, does nothing to get to the root of the problem, and we’re all worse off because of it, says Dr. Roderick Mulgan, Chairperson of the Free Speech Union.

    “We will continue to stand by what we’ve said all along. Police should be tough on actual crime – not wardrobes. You don’t have to agree with gangs to defend their rights. When we open the door to censorship, we’re all worse off.

    “If we censor select people, the shoe can very quickly switch to the other foot. You can’t pick and choose who gets free expression. What will be banned next?

    “Standing for free speech has to mean defending it for your opponents; otherwise, how can we expect to have our rights?

    “Censorship can be a natural impulse to things we don’t like, but it’s better to know when hateful or offensive ideas exist. Otherwise, they’re buried underground to fester and can crop up unexpectedly. We see this legislation no differently.

    “The Government has already said no to ‘hate speech’ laws and online censorship. So, what makes this legislation okay?

    “We will continue to be wary of this move by our Government. Censorship is a hungry beast, and it is never content. Whenever a society opens the door to any censorship, it does so at its peril.”

  • Massey University Staff Survey another alarm bell for academic freedom in New Zealand

    Posted by · September 16, 2024 12:44 PM · 1 reaction

  • Who says I need protection from opinions I don't like?

    Posted by · September 14, 2024 8:00 AM

    Once again, our wanna-be-censors would rather that we didn't think for ourselves. 

    On Tuesday, the Broadcasting Standards Authority released a report Research: Freedom of Expression and Harms Impacting Diverse Communities and it's concerning to say the least. 

    If you read the op ed in Stuff this week from the CEO of the Broadcasting Standards Authority, Stacey Wood, you may find it hard to see her thoughts as anything other than an extremely condescending view of minorities.

    I am a proud Pacifica woman, but I’m also an individual. I make decisions for myself, form my own views, and have no interest in being coddled by any committee, legislator, or HR manager. To the contrary, I find such condescension thoroughly demeaning.

    Apparently people like me need greater protections. But, from what and from whom?

    Well, neither Wood’s op ed, nor the report the BSA released yesterday with a similar thesis, ever clarifies. I guess that’s one of the scary features: ‘Just trust us. We know what we’re doing.’

    The sort of language and attitudes in the firing line could, she argues, include “jokes or attacks about people’s differences.” Yes, you read that right. Even those who make us laugh at our differences could prompt a trauma-induced breakdown of cohesion and harmony in our society.

    The case Wood presents for greater censorship powers is built off the highly dubious piece of research conducted among Māori, Pacific Peoples, Asian, and Muslim participants.

    Appearing to lack any serious objective methodology, the survey relies on the experiences of just over 450 self-selecting participants. The survey is a snapshot in time without reference to the past attitudes and behaviours of those same participants.

    Are things improving or getting worse? The stats they’ve gathered offer us no clue. No control group seems to be provided either. Best to let the BSA do all the interpreting, no matter how creative their assumptions may get. After all, they’re the experts; right?

    In truth, the BSA’s research findings are beside the point.

    Numbers here are likely just for window dressing. I believe there is a more troubling philosophy at work, motivating not only the BSA’s calls for greater censorship, but in all sorts of other public and private institutions that are attempting to slowly suppress free speech in NZ.

    Wood and her fellow guardians appear to be exhibiting a feel-good, ‘saviour-complex’ kind of mentality that motivates these guardian types to wrap us up in cotton wool and euphemistic nonsense. They appear to be the avant-garde, redefining “harm” so subjectively as to now include perceived slights and jokes told in bad taste (or good taste – who’s to say?).

    Harm is what the BSA report claims occurs when free expression isn’t properly regulated, but what does ‘harm’ mean? Well, you tell me. No definition is given.

    Real, demonstrative harm is done when a person – whoever they may be (minority or not) – is denied a fair hearing, defined solely by racial or cultural association, and ignored as an individual with agency.

    Wood and others believe that the slippery subjectivity they advocate for in determining harm – or in other words, offence as it appears in the eye of the beholder – will liberate minority groups.

    I firmly believe they are sorely mistaken.

    It seems that far too many executives, managers, and committees in this country think they “get it”. Their social sensitivity meters are in overdrive - but let me be clear: there is no single minority mentality.

    We may share lots of things within our various cultures – from jokes to words to historical reference points. But there is diversity within cultures too. Diversity doesn’t stop even if you share the same skin colour, religious beliefs, or language.

    Of course, I respect Wood’s right to air her opinion, but I would prefer the BSA stick to adhering to the NZ Bill of Rights Act and current media guidelines.

    Wood shows her hand when she declares certain behaviours as “unacceptable”. Is the BSA really well placed to decide this, especially as the law as it stands does not prohibit such behaviour?

    If we want our society to flourish, we better rediscover what democratic participation in the form of free speech actually means.

    Well this week, our team went into action once again. We can't sit by while such censorial attitudes are at play. We wrote to Wood, outlining our concerns about the report and op ed, we went to media (and were quoted on RNZ), and ensured our voice was heard on social media too.  

    Jonathan also spoke to Peter Williams and Sean Plunket and explained how the report equates hearing 'controversial' and 'offensive' opinions with discriminatory ones.

    As Jonathan says, that is simply ideological, not logical. That elevates views that are simply different from our own to actions, and we think there's a big difference. 

    The law already prohibits active discrimination. If we punish opinions that are simply unpopular, controversial, or offensive to some, we’ll stop having necessary conversations. 

    We also have an issue with the report claiming that all views should be respected. But what does it mean for all views to be respected? Does that mean we can't debate them, reason with them, or disprove them? 

    It's people that should be respected, not views. 

    Free speech and the exchange of ideas are inextricable from any free society that has ever existed. Yes, even we admit it can cause harm. But it is clear that censorship causes even more.

    Let’s not adopt a cure that is worse than the disease.

    If we didn't push back against such a nonsense report, I don't know who would. So, thanks for making it possible

    Jillaine Heather
    Council Member
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

  • Broadcasting Standards Authority scrapes together “research” to back call for greater censorship

    Posted by · September 13, 2024 4:07 PM · 1 reaction

  • Massey University Staff Survey another alarm bell for academic freedom in New Zealand

    Posted by · September 13, 2024 1:43 PM · 4 reactions


    MEDIA RELEASE

    13 September 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Massey University Staff Survey another alarm bell for academic freedom in New Zealand

    Concerning results from Massey University’s Staff Engagement Pulse survey show many academics at Massey do not feel free to voice their opinions. This is consistent with results from the Free Speech Union’s research and yet again reiterates the need for direction on academic freedom, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “From responses to the statement ‘At Massey University there is open and honest two-way communication,’ only 5% of them agreed, with 66% in disagreement and 29% neutral.

    “Similarly, from the 9% of respondents who commented on the question, ‘The leaders at Massey University keep people informed about what is happening’, only 9% of them agreed, with 61% in disagreement and 31% neutral. 

    “The report itself notes that staff don’t feel ‘safe to express their honest opinions for fear of reprisal or being seen as not towing (sic) the party line.’ Massey University should be ashamed of such a damning sentiment.

    “Where there is fear of discipline for speaking out or not toeing the line, self-censorship will continue to occur. But academics will only fulfil their role as the ‘critic and conscience’ of society if they can think and speak freely.

    “Universities rely on voices being free. How do academics progress knowledge in an environment that doesn’t welcome debate and dissenting ideas? These results come alongside a series of other internal surveys from universities such as AUT and the University of Auckland, which echo similar structural issues. 

    “Another concerning finding in the report is that staff feel consultation is often ‘superficial or ignored’. We urge Massey University to take the results of this feedback seriously.”

    ENDS

  • Puberty blockers evidence brief withheld from the public

    Posted by · September 11, 2024 2:53 PM · 1 reaction

  • Broadcasting Standards Authority scrapes together “research” to back call for online censorship

    Posted by · September 11, 2024 12:48 PM · 1 reaction

  • BSA report bangs drum for censorship by claiming freedom of expression causes ‘harm’ (no definition), from self-selecting sample

    Posted by · September 10, 2024 12:37 PM · 3 reactions


    MEDIA RELEASE

    10 September 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    BSA report bangs drum for censorship by claiming freedom of expression causes ‘harm’ (no definition), from self-selecting sample

    The Broadcasting Standards Authority’s recent report Freedom of Expression and Harms Impacting Diverse Communities offers no definition of ‘harm’, but the self-selecting respondents tell us it's happening when they hear controversial ideas. The report demonstrates the unavoidable subjectivity of picking who gets to speak. The BSA should stick to bright lines, and not play wanna-be-censor, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “The report presents ‘voicing particular viewpoints’ and exposure to ‘controversial’ views as problematic and ‘harmful’. It also equates exposure to offensive and controversial views with exposure to discriminatory ones.

    “Issues over controversial perspectives is about how the topics and opinions are discussed, not the views themselves. Equally, there is a demonstrable difference between offensive and controversial views (which are inherently subjective), and those that advocate for discriminatory treatment of others.

    “Discrimination is an action, not an opinion. Asserting that differences of opinions are discriminatory is ideological, not logical. If freedom of speech is stifled in the name of respecting views, we will eliminate debate and discussion from society. And we do not progress ideas without the ability to do that.

    “The report states that ‘a majority felt that freedom of expression should be tempered by the need to respect the views of others.’ While it may sound noble, it’s people that need to be respected, not views. Many views, nonsense and erroneous as they are, deserve no respect. Every individual, however, deserves respect as a human. 

    “We’re concerned that this report will lead to unpopular views being censored on the basis of them being ‘harmful’. Who will define what is a ‘harmful’ view?

    “When speech incites imminent violence, we have appropriate laws in place. But censoring unpopular views doesn’t get to the root of difference or division. Human dignity is harmed by being unable to think and speak freely.”  

    ENDS

  • Proposed changes to Dental Council competencies and standards

    Posted by · September 09, 2024 5:17 PM · 1 reaction

  • Our next international guests, controversary with AUT's law school, and a suspicious 'consultation' process

    Posted by · September 09, 2024 5:16 PM · 1 reaction

    Today I get to share with you:

    - Two new tours we'll be hosting in November and December 

    - Two free speech fights, and the work we're doing to shift the dial ✅, and

    - Two updates of work in schools to create a generation of free speech champions.  


    Telling response from leaked internal AUT Law Faculty survey results shows academic freedom under threat

    Last week, an ordeal went down that confirms to me the importance of our work to uphold free speech and academic freedom. 

    As The Herald covered over the weekend, AUT staff leaked results to an internal Law Faculty survey. These results were damning, and caused quite the stir. 

    You'd think when 35% of your staff say they've experienced bullying or harassment in the past six months, and only 30% say they're comfortable to report inappropriate behaviour, you'd take it seriously.  

    But Prof. Paul Myburgh emailed academics in the Law school stating, "If you’re that unhappy, please do us all a favour and leave. We’ll hold the door open for you so that it doesn’t hit your arse on the way out, e hoa."

    His reaction is outrageous and simply reinforces the results the survey showed. Discrimination and bullying is only compounded when staff aren't free to speak out on it.

    This points to a much bigger issue in our academic institutions. We've got to keep advocating for our universities to be places where staff and students are free to voice their opinions and participate in debate. 

    We’ve contacted the Vice-Chancellor of AUT and Minister of Tertiary Education, challenging them to take action and display the leadership that is needed to defend all academics free speech and right to academic freedom. 

    Last week, our CEO Jonathan spoke with Duncan Garner about the issue. As he said, this is about so much more than disgruntled staff complaining about their employer. The issue the were complaining about strikes to the heart of their ability as academics to speak openly, challenge the status quo, and say the unspeakable. 

    Do Dentists really need to be 'culturally safe'? 

    Free speech is the right to say what you want openly. It's also the right to not say things- or be unreasonably required to listen to others say things. 

    The Dental Council of New Zealand is consulting on new requirements for dentists to undertake 'cultural safety' training.

    Soon, they will be consulting on a process to review "its competencies and several of its standards to better align with contemporary literature and health sector standards on cultural competence, cultural safety and hauora Māori."


    They've promised that the specific questions they'll review will be provided before the consultation process, however, that starts in a week, and there's still seems to be no word of the questions they're considering. 

    Their consultation period includes a series of events in the main centers. This may be constructive, but we think in the absence allowing for written submissions, the quality and amount of feedback they will receive will be limited. 

    We're also concerned that questions they'll consider may force dentists into ideological pigeonholes, unable to speak on views that oppose those held by the Council. But, we won't know unless they release the material. 

    We've written to the Dental Council with our concerns and seeking clarification.

    As we said in our letter "Notwithstanding, our concern with cultural competence and cultural safety standards arise with the expression of differing views and opinions. Foremost among our concerns are professional requirements that express particular cultural attitudes, including:

      1. The impacts of racism, colonisation and power balance on Māori oral health, and;
      2. The need to reflect on the practitioners’ own culture, including their biases, attitudes, assumptions, stereotypes, prejudices and characteristics, and;
      3. The need to understand the inherent power balance that exists in the practitioner-patient relationship 

    This is an issue that more and more professionals are having to face. That is why our growing number of membership options are so important. More on that in coming weeks. If you are a dentist, and would like to discuss these changes with us, please do touch base. 

    Find an FSU event near you before the end of the year!

    I just looked at the calendar to see what's coming up before the end of the year, and we have 15 events between now and Christmas. This includes two tours with international guests, our AGM, and many regional public meetings, too.

    A key part of my role is ensuring Kiwis are equipped with the tools needed to uphold and defend our essential cultural value of free speech. Our events are a chance for exactly that.

    I am pleased to announce our next two international guests: Prof. Nigel Biggar is joining us in November and Dr. Peter Boghossian is joining us in December. They're two prominent free speech advocates, both of which I'm sure you'll enjoy hearing from. 

    Both guests will tour the country with us with Prof. Biggar also giving the keynote address at our AGM in November.

    Prof. Biggar is the Emeritus Regius Professor of Moral Theology at the University of Oxford, a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Pusey House, Oxford, a celebrated author, and Chairman of the Board of the Free Speech Union UK. He has recently been intricately involved in the drafting and progression of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act in the UK to protect free speech and academic freedom at English universities.  

    Dr. Boghossian is a celebrated philosopher dedicated to applying philosophical tools across various contexts with his work focusing on enhancing critical thinking and moral reasoning. He serves as a Founding Faculty Fellow at the University of Austin and is the Director of the National Progress Alliance along with contributing to major publications like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

    Our "town hall" meetings are also in full swing. This week, I will be in the South Island with Jonathan hosting two public events in Timaru and Dunedin along with meeting with supporters and the mayors. Then next month, we'll be in Dannevirke and Lower Hutt, and I'm looking forward to hosting events in Palmerston North, New Plymouth and Rotorua, too! 

    Ensuring the next generation can speak up 

    High school students around New Zealand need to know how free speech keeps our democracy alive. Last week, I had the privilege of sitting in on one of our SpeakUp! sessions that Nick Hanne, our Educational Partnerships Manager, ran with teenagers (and a few curious parents!) in Cambridge.

    Designed to be highly interactive, questions and discussions flowed throughout the two-hour session.

    For our SpeakUp! program, Nick delivers challenging case studies designed to get students thinking critically and independently and lays out the key lessons from history showing why a culture of free thought and expression needs to be discovered by a new generation. These sessions are a deep dive into the essence of what makes free speech a fundamental principle and constructive method by which our society can truly flourish.

    (If you know any schools or groups who would be keen to have Nick come along to run a Speak Up! session, please contact [email protected].)

    We're also continuing to partner with NZ Schools Debating Council in supporting upcoming high school competitions in Northland (20 October) and nationally (7-8 December).

    Without a culture of free speech, real debate is impossible.


    So as you can see, we've got plenty on our plate.

    Our team is pulling out all the stops whether it's ensuring dentists are free to hold their own opinions, academics are free to speak out at universities or that school students are equipped with the free speech fundamentals to champion this crucial right, we're working hard for our future.

    One last thing. You may have seen today the 400 Christian leaders who opposed the Treaty Principles Bill, and called for MPs to do everything in their power to stop it from going to Select Committee. Undoubtedly, this is an issue we'll talk about more in coming months, but Jonathan sat down with Simon O'Connor, former MP and former Catholic Priest, and Nick Hanne, to consider whether this is really what free speech should look like.

    Thanks for making that possible- without the amazing donors and members who stand with us, none of this would happen.

    Nathan

    Nathan Seiuli
    Events & Outreach Manager
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    I'm especially excited for our AGM in Auckland on 9th November! In addition to a keynote from Oxford Professor Nigel Biggar, we will have a series of panels and discussions with prominent speakers like David Seymour, Paul Goldsmith, Tim Wilson, and more.

    The Viaduct Events Centre is fairly big, but we plan on selling out, so get in now!

  • Two prominent free speech advocates to tour New Zealand with Free Speech Union before end of the year

    Posted by · September 06, 2024 9:19 AM · 1 reaction


    MEDIA RELEASE

    06 September 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Two prominent free speech advocates to tour New Zealand with Free Speech Union before end of the year

    We’re thrilled to announce that Distinguished Prof. Nigel Biggar (Oxford University) and Dr. Peter Boghossian (Portland State University) will both tour New Zealand with the Free Speech Union before the end of the year, says Nathan Seiuli, the Free Speech Union’s Events and Engagement Manager.

    “Prof. Biggar is the Emeritus Regius Professor of Moral Theology at the University of Oxford, a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Pusey House, Oxford, a celebrated author, and Chairman of the Board of the Free Speech Union UK. He has recently been intricately involved in the drafting and progression of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act in the UK to protect free speech and academic freedom at English universities.  

    “Dr. Boghossian is a celebrated philosopher dedicated to applying philosophical tools across various contexts with his work focusing on enhancing critical thinking and moral reasoning. He serves as a Founding Faculty Fellow at the University of Austin and is the Director of the National Progress Alliance along with contributing to major publications like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

    “Along with meetings with Ministers, media, and academics, we look forward to hosting public events with Prof. Biggar in Christchurch, Wellington and Auckland in November and with Dr. Boghossian in Auckland, Hamilton and Christchurch in December.

    “Both speakers are strong advocates for free speech with a wealth of knowledge. They approach the need and fight for free speech from different directions, and disagree on many issues (Biggar, a theology professor, and Boghossian, the author of A Manual for Creating Atheists.) However, what they share is the belief that without free speech, which is increasingly under threat, our societies will be more violent, divided, and poor.

    “We look forward to hosting two such distinguished scholars, talented communicators, and heroic free speech champions as they contribute to necessary discussions on free speech and academic freedom in New Zealand. We welcome any parties interested in meeting with, interviewing, or speaking with these men to contact us.”

    For more information on the events, go to https://www.fsu.nz/upcoming_events

    ENDS

  • Internal AUT Law School survey reiterates growing challenges to academic freedom

    Posted by · September 04, 2024 2:47 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    04 September 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Internal AUT Law School survey reiterates growing challenges to academic freedom

    After AUT staff leaked the damning results of an internal law school survey, Prof. Paul Myburgh compounded the issue by claiming ‘If you’re that unhappy, please do us all a favour and leave. We’ll hold the door open for you so that it doesn’t hit your arse on the way out, e hoa.’

    The results of the survey, and response to the leak, yet again point to a serious problem in our academic institutions with respect to speech rights, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “Academics are being criticised and punished for speaking out, causing them and others to resort to self-censorship. Again, results from an internal law school survey displayed very low levels of satisfaction. This included only 30% claiming they felt comfortable reporting inappropriate behaviour and more than one-in-three respondents experiencing bullying in the past six months.

    “Incredibly, in response to the article, Prof. Paul Myburgh emailed academics in the Law school, telling them to leave if they are ‘unhappy’. How are we supposed to believe that academic freedom and speech rights, which strike to the heart of the purpose of academic teaching and research, is in good health with these results and responses?

    “Discrimination and bullying are compounded if staff aren’t free to speak out on the issue. Prof. Myburgh’s response simply confirms what is indicated in the survey results. It tells us that major work is needed to reinvigorate the ability to speak freely, challenge colleagues and superiors, and question the status quo.

    “This ordeal reinforces the relevance of the recent report on academic freedom by the New Zealand Initiative which shows the erosion of academic freedom in New Zealand and that academics feel unable to speak freely. Last year, a survey of Auckland University Law school gave similar results. This is not a one-off issue- there are structural issues at play that are leading academics to self-censor, undermining the role of the university.

    “We’ve contacted the Vice-Chancellor of AUT and Minister of Tertiary Education, challenging them to take action and display the leadership that is needed to defend all academics free speech and right to academic freedom.”

    ENDS

    Note to editor: find the letter to Minister and VC here.

  • Leaked AUT Law Faculty Staff Survey results, and subsequent response

    Posted by · September 04, 2024 2:40 PM · 1 reaction

  • Free Speech Union submits in opposition to Law Commission consultation on amendments to Human Rights Act

    Posted by · August 30, 2024 3:26 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE
    30 August 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    Free Speech Union submits in opposition to Law Commission consultation on amendments to Human Rights Act
     
    The Free Speech Union has submitted to the Law Commission consultation on their recent discussion paper urging them not to amend the Human Rights Act in ways that would restrict New Zealanders’ legitimate speech, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “The paper examines extending section 21 of the Human Rights Act prohibited grounds of discrimination to include people who are transgender, non-binary and with innate variations of sex characteristics.

    “While some areas of the discussion paper are outside of our remit, we raise four areas of concern that would hinder all Kiwis’ speech rights:
     
    1. The significant implications for all government departments, policies, agencies, and any person or body carrying out a government function (especially health professionals) who express their professional opinions or concerns on issues of sex/gender who may be deemed to be discriminating against people who are transgender, non-binary or with innate variations of sex characteristics.

    2. The enabling of section 104 (Discrimination) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 to shut down the discourse necessary for decision making on sex and/or gender issues in the workplace, potentially compelling employers to conform to particular ideological positions.

    3. Enabling section 57 (Educational Establishments) of the Education and Training Act 2020 to stifle open discussion and debate around gender and sexuality issues among those governing educational institutions and compels them to conform to particular ideologies and belief systems.

    4. The de facto introduction of ‘hate speech’ laws, using human rights legislation to suppress and constrain public discourse on contested questions.   
    “The Law Commission was instructed by the Minister of Justice to stop all work on ‘hate speech’ laws after tens of thousands of Kiwis urged them to. But here we are again – this time, it’s simply packaged differently.
     
    “Amendments to speech rights in the Human Rights Act would be weaponised to silence Kiwis’ who simply disagree on contested issues.
     
    “Along with our own submission, the Free Speech Union has so far facilitated over 6,000 submissions through our submission tool freespeechsubmission.nz.”
     
    ENDS
     
    Note to editor: Read our full submission here.
  • The Law Commission’s review of Protections in the Human Rights Act 1993 for People who are Transgender, People Who are Non-binary and People with Innate Variations of Sex Characteristics

    Posted by · August 30, 2024 3:00 PM · 1 reaction

  • Inter-University Council on Academic Freedom Submission to University Advisory Group on Phase 2 Consultation

    Posted by · August 30, 2024 2:53 PM · 1 reaction

  • Creative Arts Napier

    Posted by · August 30, 2024 2:45 PM · 1 reaction

  • Publicly-funded Hamilton Multicultural Services Trust backs down to wanna-be-censors

    Posted by · August 30, 2024 11:54 AM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    30 August 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

    Publicly-funded Hamilton Multicultural Services Trust backs down to wanna-be-censors

    By choosing to exclude art by Jewish/Israeli and Arab/Palestinian migrants from the revamped multicultural facility, the Hamilton Multicultural Services Trust has failed to live up to the values they exist to defend: celebrating diversity, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “Despite initially accepting the artwork, following complaints, the Trust claims they removed the artwork because it breached the rules of the competition by including religious symbols and a national flag. This is a thinly-veiled excuse for censorship. It’s grasping at straws to claim that abstract references to doves outlined in the colour blue are religious symbols or represent a national flag.

    “Further, there are a range of other artwork to be displayed on the new building that has symbols that are more clearly identifiable with religion than doves.

    “It appears to be more likely the case that one community is intolerant of the participation of the other community and the Trustees have been bullied into discrimination. That is the essence of bigotry, and the Trust should have rejected calls to exclude participants on these grounds. 

    “The Palestinian artwork from the installation will also be removed by the Trust, yet they have been given no reason for this and there have been no clear objections to the tile. The Palestinian community deserves a clear explanation for the exclusion of their work.

    “Celebrating diversity means celebrating difference - and difference can be hard at times. But if we can only walk together because we agree on everything, we won’t manage to go a step further. Tolerance and diversity assumes major disagreements exist, yet free speech enables us to progress together, nonetheless. 

    “Selective censorship is discriminatory. By giving in to calls for censorship, the Trust has created a rod for its own back. We urge them to return to their stated aims, reinstate all the artwork, and run the Trust in accordance with its values of tolerance.”

  • Inter-University Council on Academic Freedom Submission on Massey University Curriculum Transformation Discussion Paper

    Posted by · August 29, 2024 3:48 PM · 1 reaction

  • Should your local postie be the gatekeeper of your mailbox?

    Posted by · August 28, 2024 6:48 PM · 1 reaction

    We kicked off the week with a strategy meeting with our growing team. A young bunch - we're committed to putting in the work needed to protect and expand all Kiwis' right to think and speak freely. 

    Our team certainly doesn't agree on everything, but we do agree that our future is dark without this basic freedom. 

    Here's how we're defending this fundamental right this week.


    Wellington posties refuse to deliver mail they deem 'misinformation' 

    Did you see the coverage of posties in Wellington who refused to deliver a pamphlet by advocacy group Better Wellington? Honestly, where do posties get off deciding what information individuals do or don't get to hear? 

    We were pleased that in the face of posties refusing to do their one job, NZ Post said that it wasn't up to them to censor Kiwis' mail. However, the Postal Workers Union said they didn't want to censor, but that it was their social responsibility to refuse to deliver this information.

    So, in other words, they don't want to be a censor, but for the so-called 'greater good', they're going to anyway? Who gave them that authority?

    It must be pretty scandalous stuff, right?! Well, see for yourself: 

    The most basic tool that workers' unions have historically used to advocate for employees' rights is free speech. What does it say about the Postal Workers Union if they're willing to undermine this crucial right? 

    And, are you happy with your local postie gatekeeping what does and doesn't land in your mailbox? 

    The pamphlet raises awareness of Wellington City Council's latest District Plan. The line the Postal Workers Union had a problem with was that the Council was examining the viability of allowing mosques to broadcast a call to prayer. They said it was misleading and 'misinformation'.

    Well, if this is the case, then counter-speech is the answer. Censorship doesn't debunk false claims or misunderstandings.   

    We wrote to the Union and told them that they should do their jobs and deliver the mail. Co-president of the Union, John Maynard, said in an interview on RNZ's Morning Report that the posties didn't want to be party to "undermining the social relationships in the city and the potential danger for people if that word gets out, because we know what happened in Christchurch."

    `

    The irony is this pamphlet was initially just going to homes in the Wellington region. Now, it's had national media coverage. 

    We were pleased this afternoon to hear that NZ Post went ahead with the delivery. They do have a social responsibility - but it's not to cherry-pick what you receive in your mailbox. 

    As Jonathan said, just deliver the mail and let us each make up our own minds. 

    Curia resigns from the Research Association of New Zealand

    It's deeply concerning that posties in New Zealand even consider it their responsibility to pick and choose which mail gets delivered. This goes to the heart of accessing information, so we can be confident in what we believe.

    That's also why we were very concerned when we saw the pressure Curia Market Research has come under. 

     

    Curia is a major polling company (they've done polling for the FSU in the past). You may recognise them as the outfit that releases the regular Taxpayers Union/Curia Political poll. Their very job is to ask questions and gauge responses. 

    When an independent researcher comes under flak for simply asking questions, it's easy to see how we all end up keeping our opinions to ourselves. 

    Despite being a major polling outlet, Curia Market Research recently resigned from the Research Association of New Zealand. Why? The Research Association told them there was risk of suspension for asking a particular question.

    What was this outrageous question, you will rightly ask. On behalf of Family First, Curia asked this question:  

    The UK health service (the NHS) has stopped the use of puberty blockers, which begin the gender transition process, for children under 16 as it deemed they are too young to consent. Do you support or oppose a similar ban in New Zealand on the use of puberty blockers for young people 16 or younger?

    Have we really gone so far that a research organisation can't ask a question like this? This is the essence of censorship. If we can't ask the question, we can't have an open conversation or informed debate. And that's when the thugs can more easily win. 

    When we stop being able to methodically analyse and research the current issues of the day, 'controversial' as they may be, we are all worse off. 

    Last chance to submit to Law Commission on censorial discussion paper

    Have you used our easy, step-by-step tool to tell the Law Commission what you think about the recent discussion document they released? 

    The questions they're considering could ultimately make using incorrect pronouns illegal. Are you okay with that? 

    Censorship can be a natural impulse to things we consider hurtful, but you and I both know that censorship is not the answer. 

    Spend less than five minutes making your submission here.

    Thousands have already used our easy tool to make sure your voice is heard, and that all our voices are free to speak out on the issue of sex and gender, no matter our beliefs. Our legal team has been working on a significant submission we will be sending to the Law Commission this week, but it won't have half the impact without your voice joining us. 

    Take five minutes and submit now

    Join us for a live webinar: The Fight for Free Speech Goes Global

    In July, our CEO and Chair were in Sydney to help launch the International Association of Free Speech Unions (IAFSU). Next week, we're co-hosting an event and you're invited to join us.  

    Come and hear from the leaders of the Free Speech Unions in the UK, South Africa, Australia, and of course, New Zealand about the similarities in the fight for free speech across these countries, and what we're all doing about it. 

    RSVP to join us on Wednesday, 4th September at 7:30pm. 


    Keeping the would-be-censors at bay is only possible with your continued support. Thank you for enabling us to defend your voice.

    Nadia Braddon-Parsons
    Communications & Marketing Manager
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    PS. Did you get a chance to read our 2024 Annual Report? Far from a boring list of numbers, I know you'll enjoy hearing about all we've achieved together.  

  • The NZ Herald and a not so “free” press

    Posted by · August 28, 2024 4:50 PM · 1 reaction

    By Nick Hanne, Free Speech Union

    If Hobson’s Pledge, a lobby group led by Don Brash, wasn’t on your radar a few weeks ago, it will almost certainly be now. Of course, it ought not be confused with the ironic term ‘Hobson’s Choice’ which means ‘having no choice at all’, which in light of the NZ Herald’s actions only makes it all the more ironic. I’ll spare you, though, all the details from the controversy of the past two weeks, and deal here instead with two key questions.

    The first is relatively easy: Can a newspaper like the NZ Herald lawfully turn down an advertisement?  

    The short answer: Yes, they can. 

    As a publicly listed private company, NZME, as owner of the NZ Herald, is under no legal compulsion to accept advertising requests from Hobson’s Pledge or any other group. Having said this, a company advertising policy is necessary for the purposes of clarity, consistency and consumer confidence. Ads bring money. Money keeps journalists employed and the lights on.

    But let’s face it, the bigger question in the case of the Hobson’s Pledge debacle is one of principle. Can the NZ Herald still claim to be a robust medium for wider democratic discourse and debate?  

    The short answer? Not currently.

    But that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be rescued.

    The Herald is supposed to be the newspaper of record, a chronicler of the nation’s history. It has long claimed to be a civic stage for the competition of diverse and often diametrically opposing viewpoints on social, cultural and political matters. Has it ever lived up to this ideal?

    When it was first founded in 1863 the paper was a vociferous, one-eyed advocate for the British military’s seizure of Māori lands and subsequent European settlement. In the eyes of the Herald’s modern editorial team, they presumably feel they’ve inherited the historical sins of an institution for which they must atone. Just a few weeks ago they ran a front-page feature detailing all Māori land confiscated by the Crown after 1840. It carried with it a powerful editorial message and, one could argue, offered an important contribution to what should be a national discussion and debate about our past and future. But last week the paper made the rookie mistake of thinking it could still offer its services as an impartial platform. How dare a lobby group led by a man who was once Reserve Bank governor, Leader of the Opposition and Act Party leader pay a princely sum for advertising space on its front page?

    In their exuberant rush to remain solvent, someone in the Herald’s advertising department obviously forgot this is the year 2024. We live in puritanical times, when platforming is a cardinal sin. The long, shameful, penitent walk performed by the newspaper must now ensue, so don’t be surprised if it reasserts itself with a zealous editorial partisanship which eclipses anything we’ve seen to date.

    Of course, just because the Herald’s advertising department has shown a ‘serious lapse of judgement’, we shouldn’t forget that plenty of ‘advocacy advertisements’ of a highly political nature have made it onto the front of the paper before. These just happened to reflect a particular political bent. In the run up to last year’s election, for example, the Council of Trade Unions placed a full front-page attack ad directed at then-Leader of the Opposition Chris Luxon. Despite copious criticisms from certain conservative voices, the Herald staunchly stood its ground by citing the principles of freedom of expression and of the press.  

    Recently, a public letter signed by more than 170 academics and lawyers argued that the claims in the Hobson’s Pledge advertorial were “misleading and inaccurate.”  They may have reasonable grounds for public critique of claims by Hobson’s Pledge, but there is no obvious breach of advertising standards in this case. The problem is that hundreds of claims made in all kinds of advertisements – political or not - can be disputed by experts for and against. So, it’s entirely possible there’s an issue with the language or interpretation of the facts used in the Hobson’s Pledge claims. But the public would like to at least hear these competing claims, and then have them openly debated and critiqued, because the issue concerns the whole country and the answer is not apparent to many.

    It is also well established in logic that a viewpoint being held by a majority of experts should never be the decisive factor when assessing knowledge claims because this becomes a form of confirmation bias (and it is not obvious in this case that there is even a clear majority position or for that matter two simple and opposing views). So it is, quite frankly, elitist on the part of many experts if they think the public hasn’t the right to even consider the arguments and evidence for themselves. No ideas arise fully formed from anyone’s mouth – expert or not - and we certainly don’t need ‘intellectual guardians’ vetting political opinions before we’re allowed to read them in the newspaper.

    Many Kiwis have grown tired of the oft-heard lament that the impending death of NZ news media can only be staved off by a state-funded subsidy. The Public Interest Journalism Fund instituted under Labour was highly unpopular because of the ideological nudging which came with it. So, if potential ad revenue is being turned away because a client’s viewpoint doesn’t comport with certain acceptable political views, the news outlet shouldn’t expect any sympathy themselves from the public when they face their next financial emergency.

    The answer, I would suggest, is not for free speech advocates to boycott the NZ Herald. Boycotting is going to destroy an institution which still has the potential to elevate and broaden public discourse, inform society and provide a credible historical record. A boycott is in many respects just an older form of ‘cancel culture’, which is precisely why some groups have employed it here. Yet while boycotting may weaken institutions, and even topple them, such a move creates a new problem - it takes an enormous amount of time, wisdom, and energy to establish something positive, credible and sustainable in its place.

    A culture of free speech at heart does require a place for clemency, and the belief that people and institutions can change given the chance of rediscovering fundamental democratic values. So, instead of letting the ship founder in the shallow waters of ideological conformity, concerned citizens who believe in broad political discourse could purchase shares in NZME in significant numbers and call for greater diversity of expression from the newspaper. The aim would not be cynical reverse censorship or the imposition of a conservative editorial voice, but the rejuvenation of a platform which allows for more diverse perspectives from across the spectrum.

    What this latest fiasco at the Herald shows us without a doubt is that our news media have almost no backbone in representing the diverse views of a public which just a few short years ago bailed journalism out during its darkest hour. ‘Approved’ political views at the Herald will get free press while others quite literally aren’t even allowed to buy print space. NZME should not underestimate the damage this approach is having on public trust in media. Throw boycotts into the mix and we will ultimately get a zero-sum game.

    While it may seem impossible that this case could get any more ironic, let’s not forget the free publicity which Hobson’s Pledge is now getting due to the furore. You would think by now it ought to be obvious to all the would-be censors out there that silenced opponents will, though battered and bruised, eventually grow stronger due to exclusion, not weaker. And that it makes itself weaker too. It’s just a shame the fourth estate has come to believe it has no other choice.

  • Concerning claims that Posties can determine what is ‘misinformation’, refusing to deliver such material

    Posted by · August 27, 2024 3:58 PM · 1 reaction

  • Postal Workers Union’s calls for censorship must be challenged

    Posted by · August 27, 2024 1:18 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    27 August 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Postal Workers Union’s calls for censorship must be challenged

    Comments made by John Maynard, the co-national president of the Postal Workers Union, play into calls for censorship and fail to stand up for workers’ most basic right; their right to free speech, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “Some posties in Wellington have refused to deliver a pamphlet from advocacy group Better Wellington that contained references to changes made by recent amendments to the District Plan. But it is not up to posties to decide which information they will deliver or not.

    “We commend comments from New Zealand Post who have noted that ‘It is not appropriate for NZ Post to act as a censor in determining what it will and won't deliver.’

    “If recipients have a problem with the content they receive, then it’s up to them to decide how they respond. But they can’t make this decision if they don’t receive the material in the first place. If material being distributed is illegal, challenge it; don’t opt for censorship.

    “Increasingly, workers’ unions are abandoning the primary tool they have historically used to advocate for workers’ rights; speech, and advocacy.

    “By actively undermining the ability for all Kiwis to speak freely, the Postal Workers Union, along with others like the Tertiary Education Union and Public Service Association, are undermining their own foundation.”

  • Proposed Codes of Conduct and Ethics for psychologists undermine free speech

    Posted by · August 21, 2024 4:56 PM · 1 reaction

  • Free Speech Union welcomes comprehensive report on academic freedom in New Zealand by New Zealand Initiative Research Fellow, Dr. James Kierstead

    Posted by · August 21, 2024 3:35 PM · 1 reaction

     

    MEDIA RELEASE 

    21 August 2024 
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  

    Free Speech Union welcomes comprehensive report on academic freedom in New Zealand by New Zealand Initiative Research Fellow, Dr. James Kierstead  

    The Free Speech Union applauds the New Zealand Initiative’s launch of its largest report ever, thoroughly documenting the troubling state of academic freedom in New Zealand. This is important research that highlights the ongoing failure on the part of universities to protect academics’ right and duty to research, teach, and speak freely, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.   

    “Through collating 72 personal accounts of academics, five surveys of students and academics, and over 20 incidents of attacks on academic freedom, the report presents an authoritative history of academic freedom for the past decade. Tragically, much ground has been lost over these 10 years. 

    “Increasingly, our would-be-censors are taking ground in the very locations where rigorous and forthright debate and research should be most unconstrained. Without academics who are free to challenge status-quos, ask provocative questions, and say the unspeakable, public discourse is condemned to continue to atrophy.   

    “The Free Speech Union will release a partner report to the New Zealand Initiative’s report on academic freedom in coming months, presenting constructive options (including legislative proposals) to correct the dangerous course our universities are currently on.” 

  • Annual Report 2024

    Posted by · August 17, 2024 9:00 AM

  • Work together, win together: Our 2024 Annual Report

    Posted by · August 17, 2024 8:45 AM

    It is my great pleasure to present to you the Free Speech Union Annual Report for 2024.

    It's been yet another huge year with some of our biggest achievements yet.

    I really think that together we're making history, and these wins were only possible because of the Free Speech Union and your support.  

    As Jonathan says in the report:

    "Three years in, and things are just getting
    going; there’s a lot of work to be done.
    But I am confident that together, New
    Zealand is capable of leading the world
    as a country that tolerates diversity of
    opinions, cherishes free speech, and
    sends our would-be-censors packing."

    Read the Annual Report here

    Let me just say on behalf of Jonathan, the other Council members, and our entire team, how genuinely thankful we are for you, and the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who partner with us.

    I'm also pleased to announce that our Annual General Meeting will be on Saturday, 9th November in Auckland. We'd love for you to join us. You can RSVP here

    We are honoured by the trust you place in us, and the investment you make. The stakes remain high, but we're building more momentum than ever before. With your help, we'll go even further still.

    Thank you, and enjoy.


    Dr. Roderick Mulgan
    Council Chair

    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    PS. I know you are a free speech champion like us. But fighting for freedom isn’t free – join us in personally supporting the Free Speech Union to continue the momentum and success it has achieved this year. Together, we can continue the crucial work of rebuilding a Kiwi culture that values free speech.

  • FSU welcomes appointment of Dr. Melissa Derby as Race Relations Commissioner

    Posted by · August 16, 2024 5:49 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE
    16 August 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    FSU welcomes appointment of Dr. Melissa Derby (founding member of the Free Speech Union and former-Council member) as Race Relations Commissioner
    We are thrilled to welcome the appointment of Dr. Melissa Derby to her new position as the Race Relations Commissioner. Dr. Derby was a founding member of the Free Speech Union, and has served on our Council for years. In a time when open discourse on race relations is so fraught, her role will be challenging but crucial, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.  
    “Freedom of speech is the cornerstone on which a liberal, democratic human rights framework is founded. For too long, the Human Rights Commission has undermined the foundation on which it was built by neglecting, and even actively opposing, speech rights. Today’s appointment appears to be a course correction.
    “Both Dr. Derby’s practical and academic experience makes her well suited to provide desperately needed leadership in the conversation regarding Race Relations.
    “We also welcome the appointment of Dr. Stephen Rainbow to his new role as the Chief Human Rights Commissioner. Like Dr. Derby, Dr. Rainbow has a strong history of defending free speech, and supporting the work of the Free Speech Union.
    “In a time when major opposition is emerging in our own country from numerous corners against basic human rights, their work and leadership will be vital. We look forward to working with them to champion all Kiwis’ basic right to speak.”
  • New Plymouth Boys High School bans student speech

    Posted by · August 16, 2024 3:25 PM · 1 reaction

  • Fantastic news: FSU founding member made Race Relations Commissioner

    Posted by · August 16, 2024 3:21 PM · 1 reaction

    While we're up against a number of major (and really troubling) fights, I'm sure you might wonder whether all our work makes any difference.

    Well, I have some great news for you to wrap up your Friday afternoon that's just made my day. 

    This afternoon, Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith announced a new Chief Human Rights Commissioner and a new Race Relations Commissioner... 

    As you know, the Human Rights Commission has an important job, but for years has neglected, and even actively opposed, speech rights. You'd think the Commission would be an ally we could work with, but it was, in fact, an opponent! 

     

    Well, Dr. Stephen Rainbow has been appointed the new Chief Human Rights Commissioner, a supporter and friend of the Free Speech Union, who has a strong background defending speech rights. (In fact, he was one of the first cases we took on years ago when he ran into a spot of bother himself for raising concerns about the Conversion Therapy Legislation that was going through Parliament). 

    But, what I am most excited to tell you is that Dr. Melissa Derby, a founding member of the Free Speech Union, who only recently resigned from her position from our Council, has been made the Race Relations Commissioner! 

    It's no news to you, that Race Relations is one of the most fraught areas of discussion today. This will be a challenging job, but one in which a principled, non-partisan actor dedicated to the basic rights of all Kiwis will flourish. 

    This news has made my day- I hope it's made yours too. 

     

    Jonathan


    Jonathan Ayling
    Chief Executive
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

  • Police roll out new ‘hate crime’ and ‘hate speech’ training

    Posted by · August 15, 2024 11:23 AM · 1 reaction

  • Are Police collecting records of your speech?

    Posted by · August 14, 2024 4:53 PM · 1 reaction

    I'm going to break a cardinal rule of campaigning today... 

    I have always been told that I can only ever ask one thing from you at a time. Campaigners believe that their supporters are too easily distracted, and if I ask you to do two things, you'll probably do neither. 

    But I know this one is important to you, and the work we're doing to counter a truly troubling shift in Police culture is too important. So, today, I'm asking if you'll take a few steps with us.  

    As you know, last week, I met with Andrew Coster, the Commissioner of Police. It was a combative meeting, and I walked away with our Senior In-House Counsel feeling bruised. But we have no choice but to ensure there is public awareness and pressure on the changes Police are making to how they view the basic right to speak.

    I presented the public letter that you signed (with over 12,000 Kiwis, in just a handful of days).

    In response, the Commissioner has instructed a review of the training and told me that supposed examples of 'hate speech' like 'there are only two genders' and 'Kiwi, not Iwi' will be removed.

    These are not insignificant victories, but now is not the time to let up.  

    We are your voice in these rooms, because you continue to step up and stand with us. We're humbled to fight alongside you, and today there are three things I need from you. 

    ______________________________________________

    My Board probably wont like me asking you for three things, but I think you care about this issue enough to press in.

    1. First, we need to expose what Police are recording, and the best way to do that is through Privacy Requests.

    You have a right to know what information the Government holds on you. This is kind of like an Official Information Request (OIA) on yourself.

    On our website, we've list how to make a privacy request to Police. This way, you'll will be able to see what information Police are recording and what speech they are concerned by.

    My staff have a bet going amongst themselves on whether Police have a file on me. What do you think? I certainly hope not. Police should take no issue with advocates for free speech- if I (or my staff, or you!) are recorded because of that, things are worse than we feared.

    Through lodging these requests, we'll be able to find out. 

    <<See how to submit a Privacy Request to Police>>

    I think I can anticipate a concern some of our supporters might have in asking us to lodge these requests. Is flooding Police with this work really what we want to see law enforcement time spent on? Isn't this keeping them from real crime?

    I agree. That's why I wish they weren't being trained to 'Recognise', 'Record', and 'Respond' to 'hate speech' and why I wish they weren't attending to non-criminal hate incidents. 

    There is real, serious crime they should be attending to. So the moment the Commissioner calls off this training and we're confident Kiwis aren't being tracked by Police on the basis of perfectly legal speech, we'll stop this work entirely.  

    2. Secondwe need to increase pressure on our politicians who are just letting this happen.

    This Police training was signed off by the Cabinet in 2020, even before the 'Hate Speech' law reform proposals were released. It has been underway for some time, but only now (and only thanks to the Free Speech Union and the brave officers who approached us) is the public more fully aware.

    The ACT Party has already called for Police to "explain 'hate speech' training. The Minister of Justice was shocked when he learned about what Police were implementing, saying 'but why? We don't have 'hate crime' laws'.

    But surprisingly (and concerningly), New Zealand First hasn't said 'boo' on this issue. And we think it's not good enough. If this Government is going to continue along with anti-speech policies from the previous Government, we're going to have something to say about it. 

    In addition to submitting a privacy request to Police to see what information they are holding on you, we need you to contact your local MP and tell them that the Police's new training threatens to undermine Kiwis' basic rights. With the Free Speech Union managing three cases of wrongful arrest already from just the past nine months, we're deeply concerned this training will prime officers to abuse more basic rights.  

    You can see a list here of every Member of Parliament, along with their contact information. We don't need you to flood every MP's inbox; just contact your local MP. If each of our supporters contacted their local MP, that will leave a significant impression (MPs are also much more concerned about the views of their local voters than random citizens). Even better, you'd ask to meet with them, to discuss how concerned you are about this training.

    I've included a few talking points below:

    - Te Raranga (The Weave) is the name of the Police training programme that instructs officers to 'Recognise, Record, and Respond' to 'hate speech, 'hate crime', and 'non-criminal hate incidences;

    - New Zealand has very narrow 'hate speech' laws that have only been used once. We have no law for 'hate crimes', and certainly nothing that mandates Police to keep records of legal activity they think might be hateful.

    - This training was implemented as a result of Recommendation 42 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Mosque Attack, but Police have gone even further beyond what the recommendation included.  

    - It is not Police's job to police 'hate'. While 'hate' may be an issue in some communities, trying to criminalise thoughts and beliefs, not simply actions, is a fool's errand. 

    - The result of the review of the training must be that this training is canned. 

    3. Thirdwe need you to join the Free Speech Union. By joining, you provide resources to our team so that we can continue this work (and as you know, this is hardly the only fight we have on- Law Commission proposing making misgendering illegal, anyone?). 

    But more than simply providing us with the resources we need to keep up the fight, by joining the Union you are putting your name alongside thousands of other Kiwis' saying that the fight for basic rights and free speech is a priority for you.

    You're standing with those who say 'enough with talking about free speech, I'm going to do something about it.'

    ______________________________________________

    Easy as 1. 2. 3.

    Let's reject a Police culture that busies itself with our opinions. Call on them to simply enforce the law.  

    Jonathan


    Jonathan Ayling
    Chief Executive
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    Don't prove me wrong in believing that our supporters are invested in this fight enough to handle more than one action point. Take all three steps now to defend free speech: 

    1. Submit a Privacy Request to Police.

    2. Contact your local MP with the talking points above.

    3. Join the Free Speech Union.

  • NZME’s lack of backbone threatens to further undermine both trust in media and public debate

    Posted by · August 13, 2024 11:51 AM · 1 reaction


    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    13 August 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

    NZME’s lack of backbone threatens to further undermine both trust in media and public debate

    Spineless leadership at the helm of our largest media outfit makes all Kiwis poorer, not least NZME shareholders. NZME should get back to the business of offering world class media, with advertising options included for all legal adverts, not picking and choosing which opinions deserve a hearing, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.  

    “NZME happily offered an advertising package to Hobson’s Pledge, signed off on the ads, and submitted their invoice for payment. A few would-be-censors bang their intolerance drum, and the Board and management get spooked. This sort of weakness is entirely part of why public trust in the media continues to plummet, and political discourse is more and more polarised.

    “NZME is a publicly-listed private company. They ultimately have the right to reject this advertising. But they deserve strong criticism for this decision, and it’s not surprising that shareholders raise questions as to why good money is being rejected on ideological grounds.

    “Bad ideas are beaten with better ideas, not censorial grandstanding. Of course, it is appropriate that advertorial material meet legal standards. But that’s not the question here. Opponents of Hobson’s Pledge should challenge the ad with the Advertising Standard’s Authority, not contest NZME’s right and interest in running advertorial content.

    “Large media outlets like NZME are prone to complain endlessly about the unsustainability of the media ecosystem, and how social media is stealing their advertising revenue. NZME should stand up to political toy-throwing and simply offer the same advertising package to those who would express opposite views. Such contests of ideas belong in full view of the public, not hidden in the back offices of NZME.”

  • A student speech competition, another censorial council, and a meeting with the Police Commissioner

    Posted by · August 10, 2024 8:00 AM · 2 reactions

    Our team has been very focused over the past two weeks on campaigning against two serious issues: the Law Commission considering changes to the Human Rights Act, which could make misgendering illegal, and urging the Police Commissioner to stop unlawful training for officers on 'hate crime' and 'hate speech'. 

    But, in the background, there have been several other issues on the go that our team has been juggling, too. There's never a dull moment around here! 

    FSU training complete at Marlborough District Council 

    You'll remember our recent free speech victory when Marlborough District Council stepped up after refusing ‘Let Kids Be Kids’ book a meeting room.

    They admitted they made a mistake, issued an apology, and promptly changed the venues booking policy.

    Well, yesterday, Jonathan and Hannah ran a successful free speech training session for the senior staff at Marlborough District Council.

    We know that we’re David up against Goliath sometimes, and we have to stand our ground pretty confidently. But it is a real relief when those we are calling out admit they were wrong, and look to make amends. 

    The training was very well received, prompted fantastic discussion amongst staff, and even left our team walking away having learnt a thing or two. 

     

    Our team isn’t afraid of being disliked (our right to speak is too important to sacrifice to popularity). But it is a welcome change when we’re able to come along good-faith actors, and work together to build a strong culture of free speech.

    (While we’re talking about Marlborough, we had a fantastic public event last night, too, with a good crowd coming along to hear more about our work. If you’re in Nelson tonight, we have a meeting tonight at 6:30. Come on out!)

    New Plymouth Boys' High School bars student from speech competition finals

    Oliver Jull is a 15-year-old student at New Plymouth Boys' High School who's recently made headlines. Oliver made it through to the finals of his school's speech competition only to find out he was barred, without warning, on the basis that some of the audience might find his speech offensive. 

    The speech addressed the idea of the demise of the West.

    When asked why he'd been barred, the Head of the English Faculty told him “one of the judges might not like it”, and “it’s not in the spirit of the speech competition”.

    He was told that unless he changed his speech, he would not continue. 

    How can students develop their own opinions on issues, if they can't even discuss them in the first place?

    Oliver's views didn't have to be accepted by the school for him to be able to voice them. 

    You won't be surprised that we've been in touch with the school, and our team is meeting with Oliver to provide guidance on the next steps to take. 

    Unfortunately, the speech finals have already passed, but we believe the school needs to answer for its decision in this case. More than holding them to account, we believe schools should be breathing life into students individual beliefs and voices, not suppressing them. 

    Hear Oliver speak about this himself on The Platform. We'll keep you posted. 

    South Wairarapa District Council shuts down opposing perspective 

    Speaking of being 'offended', last week, we defended the speech rights of a local farmer after he was shut down from presenting at South Wairarapa District Council. 

    Mr Hedley expressed his views on the establishment of a Māori Ward in South Wairarapa and was told a comment he made was “disrespectful”, “offensive”, and the reason he could not continue his presentation.

    What has been recorded publicly is that Mr Hedley said, “I do not agree with the Māori Ward. That is racism.” 

    Agree with Mr Hedley or not, the appointment of Māori Wards is currently a highly disputed topic, and he should have been able to share his opinion without being shut down.

    Members of the council did not need to agree with him in order to listen to his perspectives. 

    We asked the Council why their councillors seem to feel entitled to shut down the opinions of those they are democratically elected to represent (not agree with). We appreciated they responded to us- but they got this one wrong.

    The temptation to shut down opinions we think are offensive is something I think we can all relate to, but all that really achieved was giving this farmer a wider platform. Probably not what the Chairwoman of the committee was trying to achieve when she cut his submission short!

    Chief Censor endorses importance of freedom of expression

    Recently on Q+A, the Chief Censor, Caroline Flora told John Campbell that, "freedom of speech is an American concept" claiming that in New Zealander we have “freedom of expression”. We were concerned by this comment, especially as it was coupled by several questions by Campbell as to whether the law should allow for more censorship by her team. 

    We've reminded her that free speech is the foundation of our democracy, and it is freedom of speech that allows us to hold our leaders to account, protect the voices of minorities and dissenters, and safeguard our justice system. 

    We said: The principle of freedom of speech is what distinguishes every liberal democracy which has properly sprung from the British Parliamentary tradition with its roots in classical thought and practice dating back even to antiquity. This is true, not least because, of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688.

    The Chief Censor responded with a very thoughtful letter, explaining “In response to John Campbell’s question about whether the current laws needed “tweaking” what I said was that freedom of expression is a fundamental right and that the “test for limiting [the freedom of expression] in our Act is extraordinarily high for a reason”. She went on to offer a meeting to further discuss this issues if we’d like. 

    While there are some serious threats to free speech afoot, it’s nice to also work alongside actors who have respect for this freedom. 

    Meeting with the Police Commissioner

    On Wednesday, Jonathan and Hannah presented the Police Commissioner with our public letter with over 11,000 signatures from you, our supporters. 

    As Jonathan said on Wednesday, Police have operated in good-faith with us on this issue; but you don’t need to have bad intentions for terrible results to occur. The Commissioner has already said that the examples we were most concerned by (training officers that the claims ‘there are only two genders’ or ‘Kiwi, not Iwi’ are examples of ‘hate speech’) have been removed, and that a full review will be conducted of the training. 

    But we are still very concerned that the groundwork is being laid for what has occurred in places like the UK and Canada. The idea of ‘non-criminal hate incidences’ is fundamentally Orwellian. 

    Our team is continuing to work on this issue. We’ll have more for you next week on how we can each respond to this overreach. 

    Read what Nick from our team has to say on this issue here


    Whenever I get the opportunity to describe the work of the FSU, I say we campaign at a Government level to ensure our leaders uphold free speech, and we advocate for people at a community level who are unjustly silenced, too. Well, these past couple of weeks have been an example of just that.  

    Free speech really matters, in every context. And with you, we're ensuring it stays free. 

    Enjoy your weekend. 

    Nadia Braddon-Parsons
    Communications & Marketing Manager
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

  • Forget about Bobbies on the Beat - Thought policing is the new frontier

    Posted by · August 09, 2024 4:42 PM · 2 reactions

    By Nick Hanne | Free Speech Union

    It may seem daft to ask, but how can ‘law enforcement’ be responsible for enforcing laws which don’t exist?

    Believe it or not, we’ve found ourselves asking that very startling question at the Free Speech Union ever since our team received evidence from a concerned cop about a new compulsory ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’ training module which has just been rolled out nationwide to members of the NZ Police.

    If you’re not familiar with this news, officers are provided with examples of ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’. Examples of hate speech include statements such as ‘There are only two genders’ and ‘Kiwi, not Iwi’. While the first example needs no context, the latter happens to be the exact wording of a National Party campaign slogan from 2005. That, if you’ve ever supported National, should have you worried about the issue of political censorship. Perhaps most absurdly though is the inclusion on the anti-hate hit-list of the apparently villainous slogan ‘Free Speech’.

    Yes, you read that right.

    Yet not long after the initial revelation about the training programme broke, we received news that the problem goes much deeper. A further source inside NZ Police, this time an officer of more senior rank and well-placed to comment, informed FSU that non-criminal incidents  – speech or behaviour long protected under the Bill of Rights Act 1990 – are being recorded on the NZ Police national database. Along with completing the new training regime NZ Police officers are required to ‘Recognise, Record and Respond’ when faced with such instances of ‘hate’.

    Reporting a hate incident is easy. And the criterion is almost entirely subjective. An incident must be “anything the complainant feels is hateful towards them as a member of a minority group.” No clear definition of ‘hate’ is provided and the word ‘minority’ is not delineated either.

    I don’t think I need to tell you just how dangerous this move is proving to be for civil liberties in NZ. FSU has fielded grave concerns from a growing number of current and former cops who are troubled by these new official directives. This is not what they signed up for.

    Sceptics, reasonably enough, were quick to challenge the initial claims put out by FSU. Was there tangible evidence for what was being alleged? There were screenshots of training material. Multiple police officers testified to the existence of the programme and the database recording directive. But could politicians and the public consider this evidence substantive enough?

    All that was left at this point was to ask the top brass. FSU Chief Executive Jonathan Ayling and FSU Senior In-House Legal Counsel Hannah Clow met with Police Commissioner Andrew Coster and his advisers this past Wednesday. Coster confirmed the training and reporting are taking place. Curiously though, he spent considerable time in the meeting expressing concern at FSU’s highly vocal approach to the issue, suggesting that because we openly broadcast our concerns about extra-judicial Police policy, such visibility would only further undermine public confidence in national institutions. Yes, Commissioner. On that point we largely agree. Exposing the alarming behaviour of national institutions leads to reputational damage and diminished trust. Most Kiwis want to find reasons to support the important work of law enforcement. But to criticise us at FSU for speaking out in seeking to hold the NZ Police leadership to account is – pardon the expression – akin to shooting the messenger.

    Commissioner Coster has said he will review some of the training material. But little else is being conceded at this point. The official stance is that NZ Police are only following the recommendations of the Royal Inquiry into the Christchurch massacre. This is putting the cart before the horse because not only are the recommendations non-binding, but the attendant hate speech laws which would have required enforcing were eventually abandoned by the last government.

    Politicians still aren’t weighing in. Those in a position to do something about the problem we’ve identified with NZ Police continue to do themselves no favours. Sadly, it is precisely that kind of inaction from elected leaders which is enabling woke managerialism to erode freedom of expression.

    Will the revelation about NZ Police help turn back the culture-driven censorship tide? Unlikely. But it will steel the resolve of free speech proponents in this country. It also makes it more difficult for public officials to plead ignorance to the widespread tendency evident in the state toward curtailing speech rights and open discourse. They would be wise to remember that free speech support is only growing in proportion to the increased level of exposure of these censorial measures. Cases like this one arise in diverse domains of government and civil society.

    Repressive measures to curb freedom of expression in this country may or may not be coordinated at times. There doesn’t need to be a conspiracy behind every door. Certain bad ideas are sometimes just contagious or appear innocuous to the uninitiated. They’re also often linguistically bamboozling to decipher. It can take time to come to grips with the specific implications of bureaucratic parlance. A lot of harmful ideas get dressed up in saccharine terms. In the case of the NZ Police and its new hate speech detection training, it appears that some degree of collaboration - or at least acquiescence - amongst its leadership can be attributed to activist players who in pursuing an ideological agenda are prepared to run roughshod over established cultural norms and Parliament’s sovereign authority. What is so telling in the case of the NZ Police is that they have implemented it surreptitiously.

    Clearly, they know their actions will not be popular with a public who only grants them authority through social license. We must assert to the NZ Police that they have no choice but to abide by the very laws they are sworn to enforce, not those unwritten ‘laws’ they deign to invent.

  • HATE SPEECH LAWS APPEAR TO BE COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE AGAIN!

    Posted by · August 09, 2024 4:40 PM · 1 reaction

    The Law Commission has put together a discussion paper examining whether people who identify as transgender, non-binary or have innate variations of sex characteristics (intersex) should be included as a protected class under Section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993.

    This paper will form the basis of a report which the Law Commission will put to Government.

    If the Government was to amend the Human Rights Act based on the proposals which the Law Commission appears to favour in the discussion paper, it could make it illegal to misuse someone’s pronouns or limit schools' boards of trustees even more in how they present diverse perspectives on gender. It would affect employers, educators and institutions across the country.

    Kiwis don’t need human rights law to tell them which pronouns to use. We have until 5 September to coordinate a strong response. So, FSU has put together a quick and simple submission process below so you can voice your concerns on this issue.

    MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD

    Amending the Human Rights Act to make it illegal to misgender and deadname?

    Even though this is a discussion paper, we know that there are many activists who will try to weaponise this process and use it to pressure the government to increase censorship. 

    Regardless of how we talk about these perspectives, the free speech union will never backdown on the claim that kiwis shouldn’t be criminalised thinking a woman is an ‘adult human female.’ 

    there are four key areas under the hra which we’ve identified where speech would likely be controlled if section 21 is amended.

    Not only would such an amendment contravene the bill of rights act 1990, but it would have serious impacts on other key legislation

    CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR FEEDBACK
  • Thought Police? Really? We need your help.

    Posted by · August 06, 2024 4:29 PM · 2 reactions

    Our team is constantly working across a variety of fights - defending individual cases, working with decision-makers, providing training that expands our speech rights. 

    But I think one specific fight we're facing right now is the most important we've taken on, and we need your help.

    The Free Speech Union spent the last three years fighting the introduction of new 'hate speech' laws. And we were successful.

    The Government put a stop to these changes, and for good reason: ‘Hate speech’ laws are unworkable and are a legal nightmare.

    But not everyone has stopped.

    In short we're at a crossroads. Police have implemented new training requirements that massively expand how they will respond to 'hate speech' and 'hate crimes' (remember, officers are being told that 'there are only two genders' is an example of 'hate speech.')  

    In essence, Police have gone ahead and created their own ‘hate speech’ laws. They have even created 'non-criminal hate incidences' (you didn't break any laws, but we didn't like your opinions). 

    Practices like this are antithetical to a free society. 

    Tomorrow, Jonathan and I are meeting with the Police Commissioner and we will hand him a copy of every signature on our public letter, so he knows just how many of us are outraged by this training.

    We're almost at 10,000 signatures, and we know there are thousands more who care about this.

    We need your name on the letter.

    Sign our public letter now.

    I include more information below. Our team have been working overtime to understand the system in place, and the incredible abuse of power that is occurring. But the details aside, it's simple. If you stand with us now, we'll be able to push back against the Commissioner from using the Police force to silence Kiwis.

    If we ignore this now, our speech rights will become much harder to defend. 

    Are you with us?

    Hannah Clow
    Senior In-House Legal Counsel 
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    Here's the background:

    Recommendation 42 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Mosque Terrorist Attack gave some directions to the Police in December 2020:

    In mid-2021, Police received funding from the previous Government to establish a training and resource programme for Police and the public to “recognise and report hate-motivated events”.

    But what does that look like?

    Well, in late-2021 two reports were prepared: Improving our Response to Hate Crime and Action Plan: Improving our Response to Hate Crime.

    It’s only been in the past few weeks several Police officers informed us of the Police’s compulsory ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’ training.

    The reports and the training wouldn’t be so surprising if we actually had ‘hate crimes’ in New Zealand, but we don’t.

    The extent of our hate speech laws is extremely narrow. However, the training gives broad examples of ‘hate speech’, which includes phrases such as, “there are only two genders” and “Kiwi not Iwi”.

    We have also been made aware of an alleged internal intranet called ‘Hate Hub’ where ‘hate incidents’ are identified and reported.

    But, what is a ‘hate incident’? It's an act that falls short of any actual criminal offence but subjectively perceived by someone to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on their belonging to a minority group.

    This is also known as “perception-based recording” which is subjective and gives no consideration to the right to freedom of expression. The potential for abuse is unavoidable.

    What are the Police doing with these records of ‘non-crime hate incidents’? We don’t know exactly, and that's frightening.

    The training suggests it will be used “To provide important intel for police vetting processes” which could include vetting for any professional registration, appointment, employment, or visa.

    Looking back at Recommendation 42, the Police were directed to “revise the ways in which they record complaints of criminal conduct”.

    Do you think this extends to non-criminal conduct? We don’t! 

    The Police have gone beyond their scope here and are acting extra-judiciously and undemocratically.

    So, what are we doing about it?

    As I mentioned, our Chief Executive and I are meeting with the Police Commissioner, Andrew Coster tomorrow for an explanation.

    We will present him with our public letter calling for this training to stop immediately.

    For more information on this fight, listen to our recent podcast episode with two prominent legal commentators, speaking with Jonathan about the concerning steps Police are taking to counter 'hate speech' and 'hate crime'. 

  • South Wairarapa District Council silences local farmer

    Posted by · August 02, 2024 3:56 PM · 1 reaction

  • Chief Censor incorrectly characterises free speech as an American concept

    Posted by · August 02, 2024 3:55 PM · 1 reaction

  • Police training and collection of data illegal, and out of step with Parliament

    Posted by · August 02, 2024 3:53 PM · 2 reactions

  • New Plymouth Boys High School bans student speech

    Posted by · August 02, 2024 3:53 PM · 1 reaction

  • Free Speech Union Calls on Police to Stop Newly Introduced ‘Hate Crime’ and ‘Hate Speech’ Training for Officers Following Evidence of Political Bias

    Posted by · July 30, 2024 10:42 AM · 1 reaction

    logo.png
    MEDIA RELEASE
    30 July 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     

    Free Speech Union Calls on Police to Stop Newly Introduced ‘Hate Crime’ and ‘Hate Speech’ Training for Officers Following Evidence of Political Bias

    Recently introduced training requirements for police officers are inappropriate and show a concerning disregard for the foundational human right of free speech by the Police, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “Out of recommendations from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Mosque Attack, Police implemented this new training. Speech that incites violence is already illegal and is by no means protected by free speech. However, examples in the training for officers of ‘hate speech’ include claims that ‘there are only two genders’ or a billboard that reads ‘Kiwi, not Iwi.’

    “These are both examples of entirely legitimate opinions that Kiwis are free to express. Police should be trained to protect Kiwis’ right to express their opinions, not trained to speculate as to whether they are ‘hateful’ or not.

    “The Free Speech Union is currently pursuing 8 cases in the courts or tribunals for abuse of speech rights; 3 of these are in response to wrongful arrest by Police. This training threatens to further prime officers to over-zealously police the speech of Kiwis, meaning even more wrongful arrests are likely.

    “‘Hate crimes’ do not currently exist in New Zealand law, and based on the experience from parts of the United Kingdom, it would be foolish for New Zealand to implement them. While ‘hate speech’ laws do exist in New Zealand (under sections 61 and 131 of the Human Rights Act), the bar is exceedingly high for arrest/prosecution under these laws.

    “Free speech is an anti-extremism tool. Prohibiting individuals from expressing ‘hateful’ opinions does nothing to actually address the potential harm of their views. It is better for us to know who individuals are who hold extremist views, and expose and challenge them with the disinfectant sunlight of counter-speech.

    “We consider this training potentially illegal. Our team is meeting with the Police Commissioner to address this training. If it is not significantly changed or stopped, we will take further action.”

  • Thousands Submit to Law Commission Consultation in Just 24 Hours, Saying ‘No’ to Speech Laws

    Posted by · July 30, 2024 10:40 AM · 1 reaction

    logo.png
    MEDIA RELEASE
     
    30 July 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Thousands Submit to Law Commission Consultation in Just 24 Hours, Saying ‘No’ to Speech Laws

    In response to the Law Commission’s invitation to submit to their consultation on potential changes to the Human Rights Act, thousands have used the Free Speech Union’s freespeechsubmission.nz website to insist the law not be changed to make ‘misgendering’, ‘outing’, or ‘deadnaming’ illegal. All Kiwis have the right to live free from discrimination, but anti-discrimination efforts are built on speech rights, not challenged by them, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “The 200-page Discussion Document released by the Law Commission asks 80 questions regarding the experience of discrimination by the transgender, intersex, and non-binary communities, and the steps that could be taken to address this. The majority of these questions are outside the remit of the Free Speech Union. 

    “However, numerous questions raised in the document are unavoidably linguistic. Proposing amendments to the law that could see the use of the wrong pronoun (misgendering), revealing the transgender identity of someone (outing), and using a previous name (deadnaming) should not be prohibited by law.

    “This would be an unjustifiable limitation of Kiwis’ free speech on a contested subject.

    “Likewise, requirements for education leaders (such as principals and Boards of Trustees) and employers to implement ‘safe’ environments that compel certain speech would contravene the Bill of Rights Act and New Zealanders’ commitment to free speech.

    “Experiences overseas (such as in Canada) show that censoring the use of language some communities find offensive or ‘harmful’ or compelling the use of certain language is entirely counterproductive and causes even greater animosity and opposition to these communities.

    “Diverse societies and social cohesion are not built on everyone agreeing. Trying to compel agreement will backfire. Free speech allows for laws to protect communities from active discrimination while also maintaining the right for individuals to express disagreement. Attempts to reform this balance would be foolish and politically costly.”

  • Academic Staffing Review – Prof. Elizabeth Rata

    Posted by · July 30, 2024 10:37 AM · 1 reaction

  • Briefing on Law Commission's Human Rights Act Discussion Paper

    Posted by · July 29, 2024 4:37 PM · 1 reaction

  • Police roll out new ‘hate crime’ and ‘hate speech’ training

    Posted by · July 28, 2024 10:44 AM · 1 reaction

  • Paul's story flew under the radar, but it needs to be told

    Posted by · July 22, 2024 4:33 PM · 1 reaction

    It’s no secret today that tertiary institutions, especially educational training colleges, have increasingly become a hot-bed of cancel culture, no-platforming, and militant ideological conformity.

    Unfortunately, the story I’m writing to tell you about of Dr Paul Crowhurst flew under the radar. But it’s one that needs telling. As we constantly show with our work, there is a very human cost to intolerance.

    While the country was preoccupied with Covid lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and protests on the grounds of Parliament, Paul exercised his legally protected right to free speech by writing an op-ed in Stuff where he publicly questioned a radical new social initiative being taught to our kids in schools.

    The article would sadly cost him a promising career at Massey University, simply because he gave voice to his genuine concerns.

    It was only because Paul requested copies of all internal correspondence relating to his employment, as is his right under the Privacy Act, that the real picture emerged.  


    In my opinion, Paul is one of this country’s best teachers. His op-ed in Stuff was motivated out of a duty of care as an educational leader to school students around the country. Yet his detractors quietly conspired to block not only any chance of his promotion, but any ongoing opportunity for employment at Massey University.

    His case offers a textbook lesson in how self-appointed censors often work and how they punish dissenters who may dare to challenge their ideological agenda.

    Paul describes the culture at Massey’s Institute of Education as suffering from “deep rot”.

    He decided in the end not to pursue the matter legally (despite having clear evidence), but he has been willing to share his experiences with us to warn and inform people of a wider problem in NZ tertiary institutions.

    Paul’s may be just one story, but it reflects the all-too-often unscrupulous modus operandi of an anti-free speech movement we are facing in universities, schools and workplaces around NZ.

    Read Paul’s full story here.


    Part of our role at the Free Speech Union is to give a voice back to people where others have tried to take it from them. Stories like Paul’s really matter. After speaking to him about his experience this week, I am convinced more than ever about how necessary our Speak Up! program is.

    I’m part of the team that runs sessions in schools on critical thinking and the importance of free speech. It’s an honour to see kids wrestling with these ideas and it gives me hope for the future of our nation.

    But there is so much still to be done if these attitudes are to translate into students’ adult lives, and into our institutions. Your contributions are vital for ensuring our work continues.

    Thank you for making it possible.

    Nick Hanne
    Education Partnership Manager
    Free Speech Union

     

    PS. You can also listen to my recent conversation with Paul here

  • Hate speech laws resurface for transgender community

    Posted by · July 22, 2024 3:59 PM · 1 reaction

    Should Kiwis face jail time for ‘misgendering’ someone who is ‘non-binary’?

    Should the law stop them from ‘outing’ someone who is ‘intersex’?

    Should they be criminalised for ‘deadnaming’ someone who is transgender (using their old name — like calling them ‘Jack’ instead of ‘Jackie’)? 

    Can you imagine if it was illegal to believe a woman is an ‘Adult Human Female’? 

    Today, I’m writing to you about the most serious threat to free speech we’ve faced this year.

    The Law Commission has released a discussion paper considering changes to the Human Rights Act 1993 that will have major implications for questions of sex and gender.

    There are three things you need to know from the outset: 

    1. The Law Commission have been explicitly told not to look at laws around ‘hate speech’; but that’s exactly what they’re doing. 

    2. The Law Commission has already said that it doesn’t matter to them how many people engage in the consultation. They’re interested in the arguments that are made (you know, as long as people ‘correctly’ answer the questions with the ‘right’ answers);

    3. Our would-be-censors are already preparing to use this consultation to create censorial ‘hate speech laws’ in an attempt to protect the transgender community from opinions they disagree with.

    Well actually, there’s a fourth thing you need to know, too. 4. We’re going to push back — Kiwis have free speech, even if they disagree with gender theory.

    This discussion document will inform a report the Law Commission will write for the Minister of Justice. Ultimately, this work could make it illegal to misuse someone’s pronouns or limit schools' boards of trustees even more in how they present diverse perspectives on gender.  

    We have until 5 September to coordinate a strong response. Kiwis don’t need human rights law to tell them which pronouns to use. We can’t do this without you.

    If we don’t stand up now, the ability to use our voices on crucial questions related to sex and gender could face major restrictions. 

    Even though this is a discussion paper, we know that there are many activists who will try to weaponise this process and use it to pressure the Government to increase censorship. 

    Don’t believe me? How about this tweet the other day from the one-man-band at Countering Hate Speech Aotearoa.

    “I won’t stop until being a TERF is effectively illegal.”

    This isn’t an empty threat. It’s a promise. We ignore it at our own peril.

    Many Kiwis don’t know what a ‘TERF’ is. It stands for ‘Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist’. It’s a derogatory term that means you believe that a person's sex is defined biologically. A less offensive way to describe the belief is ‘gender-critical’.

    Regardless of how we talk about these perspectives, the Free Speech Union will never backdown on the claim that Kiwis shouldn’t be criminalised thinking a woman is an ‘Adult Human Female.’ 

    Remember, claiming a woman is an ‘Adult Human Female’ is already considered ‘hate speech’ to some. For example, we’ve already seen media companies refuse to advertise billboards making this claim. 

    What would happen if the Human Rights Act now actually made it illegal? (You know, instead of defending the founding human right, which is the freedom to think and speak freely). 

    The Free Speech Union is the organisation that led the fight to defeat ‘hate speech’ laws. We were told we were up against a majority Government, and wouldn’t make any difference. But we proved the nay-sayers wrong. We led the fight against the regulation and censorship of online speech, and saw the proposals defeated.

    These are just two of our victories, but these public policy consultations required a dedicated team to help ensure the voice of thousands of Kiwis could be heard as they spoke out for free speech.

    We need to do this again. By joining the Free Speech Union as a paying member, you are contributing to our fighting fund, and joining the largest community in the country working to ensure tolerance and true diversity. 

    If you don’t want to join, but are invested in ensuring Kiwis can speak openly about sex and gender, you can donate to our campaign here. If we don’t have the resources to push back, we can’t ensure that all Kiwis’ speech is protected. 

    Is it just me, or can you imagine the National Party giving with one hand and taking with the other? Sure, when Labour proposed ‘hate speech’ laws, they opposed them, but no one would want to risk a group of people being offended by the opinions you hold, right???

    Do you really trust the Government to stand up for our speech rights? We need to make sure there’s enough political pressure to make sure they do the right thing and keep Kiwis’ speech free- not weaponise the Human Rights Act to silence those who disagree with gender theory. 

    We can sit by and hope the powers-that-be don’t give in to the bullies who will throw everything they have at this opportunity to control your speech. Or we can get up, once again, and ensure we retain our freedom.

    To do this properly, we need your help: what’s stopping you from joining our work, and donating to this fight, today?

    Jonathan


    Jonathan Ayling
    Chief Executive
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    PS. Had you heard that the Law Commission is considering a discussion document on the Human Rights Act that could criminalise ‘anti-trans’ speech? Why hadn’t you?

    Many would say these fights are ‘a waste-of-space culture war’.

    Well, I believe a culture that believes in free speech is worth warring over. 

  • Free speech: the sine qua non of justice

    Posted by · July 22, 2024 11:19 AM · 3 reactions

    By Jonathan Ayling

    Free speech is a cornerstone of democratic societies. It is difficult to overstate its significance to the legal profession. Our justice system (like our democratic systems of representation) is built on an adversarial system of debate, interrogation, and intellectual challenge. Why? 

    Because this is the surest way humans have devised to discern truth. 

    This is not a reality that belongs simply to any one culture, geographical area, or time period. Justice requires truth. And the way we arrive at the closest approximation of the truth possible is by allowing competing narratives, perspectives, and beliefs to challenge each other. 

    This is impossible without free speech. 

    An erosion of free speech around the world, but particularly in the English-speaking West, stands to threaten the integrity of numerous professions; academics and journalists included. Yet, this erosion is no more concerning than for the legal profession, and as a result also to the rule of law. 

    Free speech is central to the legal profession for several reasons.

    Firstly, it serves as the cornerstone of a fair and transparent judicial system. Lawyers rely on free speech to advocate for their clients effectively, present arguments, and challenge opposing viewpoints in courtrooms. The freedom to not only have justice down, but also seen to be down, is enabled by speech rights, which guarantee the right to receive and impart information. Without the ability to freely express ideas and opinions, the legal process would be stifled, hindering the search for justice and undermining its legitimacy.

    Secondly, free speech is crucial for legal education and scholarship. Legal professionals engage in ongoing discourse and debate to refine laws, precedents, and interpretations. By encouraging an open exchange of ideas, free speech fosters intellectual growth within the legal community and drives innovation in legal practice. A growing list of subjects deemed 'off-limits' threatens to undermine this innovation and production of knowledge. 

    Furthermore, free speech rights are essential in safeguarding individual liberties. Lawyers often champion causes related to civil rights, social justice, and governmental accountability—all of which rely on the protection of free expression. By advocating for free speech, legal professionals uphold democratic values and ensure that diverse voices are heard and respected. 'Diversity' (as it is popularly conceived by many) is worth little if it does not include viewpoint diversity, and the right to express those opinions.  

    In essence, free speech is not just a privilege but a responsibility within the legal profession. It upholds the integrity of legal proceedings, nurtures intellectual development, and defends fundamental rights. By embracing and defending free speech, legal professionals uphold the principles of justice, equality, and democracy that underpin the rule of law. This means lawyers not only fulfill their professional duties but also contribute to the maintenance of a free, fair, and democratic society. 

    Lawyers, kaitiaki of the law and advocates for justice, play a critical role in preserving and promoting free speech as a fundamental human right and essential pillar of democracy.

    Yet, like its role in many other indispensable institutions in our liberal democracy, the centrality of free speech to the legal profession is increasingly disputed. The Law Society’s decisions to submit to Parliament in favour of an extension of ‘Hate Speech’ laws, in direct contradiction of the speech rights of all Kiwis, or to investigate the personal comments of two lawyers for ‘transphobia’ are concerning. 

    Likewise, the unjustified and excessive use of name-suppression by the Courts, which, by often silencing the voices of victims, denies natural justice erodes this liberty further.

    These examples show that even the legal profession is not immune to, what the Danish free speech historian, Jacob Mchangama, calls ‘free speech entropy’.

    The right to speak without fear of unjust retribution is the sine qua non, not only our justice system, but of our democracy. Free speech is the foundation on which our liberal vision of human rights and civil liberties is founded. Without robust and vibrant free speech in our legal profession, the pursuit of justice will be thwarted.

    Read about our new membership, especially for lawyers here.

  • Free Speech Union launches professional membership to defend free speech in law

    Posted by · July 22, 2024 8:55 AM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE
     
    22 July 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    Free Speech Union launches professional membership to defend free speech in law
     
    The Free Speech Union has launched a professional membership especially for lawyers to ensure free speech is upheld and cherished within the legal profession, says Thomas Newman, the co-chair of the Legal Council for Free Speech.
     
    “Free speech is central to our justice system and our democratic society. Without the ability to freely express ideas and opinions, the legal process would be stifled, hindering the search for justice and undermining its legitimacy.
     
    Support for ‘hate speech’ law reform by the Law Society, ‘witch hunt’ investigations, and excessive use of name-suppression are just a few examples of the need to reinvigorate a belief in free speech in this crucial profession.
     
    “The justice system is built on an adversarial system of debate, interrogation, and intellectual challenge. How can this be achieved without free speech? We’re seeing the erosion of free speech in numerous influential industries, but one of the most concerning places is within the legal profession.
     
    “Our new legal membership is the second professional membership launched by the Free Speech Union, following the academic membership that has already gained significant traction. Six more will follow before the end of the year to ensure strong defence for free speech exists in critical professions.
     
    “Justice requires truth. And the way we arrive at the closest approximation of the truth possible is by allowing competing narratives, perspectives, and beliefs to challenge each other.
     
    “The Legal Council for Free Speech will coordinate the Free Speech Union’s work on behalf of legal members, advocating for lawyers' speech rights and the important role lawyers play in defending all Kiwis’ freedoms.”
     
     
    ENDS
     
    Media contact - Jonathan Ayling, [email protected]
  • Launch of a coalition across the English-speaking world to defend free speech

    Posted by · July 13, 2024 10:44 AM · 2 reactions

    By Jonathan Ayling, New Zealand Free Speech Union, and Toby Young, UK Free Speech Union

    The enemies of free speech hunt in packs, so its defenders must band together, too. This belief has long been at the heart of our work as Free Speech Unions and is why we're launching the International Association of Free Speech Unions. This is a collaboration between the Free Speech Unions of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the UK, shortly to be joined by an FSU in Canada

    In the face of escalating cancel culture, a rapacious appetite for censorship, and the erosion of intellectual tolerance and academic freedom around the world -- but especially in the English-speaking world -- we’re committed to standing with those individuals facing down outrage mobs on social media or attempts by the state to censor them.

    Like so many other bullies (let’s be honest, that’s the best term for these would-be Torquemadas), they’re not used to being challenged. We’ve discovered that if you push back robustly, they often back down.

    This threat is far from unique to the English speaking world, but it's especially pronounced in the Anglosphere. What exactly is it about the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa that has made them so vulnerable to censoriousness and groupthink?

    It’s difficult to say exactly. But there are striking similarities and a common collection of 'sacred cows'. Travelling from Britain to New Zealand, you might expect the conversation about free speech, and the threats it faces, to be worlds apart. Yet, as if in some bizarre episode of Star Trek where the character travels across space and time only to arrive at the very place they started from, the core issues are nearly always the same.

    There are five ‘sacred cows’ that are common across the jurisdictions covered by the IAFSU. They are:

    * Race relations
    * Sex and gender
    * COVID-19
    * Climate Change
    * International conflicts, especially Israel/Palestine

    As relatively new countries with minority indigenous populations, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada have broadly similar conversations about race. For the US and UK, the question is inextricably bound up with their history of involvement in the trans Atlantic slave trade.

    This is different again for South Africa, where the black population is in the majority.

    Despite these varying contexts, a dogma has been established about this issue and challenging it is to risk being cancelled. Questions of indigeneity, reparations, sovereignty, and so-called institutional discrimination are unavoidable, yet too often there is only one acceptable position to take. The tendency towards suppressing conversation and undermining open debate on these questions means they will continue to fester and divide. We need to be free to address them openly, without fear of reprisals, if we're to reach a settled consensus and move past them as societies.

    The same goes for the other ‘sacred cows’.

    Take climate change, for instance. Peter Ridd, the Australian physicist who challenged the prevailing orthodoxy about the impact of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef, ended up being fired from James Cook University.

    The same ideological rigidity applies to discussions about sex and gender. In three of Australia’s six states – and one territory – conversion therapy bans have been imposed that have tipped the scales away from a ‘watchful waiting’ approach to treating gender-distressed adolescents and towards an ‘affirmative care approach’. After all, what parent wants to risk losing custody of their child following an accusation of trying to ‘convert’ them from one gender to another and falling foul of the ban? Politicians who’ve expressed concern about this, such as Moira Deeming, have been branded ‘Nazis’ in an attempt to push them out of public life.

    The plethora of ‘takedown’ notices issued by the e-Safety Commission in Australia has made open discussion of these issues on social media more difficult and we’re concerned that an anti-misinformation law, which the Albanese Government has said it wants to bring in, will have a further chilling effect on free speech. Let’s not forget that Joe Biden’s team in the Whitehouse dismissed claims that he was suffering from cognitive decline as ‘misinformation’. 

The same goes double for the hate speech law that Anthony Albanese has said it wants to pass – disappointingly, not opposed by Peter Dutton. The difficulty with trying to legislate against ‘hate’, is who defines it? Another Julia Inman Grant? Among the ‘hate speech’ the Government wants to criminalise is that relating to ‘transgender identity’, and could include ‘misgendering’ a trans person. Does Dutton really want feminists who believe in the biological reality of sex to be sent to jail?

    We need to defend free speech, not further erode it, and not just because without it we cannot raise the alarm when any of our other human rights come under threat. It is also one of the fundamental freedoms that characterise the most peaceful, prosperous, stable countries in the world, particularly the Anglosphere. Respecting the individual freedom, autonomy and dignity of every person is key to why our societies are so prosperous. Some people have attacked free speech in the name of protecting vulnerable, historically marginalised groups. But the rights of minorities are better protected in our countries than anywhere else on earth -- one reason so many beleaguered groups want to make their home in our countries.

    To refuse to countenance any ‘wrongthink’ on these critical issues is to condemn each of our countries to dogmatic, ideological, close-minded responses to some of the greatest challenges we face.

    Building on the work we're doing in each of our societies, the IAFSU will work to defend the right to free speech in the Anglosphere and beyond.

     

  • Free speech: The lifeblood of our democracy

    Posted by · July 13, 2024 10:44 AM · 1 reaction

    It's nice to be home after traveling to Sydney this week for a series of meetings. We met with the other leaders of Free Speech Unions from Australia, the United Kingdom, and South Africa and launched the International Association of Free Speech Unions (which will soon also be inviting Canada to our ranks).  

    I'm simultaneously dismayed at the erosion of free speech across the world while being so encouraged that there are other organisations putting in the hard yards like ours. 

    I really wonder where our country would be right now if it weren't for the work you enable us to do! 

    While we might be keeping the bullies at bay, other countries are in dire need of help to protect their civil liberties. This is why I am proud to be part of the launch of the International Association of Free Speech Unions. 

    The launch of the International Association of Free Speech Unions

    We want to make it easier for Free Speech Unions in other countries to launch and we want to support them in the process. So, along with our sister organisations, we've set out to do just that. 

    (Left to right: Dara Macdonald (Australia), Toby Young (United Kingdom), Sara Gon (South Africa), Dr. Roderick Mulgan (New Zealand).

    Jonathan and FSU UK's founder, Toby Young, sum it up in their article that has been published in The Australian today (it's pay-walled, so we copy some of it below):

    "The enemies of free speech hunt in packs, so its defenders must band together, too.

    In the face of escalating cancel culture, a rapacious appetite for censorship, and the erosion of intellectual tolerance and academic freedom around the world – but especially in the English-speaking world – we’re committed to standing with those individuals facing down outrage mobs on social media or attempts by the state to censor them.

    Like so many other bullies (let’s be honest, that’s the best term for these would-be Torquemadas), they’re not used to being challenged. We’ve discovered that if you push back robustly, they often back down.

    ________

    We need to defend free speech, not further erode it, and not just because without it we cannot raise the alarm when any of our other human rights come under threat.

    It is also one of the fundamental freedoms that characterise the most peaceful, prosperous, stable countries in the world, particularly the Anglosphere.

    Respecting the individual freedom, autonomy and dignity of every person is key to why our societies are so prosperous. Some people have attacked free speech in the name of protecting vulnerable, historically marginalised groups. But the rights of minorities are better protected in our countries than anywhere else on earth -- one reason so many beleaguered groups want to make their home in our countries.

    To refuse to countenance any ‘wrongthink’ on these critical issues is to condemn each of our countries to dogmatic, ideological, close-minded responses to some of the greatest challenges we face.

    Building on the work we're doing in each of our societies, the IAFSU will work to defend the right to free speech in the Anglosphere and beyond."

    Read more here.


    A new gold standard: University of Otago's new free speech policy

    Closer to home, we're celebrating a great result for free speech in Dunedin! Our team is in awe of the University of Otago's new policy on free speech. When I read the statement, I would have believed it was by the Free Speech Union! 😄 

    It opens with: "Free speech is the lifeblood of a university."
    We couldn't agree more. 

    There are so many excellent parts, but I especially applaud that it acknowledges that some ideas shouldn't be off limits simply because some deem them unwise or offensive, and that the university is not a place to be kept ‘safe’ from ideas.  

    "The University is not a place for safety from ideas – it is a place to engage in critical thought and debate in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding."

    It specifies that students won't be prepared for the world unless they experience confronting opinions with which they disagree, and it emphasises that universities should be places where ideas are free from political interference or suppression. 

    "Only through a preparedness to challenge, question, and criticise ideas can progress in understanding take place."

    It's simply refreshing, isn't it? This policy is a stark contrast to the University of Auckland's recently drafted policy on free speech and the attitudes we've seen coming from Victoria University and Massey. 

    Otago has set a new gold standard for universities across the country. But the proof will be in the pudding; we'll make sure these aren't just words, but it's put into action, too. 


    Mātauranga Māori in the spotlight again

    You'll remember the incredible reaction that occurred in 2021 when 7 prominent academics wrote a letter in The Listener disputing whether mātauranga māori was science. Thousands signed a counter-letter, the academics feared for their jobs, and two who were fellows of the Royal Academy were threatened with expulsion. 

    Yesterday, a number of the same academics including Prof. Kendall Clements, Prof. Garth Cooper, Prof. Douglas Elliffe, and Prof. Elizabeth Rata wrote another article in Science (the publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science). They claimed: 

    We believe that harm arises when nonscience is presented as science, and we remain unconvinced that the intent of the mana ōrite initiative is to present Indigenous knowledge and culture as science or to compete with scientific concepts in science classes.

    By contrast, those who advocate vitalism, and more recently creationism, aim to replace science altogether. Indigenous knowledge provides important insight into our world, just as science does. We agree... that these concepts should not be introduced just as occasional curated examples in science and other classes, but rather as a subject taught authentically by Māori.

    Frankly, it's above my pay grade to decide how we treat complex questions like competing 'ways of knowing'. What I do know is that no one should fear for their job or have a career's-worth of achievements undone simply because they disagree with others on the answer. 

    The Listener 7 have become infamous for the way they were treated in response to basic claims. We will follow with interest how this article is received. You can read the full article from Science here.


    Democracy matters: more work against censorial councils

    It's one thing to be told there's a problem with local democracy, and it's another thing to see it in action. Our team wrote to another two councils this week following concerns that they're stifling speech.  

    1. Hamilton Mayor Paula Southgate recently called on Simeon Brown, the Minister for Local Government, to set up an ‘independent arbiter’ to enforce Codes of Conduct against councillors.

    But as we pointed out to her, we already see Codes of Conduct weaponised enough. A disciplinary body tasked with investigating complaints would lead to further silencing of perspectives held by elected officials, not to mention more self censorship. 

    I imagine just the notion of this will cause councillors to self censor further. No one wants to be the subject of a complaint, so it's easier just to keep quiet, right? But that's why we can't sit by. We are all worse off when censorship is at play. 

    2. Wellington City Councillors are discussing guidelines for managing council venue bookings after Nīkau Wi Neera wanted the Inflection Point conference cancelled earlier this year.


    But we've told them that refusing or cancelling event bookings because they may include speech that some consider to be “exclusionary”, “nasty” or not “responsible” will not be legally justifiable.

    Who do they think they are determining what their community can and can't say, and can and can't hear? 

    We are happy to advise the Council they don't need to spend time and trouble on writing guidelines. Thanks to us, the High Court has already said that councils are obliged to make meeting facilities available to everyone regardless of their opinion. That is the law. No further analysis required!

    If the Council continues with this approach, it could very well find itself in court spending ratepayers' money trying to defend a subjective decision to silence voices they disagree with. 

    So, that brings us to a total of five councils we've communicated with in the past month along with Matamata-Piako District Council, New Plymouth District Council and Marlborough District Council. And we're staying eagle-eyed for any others that dare encroach on the public's speech rights. 

    It made my day yesterday when in response to our letter to Wellington City Council, one of the councillors said why don't we just adopt the Otago University Statement on free speech and make it relevant to our council decisions?

    'Free speech is the lifeblood of our local council' - I like the sound of that!  


    In a global context, it's easy to see New Zealand as just a tiny piece of the puzzle. But threats against free speech overseas blow over here; and likewise, I truly believe, with your help, we are making waves beyond these shores. 

    Enjoy your Saturday. 

     Roderick  


    Dr. Roderick Mulgan
    Council Chair

    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    P.S. Our team is lean, but the reason we can punch above our weight is because of the tens of thousands of Kiwis standing with us. By joining the Free Speech Union, you are partnering with an organisation that is leading the fight for a truly tolerant, inclusive New Zealand.  Join our ranks now.

  • University of Otago Statement on Free Speech

    Posted by · July 11, 2024 10:46 AM · 1 reaction

  • Wellington City Councillors seek venue guidelines but not to uphold free speech

    Posted by · July 10, 2024 4:22 PM · 1 reaction

  • Free Speech Union joins sister organisations in launching International Association of Free Speech Unions

    Posted by · July 10, 2024 12:08 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    10 July 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Free Speech Union joins sister organisations in launching International Association of Free Speech Unions

    The Free Speech Union is pleased to be a founding member of the International Association of Free Speech Unions (IAFSU), launched yesterday in Sydney alongside sister organisations, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union (New Zealand).

    “The enemies of free speech hunt in packs; the champions of free speech need to band together too.

    “Alongside our sister organisations in the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa, (and shortly Canada), as the FSU NZ, we’re pleased to help lead the fight against the international erosion of speech rights.  

    “The Free Speech Union was first founded in the United Kingdom in 2020, with the Free Speech Union New Zealand setting up the following year. These two organisations are now the largest national advocates for free speech in their countries. We’re also joined by more recently established Unions in South Africa and Australia. A Canadian Free Speech Union will be launched in coming months.

    “The English-speaking West has led the world in championing the idea that all individuals must be free to speak. This idea has contributed to peaceful, stable, and prosperous countries. Yet this freedom is under threat by both domestic and international opponents. The International Association of Free Speech Unions (IAFSU) will support the work of established FSUs, and enable others to be founded.

    “While remaining as independent organisations, the cooperation of Free Speech Unions through the IAFSU will ensure we are each able to champion everyone’s right to speak freely domestically and respond to threats that emerge internationally.

    “Our would-be-censors are on notice; anti-free speech bullies have a fight on their hands.”

    ENDS

    Media contact - Jonathan Ayling 021 842 215, [email protected]

  • Mayor calls for Government to set up ‘independent arbiter’ to enforce Codes of Conduct against councillors

    Posted by · July 10, 2024 9:42 AM · 2 reactions

  • “Free speech is the lifeblood of a university”: Free Speech Union applauds University of Otago’s new gold standard of free speech statements

    Posted by · July 09, 2024 10:29 PM · 1 reaction

    A hand holding a phone

Description automatically generated 
    MEDIA RELEASE 
      
    09 July 2024 
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  
      
    “Free speech is the lifeblood of a university”: Free Speech Union applauds University of Otago’s new gold standard of free speech statements 
     
    The Free Speech Union strongly welcomes the University of Otago’s impressive statement on free speech released today, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.  
     
    “University of Otago’s statement on free speech is the best we’ve seen in the country. It is the new gold standard for policies of this kind and should set the tone for other New Zealand universities.   
    “The University articulates the crucial importance of free speech for the function of the university, and of tolerance and diversity of opinion.
     
    “A key point is the acknowledgment that some ideas aren’t off limits simply because some deem them unwise or offensive. We commend their stance that the university is not a place to be kept ‘safe’ from ideas.  
     
    “We welcome this policy and congratulate the university on its dedication to this freedom.” 
    ENDS
  • Re: Alleged breach of Bill of Rights Act by Citizens Advice Bureau

    Posted by · July 08, 2024 12:04 PM · 1 reaction

  • Yet another nurse under threat because of a Facebook comment

    Posted by · July 05, 2024 11:36 PM · 2 reactions

    If each of the affronts to free speech that we fight were seen in isolation, they might not seem like a big deal. But, together, they add up to a much bigger problem.  

    Each time we write to you, there are simply more examples of the erosion of free speech in New Zealand. But I think this first one will really get under your skin!

    Nursing Council try to police private speech 👩‍⚕️

    Sharvarn is a young mum based in Palmerston North. She contacted us after receiving an outrageous email from the Nursing Council.

    Shar, as she prefers to go by, is a trained nurse and a member of a Palmerston North mums' Facebook group. She recently saw a post from someone who was being pressured into having an abortion. This young woman wanted to keep the baby, her boyfriend didn't, and she was asking for advice on what to do. 

    Shar is pro-life, and commented saying that she thinks the young woman should continue the pregnancy. 

    You may or may not agree with Shar's view or position. But that's beside the point. She was asked her view. She absolutely has the right to say it, regardless of what she trained as. 

    Well, next thing she knew, another member of the Facebook group had looked at Shar's Facebook page, saw she was a nurse, and lodged a complaint with the Nursing Council, saying she should have been more impartial!

    Ideally, the Nursing Council would respond simply by saying, 'That's none of our business!'. But, no. They have invited Sharvarn to respond to the information they received before they determine whether further investigation is required. 🤦‍♀️

    Shar hasn't worked as a nurse for four years, so she's not even currently registered. The Nursing Council knows this. What right could they possibly think they have sticking their nose into what someone has commented on a Facebook group?

    Even if Shar was currently registered and working as a nurse, she was commenting in her private capacity. Nurses don't give up their human rights when they graduate from university. 

    Hannah, our Senior Legal Counsel, contacted the Nursing Council of New Zealand this week to remind them that it is not their responsibility to police the speech of Kiwis participating in discussions. If the Nursing Council fails to uphold the Bill of Rights Act, we won't hesitate to take action.

    When our Chief Executive spoke with Shar, she said how worried she was that her comment may make it hard to re-register as a nurse again in the future. She was so grateful to know what her rights are, and to have someone in her corner.  

    Local democracy under threat, again and again

    In the past month we've been notified of four councils failing to uphold free speech. 

    Just after the win with Marlborough District Council, we were told about a similar situation in New Plymouth. 

    The New Zealand Women’s Rights Party made a booking at a Citizens Advice Bureau venue owned by the New Plymouth District Council. They were hosting Sal Grover, the gender-critical Australian business woman who is at the heart of an important court case in Australia over whether a women's only app can exclude transgender women. 

    The booking was cancelled on the basis there had been public complaints (a sum total of two, as far as we can tell) that the event was misrepresented as being endorsed by the Citizens Advice Bureau. 

    They claimed this, but the only mention of them was in the location on the Facebook event so that attendees knew where to go!

    We believe this is just another example of an outfit that is publicly funded determining what the public does and doesn't get to hear. 

    If members of the public disagree with the event, they know what to do: don't attend! Or they can go and peacefully protest. But no public event should be cancelled on the basis that it is unpopular to some. (Read more about this in my recent piece here.)

    Ironically, this is on the homepage of Citizen Advice Bureau's website: 🤔

    We've also reviewed Matamata-Piako District Council’s implementation of its new DEI statement that requires staff to learn about pronoun use in the workplace.

    The common irony with DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) statements is that they often achieve the exact opposite. They are prescriptive and exclude people with particular views. And compelling the use of preferred pronouns is a freedom of speech and freedom of conscience issue. 

    Your speech rights apply just as much to what you do say as to what you don't have to say. 

    We've asked the Council to confirm that staff will not be required to use another person’s preferred pronoun and that their focus on diversity and inclusion will, in fact, allow for a diversity of views.  

    Recently, we told you about results to a survey we conducted across local councils nationwide. Over 50% of councillors claimed Codes of Conduct are weaponised, and on a scale of 1 - 10, they ranked their ability to challenge council staff at a paltry 4.3.  

    This all makes me really consider the effect this has on our nation. For our democracy to flourish, deliberation and debate have to be encouraged, not extinguished.

    Cancellations and censorship end up affecting us all. 

    COVID-19 inquiry expanded thanks to FSU supporters

    Earlier this year we facilitated thousands of submissions urging the Royal Commission to expand their inquiry into the Government's response to COVID-19.

    Over 4,000 submissions pushed for the inquiry to examine how the response affected social cohesion and, therefore, our speech rights. Well, it paid off.

    The Government recently announced that the inquiry will be expanded. This is a reminder that when we use our voices collectively, action can happen. 

    Positive amendments to Gang Insignia Bill made

    You may remember us talking about our opposition to the Government's plans to ban gang patches.

    You didn't have to support gangs to see that the proposed legislation would have set a dangerous precedent as it was vague and left room for subjective interpretation.

    It was a slippery slope that eventually could have opened up to other slogans and icons. 

    Well, yesterday, the Justice Committee released several amendments that begin to address our concerns. 

    In our submission on the legislation, we raised numerous concerns, including that the definition of insignia being vague and excessively broad, the definition of ‘gang’ being ambiguous and vulnerable to abuse, and the absence of intent on the part of the insignia's wearer needed to be considered. 

    The Select Committee has addressed these three concerns, by:

    • Amending the definition of ‘gang insignia’; ✅
    • Restricting the threshold for ‘gang’ activity to ‘serious criminal activity (convictions of category 3 offences or higher); ✅
    • Requiring a mental element of individuals knowingly displaying gang insignia in public. ✅

    While the Select Committee has made significant improvements to the original proposed legislation, we still stand by the fact the Government needs to focus on the activity of gangs, not their wardrobe. Banning patches is a sticking plaster that has implications on us all.  

    Our recent tour with Toby Young 

    Hundreds came out around the country to hear from Toby Young, the Director of the Free Speech Union UK. He has a chance to speak to a range of media too- check them out: 

    Jesse Mulligan on RNZ; Sean Plunket on The Platform; Andrew Urquhart on Rhema; Simon O'Connor on Speak Free; Chris Lynch from Christchurch's Newsroom; Dr Michael Johnston and Dr James Kierstead on the New Zealand Initiative podcast; Michael Goldwater on the Shape of Dialogue podcast; Damien Grant on the Different Matters podcast; and read Damien's piece on Stuff too! 


    I continue to consider, if it weren't for your support of the Free Speech Union, all of those 'one-off' threats, cancellations and censorial attitudes would add up to seriously affect our freedoms. 

    But because of you and the work you enable us to do, we're able to stand up for all Kiwis' right to have a say; and we're not slowing down. 

    Through your financial support, and by joining your voice with ours (like signing our public letter on academic freedom, which thousands have already done this week), together we are having an impact.

    Believe me, our opponents are noticing!

    Thanks for making a difference.

    Nadia Braddon-Parsons
    Communications & Marketing Manager
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    P.S. You may have seen, yesterday was the last day Newshub broadcasted, after its owners announced it would be shutting down.

    Jonathan sat down with Dr. Gavin Ellis, the former-editor of the The Herald and media academic, to discuss the importance of the 4th Estate and the future of media. Listen to the podcast now. 

  • Amendments to Gang Insignia Bill step in right direction, but flaws remain

    Posted by · July 05, 2024 1:49 PM · 1 reaction


    MEDIA RELEASE

    05 July 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Amendments to Gang Insignia Bill step in right direction, but flaws remain

    The Free Speech Union welcomes proposed amendments to the Gang Insignia Bill by the Justice Select Committee, which go some way to addressing the weaknesses of this draft legislation, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “In our submission, we raised numerous concerns, including:

    • The definition of insignia being vague and excessively broad;
    • The definition of ‘gang’ being ambiguous and vulnerable to abuse;
    • The absence of intent on the part of the insignia's wearer.

    “The Select Committee has addressed these three concerns, by:

    • Amending the definition of ‘gang insignia’;
    • Restricting the threshold for ‘gang’ activity to ‘serious criminal activity (convictions of category 3 offences or higher);
    • Requiring a mental element of individuals knowingly displaying gang insignia in public.

    “While the Select Committee has improved the draft legislation, we maintain that individuals should be criminalised for their activity, not their wardrobe. This Bill appeals more to emotion than evidence.

    “The Attorney-General has noted this legislation breaches the Bill of Rights Act. Playing politics with fundamental rights is a risky game in which, eventually, we all lose. Where any individual commits illegal activities, they must face the consequences. But criminalising expression is a slippery slope.”

    ENDS

    Note to editor: Find our submission on the Gang Legislation Amendment Bill here.

  • Thousands sign public letter in 24 hours, calling on Government to restore academic freedom

    Posted by · July 05, 2024 9:34 AM · 1 reaction


    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    06 July 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Thousands sign public letter in 24 hours, calling on Government to restore academic freedom

    In just 24 hours, thousands have signed a public letter calling on Government Ministers to take action to address the erosion of academic freedom in our universities, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “It’s clear to Kiwis that academic freedom in New Zealand is under threat. In recent years, both in New Zealand and abroad, we’ve seen the consistent pattern of universities stifling opinions, and individuals feeling unable to speak freely.

    “This is antithetical to the function of the university. Universities should be places where knowledge is tested and ideas advance.

    “It’s time for the Government to step in. Defending academic freedom and free speech means that the Government must enforce ‘the rules of the game’; not participate in the contest of ideas itself, but ensure that no one is excluded simply by virtue of the belief they hold.

    “In the United Kingdom, Canada, and elsewhere, the Government has intervened to ensure that academics, not universities, have their right to academic freedom protected, and as such are able to perform their role of ‘critic and conscience of society.’

    “We are pleased to support these thousands of Kiwis as they call on the Government to take action to enable a new generation of students and scholars that is free to challenge the universally accepted, consider the unthinkable, and develop new knowledge for the benefit of all Kiwis.”

    ENDS

    Note to editor: See the public letter here.

  • Local democracy under threat: Councillors’ free speech in question

    Posted by · July 04, 2024 5:05 PM · 1 reaction


    MEDIA RELEASE

    04 July 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Local democracy under threat: Councillors’ free speech in question

    The results of a recent Free Speech Union survey of councillors nationwide reveal a sorry story for free speech in local councils. On a scale from 1-10, respondents reported feeling free to counter or challenge council staff publicly, on average, a paltry 4.3. This is an alarm bell for the state of our democracy, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.   

    “The Free Speech Union continues to be aware of councils with censorial attitudes. Just within the past month we’ve been notified of four councils failing to uphold free speech. This is an issue we have followed for several years.

    “Unelected council staff are supposed to answer to elected representatives, not the other way around. Councillors are the ones elected by ratepayers; council staff aren’t.

    “Additionally, when asked if Codes of Conduct are being weaponised to silence local councillors, over 50% of the 85 respondents said that this happens occasionally, frequently, or constantly. Only 20% said this never happens.

    “Codes of conduct are notorious for silencing certain perspectives. Not only do they lead to self-censorship, but they’re also manipulated and twisted to shut down some speech on the basis that some deem it impermissible.  

    “If councillors are forced to self-censor and feel unable to challenge their staff, what effect does this then have on our nation? For our local democracies to flourish, measures need to be taken to encourage deliberation and debate, not distinguish it."

    ENDS

    Note to editor: See our survey results that continue to be collected here.

  • Matamata-Piako District Council’s new Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Strategy

    Posted by · July 04, 2024 3:16 PM · 1 reaction

  • University Councils must protect academic freedom at Kiwi universities

    Posted by · July 03, 2024 4:27 PM · 1 reaction

    Sent to all eight universities across the country.

    Read more

  • Councillors kept in the dark and forced to self-censor by its own staff

    Posted by · July 03, 2024 9:52 AM · 1 reaction

  • This OIA response reveals the true state of free speech in universities

    Posted by · July 02, 2024 5:20 PM · 2 reactions

    This is a long letter, but an important one.

    The key point is to unpack new revelations that expose the depth of bigotry and opposition to free speech in our universities. I am writing to ask you to sign our public letter to senior Ministers calling on them to bring universities to heel, and stop their illiberal activism. 

    _________________________________

    A famous propagandist once said 'Accuse your enemies of that which you are guilty'. That is exactly what our would-be-censors do today. 

    And there is a curious (and deeply troubling) number of censors at our universities: Here are three skirmishes we're currently leading at three universities. 

    1. Victoria University: Bigotry leads the way to silence speech

    Remember the 'free speech panel discussion' that was supposed to be held in April but was postponed until May due to 'difficulty with scheduling'? We can now piece together what really happened – and it's made me more worried for our universities than ever before. 

    I have just finished working through an almost 600-page OIA request that was released to me by Victoria University; all material on the decision to postpone the Victoria University panel on free speech, much of it decrying me as a 'racist' 'far-right zealot'.

    I like to believe the best in people. I often assume differences with our opponents are questions of emphasis and miscommunication, that they're really working in good faith. 

    Unfortunately, that's clearly not the case here. 

    As publicised, when the University announced that I would sit on the panel (alongside Dr. Michael Johnston, a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative and FSU member), staff and students at the university 'freaked out'. 

    Early on, opponents claimed that "you have two free speech absolutists but no advocates for hate speech laws. Mr. Ayling in particular is a far right-wing zealot."

    While this may disappoint some of you, I'm not a free speech "absolutist"

    The OIA showed an invitation was sent to a Māori academic to also sit on the panel. They replied:

    "Thanks for this invitation. However, there is no way I would ever agree to be part of a panel that includes Michael Johnston and Jonathan Ayling. Both of them are racist and do not engage in good faith discussion.

    I consider this panel discussion to be a terrible idea which will result in real harm to Māori staff and students. By inviting Johnston and Ayling to be part of this panel, the VC has virtually ensured that no Maori will participate.

    It sends a clear message that pandering to those who support hate speech is more important to the VC than including Māori voices."

    There's incredible and perverse irony in this statement. Did you pick up on it?

    In the last sentence, the academic is insisting this is simply a zero-sum game: the VC is not including Māori voices, because he is including me...! 🤔 

    Also, there were Māori voices willing to sit alongside me: David Seymour, for one! We hadn't realised until I reviewed this material, but he was invited to participate in the debate, and had accepted. In the end, he simply couldn't make it because of a clash with Cabinet meeting. 

    But it shows there were Māori willing to participate in the discussion - just not the 'right' kind of Māori, clearly. It is still unclear how this amounted to "real harm to Māori."

    The VC himself then began to look for options to exclude me from the panel, even inviting academics to send him reasons to kick me off! He said: 

    "We have been working hard to include Māori representation... any examples you can send me of racism from Michael Johnston and Jonathan Ayling would be valuable so there are increased opportunities to hold them to account." 

    You will note that no one was able to send him anything... because these are lies to discredit us, not by challenging our ideas, but by sheer ad hominem attacks. 

    The VC goes on to illustrate the very reason why we had concerns about Victoria University's Draft Guiding Principles for Critic and Conscience Public Discourse Conversations. He said the following clause "disqualifies Ayling". It reads: 

    As we've said before, while everyone should work to promote good-faith debate, empowering one side to decide when the other side is being 'hateful' is not a solution. You can see this clause was simply going to be used to deal with a nuisance (yours truly).

    I had hoped that they were actually standing on principle by keeping me as a participant. But, unfortunately, it's very clear that they would have gotten rid of me quick-smart from the panel if they thought they could get away with it.

    Why? Because they knew that for whatever headache they had with academics clutching at their pearls over a 'free speech advocate' speaking in their midst, it would be nothing in comparison to the response they would provoke from us - and you - if they really showed their cards, and kicked me out.

    Ultimately, it seems that it was the Māori Studies School that had the panel on free speech replaced with what ended up being a lecture on identity politics.

    As below, the school signed a letter to the VC claiming that Dr Johnston and I "hold fixed racist views on 'freedom of speech'. This is unlikely to enable a compassionate conversation and will unlock and embolden previously quest racist or bigoted views." 

    Again, what are the "fixed racist views on 'freedom of speech'" that I hold?

    Is it simply that I believe all Kiwis should be free to express their views, even if those views are racist because it is far better to know who the bigoted are in our community than it is to suppress them? 

    As a result of this OIA, we now know who some more of the bigots in our universities are. 

    There were two items of correspondence to the VC that amused me. One academic claimed, while arguing I should be removed, that:

    "There's literature on how normalising alt-right perspectives within reasoned debate spaces is counterproductive and just expands their base... Essentially the right presents a very simplistic free-speech line which is hard to reason against... it's always a losing battle in a debate space."

    Essentially, 'when we put forward our reasoning and theirs, they win, but we know we're right'...!!!

    The other was a letter to the VC following this issue receiving coverage on several radio stations, with a talk-back caller putting in their perspective. The individual was very supportive of the VC, but annoyed that: 

    "Ayling said the Union does not support specific positions (the Union came from all persuasions); it only supports the right for them to be expressed. His interview was followed by the talk back host and regular guests on her programme applauding his stand and criticising the university. In short, the university suffered a PR blow and I felt embarrassed."

    That sums this all up. We face some major opponents and opposition in our universities, but everyday Kiwis (who pay these academics' salaries) see through their nonsense. 

    Let's go right back to the beginning. This whole issue started when I responded in an op-ed in The Post to the VC of Victoria when he complained about the Government's plan to require universities to respect free speech, or face funding cuts.

    No one could have made a better case for that than the very academics who are so enraged by the policy.

    This has been an ultimate own goal by the university.

    When all's said and done, if you're outraged as we were by the duplicitous and censorial conduct of the university, join us in signing our public letter now. 

    2. Massey University's censorial discussion paper

    Victoria University isn't the only one with a free speech problem.

    Massey University recently released its Curriculum Transformation Discussion Paper created with the goal of achieving "a clear, cohesive and shared approach to Massey’s curriculum design".

    We've had a read and have two main concerns which we've sent to Jan Thomas, the Vice Chancellor.

    Rather than entrusting academics to set the content, assessment, and delivery for their papers, decisions would rest with a qualification committee. 

    We believe this does not line up with Section 267 of the Education and Training Act 2020 that states that academic freedom, in relation to an institution means 'the freedom of the institution and its staff to regulate the subject matter of courses taught at the institution' and 'the freedom of the institution and its staff to teach and assess students in the manner that they consider best promotes learning'. 

    Interestingly, recently this piece was also published on Massey's website, written, by Professor Giselle Byrnes who put the discussion policy together.

    "The role of the university itself in this is clear. It is to facilitate a safe environment for staff and students to express their academic freedom; it is not for the institution to make a specific statement or adopt a singular position on any particular issue."

    It appears she understands, after all, that it's up to academics (not 'the university' or a committee) to take particular stances. So why take power out of the academics' hands?

    Remember, the Discussion Paper reflects the University’s positions on The Treaty of Waitangi and de/colonisation. But, seeing as there is no consensus on the meaning of the Treaty, how its principles should be interpreted, or the 'correct' approach to ‘decolonisation’, these are simply ideological hoops that academics must jump through. 

    3. University of Auckland's policy: Free speech when it suits them

    Speaking of ideological hoops, we recently told you about our concerns over the University of Auckland's drafted free speech policy has similar restrictions. Here's the feedback we submitted to them. I want to share our submission with you. 

    The points are ones that we've mentioned before and you can read them in full here. But the thing I want to draw your attention to the authoritarian nature of it. "Free speech, but...". 

    It's not a 'free speech' policy when it gives the veto power to 'the University' and its 'policies'; free speech is allowing everyone to have their say, no matter their perspective. 

    As our Education Partnership Manager, Nick Hanne recently said, "...the draft policy describes the University as being the “critic” and “conscience” of society, but instead, it should be academics with this role. Universities should strive for institutional neutrality where diversity of thought can occur within its community allowing academics to take their own stance on issues." Read more from Nick here


    These are three of our key universities in New Zealand  displaying an abysmal attitude towards free speech.

    You'll know we had Toby Young, founder and director of the FSU UK, here with us over the past couple of weeks. What he said in an interview sums it up:

    "Without academic freedom, we're not going to advance the frontiers of knowledge. If people are inhibited about publicising findings that they believe to be scientifically true because they're worried they might get into trouble for doing so, then that's going to retard the evolution and development of knowledge."

    Academic freedom is well worth the fight. 

    But who'll call universities out if we don't? We're in a situation that's, unfortunately, beyond a few letters to Vice-Chancellors. We believe it's time the Government stepped in - not to participate in the contest of ideas itself, but to ensure that no one is excluded simply because of the beliefs they hold. 

    Call on our Ministers to take action and restore academic freedom in New Zealand.

    It's only by your backing that we can keep up this fight, and we can't see it going away any time soon. But if it weren't for the work you're enabling us to do right now, I hate to think where we'd be.  

    Jonathan


    Jonathan Ayling
    Chief Executive
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    PS. Join us in calling on the Government to step in and rescue academic freedom before it's too late. 

  • Nursing Council policing private social media engagement

    Posted by · July 02, 2024 12:16 PM · 2 reactions

  • Academic Freedom at Massey University looks bleak following proposed curriculum changes

    Posted by · July 02, 2024 9:38 AM · 1 reaction

  • University of Auckland’s free speech policy more likely to stifle conversation: Free Speech Union submits feedback

    Posted by · June 27, 2024 3:25 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    26 June 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    University of Auckland’s free speech policy more likely to stifle conversation: Free Speech Union submits feedback

    University of Auckland’s drafted Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom Policy needs fundamental changes if it’s going to achieve the desired goals, says Paul Moon, Co-Chairperson of the Inter-University Council on Academic Freedom (IUCAF), a sub-committee of the Free Speech Union.

    “Rather than strive to uphold free speech as the title suggests, the policy is more likely to silence unpopular or dissenting views. Not only is this policy ambiguous, but some clauses contradict other policies.

    “There is too much room for subjective judgment that will leave substantive decisions to a select group within the University, rather than individual academics. We have written a submission to the university highlighting six areas that need revision if it’s going to foster a culture of free speech rather than stifle it.

    “These areas are:

    1. The need to reflect sections 267(2) and (4) of the Education and Training Act 2020 that require universities to maintain academic freedom.
    2. The need to address that there are varying perspectives on the Treaty of Waitangi, so the University should not use this as a basis to build its free speech policy.
    3. Clarification needs to be given on how the University’s Code of Conduct interacts with the policy to ensure neither limit freedom of expression as set out in the Bill of Rights.
    4. Academic freedom should continue to be tested by peer review and feedback, not by what a university committee deems ‘scholarly’ or not.
    5. The policy should require institutional neutrality so that academics within the university can hold particular views, rather than the university as an institution.
    6. The policy also needs to specify on what grounds an event or venue booking can be refused or cancelled by the University, ensuring that freedom of speech is not unjustly limited.

    “We applaud the University of Auckland for working to uphold academic freedom and free speech at the University. However, far more work needs to be done if their policy will fulfill that.”

    ENDS

    Note to editor: See our submission here. Read our original media release on the issue here.

  • Councils answer to the people

    Posted by · June 26, 2024 4:49 PM · 1 reaction

    By Nadia Braddon-Parsons

    It’s a bit ironic when a ratepayer is denied use of a public venue, a publicly funded venue. But we’ve seen it happen over and over again. Whether it’s protestors using the ‘thugs veto’, or staff who’ve decided they made a mistake when accepting a booking, bureaucrats and council staff fall into the trap (knowingly or not) of thinking they can assert themselves over others.
    Yes, it can be hard to see views you deeply disagree with platformed. And it can be hard to have people disapprove of your decisions. But when you suppress someone else’s speech, you have another problem on your hands, especially in a publicly funded venue.

    We’ve seen a pattern of council staff across the country picking and choosing who they allow to speak at publicly funded venues. Recently, it was Marlborough District Libraries not allowing Let Kids Be Kids to book a meeting room on the basis that they didn’t fit, ironically, with their so-called ‘inclusive’ values. (More on this soon.) And, just this week it was Citizens Advice Bureau cancelling The New Zealand Women’s Right Party’s booking at a New Plymouth District Council venue due to public complaints.
    But these aren’t new scenarios for us.

    A couple of years back, Palmerston North City Council told Speak Up For Women that instead of the event they intended to hold, a debate needed to be had so all sides got their say. This isn't a requirement for holding an event at a publicly funded venue, by the way. We took them to court, and won. And we’ve been able to draw on this ever since when councils have pulled similar moves. (So, Citizens Advice Bureau, you’ve been warned.)

    Last year, Taupo District Council cancelled Julian Batchelor’s event ‘Stop co-governance’ over spurious ‘health and safety’ claims, Tauranga City Council cancelled a screening of ‘What is a Women’ (we never did find out on what grounds), and this year, Wellington City Council threatened to cancel the Inflection Point conference on the basis that it didn’t fit with the city’s ‘inclusive’ policies.

    You might notice there is a theme to some of the perspectives being cancelled. We’re often accused of being one-sided because of this, but these are the opportunities handed to us. Yet, when we defended the right for Rainbow Storytime events to commence around the country, we got backlash as well. As we always say when people get upset over whose voices we defend, ‘Wait until the shoe is on the other foot’.
    Defending free speech would mean nothing if it was only for a select set of views.

    You can’t silence someone else and not expect it to come back on you eventually. Free speech is consistent, and we must strive to keep it that way, or it doesn’t work.

    Too often, councils find excuses for cancelling views they don’t like, or they bow to pressure to cancel views that others don’t like. (See how it’s a slippery slope?)

    But back on Marlborough District Council – they came through. We threatened legal action, but didn’t have to take it. Not only did the council agree to write a public apology to Let Kids Be Kids and say yes to us holding a training session for their staff on upholding ratepayers’ rights, they’ve also agreed to amend their unlawful, discriminatory policy. Watch this space.

    They saw our past legal wins and knew they didn’t stand a chance.

    Now, we await a response from Citizens Advice Bureau. We’ve warned them that if they don’t honour their commitment to The New Zealand Women’s Rights Party’s booking, we will consider legal action.
    We’ve contributed significantly to this area in case law already, but clearly there is still work to be done.

    Our current law gives too much room in the first place for manipulation and making exaggerated claims in order to suppress certain views. We need to get the word out that council staff, like librarians and publicly funded venue managers, are not the thought or speech police. They do not, and should not, have the authority to pick and choose who’s platformed. This is not a fight we should keep coming up against.

    That’s why we drafted the Protection of the Freedom of Expression Bill, along with former district court judge Dr. David Harvey, to ensure all Kiwis have access to publicly funded venues without spurious ‘health and safety’ claims being weaponised to silence them. We’re proud that our drafted legislation was recently picked up by New Zealand First as a Member’s Bill, and we’re convinced more than ever, that the Bill is the right next step to see free speech upheld in our publicly funded venues.

    If it weren’t for the Free Speech Union, cancellations and refused bookings would be swept under the rug. But councils are on notice. We won’t back down.

  • Citizens Advice Bureau breaches Bill of Rights by discriminating in booking cancellation

    Posted by · June 26, 2024 2:03 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE
     
    26 June 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    Citizens Advice Bureau breaches Bill of Rights by discriminating in booking cancellation
     
    Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) cancelled a meeting room booking made by The New Zealand Women’s Rights Party following public complaints. This action is yet another example of a publicly funded outfit unlawfully discriminating based on ideological views, and is unacceptable, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.
     
    “CAB claim the booking cancellation occurred because the Party misrepresented the event as endorsed by CAB. But the New Zealand Women’s Rights Party only referred to CAB in a Facebook event when listing the location for where the meeting was to take place next month.
     
    “We’ve seen many similar situations in the past and suspect it’s more likely that the council and public don’t like the views of the Women’s Rights Party. But it’s not up to them to determine what can and can’t be platformed at the venue.
     
    “The venue is owned by the New Plymouth District Council, so is obliged to uphold freedom of expression under the Bill of Rights. The case law is clear. If CAB does not honour its commitment and proceed with the original booking, we will consider legal action.
     
    “Too many councils and publicly funded outfits believe it’s their job to determine what are acceptable views. But publicly funded venues must be accessible to all. It's the public that gets to decide whether or not they attend."
     
    ENDS
    Note to editor: See the letter we sent to Citizens Advice Bureau here.
  • Alleged breach of Bill of Rights Act by Citizens Advice Bureau

    Posted by · June 26, 2024 1:41 PM · 1 reaction

  • Inter-University Council on Academic Freedom Submission on University of Auckland Draft Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom Policy

    Posted by · June 26, 2024 1:35 PM · 1 reaction

  • Free Speech Union welcomes expansion of COVID-19 Inquiry Terms of Reference and wider conversation on social cohesion

    Posted by · June 25, 2024 5:33 PM · 2 reactions

    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    25 June 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Free Speech Union welcomes expansion of COVID-19 Inquiry Terms of Reference and wider conversation on social cohesion

    In an era of growing polarisation and division in our society, our response to COVID-19 has led to even greater fractures. The Free Speech Union called for the COVID-19 Terms of Reference to be expanded and to include, among other issues, the impact our response had on social division. This is what the Government has committed to, and we welcome that decision, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “The Free Speech Union facilitated over 4,000 of the 13,000 submissions made to this consultation. Implicit in each of these submissions is the belief that suppressing dissent, or even patently wrong views, does little to address the error, and erodes social cohesion.

    “Free speech is indispensable for any true cohesion or unity to exist.

    “The ‘Team of 5 million’ (and similar messaging) was a cynical taunt for many who felt unable to speak out against features of the response to COVID-19. This has led to greater polarisation in New Zealand.

    “Putting aside whether those individuals were correct or not, as a country we must not move forward without examining the way our response exacerbated division.

    “We also welcome the opportunity for public hearings of evidence. Through this process, we trust a mature, open public conversation will emerge that allows us to respond better to crises in the future, and for divisions that have been caused or worsened by this response to be addressed.”

    ENDS

    Media contact - Jonathan Ayling 021 842 215, [email protected]

    Note to editor: Read more about the submissions we facilitated here.

  • Critic, Conscience and Kaupapa: the ongoing Free Speech clash at UoA

    Posted by · June 24, 2024 3:39 PM · 1 reaction

    By Nick Hanne

    Spare a thought for election officials in India who have just run the largest national election in human history. Equally impressive though is the fact that India’s is just one of more than 60 different national elections which will take place in 2024, affecting 50% of the global population. If you were an alien visiting from outer space you could be forgiven for thinking this impressive democratic spectacle represented an upward trend toward greater global liberty and enlightenment.

    Everything, however, is not what it seems.

    According to a recent article from University of Auckland magazine Ingenio, democracies around the world are in serious freefall. It cites findings released this past February in the Democracy Index (produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit) which paint a grim picture. Nations may be going to the polls in greater numbers, but democratic institutions and egalitarian ideals are in retreat. Dr Stephen Hoadley, recently retired associate professor of Political Studies at UoA, goes on in the article to point out that modern democracy is a “brilliant invention,” but that we, the people, need to keep it alive by, among other things, “exercising freedom of speech” and “engaging in debates.”

    Truer words could not be spoken.

    But does the University of Auckland hierarchy recognise these things are needed to preserve and promote the democratic ethos?

    Let’s consider the University’s Draft Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom Policy which is currently open to submissions from its staff and students. It is, you may be relieved to know, a brief read. Unfortunately its brevity doesn’t quell legitimate concerns about its content.

    Two points are worth highlighting.

    Firstly, the draft policy describes the University as being the “critic” and “conscience” of society, but instead, it should be academics with this role. Universities should strive for institutional neutrality where diversity of thought can occur within its community allowing academics to take their own stance on issues. So, why is this lack of impartiality so troubling?

    The introduction to the draft policy also states that the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi shape the University’s culture and are “central to its mission.” Many of us might think this is fairly unremarkable given how pervasive such Treaty references have become in NZ organisations over the past few decades. I’ve no doubt even my kids’ sports clubs make mention of Te Tiriti in their charters. I recognise the honorable intentions which many Kiwis have towards race relations in this country and I share that aspiration. Yet the wording of the UoA draft policy goes beyond this and has serious implications for free speech, especially when we consider it in the context of the “Listener Seven” controversy.

    If you didn’t follow the story at the time, an attempt to blend mātauranga Māori content - traditional Māori knowledge and practises – with the NCEA Science curriculum in 2021 provoked a small but determined reaction from seven UoA professors who signed their names to a public letter of protest in The Listener magazine. While these dissenters were willing to concede that mātauranga Māori offered some useful insights when it came to improving things like ecological management, they were deeply concerned that certain activists within academia – assisted in their aims by university administrators – were radically attempting to rewrite the definition of science in this country. The Seven argued that the natural sciences operated on very different foundations to mātauranga Māori, and if people wanted to study either, they could already do so – as separate disciplines. But to combine them would undermine the fundamental tenets of the natural sciences and create “misunderstandings of science.” Furthermore, they believed the move was designed to discredit and undermine scientific achievements by portraying the whole modern scientific enterprise as “Eurocentric”, “colonial” and “racist” in nature. The universal applicability of the scientific method was, they argued, explicitly being challenged by a relativistic and reductive approach which spoke of  “Western/Pakeha epistemologies” and portrayed modern science as a villain.

    The Listener Seven were immediately accused of being everything from colonial apologists to social Darwinists. After all, wasn’t the proposed curriculum simply just acknowledging that indigenous beliefs might have some usefulness in the modern world? The answer was an emphatic “no.”

    Ocean Mercier, associate professor at the University of Auckland, and a key proponent of the proposed curriculum disabused people of this more charitable interpretation in her response to the Seven. "I think if there is one thing this particular incident reminds us of is that there is need to decolonise first, to decolonise the science systems before we can create a safe space for mātauranga and indigenous knowledge,” and adding “this is a reminder that this space is not completely safe."

    Mercier was by no means alone in her views. The Seven were excoriated by colleagues, journalists and students alike. Many fellow academics, though equally disturbed by the proposed curriculum, remained silent for fear of receiving the same treatment. One of the Seven resigned his role as dean. Three others faced calls for their expulsion from the Royal Society. Prominent figures in the University who knew better and could have publicly lent support to the Seven instead wilted in the face of a vindictive and highly vocal pile-on. The time-honoured tradition of academic freedom may not have been down, but it was certainly on the ropes.

    Remarkably, more than a year after this saga had played out a leading AUT researcher and lecturer in mātauranga Māori, Georgina Tuari Stewart writing in E Tangata, admitted that she herself was not prepared to say whether mātauranga Māori and the natural sciences were indeed compatible, let alone similar. There was, she warned, “a danger in rushing to a final and definitive answer on whether Māori knowledge is a science,” but that this “disjunction was an opportunity for learning.” In other words, educators still needed to debate the matter. Such candour came too late for the Seven who’d already been labelled anachronistic, racist and bigoted by many of their learned peers.

    The second concern to note about the University draft policy document concerns clause 14. Here restrictions may apply when the speech of visitors to the University “involve the advancement of theories or propositions which fall below scholarly standards to such an extent as to be detrimental to the University’s character and its performance of the functions characteristic of a university.”

    Considering that Te Tiriti principles are “central to its mission”, does this mean that Te Tiriti and mātauranga Māori also inform UoA's “character”? And would the Listener Seven, or dissenters like them, therefore still fall foul of the University's speech code should a re-run of the controversy of 2021 somehow occur and the current draft policy end up being ratified?

    The subjective wording in the draft policy as it stands would appear to leave the University significant discretion to disinvite or ban outright any visiting speaker it deems unworthy. Those sceptical of decolonisation may well be blacklisted. 

    Moreover, determining which “scholarly standards” to apply depends very much on the subject area, the type of event a visitor might be speaking at, and the purpose of the speech. For instance, scientists will not usually engage in questions concerning metaphysics. Theologians or philosophers on the other hand are almost certainly going to be preoccupied with just those sorts of questions. How exactly then would even just a relatively straightforward interdisciplinary lecture on, say, ‘metaphor in medicine’ be assessed according to such criteria?

    What then does the University of Auckland policy tell us more broadly about the culture of free speech, debate and inquiry in this country?

    The censorial approach we see eroding academic freedom and civil liberties often reflects the insecurity of would-be-censors. They know deep down that certain kinds of claims or beliefs they hold will not withstand intellectual scrutiny when presented to some audiences, particularly audiences equipped with critical thinking skills, specialist knowledge and expertise. Yet often an individual can’t bear to part with a dearly held idea or belief because of their own deep emotional or psychological attachment to such thinking, even if the error is obvious. This is especially difficult when an idea or belief is considered fundamental to one’s identity and status. Ironically, failure to receive the desired approval can often make the desire for approval greater. The trouble is that it also makes us spiteful.

    The basic life lesson we need to revive in our homes, our schools and on our university campuses may seem harsh. But it can be expressed quite simply.

    If you’re unwilling to allow your ideas to be tested, and if you only want affirmation rather than risking an honest response, stop pushing for intellectual recognition from institutions traditionally shaped by a culture of free speech, reason, standards of evidence and debate. Seek affirmation from someone or something other than a university. Try a social club.

    Academic excellence demands humility, a recognition of our shortcomings and awareness that we have only begun to scratch the surface of all that there is to know. As Socrates was fond of pointing out, the wise have a responsibility to question everything, but especially those things we’ve been warned not to question.

    Free speech culture in universities requires a society that is brave enough to submit its most sacred, dearly held knowledge claims to the rigorous testing ground we call academic inquiry, the scientific method, and peer review.  Without courage, we resort to a herd mentality and mob rule – even if it more often these days occurs online. Without intellectual honesty, we end up ostracising the dissenter by ignoring their attempts at reasoned debate, straw manning their arguments, and reducing them to distorted caricatures – much like happened to the Listener Seven.

    Aside from wanting control or fearing our ideas might be exposed as inadequate, there are obviously instances where we censor out of a genuine concern to protect the powerless and vulnerable. I don’t let my kids watch certain shows on TV for instance. But if we are talking about universities then we are talking about censoring on behalf of other adults.

    So we ought to confront head on the claim that some people in our universities aren’t strong enough to handle certain ideas. Because that is palpable nonsense. They can handle it. They just don’t feel comfortable doing so. With exposure and the necessary critical thinking skills, they’ll learn how to better handle it.

    We shouldn't be surprised that there are voices in our society who feel aggrieved at the way their forebears were treated. Such injuries run deep for some and we ought not to underestimate the power of inherited memory, whether or not we believe the rest of us have a duty or even capacity to fix the wrongs of the past. Universities are a natural place in which to explore these sorts of questions.

    At the same time, in our attempts to expose past wrongs, and consider how we address them, let’s not dispense with the essential tools of critical thinking – free speech, reason, and evidence – which will in the long run actually help to break cycles of injustice rather than perpetuate them.

  • Free speech victory: Marlborough District Council accepts remedies to avoid court

    Posted by · June 19, 2024 3:45 PM · 2 reactions

    MEDIA RELEASE
     
    19 June 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    Free speech victory: Marlborough District Council accepts remedies to avoid court
     
    Following an unlawful and discriminatory decision to bar Let Kids Be Kids from using facilities in the Marlborough District Library, the Chief Executive and Mayor have accepted three remedies to avoid court action by the Free Speech Union. We welcome the decision by the Council to admit they got this wrong and to set the situation right, says its Chief Executive, Jonathan Ayling. 
     
    “At a meeting yesterday afternoon between the Mayor, Council CEO, General Counsel, and myself, the Council accepted that little defence could be made for the decision to refuse Let Kids Be Kids use of the library facilities.
     
    “Marlborough District Council’s hire agreement had vague clauses that led to the unlawful decision by Council staff to exclude certain voices based on the subjective claim that they were not sufficiently ‘inclusive’.
     
    “The Free Speech Union has pursued numerous cases of this kind, and the case law is clear: Councils cannot discriminate against groups or individuals on the basis of their ideological perspectives. 
     
    “To remedy this situation, the Council has accepted three demands:
    1. They will publicly apologise to Let Kids Be Kids by Friday;
    2. They have invited the Free Speech Union to run an educational seminar for their staff on respecting ratepayers’ basic speech rights, and;
    3. Most importantly, they have committed to revising the policy in question within a month.
     
    “We welcome the Council’s candour and good-faith engagement with this issue. So-called ‘inclusivity’ policies don’t trump the Bill of Rights. This is a victory for free speech and all ratepayers in Marlborough.”
     
    ENDS
     
    Note to editor: See the letter we sent to Marlborough District Council here and our drafted Protection of Freedom of Expression legislation that’s been picked up as a Member’s Bill here.
     
    Media contact - Jonathan Ayling 021 842 215, [email protected]
  • Marlborough District Council steps up

    Posted by · June 19, 2024 11:09 AM · 1 reaction

    This is a short note to celebrate a big win!

    Another fight goes to the goodies as we stand up to the bullies. 

    Last week, I contacted you about the incredible decision by Marlborough District Council to refuse to allow Let Kids Be Kids to use a public meeting room because they didn’t seem to be ‘inclusive’.

    Our team saw this for what it was straight away: an illegal, discriminatory, and unacceptable decision, where council staff were taking it upon themselves to ‘protect’ the public from ‘harmful’ perspectives — we certainly can’t have these opinions expressed during ‘Pride Month’! 

    We prepared our legal opinion and were convinced this was a clear breach of the Bill of Rights Act. We told the Council they had until Friday to meet with us and fix the situation, or we’d see them in court.

    I met with the Mayor, the CEO, and the General Counsel yesterday. Excuse the phrase, but we had them by the balls, and they knew it! 

    There were three demands which they had to meet in order for us not to pursue legal action:

    1. The Mayor must write a public apology to Let Kids Be Kids on behalf of the Council (not blaming it on the staff, but as our democratically elected representatives, taking responsibility for not running the Council in a way that respects ratepayers’ basic rights. We told her there must be no ‘nose holding’ — no vague inferences or questionable aspersions about the group; it’s not up to Council to decide who has or doesn’t have an ‘acceptable’ opinion. 

    They agreed! We’ll have the letter by Friday. 

    2. The CEO must host the Free Speech Union in Marlborough to run an education seminar for the Council staff, where we will outline why free speech matters to public bodies like councils, why we all benefit from this basic liberty, and how we all lose when we neglect this freedom. 

    They agreed! We’ll have the opportunity to do this by the end of next month. 

    3. The Council must review the policy that led to this whole issue, and change it so Council staff no longer feel they have the right/responsibility to ‘protect the community’ from ‘harmful/hateful’ views. Do we really think our local librarians are the ones we should be trusting to decide who can use council facilities? This policy was too vague, and needs clarity around the duties the Council has to respect basic human rights. 

    They agreed! This policy will be amended within the next 30 days. 


    I think there are three reasons we’ve been able to achieve this result: 

    1. You: With tens of thousands of Kiwis standing together behind us (and many of you contacting the Council and criticising their decision), we had the confidence to know we weren’t standing by ourselves. Without our members and supporters, we couldn’t do any of this. 

    2. Previous wins: Because we’re committed to taking up the fight whenever Kiwis’ free speech is threatened, whether we agree with them or not, we’ve got a strong reputation and good case law. The General Counsel for the Marlborough District told me that they had reviewed all the other cases on access to public venues we’d worked on: it was enough to convince them they didn’t stand a chance in court. 

    3. Our talented team: Because of your partnership with us, we have some passionate, talented members of our team who are able to “professionally stick it to the bullies!” 😂

    The Council noted that our team were firm, but constructive. Our work to represent you, in a principled, moderate, credible way is paying off. 

    With all the fights coming down the pike, it’s nice to see the work getting results.

    We believe your voice is worth defending — thank you for standing with us to ensure these wins are possible. If you’re a supporter of our work (receive our emails, sign our petitions, etc) but aren’t a member (haven’t actually paid to be part of the work we’re doing), it would be great to have you join. 

    If the Free Speech Union hadn’t taken up this cause, it’s likely Let Kids Be Kids would simply have had to accept that they weren’t welcomed to use public venues in Marlborough. If they had decided to challenge it, it’s likely the court case would have cost over $100,000. 

    Joining the Free Speech Union for just $200 seems like a fairly good return on investment!

    Back to it — there’s certainly lots more to get done.

    Thanks again for standing with us.

    Jonathan Ayling — Free Speech Union CEO 

    PS. Read what happened here.

  • Words are violence, but intifada’s fine?

    Posted by · June 18, 2024 9:59 AM · 1 reaction

    Words can cause harm.

    I'm sure we all know someone who's been hurt by words. Yesterday, at a public meeting, we spoke with a grandmother about the impact of bullying on her grandchildren. It was undeniably heartbreaking. 

    While it runs off the tongue well, I’ve never accepted that ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.’

    As a free speech advocate, I believe words have incredible power, not that they’re impotent!

    That's one of the key reasons I oppose censorship. Groups without demographic or political power need their powerful words to argue their case. The power to shut down others' voices is a huge temptation; one that won't just attract those with noble intentions, but the very worst in our society, if they are in a position to do so.

    We see this to be true almost every day. Those who are empowered to ‘protect us’ from ‘harmful’ ideas do so inconsistently, some hypocritically, and too often, they are the worst perpetrators of 'hate speech' themselves.

    Recently, adverts from an unnamed “pro-Palestinian” group have appeared publicly. As always, our job isn’t to tell you what to think about this issue. But it has caused some supporters to ask us if this poster should be considered legitimate speech. 

    Intifada is an Arabic word which literally means ‘shaking off’. It is a term that is used to describe periods of violence in which hundreds were murdered in Israel. 

    Of course, as with all significant terms, it is debated.

    Some claim intifada doesn’t necessarily have to be violent; just like “jihad” may not include violence. For many, though, it is a term weighted with incredible violence and death.

    So should the poster be permitted? 

    To me (and I accept, you may see it differently), the term intifada is inseparable from violent uprising and terrorism; it is an extreme term. Personally, I find the posters repugnant and promulgating a despicable sentiment. 

    BUT! I think it is, and should be, legal. 

    At the Free Speech Union, we have always been very clear: incitement to violence is not protected by free speech. In fact, we have only ever insisted that violence is the antithesis of free speech, because free speech is about reason and dialogue, the opposite of us imposing ourselves on each other. The legal test is ‘imminent lawless action’, where a speaker is imminent and likely to take violent action.

    These billboards don’t reach that threshold; but it flirts with violence being the answer to this issue.

    It’s not in spite of that fact that I think these billboards should be allowed; it’s because of that.

    If there are people around us who think a violent ‘shaking off’ is a solution, I would rather know, so that I can continue my work to build dialogue, respect, and peace. 

    The billboard company are right not to turn this advert away. But think about all the other ideas that are construed as ‘too hateful’ and ‘violent’.

    It makes it very clear that these are not people we want ‘picking and choosing’ what can and cannot be said. 


    We’ve contacted you many times in the past as media companies have selectively chosen which ‘provocative’ perspectives they’ll allow, and which they want to shut out.

    One Example of Inconsistency:

    You may recall during COVID-19, Voices For Freedom were also expressing concerns about the plight of free speech. They paid for a billboard campaign with the claim ‘Free Speech Is Like Air. You’ll Notice When It’s Gone.’ Another said, Your voice is the first thing they take. Your freedom goes next.

    It seems VFF only got these billboards up by accident. 

    A spokesperson for Lumo Digital Outdoor said the advertisements were pulled as soon the company learned of Voices For Freedom, and that they would “review and enhance” its internal processes to avoid this situation happening again.

    “Once we were made aware of the nature of the Voices For Freedom group, we immediately made the decision to discontinue its advertising and will not be accepting adverts in the future from this group.”

    Another Example of Inconsistency:

    Last year, Bob McCoskrie of Family First launched a campaign called ‘What is a woman?’ and wanted to advertise in The Herald, Stuff, and the Otago Daily Times.

    After having confirmation that the ads were set to run, Family First was then told at 8.30 on the night before the scheduled print that the ad had been pulled from the New Zealand Herald – pending “reconsideration”.

    The following day – the day the ad was supposed to appear – Stuff baldly stated that the ad wouldn’t be published in The Post or The Press either. The reason given was that “the campaign doesn’t align with the values of Stuff due to the sensitive nature of the content”.
    The ODT advised Family First – again, on the day the ad was supposed to run – that its chief executive had decided to follow the lead of the two big media companies.

    How bout a third example of inconsistency:

    Likewise, just a few weeks ago, we were alerted to a friends of Israel group who wanted to run an ad celebrating the country’s birthday. The ad was rejected, with Stuff invoking the ‘health and safety’ of staff. 

    Several weeks later, they decided they would run the add. To our knowledge, it seems that no ones ‘heath and safety’ was undermined. 

    Time and time again, our censors have shown themselves to be the last people we should trust. 

    There were also the Speak Up For Women billboards that were taken down in Wellington because Go Media thought the dictionary definition of a woman would be a breach of the Advertising Standards Authority code.

    These examples highlight the bias, inconsistency, and hypocrisy we have to deal with if we invite others to regulate the crucial freedoms of free speech and access to information. 

    There is a strong case to be made for the damage words can do; I fully accept that. But who do we trust to decide which opinions are the ones we should shut down?

    Something like incitement to violence and imminent lawlessness are bright, clear standards. Other than that, I’m convinced that choosing to deal with the harm of words through censorship is a cure worse than the disease.

    I hope all the groups and individuals who were championing “hate speech” laws speak in clear condemnatory terms against the message of violence being spread by the current posters (here’s looking at you, Human Rights Commission).

    Counter-speech must be the answer to harmful words. 

    If they don’t speak out (though not trying to silence them) then add them to the list of hypocrites and continue to be extra-weary of them pushing for the legislation.

    As free speech advocates, we have to stand up for the right of others to say things we despise.

    It’s counter-intuitive, but I’m certain in the long run we are all ‘safer’ for it.  

    Dr David Cumin

    David sig
    Dr David Cumin
    Council Member
    Free Speech Union

    Jonathan and the team are travelling around the country right now with Toby Young, the Director of the FSU UK. Based in Hamilton, Wellington, or Queenstown? We’d love to buy you a drink! Check out the event details here.

  • Letter to Marlborough District Council: Alleged breach of Bill of Rights Act by Marlborough District Libraries

    Posted by · June 17, 2024 5:36 PM · 1 reaction

  • Five points to save academic freedom at Kiwi universities

    Posted by · June 13, 2024 11:58 AM · 1 reaction

  • Ambiguity in University’s Draft Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom Policy

    Posted by · June 13, 2024 11:58 AM · 1 reaction

  • We're holding Marlborough Council accountable.

    Posted by · June 12, 2024 5:01 PM · 1 reaction

    Hypocrisy. It stinks.

    A problem with the arguments of our would-be-censors is that they are often the very individuals expressing the most extreme, offensive, or provocative opinions. 

    We're picking up another important fight (once more unto the breach, dear friends) - and we need you to join us.

    You heard from Nadia on the weekend about the Marlborough District Council denying Let Kids Be Kids a booking for a meeting room at the local library because the organisation didn't fit with their 'inclusive' policies. This is what they said:

    “Marlborough Libraries has reviewed your request to use our meeting rooms... we are not able to accommodate your request. While the purpose of your meeting is unclear, your organisation seems unlikely to meet the criteria set out in our T&Cs [to be 'inclusive']."

    Yet, just last week, the same library blatantly advertised how this month they have a particular "focus on diversity, inclusion and belonging"! Huh?

    Surely that means they recognise the diversity of views held by local ratepayers and are committed to providing everyone with a place to belong. Right?
    Wrong! 

    This is simply another example of the word 'inclusivity' being used in the name of excluding certain voices. We're not having it!

    It's time to double down, and we need your help. I'm writing to ask you to help us hold Marlborough District Libraries to account- and all local councils, actually. Let me explain.

    We contacted Mark Wheeler, Chief Executive of the Marlborough District Council on Friday. We didn't hear back from him until we contacted media, and told you the story. He said: 

    "I note there has already been national media involvement which is an interesting response given you’ve given me until the 12th to respond. Not a normal reaction to a Council concern." 

    (Actually, we'd said we'd give him to 5pm today before we prepare legal action, not before we talk about the issue. Well, it's 5:01PM. There's been no response, so that means it's action time.)  

    This is pretty telling: he was more concerned that we'd gone public and the Council might get some bad press than he was that his staff were discriminating against Marlborough ratepayers because they disagreed with them.

    'Everyone is awesome...

    Except for those with views we don't agree with'!

    We believe the Council's hire agreement is illegal and discriminatory. But the much bigger issue is that it represents a nationwide problem we're seeing over and over. 

    We've seen enough, and it's time to put pressure on local councils to uphold their legal obligations to respect the Bill of Rights.

    That's why we've written to Local Government New Zealand about the pattern we've witnessed, seeking to remind councils of their duty to serve all Kiwis (though we're not holding our breath they'll be any help). 

    Again and again, councils are asserting their own ideological positions, and deciding they know what's best for the ratepayers. Who gave them that authority?

    Here's just some of the fights we've been up against:

    Here's what I want you to remember: the Free Speech Union has been there to fight every single one of these decisions. And we keep winning... 

    With your help today, we're ready to make sure Marlborough District Council doesn't get away with this nonsense.


    There are several things we're doing to challenge this. All up, it's going to take about $29,000, and is worth every cent. Maybe you can contribute a few? 

    1. Preparing legal action against Marlborough District Council to hold them accountable for breaking the law;
    2. Contacting each councillor in the district, to make sure they hold the CEO (and his staff) responsible for the discriminatory actions;
    3. Lobbying LGNZ and the Minister for Local Government to issue instruction to local councils to respect the law that is well established, that prohibits them discriminating on ideological grounds;  
    4. Releasing a new professional membership, especially for public servants (including local government staff and politicians), to work from the inside to ensure these public institutions truly represent the people. 

    Last week, I surveyed almost every local councillor in the country, asking them a series of questions about how free they feel to speak out in their role. On a scale of 1 to 10, councillors rated their ability to challenge other councillors as 6 out of 10.

    But their ability to challenge council staff was only 4.3 out of 10. Unelected council staff are supposed to answer to our elected representatives, not the other way around!  

    The argument for censorship continues to fall flat on its face. That's because it can only stand up when authoritarian personalities and bureaucrats decide their opinions are more important than others' voices. And that's not good enough.

    Together, with some of the actions above, and a whole lot more we have on, we're working to ensure our voices (including our democratic voices), are protected. 


    It's only with your help that we can put the power back in your hands.

    The beauty of free speech is that it's consistent. Free speech doesn't mean agreeing with those whose voices you defend, but simply the right for everyone to have their say. 

    I don't know how you feel about it (because the task seems mammoth), but I see more and more reason for hope. Our opponents hunt in packs, but as we band together, I'm sure we'll see them off. 

    Thank you for standing with us. 

    Jonathan


    Jonathan Ayling
    Chief Executive
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    For every $100 we raise to defend free speech, a would-be-censor somewhere in New Zealand has to hear an opinion that challenges them to think better; help us reach them all! 😛

  • Indiscriminate access to public venues for all ratepayers

    Posted by · June 11, 2024 2:52 PM · 1 reaction

  • Who made libraries the 'inclusivity' police?

    Posted by · June 08, 2024 10:16 AM · 1 reaction

    May was our biggest month yet. 💪

    Between the Department of Internal Affairs abandoning the proposed online content regulator, the Victoria University panel discussion saga, the release of our new academic membership, the fight to ensure the Wellington council didn't censor views they deemed 'unsafe', our draft legislation becoming a Member's Bill, and our tour with Jonathan Rauch, we've gained more press coverage and public awareness than ever. 

    Phewf. That's a lot of hard work. It's also a lot of free speech victories that are only made possible because of you. 🎉

    And the work isn't slowing down. 


    Marlborough Council rejects booking: event 'not inclusive'

    When attempting to book a meeting room through Marlborough District Libraries, Let Kids Be Kids was told they could not secure a booking because the event was allegedly not 'inclusive' (whatever that means).


    This issue is bigger than the Council discriminating against Let Kids Be Kids. The fact their hire agreement leaves room for the Council's staff to pick and choose who they rent the publicly funded facilities to is wrong. 

    Who decided local libraries could be the judge on what is or isn’t ‘inclusive’? 

    The Bill of Rights Act, which binds public bodies, protects all Kiwis’ freedom of expression.

    This is simply another example of the word 'inclusivity' being used in the name of excluding voices some deem unpopular.

    We've told Marlborough District Council if they cannot justify this decision, and without prompt reversal, we'll consider legal action. 

    As you'll know, we've already contributed significantly to case law in this area and see this case as no different from any other we've come up against. 

    While the case law is clear on this issue, now more than ever, we believe legislation is needed to stop council venues from pushing their own agenda. That’s why we drafted the Protection of Freedom of Expression legislation, which was recently adopted as a Member’s Bill.


    Funding into censorial research cut by two-thirds

    Almost two years ago, we sounded the alarm over the establishment of the Centre to Counter Violent Extremism, which is directed by Prof. Joanna Kidman.

    We're certainly not concerned by experts actually challenging violent extremism, but we knew that this would just be a 'safe ideological berth' for our would-be-censors.  

    We were right.

    This Government-funded work is meant to prevent content that is already illegal, but instead, it's gone towards countering misinformation on social media, the effect of 'hate' crimes, the role of gender in right-wing extremism, and the effects of anti-transgender extremism.

    One project is even called 'Signs of the Wellington Occupation: Progression of a Protest'. See for yourself. 

    Just look at some of the most recent projects they've funded:

    Well, it's taken longer than we'd like, but the Government has finally realised this outfit doesn't do what it says on the tin. Out of the budget, we've discovered the Centre has had it's funding cut by two-thirds. 

    Again, this work is labeled as combating illegal activity, but very quickly turned into a way to censor perspectives that others find uncomfortable, unpopular, or 'harmful' [insert your own definition for what you want that to mean]. 

    The funding cut is a big win in our eyes. Hopefully (we have our doubts), it means they get back to the serious business of actually countering violence, not ideas they don't like. Unless it starts doing what it's meant to, the next step is to get rid of it altogether. 

    Simply put, this wouldn't have happened without thousands of Kiwis joining us in calling out the hypocrisy at play.

    That's another win for the champions of free speech that we think is worth celebrating.  


    Watch the Victoria University panel discussion 

    Many of you have asked for the recording of the recent free speech panel discussion at Victoria University. Well, here it is! 

    Hear what our Chief Executive had to say at 37:25.

    Did you catch our Education Partnership Manager Nick Hanne's review of the event?

    Jonathan Ayling also recently covered the event on the Shape of Dialogue podcast. 

    "What we have are base camps for indoctrination, not education.

    If it's not a wake up call that our universities can no longer abide the presence of free speech advocates in their midst, I'm not sure what is."
    - Jonathan Ayling


    Auckland University's newly drafted free speech policy

    Recently, Auckland University released a draft policy on freedom of expression and academic freedom. This process started after the 'Listener 7' sage, when some of our country's best academics were piled-on and bullied for the claim that 'Mātauranga Māori isn't the same thing as science.' 

    But after two years of deliberation, the policy is disappointing

    These sorts of policies can sound good at a first glance, but so often they're simply another tool that can and will be weaponised to silence particular perspectives. 

    The policy fails to provide any kind of institutional neutrality - in fact, it provides for expression of position on many matters by the university, which means any academics who disagree will likely feel the need to self-censor.

    For example, this, a policy on free expression, opens, not saying anything about free expression, but by acknowledging that the Treaty principles shape the University's culture and are central to their mission.

    This leaves virtually no room for varying interpretations and views on the Treaty. 

    It also says the University may refuse a guest speaker if they don’t meet particular scholarly standards. But, there is no indication as to who will make such a determination. 

    Who decides what is and isn't of a scholarly standard? 

    It would be far better if students were encouraged to engage and reason with views they disagree with, rather than avoiding them altogether. 

    Recently, University of Auckland academic (and member of our academic council), Prof. Natasha Hamilton-Hart, spoke on Newstalk ZB about her concerns:

    "If you want to see this policy as benign for free speech, you have to place a lot of trust in the university management...
    It's a backward step, and it will kill the atmosphere when it comes to expressing contentious or unpopular views."
    -Prof. Natasha Hamilton-Hart

    Consultation is open to students and staff until the end of the month, so next week we'll release material to help them submit feedback to the University. If you are an academic at Auckland University, or a student, or are a family-member of a student, let us know. We need to work together to push back on this policy that will further stifle the conversation at this university.  


    Hear from the founder of the Free Speech Union UK

    Did you hear that the founder and director of the Free Speech Union UK is touring with us this month

    If there's anyone else who knows what it's like fight for free speech, it's Toby Young. Come along to learn about international free speech issues and the vital work of other Free Speech Unions around the world. 

    Come along to an evening with Toby Young in AucklandTaurangaHamiltonWellington, or Queenstown


    We can't help but look at what's happening in Canada at the moment and say 'that would have been us'. As I read through the ins and outs of what their censorial law would mean for everyday people going about their lives, I catch myself thinking, 'It would be safest not to say anything at all.'

    And that's the whole problem with censorship, whether it's enforced by law or not.

    It creates self-censorship and therefore a narrowing of the topics we are able to discuss, a narrowing of the views we're allowed to hold, and a narrowing of our freedom. 

    If it weren't for your consistent support, we'd all be watching our backs. 

    Nadia Braddon-Parsons
    Communications & Marketing Manager
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    PS. Watch Victoria University's panel discussion on free speech here. RSVP to an event with Toby Young near you. The free speech victories aren't without your help. 

  • Allegations Marlborough District Council breached Bill of Rights Act by discriminating against ratepayers and denying access to public venues

    Posted by · June 07, 2024 2:12 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    7 June 2024

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Allegations Marlborough District Council breached Bill of Rights Act by discriminating against ratepayers and denying access to public venues

    By refusing to allow Let Kids Be Kids use Council facilities, Marlborough District Council seems to have illegally discriminated against local ratepayers. The Bill of Rights Act, which binds public bodies, protects all Kiwis’ freedom of expression. We believe Council cannot justify this decision, and without prompt reversal, we'll consider legal action, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “Prior work by the Free Speech Union has contributed significantly to the case law related to access to public venues. It is clear that councils are not justified in discriminating against those who wish to use their facilities based on ideological differences.

    “That is exactly what has happened here, and it cannot be allowed to stand.

    “The Council deemed (on what basis it is entirely unclear), that a meeting Let Kids Be Kids sought to hold at a local library was not 'inclusive', and as such didn’t comply with the hire agreement criteria.

    “Since when were local libraries the authority on what is or isn’t ‘inclusive’? This is simply prejudice by some staff at the Marlborough Libraries who disagree with the viewpoints of others in their communities. So much for tolerance.

    “Although the case law is clear on this issue, now more than ever, legislation is needed to stop council venues from pushing their own agenda or bowing to censorial pressure. That’s why we drafted the Protection of Freedom of Expression legislation, which we were pleased to see adopted recently as a Member’s Bill.

    “Our message to those who disagree with Let Kids Be Kids (as it was to those who disagreed with Drag Queen Storytimes at libraries) is this: If you don’t like what someone says, you don’t have to attend their event. Or, you can exercise your democratic right to peacefully protest and provide counter-speech. But it is unacceptable, and counter-productive, to silence or cancel others’ voices.”

    ENDS

    Note to editor: See the letter we sent to Marlborough District Council here and our drafted Protection of Freedom of Expression Bill here.

  • Alleged breach of Bill of Rights Act by Marlborough District Libraries

    Posted by · June 07, 2024 11:25 AM · 2 reactions

  • Free Speech Union UK founder, Toby Young, to tour New Zealand with local Free Speech Union

    Posted by · June 04, 2024 12:45 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    4 June 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Free Speech Union UK founder, Toby Young, to tour New Zealand with local Free Speech Union 

    The Free Speech Union is proud to bring Toby Young, founder and director of the Free Speech Union UK and associate editor of The Spectator to New Zealand this month, says Nathan Seiuli, the Free Speech Union’s Events and Outreach Manager. 

    “Described as ‘one of Britain’s most controversial broadcasters and journalists’, Toby is a passionate, leading advocate for free speech internationally.

    “Toby’s tour with us is an opportunity for Free Speech Union supporters to learn more about international free speech issues and the work of other Free Speech Unions around the world.

    “Toby’s tour is timely for New Zealand after the recent free speech victory of the Department of Internal Affairs abandoning the proposed online content regulator. With Scotland recently introducing “hate” speech laws and Canada introducing online speech laws, Toby is well placed to comment on the state of free speech internationally, and the position New Zealand would be in if the proposed “hate” speech laws and online censorship proposals had come into play.

    “As a journalist, political commentator, frequent TV and radio guest, and author, Toby brings expertise in education, media, and contemporary politics. His tour is from 14-27 June and takes place during the UK’s lead-up to their general election. 

    “We will host multiple public events with Toby, across Auckland, Tauranga, Hamilton, Wellington and Queenstown.

    “We look forward to Toby’s visit contributing to our advocacy for the vital necessity for free speech in our country.” 

    ENDS

    Note to editor: Find our public events here https://www.fsu.nz/upcoming_events  

    Read more about FSU UK here https://freespeechunion.org/about/ and Toby Young here https://x.com/toadmeister 

    For media enquiries on Toby’s visit contact Nadia Braddon-Parsons [email protected]

  • "Free speech but..."

    Posted by · May 31, 2024 5:28 PM · 2 reactions

    By Nick Hanne

    You'll be aware that Victoria University's highly anticipated panel discussion on free speech took place on Tuesday afternoon this week. I was there along with Nathan from our team, and of course Jonathan who was on the panel. 

    If you didn't get to watch the livestream, here are my thoughts on how it went. 


    I’m always reluctant to use sporting analogies, especially American ones. But after witnessing what happened at the Victoria University's 'The role of universities in supporting freedom of speech' event, I find it impossible not to compare this much-anticipated event to the infamous game-fixing of the Baseball World Series of 1919.

    I’m not suggesting the VUW symposium involved bribes or corruption of any kind. The carefully choreographed proceedings and the panel with a majority of pro-censorship speakers meant there was absolutely no way the proposed “contest of ideas” would ever have any chance of appearing free or spontaneous.

    So, when it comes to making any clear commitment to upholding principles of free speech, what can we, as NZ citizens, expect of our publicly funded universities?

    Well, it really depends on which academic you’re asking.

    Vice Chancellor Nic Smith in his welcome address quoted arguably the greatest champion of free speech, Frederick Douglass – an escaped African American slave and leading 19th century abolitionist – who contended that free speech was essential for human flourishing and without it racism, among many other evils, could not be properly countered.

    Evoking Douglass was a promising start. Yet Smith immediately followed this inspirational moment with the conclusion that NZ in 2024 is quite different to the war-torn USA of 1863.

    Smith did not elaborate, leaving at least those in the audience with some knowledge of black civil rights history befuddled. Were we to assume that the wisdom of a black man born into literal slavery and self-liberated by his own enormous intelligence, courage and efforts counts for little on modern day university campuses?

    Is Smith suggesting that the greatest minds of history couldn’t help us navigate modern questions about “micro-aggressions” and “safe spaces”?

    Corin Dann of Radio NZ, in the role of M.C., had presumably been given instructions to keep the panellists from engaging in any form of freestyle debate.

    It meant, alas, that his severe headmasterly demeanour and strict management of each invited speaker made the whole event seem more like a tightly controlled spelling bee than an intellectual discussion on free speech.

    The average age of both panellists and audience members was around 50 years old. Curiously, the eight out of ten panellists who held more censorious views about speech seemed unclear on how they'd draw the limit for free speech. It was as if they’d never considered there would be a need for a detailed blueprint of the brave new world they were dreaming up.

    It had been easy to paint broad strokes, but now it was about the detail, the nitty-gritty. They spoke of free thought and expression like it was a nice idea that had been tried and found a bit wanting.

    Then each in their own way focused most of their attention and concerns on the safety of various minorities. 

    The most compelling voice on this specific point was Anjum Rahman, a Muslim woman who, to the aggravation of many in the room, argued that free speech was in fact one of the greatest protections for the welfare of any minority.

    She also stressed that students needed to be made uncomfortable “three times a week” at minimum by ideas they encounter at university. But there was considerable uncertainty about what she was expressing in the rest of her speech and this culminated with her challenge to Corin Dann to imagine what it would be like to have someone threaten to behead him.

    It was, to be very honest, an awkward moment, being both quite abrupt and because Rahman was talking about things that were already illegal.

    If their was a salient point somewhere in there, most people were still recoiling at the visualisation of Dann’s impressively mustachioed talking head being despatched from his body to know what she meant exactly.

    The two Māori panelists had completely different views as to whether free speech values were indigenous or not. Law lecturer Morgan Godfery suggested Māori had a pretty “wide” definition of what free speech could be and admitted that marae and hui tended to exemplify this in the way they operate.

    Dean of the AUT Law School Khylee Quince was adamant that free speech values were an alien concept to Te Ao Māori and merely a product of colonization.

    Most speakers used the all-too-familiar line “free speech is vital but...” However, inevitably with such a diverse panel it was very telling that none of them could entirely agree where this right should end.

    Many agreed with Rahman that discomfort was necessary, but people could not be left “unsafe.” When pressed, no one could give an adequate definition of “unsafe” and how the limits could be practically enforced.

    "Feelings are an intangible which cannot be easily or quantitatively measured so this is an extremely problematic metric for restricting free speech."
    -Jonathan Ayling on the panel

    Australian John Byron spent much of his time apologizing for his “white privilege” and at one point even his own existence. Affably self-loathing is perhaps the best way I can describe it.

    Jonathan Ayling and Dr Michael Johnston were the only two dissenting voices.

    Arguing in favour of free speech, both Ayling and Johnston expressed the crucial idea that what had changed the equation on campuses in recent years was the ideological divergence of members in our society from a set of shared fundamental values.

    For instance, many no longer have the same view of human nature, the pursuit of knowledge, or an agreed democratic ethos. So, it shouldn’t come as any great surprise that we now find ourselves at odds over where we put the boundaries of speech, thought and expression.

    Ayling, as has been the pattern of the last few months in leading up to this event, found himself the target of the greatest ire. The formidable Professor Jane Kelsey (recently retired) wrapped in activist garb made it her special mission to try and discredit the work of the Free Speech Union, the Coalition Government, the Act Party in particular, and basically any traditionally-minded person in the past 20 years with even just a nostalgic attachment to free speech.

    There were a few nods from the more revolutionary-minded in the crowd, but it was more of a rant than a serious analysis.

    What the VUW Symposium showed was that the game is being redesigned while we’re playing it and there is no shortage of confusion.

    This is the reality most of us know already. But perhaps what Tuesday showed especially well is that even when they rig the game in their favour, our would-be censors still don’t know how to agree with each other on what the new game ought to look like. They’re too busy scoring own goals and blowing the whistle at the tiniest infractions.

    Sorry for mixing sports codes in my metaphors, but given the self-loathing-virtue signalling-identity crisis we’ve been witnessing on university campuses lately, we’re evidently living in some pretty mixed up times.

    We need to have a proper debate in this country, unfettered and honest, about free speech.

    Victoria University is only one of many tertiary institutions to prove that self-proclaimed “experts” have lost sight of the value of free speech and the unique way of life it has afforded us all.

    Now, without bold and coherent advocacy from the Free Speech Union and like-minded others, it is a way of life we could very easily lose.

    This event just confirmed why we are needed. Only with your help can we support universities, and the nation at large, to not only tolerate free speech, but to celebrate and defend it. 

    Nick Hanne
    Education Partnership Manager
    Free Speech Union

    PS. We wrote to Vice-Chancellor Nic Smith with feedback on the event - read it here. If you're an academic or a university staff member and want to ensure your voice is heard, join our academic membership here. 

  • Who else would stand up for the silenced?

    Posted by · May 30, 2024 10:06 AM · 1 reaction

    The battle against censorship and the fight for free speech sometimes takes us to our country's highest courts and authorities. 

    I’m Hannah, the Senior In-House Counsel for the Union. I’m here to advise the team, advocate for you, and lead the legal charge to defend your speech rights.

    After experience in civil litigation, employment, commercial, and private client matters, I came on board ready to advocate for a value that’s deeply important to me and our country. 

    Today I want to update you on our legal cases. But before I do that, I have big news to share.

    New Zealand First picked up our drafted legislation: free speech for all in public venues

    On Friday afternoon, we heard that New Zealand First has picked up our drafted legislation to protect all Kiwis' access to public venues as a Member's Bill. 💪

    No matter who you are or your ideological position, you should have access to publicly funded venues. We drafted this legislation with former judge Dr. David Harvey and in consultation with the Law Commission to do just that. 
    You'll know that we've already contributed significantly to case law in this area when we've ensured councils don't pick and choose who gets a voice at public venues based on 'health and safety'. Our legislation will take that further. 

    We look forward to seeing the Bill move through the House. This is what change looks like. Together, we're making history.


    More legal cases than we've ever had

    We have five major legal cases on the go at the moment.

    The Free Speech Union has never had this many legal cases at any one time.

    By working in-house, I help to fight our cases in the most efficient and cost effective ways. But, the reality is that legal fights aren’t cheap.  

    We’re juggling a lot. But I just keep coming back to this: If we don’t help and defend those unjustly silenced, who will?

    These stories would just slip under the radar over and over again if we weren’t here to shine a light on them.

    Here’s the latest:

    Lucy Rogers:

    Last month we filed a lawsuit in the High Court against the Attorney-General for the unlawful arrest of a peaceful protestor, Lucy Rogers. Our claim has been served and we are now waiting for them to file a Statement of Defence.

    Paul Burns:

    On Friday 17 May, Paul, an anti-abortionist, appeared in the Wellington District Court to defend a charge for offensive language which carries a maximum fine of $1,000.

    On the day of the hearing, we were advised that the Police bumped the charge up to disorderly conduct which carries a maximum penalty of three months imprisonment or a $2,000 fine. We’re waiting to be advised on the next Court date and an updated Summary of Facts to justify this new charge.

    Christine Massof:

    Last month we filed a Personal Grievance with the Employment Relations Authority against IRD for unjustified disadvantage and discrimination after she was labelled “anti-trans" and told she was breaching IRD's ‘inclusive' policies. The Authority has directed Christine and IRD to a mediation next month. 

    Suzanne Smith:

    We are waiting on the release of the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal decision following the hearing last month. The Tribunal will determine whether Suzanne, a nurse who lost her job for not taking the Covid vaccine, is liable for professional misconduct when she spoke against the Covid vaccine at a rally following her dismissal.

    NZCPR: 

    Earlier this year, the Hutt City Council banned an insert of Sir Apirana Ngata's ‘The Treaty: An Explanation" from its premises on the basis it was “racist" and "misinformation". The Council stands by their decision and dismissed our concerns. We invited the Council's Chief Executive, Jo Miller to meet with us prior to us taking legal action but she has declined. We’re currently preparing to file a lawsuit against the Council. 


    If we let cases like these slide, each one would set a bad precedent that will be used to silence many more. Would you continue to support our work?

    You might not agree with the messages of the people listed above. But you and I both know that we’ve got to stand up for those we disagree with today so that our voice can be heard tomorrow.  

    It’s only with your help that we’ve come this far (and had wins like our drafted legislation making it as a Member's Bill).

    It’ll be only with your help that we can continue to defend people like you and me, just going about their lives, speaking up about what’s important to them.  

    Let’s stand for justice. We can’t let the censorial bullies win. 

    Hannah Clow
    Senior In-House Legal Counsel 
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

     

    PS. New Zealand First picked up our drafted legislation created to protect free speech and Kiwis' access to public venues! We have five legal cases on the go right now - this is more than ever before. Will you play a part in our next free speech wins? 

  • Feedback on ‘The role of Universities in supporting freedom of speech’ event

    Posted by · May 30, 2024 9:11 AM · 4 reactions

  • Auckland University releases draft Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom Policy; but more work is needed to protect academic freedom and free speech

    Posted by · May 29, 2024 2:56 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    29 May 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Auckland University releases draft Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom Policy; but more work is needed to protect academic freedom and free speech. 

    After more than two years of deliberations by a working group on academic freedom and free speech at the University of Auckland (initiated following the Listener 7 saga related to mātauranga Māori in July 2021), the university has released its draft policy for consultation. Unfortunately, it clearly illustrates that more work is needed to ensure the defense of free speech and academic freedom at universities in New Zealand, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “You’d expect the opening paragraph of a policy on freedom of expression and academic freedom to actually be about these crucial liberties. Instead, the University starts by referencing it is an ‘institution where the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi shape our culture and are central to our mission.’ 

    “The policy also includes that the University may refuse a guest speaker if they don’t meet particular scholarly standards. But there is no indication as to who will make such a determination and, thus, hold an effective veto power.

    “Requirements and claims like these two examples mean this policy is equally likely to be weaponised by those seeking to exclude certain perspectives on the basis of their alleged arguments, not on how the arguments are made. Universities are the very place where ideas, even demonstrably bad ideas, are free to be considered. 

    “We only know bad ideas are demonstrably bad, because we have been allowed to hear them and debate them. 

    “The policy fails to articulate the crucial importance of institutional neutrality - in fact, it provides for expression of “an institutional position” on many matters. Neutrality is increasingly being recognised and implemented in prominent universities around the world (at Harvard University, just yesterday). Academics are the bearers of academic freedom, not universities, and it is not the role of institution, but its constituent members, to advance informed deliberation. 

    “Draft policies such as this illustrate the weakness of the Government’s proposed vague requirement for universities to implement free speech policies, or face funding restrictions. Where a free speech policy is drafted in such a way that it is equally likely to be weaponised and used against dissenting perspectives within the academy, that very policy is a cure worse than the disease. 

    “Consultation is open on this policy through to 28 June, and we look forward to supporting staff and students in insisting on stronger protections for their crucial liberties to speech and academic freedom.”  

    ENDS

    Media contact - Jonathan Ayling 021 842 215, [email protected] 

  • New Zealand First places Free Speech Union drafted legislation in cookie tin as Member’s Bill to protect Kiwis’ access to public venues

    Posted by · May 27, 2024 12:17 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    27 May 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    New Zealand First places Free Speech Union drafted legislation in cookie tin as Member’s Bill to protect Kiwis’ access to public venues

    New Zealand First has picked up the Free Speech Union’s drafted legislation ‘The Protection of the Freedom of Expression Bill’ to ensure Kiwis’ access to public venues. Public facilities exist to serve all New Zealanders, not just those whose opinions are popular, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “Our drafted legislation will ensure all Kiwis have access to publicly funded venues, regardless of who they are or their ideological positions. This legislation creates a positive duty for local venues to protect free speech, even when ‘health and safety’ concerns are weaponised. 

    “We worked with former judge Dr. David Harvey to draft this Bill, along with consulting the Law Commission. Before the General Election, the National, ACT, and New Zealand First parties all endorsed this Bill. 

    “This legislation is the right next step to ensure all voices have access to public venues. The near cancellation of the recent Inflection Point conference is just one example of why this legislation is needed. 

    “It’s not acceptable for public venues to pick and choose whose voices they platform. Our democracy depends on all voices getting their say, no matter how disagreeable or provocative they may be to some.

    “Our legal action has contributed significantly to case law in this area, with strong precedents already in place. This legislation takes the case law further, ensuring the speech rights of all Kiwis.”

    ENDS 

    Note to editor: Please find our drafted legislation here. 
  • The Censors Who'll Save Us From Ourselves

    Posted by · May 22, 2024 5:12 PM · 2 reactions

    There's a common malady suffered by bureaucracies the world over.

    They wish to save us from ourselves.

    Sadly, NZ officials are no less prone to exhibiting symptoms of this occupational condition.

    Observe, for instance, the reaction from certain public figures to the news the Department of Internal Affairs has abandoned the formation of a new online super regulator. Without the new state entity criminal activity we’ll, according to these critics, now have free reign on the internet.

    Even former prime minister Helen Clark weighed in on the issue when she disparaged the “so-called Free Speech Union” (her words!) for rallying a citizen army and helping people lodge nearly 20,000 online submissions in opposition to the proposed regulator.

    Apparently, public officials prefer it if the plebs keep their noses out of grown-up business and only participate in our democracy on one specific day every three years.

    With all the opining over the rejection of the proposed online regulator, it's worth offering a quick sketch of the legislative and regulatory landscape as it stands in NZ, and showing why FSU and free speech supporters aren’t arguing for a dark-web free-for-all, but rather an internet which minimises harms wherever possible while still protecting fundamental democratic freedoms of speech and expression.

    Under the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) we have a legally protected freedom as Kiwis  “to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.” At the same time, NZ law is also clear that certain categories of speech and expression – whether online or offline – are not permitted. These laws cover known evils such as abuse/exploitation, dissemination of content from banned terrorist groups, extreme violence and more.

    The Department of Internal Affairs already runs, for instance, a filtering system (known as DCEFS) that weeds out material related to child abuse/sexual exploitation. Netsafe offers a wide range of services and instruction as well.

    If more parents were helped in accessing this organisation’s services we would see a dramatic decrease in online harm to young people.

    Teaching our kids how free speech actually promotes critical thinking would also go a long way toward safeguarding them from online radicalisation – something FSU is now doing with the Speak Up! program in high schools.

    Social media companies, in spite of the constant drubbing they receive from legacy media, actually block or take down the vast majority of illicit content before it even has a chance to disseminate, and when this fails they are usually extremely quick to act on calls from law enforcement and citizen watchdogs. There are obvious exceptions such as in Australia where the e-Safety Commission has taken on Elon Musk’s social media company X. But even there, X is advancing its case on the basis that arbitrary bureaucratic demands will inevitably curtail legitimate free speech.

    While some argue that the advent of AI means we face the exponential growth and proliferation of illicit content, on the flipside there is an equally strong case that AI will be just as powerful in its use as a monitoring and law enforcement tool.

    But if much of the content we designate as illegal is already being blocked, filtered or taken down, what type of speech or expression is there left to censor?

    How about the kind of speech that certain groups and political parties don’t like? In reality, it is those values and ideas which non-elected self-styled intellectual guardians are really talking about.

    Irrespective of whether you’re politically on the left, the right or simply like most of us somewhere near the middle, a single online regulator becomes a highly effective tool for controlling discourse and information by whomever happens to be elected at any given time.

    In the U.K. new revelations have just come to light concerning the Conservative Government and its recent attempts at deploying a brigade of the British Army to monitor and restrict the social media use of U.K. citizens who opposed certain public policies during Covid.

    Here in NZ we’ve seen a serious campaign from some on the left over the last few years, particularly such self-appointed “experts” as Kate Hannah and Sanjana Hattotuwa of the Disinformation Project. A significant part of their mission, it seems, is to broaden the popular definition of what counts as extremist ideology. Curiously, their own ideological filter only seems to be able to detect right-wing dangers – and by right-wing their working definition would seem to include most people to the right of the Green Party. By their own estimates 350,000 Kiwis are engaged online in “dangerous” ideas – or just over 7% of NZ’s total population. If Ms Hannah and Mr Hattotuwa are the kinds of “experts” ever put in charge of an online regulator here, NZ’s internet may well end up resembling China’s ‘Great Fire Wall.’

    The problem is that rather than go after real extremism which is actually violent, but exceedingly difficult to catch, it is often easier for governments to target low hanging fruit such as politically unpopular but non-violent online activism.

    They make this more palatable to the public by describing such thinking as a “precursor” to violence and trot out “official experts” who usually have no robust evidence to offer.

    The Christchurch Call network gives us ample evidence of this censorious tendency. This was revealed just a few weeks ago, after an independent auditor blew the whistle on the CC executives’ refusal to call out its international partners’ inaction toward violent extremism in their own backyards. Instead of being honest and calling out various governments for their hypocrisy, the Call has widened its target range in order to pursue gender critical activists!

    Those in favour of greater censorship say things like “free speech should involve freedom from harmful speech”. But this is ‘sneaky speak’, a semantic trap. What kind of harm? The kind that is already illegal? Or the highly subjective and emotive kind?

    Think twice before trusting such platitudes.

    Trust the thing instead that public officials and bureaucrats ought to be most afraid of – your own democratic voice, civic values, and common sense.

    Nick Hanne
    Education Partnership Manager
    Free Speech Union

  • "Free speech is the only truly safe space for minorities"

    Posted by · May 15, 2024 4:28 PM · 1 reaction

    Friday last week, I finished up on a bit of a high. Defeating DIA’s proposed online regulator was a seriously major win; one that many Kiwis might not know about, but impacts them anyway. 

    And now it's another big week at the Free Speech Union.

    Did you see our latest international guest, Jonathan Rauch, on the AM Show? "Free speech is the only truly safe space for minorities." Too right! 

    Ironically, the next day we saw Nīkau Wi Neera, a Wellington City Councillor, is trying to shut down an event this weekend run by Inflection Point which is accused of being transphobic- you know, standard lines. The speech expressed there will make the Rainbow Community ‘unsafe’.

    Apparently he didn’t get Jonathan’s memo! 

    Activists conspire to cancel Inflection Point conference 

    Inflection Point is an event on gender-critical issues set to happen at Te Papa's venue Tākina this Saturday and has speakers scheduled such as Bob McCoskrie and Brian Tamaki. 

    Nīkau Wi Neera, Wellington City Councilor put the word out to his followers to get the event cancelled, even blatantly saying it might be possible to shut it down on health and safety grounds (those who employ the 'thugs veto' tactic aren't usually so honest).  

    Well, they won't shut it down on our watch!

    That’s why we insisted on being able to meet with the Tākina management in person yesterday afternoon. That’s why the Free Speech Union exists- to hold our would-be-censors to account.

    In no uncertain terms, I reminded them of their duties to respect free speech, and the fact that if they choose to cancel the event, they’ll likely be looking down the barrel of a court case. (You can read the letter I sent the General Manager at Tākina Events here).

    Wellington Mayor Tory Whanua is also "deeply concerned" about the event. She told The Post“Wellington City Council has a long-standing commitment to recognising diversity and inclusion in the capital."

    Yet again, the would-be-censors think it's okay to silence particular views in the name of 'diversity' and 'inclusion'. That doesn't sound very diverse or inclusive to me. 

    We can't help but also see the irony in Brian Tamaki relying on free speech to have his say when he's been silencing particular views lately. This is the problem with censorship: It backfires. If we don't allow our opponents the right to speak, what do we expect when we want to have our say?

    Jonathan Rauch: Why "free speech is the only truly safe space for minorities"

    There were a couple of 'penny drop' moments for the producers on the AM Show while talking to Rauch on Monday morning.

    "To fight the haters... you need to know what they're saying and how they're reaching their audiences and if you drive them underground by trying to silence them you lose the ability to do this..."

    You and I know this. But it's what the activists who want to shut down Inflection Point don't get. 

    Jonathan Rauch is a firm believer that the only safe space for minorities is free speech. What do they gain through suppression and cancellation? By Inflection Point going ahead, they know exactly whose speech they need to counter, if they disagree with it. 

    Jonathan Rauch himself claims that, as an LGBT activist, he knows how it feels to be offended, but he'd rather this speech was out in the open. That way he knows the thoughts and perspectives of his opponents and can choose when and how to have constructive conversations.   

    'Safe' space? 

    I recently saw this sign in an office stating that it's a "safe space" where "the LGBTQI+ community can freely express themselves without fear". It "does not tolerate violence, bullying or hate speech" towards this community.

    Well I hope it doesn't tolerate this against any community - why single out one?

    Time and time again, we see this sort of communication used to cancel 'unpopular' opinions, not legitimate violence or harassment. 

    If you insist only one side is able to express themselves freely, you're the problem we have against free speech. 

    'Hate' crime work to continue

    You'll remember we put out a public letter to Paul Goldsmith insisting that he drop the work on 'hate' crime laws. 'Hate' is a subjective term - we shouldn't be questioning if a crime was committed for the right or wrong reason. 

    This week I received a reply from Goldsmith saying they intend to continue pursing this work, as it’s important for them to fight ‘hate crime’. 

    This is just another way 'unpopular' opinions will be suppressed. When it's used to discipline criminals for their opinions, it'll send the message to everyone else that certain things are off-limits. 

    With your help, we’ve got some momentum, pushing back against our would-be-censors. But there’s still work coming our way. 

    None of this is ‘free’, and none of it is possible without you. We feel the pressure of having to fight on multiple fronts, and while we’re up to it, we need you to stand with us. 

    If you value the fact that there was an organisation in place to facilitate 90% of the submissions against the DIA proposals, or that we have staff on hand to respond when events are threatened with cancellation, or that we're getting major media coverage that makes the case for why free speech matters, would you support our work now?

    We can't do it without you!

    Jonathan


    Jonathan Ayling
    Chief Executive
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    PS. Read the letter we wrote to Tākina's General Manager insisting he upholds free speech.

    Catch media coverage of our tour with Jonathan Rauch so far: Josie Pagani, AM Show, The Platform and Newstalk ZB. Listen to RNZ on Saturday Morning. If you're Christchurch based, RSVP to tomorrow's event

  • Activists seek to shut down gender-critical event: Tākina Events must uphold speech rights

    Posted by · May 14, 2024 11:13 AM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    14 May 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Activists seek to shut down gender-critical event: Tākina Events must uphold speech rights

    Individuals in Wellington, led by City Councillor Nīkau Wi Neera, are working to use the ‘hecklers veto’ to shut down Inflection Point, a gender-critical event to be held at a Te Papa venue this weekend featuring speakers such as Bob McCoskrie and Brian Tamaki. But public venues have a responsibility to respect everyone’s speech rights, even if some find them offensive or provocative, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “The Free Speech Union’s work has contributed to case law in New Zealand on public venues and their responsibility to uphold speech rights. Publicly funded venues cannot discriminate on ideological viewpoints. We’ve written to Tākina Events, reminding them of their legal responsibility to uphold speech rights. 

    “We note Brian Tamaki is one of the speakers at this event and has every right to speak freely. However, it is ironic he’s relying on these rights when he’s recently worked to shut down the voices of those he disagrees with. Censorship tends to backfire. 

    “We’ve consistently said, when ‘hecklers veto’ is used, we all lose. Inevitably, when we platform a diversity of views, some people will be offended by what’s said. The right response to that is counter-speech: deliberation and debate. Not cancellation.  

    “Free speech has to work both ways. We insist Tākina Events don’t bow to bullying, and uphold speech rights.”

    ENDS 

    Note to editor: Please find letter to Tākina Events here

  • Wellington City Councillor tries to cancel event at Tākina

    Posted by · May 14, 2024 11:13 AM · 1 reaction

  • A huge victory! Proposed internet regulation abandoned!

    Posted by · May 10, 2024 5:10 PM · 4 reactions

    We have huge news to share with you! Today, there's been a massive free speech victory. 

    In June last year, we broke the story that the Department of Internal Affairs was planning to release a discussion document called 'Safer Online Services and Media Platforms'.

    This proposed an online content regulator to censor 'harmful' content online: essentially 'hate speech' laws for the internet (I wrote about the proposals at the time in an op-ed).

    One of the things it meant was that anyone with a distribution list larger than 25,000 (like the Free Speech Union), would be regulated in what we could say.

    Um, no thanks. 🙅‍♀️

    We kicked off the campaign as soon as we heard about these proposals (which was actually before they were announced: we leaked the policy document to the press the day before the announcement and gave DIA a blood nose straight out of the gates).  

    We asked you to join us in pushing back against these proposals. And in the end, over 18,000 FSU supporters submitted to the DIA telling them 'NO!'

    That made it the largest public policy consultation ever at the time. 

    I'm am so thrilled to tell you that, today, we can announce these proposals have been abandoned.

    🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

    This is a huge victory for free speech, and it's thanks to you!!!

    Just last week, we saw the summary report on the discussion paper, 'Safer Online Services and Media Platforms'; over 93% of submissions were from FSU supporters opposing this proposal. 

    These were ambiguous, subjective proposals, like 'hate' speech laws always are. They wouldn't have reduced the harm they intended to, and would have been abused to simply silence 'unpopular' speech.

    Kiwis around the country shared our concerns, and together, we spoke up. And that made all the difference. Today, we wrote to Minister Brooke Van Veldon, thanking her for listening to your response, and abandoning these Orwellian proposals.

    When these proposals were first released, a staff member in our legal team came to me and said 'people won't realise it, but these are worse than the 'Hate Speech' laws. I'm actually scared for what happens if we don't win.'

    Well, together, we did. 💪


    If you need any evidence that censorial powers to block 'harmful' content very quickly expand to 'unpopular' ideas, we just need to look at the Christchurch Call.

    The Call was established to combat violent, extremist content, and now includes 'gender ideology' within the scope of its work. If you're interested in reading more about online regulation, Nick Hanne from our team has written more on this here.

    He says:

    "Determining the limits of free speech in cases of online extremism is an exercise fraught with moral and legal complexities, and past attempts to solve this particular Gordian knot in a single democracy alone have literally kept legislatures and courts busy for centuries.

    To do so everywhere all at once in a way that honours a range of civil liberties' regimes while keeping people safe from terrorism would have been quite simply beyond even Alexander the Great. Or even Dame Jacinda, for that matter."


    I know that you care about keeping speech free, whether online or in person. So here's a simple message. Thank you for adding your voice to ours and making our work, and this victory, possible. 

    Without you, we could very easily have 'hate speech' laws censoring speech and regulators controlling online opinions. All based on what bureaucrats deem 'hateful' and 'harmful'. 

    We've still got our work cut out for us: we're fighting for a culture that values free speech and open dialogue. But with your continued help, I believe we can do it

    Jonathan


    Jonathan Ayling
    Chief Executive
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    Too long, didn't read?

    The DIA's proposed 'online content regulator' has been abandoned. It's a major win, thanks to you. And we need to keep the fight up. 👍

    If you want to listen to a podcast discussion on this, check it out here. 

  • Internal Affairs stops work on online regulatory reforms

    Posted by · May 10, 2024 2:51 PM · 1 reaction

  • Full of Sound and Fury: The Christchurch Call and Online Extremism

    Posted by · May 10, 2024 11:25 AM · 2 reactions

    By Nick Hanne

    It's easy for a story to get buried beneath the sheer volume of headlines which churn through the relentless modern news cycle. So, you could be forgiven for missing coverage last week of the startling revelation that the Christchurch Call suppressed a report by an independent auditor who criticised the Call's international partners for failing to live up to their pledge to fight online extremism. 

    India specifically was identified, but it seems the pattern extends to quite a number of other Call partner countries including Canada. Newstalk ZB broke the story. In an interview with Milton Mueller, founder of the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech, Heather Du Plessis-Allan asked whether the Call led by the former NZ prime minister Dame Jacinda Ardern was still fit for purpose in light of this latest revelation of such self-negating behaviour. Mueller explained that after his organisation's report was badly received by the Call's advisory network leaders, led by the Call's Secretariat - NZ and France - the auditors were "indirectly threatened" that if their adverse reports were released it would be highly embarrassing for all involved. It became clear, concluded Mueller, that in monitoring whether effective action was being taken by the Call's international partners to combat online extremism "civil society participation is pointless." Governments, he mused, would decide which of their self-subscribed commitments they would honour. And in the case of the Call's international partners that answer was easy: none of them. 

    There are two salient admissions here. One is that the governments themselves within the Call network are not living up to their pledges to combat online extremism, not just the Big Tech companies - Meta, YouTube, Microsoft, Twitter/X - who have since 2019 at the Call's creation been regularly excoriated by experts and commentators for doing a poor job of policing user content. Algorithms and billionaire tech moguls were considered the great culprits of the unbridled proliferation of online hate, while government leaders who jetted between summits in Paris, Ottawa and New York delivering homilies on "corporate responsibility" were beatified by the international press. 

    Yet ever since this most recent revelation about the Call network's hypocrisy almost nothing has been said about the matter in the NZ press - aside from Newstalk ZB and The Platform – and a brief comment from Chris Hipkins on why the government needed to now step up, show some leadership and lay out a clear vision for the Call's future. He omitted to mention that the controversy in question had occurred during his own brief term as prime minister in 2023. But why ruin a convenient political point scoring opportunity with an admission of personal culpability, right? 

    Part of the reason for the current press silence probably has to do with the timing. With the Australian e-Safety Commission duking it out with Elon Musk across the Tasman in federal court over whether footage of a bishop's stabbing at the hands of a homegrown terrorist should be free to circulate on X, most of the media coverage has sided with the government in Canberra rather than the American billionaire tech mogul.  

    After decades of dealing with terrorist violence, you could be forgiven for thinking the tax dollars spent and countless hours clocked up by governments in the West might have got us at least somewhat closer to a long-term solution which honours the Bill of Rights while counteracting extremism online.

    That would be a stretch. Terrorism continues apace. But we do know two things that have always been recognised as axiomatic of free speech.

    The first point is that violent extremists - whatever their creed - represent the antithesis of a free-thinking democratic society and the existential threat their ideological motivations pose to a nation must be dealt with pre-emptively, when at all possible, to avoid harm being inflicted on innocents.

    But the second point is that any pre-emptive measures which depend on the ‘expert’ ideological assessment of a suspect before he or she strikes incur by their very nature a substantial risk of sweeping up innocent victims in an unjust dragnet.

    Determining the limits of free speech in cases of online extremism is an exercise fraught with moral and legal complexities, and past attempts to solve this particular Gordian knot in a single democracy alone have literally kept legislatures and courts busy for centuries. To do so everywhere all at once in a way that honours a range of civil liberties' regimes while keeping people safe from terrorism would have been quite simply beyond even Alexander the Great. Or Dame Jacinda, for that matter. 

    The case of the Australian e-Safety Commission attempting to bring X to heel illustrates just why. X, like its compatriot tech companies, exists in its current form because of the U.S. First Amendment. American free speech provisions have always been more permissive than other nations' free speech codes. Now consider how, if these tech giants are headquartered in the U.S., we will ever see them yield to non-American standards of censorship if their own constitution affords them rock-solid legal protection in the one economy that matters more to them than any other. It's true that after Trump declined to answer the Call’s call in 2019, the U.S. State Department under the Biden administration has since embraced the general aims of Ardern’s vision for the internet, but as the legal pundits have repeatedly pointed out: there's just no getting around America's founding document. If an American wants to post content that is permitted under the First Amendment, U.S. courts will uphold that right. And once that content is up, no matter how shrill the demands of an Australian prime minister (or any other) might become, that content isn't coming down. It has also been rightly pointed out that those calling for more censorship have failed to argue coherently which videos should stay on the platforms and which should go. For example, why is the nine-minute video of George Floyd's murder by asphyxiation held by these would-be censors to be lawful - and even considered necessary for public education in the matter of police brutality - but the less graphic, and arguably less harrowing, non-fatal attack on the Sydney bishop objectionable to point of needing removal? I'm not suggesting that certain rules for discernment don't exist in law, or that censorship of certain violent material isn't needed. Clearly, we don’t want or need everything up online. I, like the vast majority of New Zealanders, have no desire to view the footage of the 2019 Christchurch mosque-massacres – certain horrific images are without doubt beyond the pale. However, even if we all agree that the Christchurch tragedy was more extreme by several orders of magnitude than almost all other modern tragedies, there must still be some moral logic that establishes where the threshold for content exclusion ought to be. Those who have demanded so frenetically in Australia in recent weeks for injunctions on online content need to articulate a framework for censorship which is both clear and consistent. I have not seen any evidence of a rational model being presented for public consideration by either a civil or political authority in any of the countries in question. Perhaps it is the kind of problem that cannot be determined by reason alone. But if that is the case, are we limited to what the eyes of the average person on the street might consider psychologically tolerable or intolerable? If not that, then what metric?

    While it appears that current approaches are not leading us toward any effective new strategies in dealing with online radicalisation, some serious lessons can be learned about what happens when an organisation like the Christchurch Call takes it upon itself to set standards of censorship. The U.K. government's Prevent programme unfortunately has a severe case of this problem. 

    Prevent, a division of the U.K. Home Office, was created to combat the rise of homegrown Islamism in the aftermath of the 2005 London terror attacks. It has a budget today equivalent to $100 million NZ dollars. Yet despite 80% of all terror attacks in the U.K. in the past two decades being classified as Islamist in motive, while only 10% was from the extreme right wing, the proportion of Prevent spending on these categories is now allocated inversely. Concerned at reports of "mission creep" the U.K. government commissioned an independent review of Prevent. The findings summarised by Sir William Shawcross as lead investigator indicated a severe lack of accountability within Prevent and a general disregard for its initial charter. Perhaps the most alarming detail in the report was the revelation that RICU, a unit within Prevent, had compiled a list of texts and thinkers deemed "problematic" and likely ideological primers or drivers for extreme right-wing radicalisation. Among this notorious catalogue of despicable characters stood William Shakespeare, John Milton, George Orwell, J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and John LeCarre. Apart from the fact that all of these figures had been white and male, it is still unclear quite what landed them together under this ignominious designation. As one cynical observer suggested, the list resembled the Western literary canon. The popular Netflix series House of Cards even made it in along with the iconic 1970s British TV comedy 'Yes, Minister'. The whole situation is so ironic it beggars belief. Even after the Shawcross Report was released many of the most serious recommendations for reform have gone unheeded. Sir William himself has since publicly called for accountability over its implementation. But still nothing much has happened. 

    Would something like this ever happen in NZ though? Well, we know it already has. The Christchurch Call has gradually expanded its focus to include gender critical activism, among other undesirable activities, on its list. And even though it has been found absolutely wanting in its chief mission, the Call yet continues as an organisation within government, though not it seems in any way directly accountable to parliament. While indications are that the coalition Government intends to make an announcement on the future of the Call, no word from the Beehive has thus far come forth. Who knows if it ever will. The current prime minister appears to be more concerned with more pressing matters. So, the news cycle being what it is, yesterday's definition of online censorship may well be tomorrow's fish and chip paper. 

  • Another victory for free speech: DIA abandons proposals for online censorship

    Posted by · May 10, 2024 11:24 AM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    10 May 2024

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Another victory for free speech: DIA abandons proposals for online censorship

    The Free Speech Union welcomes the decision by the Department of Internal Affairs, and Minister Brooke Van Velden, to abandon proposals to further regulate online speech. It is increasingly clear Kiwis have no interest in our would-be-censors’ obsession with trying to control what they say, claims Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “The DIA’s proposals for online content and media regulation set themselves up to effectively be hate speech laws for the internet and press, created by an unelected, unaccountable ‘regulator’ without the legislative scrutiny that Parliament normally provides. It is a worst-case scenario for free speech. 

    “In nations with legislation similar to these proposals, it is increasingly clear that they are used for political purposes to control certain speech, particularly of protests and dissidents.

    “We are thrilled New Zealand continues to buck this trend in comparison to other supposedly ‘liberal’ democracies, and to stand for free speech through a free press and free internet. 

    “DIA received over 20,000 submissions during its consultation on these proposals. The Free Speech Union facilitated over 93% of these submissions, each unique, from Kiwis opposing this overreach.  

    “Considerable work remains to create online environments where all individuals are free to speak openly, without facing harassment or potential intimidation. This is a cultural work, one which is enabled by a dedicated belief in free speech; not imposing ambiguous ‘regulation’ to beat distasteful opinions or provocative views.

    “Bravo, free speech champions of New Zealand.” 

  • Incorrect characterisation of Free Speech Union as ‘Libertarian’

    Posted by · May 09, 2024 4:01 PM · 1 reaction

  • Polling shows majority of Kiwis support university funding being contingent on defending academic freedom

    Posted by · May 09, 2024 8:50 AM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    8 May, 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Polling shows majority of Kiwis support university funding being contingent on defending academic freedom

    Polling commissioned by the Free Speech Union and conducted by Curia Market Research shows that most New Zealanders (53%) support government funding to universities being partially contingent on upholding academic freedom, compared to only 19% who opposed this.

    This result is consistent with polling from last year, which showed 75% of Kiwis believe free speech is a 'defining cultural value', but a majority also believed that value is under threat, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    "The Government's policy to withdraw funding from universities that fail in their core duties to defend the rights of academics to academic freedom is not only necessary to restore free speech in New Zealand; it's a policy a majority of Kiwis support.

    "Fewer than one in five Kiwis opposed the question, 'Do you think government funding should be partially contingent on how well a university does in upholding academic freedom?'

    "Academic freedom in New Zealand is under serious threat. The simple saga of Victoria University trying to host a panel discussion on free speech is just one example of many that illustrate this point.

    "There are those within the university who are ideologically opposed to the basic freedoms that have led to the very function and flourishing of the university. If free speech and academic freedom are not maintained in universities, what is the point of the university? It's indoctrination, not education.

    "The Free Speech Union's recently launched profession-specific membership for academics is just one response we are leading to restore academic freedom in Kiwi universities, and free speech for the tens of thousands of young New Zealanders who pursue tertiary education to learn how to think, not be told what to think."

  • Universities, you're on notice.

    Posted by · May 08, 2024 10:07 AM · 1 reaction

    It's graduation week for several universities around the country, and many of the graduates will already have a few months of work under their belts.

    It's worth considering the ripple effect our academics have as they send graduates out into the world to many workplaces to apply what they've learnt.

    Here at the Free Speech Union, we've documented a consistent decline in academic freedom over the past couple of years. I know this is an issue you care about, but many other Kiwis are just starting to realise what's at stake, thanks to the coverage on Victoria University postponing the panel discussion on free speech

    Academics often tell us they self-censor for fear of saying something out of line. After all, it's pretty hard to speak up if it'll put your income on the line. 

    But consider the effect of academics self-censoring. It doesn't just stop with them. What does this do for our students, and therefore the workforce, and our nation at large? 

    Introducing our membership specifically for academics

    Last week we said we were stepping up and taking the fight to the university. We're tired of academics not being able to freely voice their opinions and perspectives.

    That's why we've launched our first of eight new, industry-specific memberships. It's especially for academics and university staff. 

    With a council chaired by Prof. Paul Moon and Prof. Elizabeth Rata, the new membership will be a community of academics committed to academic freedom being defended, upheld and celebrated.

    We have a proven track record of defending those silenced simply for voicing their opinions. We want to ensure academics know they can rely on us, and that they don't need to live in fear. We'll go into bat for them

    Learn more about our new membership for academics and university staff

    Keep an eye out over the next couple of months, as we launch a total of eight professional-memberships. We haven't said this publicly yet, but as a supporter, we wanted to let you know. We're taking the fight to those who are silencing Kiwis in their workplaces: teachers, lawyers, doctors, public servants- they all should be free to speak. 

    The stakes are high if we don't get this right

    Last week we announced that we are the proud named sponsors of the New Zealand Schools Debating Council. What better way to champion free speech than to get the next generation exercising it?

    But this week, we heard that half of the executive team resigned in protest. Why? Because the other half has threatened to cut ties with us.

    If their reason is anything like that of the six debating teams from the University of Auckland who pulled out of the AUT Mooting Society's moot we sponsored, it'll be because they need to be seen as 'politically neutral'.

    And apparently, standing for everyone's right to have their say, regardless of the subject matter, isn't politically neutral anymore. 

    In other news, the AUT Mooting Society's moot went ahead. We had a great evening on Monday as the finalists battled it out at Meredith Connell in their mock court. 

    Join us next week on our tour with Jonathan Rauch

    Our tour with Jonathan Rauch really couldn't come at a better time. This weekend, Rauch arrives to New Zealand all the way from Washington DC. Rauch is an authority on the crucial importance of academic freedom. He’ll unpack why free speech matters so much to the university, and what we need to do to save it.

    We have a jam-packed schedule with around 30 appointments over five days, including two public events, conversations at universities especially for academics, meetings with vice-chancellors, and media interviews. 

    Have you RSVP'd yet to our public event in Auckland or Christchurch yet? If you can't make it along to an event, keep an eye on our Facebook and Twitter for all the updates and media coverage. 

    If you're an academic, get in touch with [email protected] to find out more about our academic conversations. 

     


    If universities are to go back to being the critic and conscience of society, we can't sit back and let academic freedom plummet further. We're doing something about it. You can chip in here

    Nadia Braddon-Parsons
    Communications & Marketing Manager
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    PS. Our new membership especially for academics is here. Let's see academic freedom thrive. Not an academic? You can can still join us here, or contribute to the cause. Speaking of academic freedom, are you coming along to one of our public events with Jonathan Rauch next week?

     

  • Free Speech Union launches professional membership for academics to fight ‘culture of fear’ in universities

    Posted by · May 08, 2024 9:45 AM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    EMBARGOED UNTIL: Midday, 8 May 2024
    Please note: The new membership and website will be launched at midday. 

    Free Speech Union launches professional membership for academics to fight ‘culture of fear’ in universities

    The Free Speech Union has launched a professional membership category especially for academics to ensure their speech rights are defended, upheld, and celebrated, says Jonathan Ayling Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “Over the past week, the public has become more aware of how academic freedom is under threat in New Zealand’s education sector in light of Victoria University’s problems scheduling a discussion on free speech. 

    “The Free Speech Union has engaged this problem over several years. Research we produced in both 2022 and 2023 reveals that as many as 50% of academics who responded to our survey at some universities do not feel free to raise differing perspectives on key issues.  

    “Our academic leaders and education professional bodies have statutory duties to protect academics’ basic freedoms but have failed us every time they’ve threatened or disciplined someone from speaking. Not only has this affected the individuals silenced, it’s told the rest of the industry to keep their mouths shut. 

    “There’s now an entrenched ‘culture of fear’ which many academics refer to. It takes immense courage to challenge the status quo if you know it puts your income and reputation on the line. It’s time academics and teachers weren’t afraid to share their opinions.

    “Prof. Paul Moon from Auckland University of Technology and Prof. Elizabeth Rata from the University of Auckland will chair the Inter-University Council on Academic Freedom. This Council will work to provide members with protection and a community of others also striving for academic freedom and free speech in our universities. 

    “This is the first of eight professional, industry-specific memberships we’re launching across the next eight months. We want to see Kiwis able to freely express themselves without retribution, no matter their context.” 

    The academic membership can be found at https://www.fsu.nz/academics

    ENDS

     

  • Free Speech Union welcomes Ethos’ policy guide to schools navigating gender ideology

    Posted by · May 07, 2024 3:57 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    07 May 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Free Speech Union welcomes Ethos’ policy guide to schools navigating gender ideology 

    A new policy guide for New Zealand schools released by human rights advocacy organisation Ethos includes recommendations for how speech and conscience rights can be upheld when dealing with differing gender ideologies, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “Everyday, schools must navigate the complex space relating to students transitioning their gender. Understandably, there are a range of opinions surrounding this topic. We believe more open conversations are needed, and this policy document supports those discussions.  

    “The Inclusive Education Policy currently produced by SchoolDocs doesn’t allow for nuanced discussions or perspectives, and has blanket provision for the use of a student’s preferred name and pronouns, resulting in compelled speech. The Ethos report endorses a ‘watchful waiting’ approach that “stops to ask important questions about the particular child in their particular circumstances”

    “To prioritise the inclusion of all its students, schools must broadly assess their policies and procedures, including allowances for students and staff who do not believe gender is a social construct or is non-binary. 

    “It also recognises that the CPPLA (Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022) allows anyone the ability to voice beliefs and religious principles provided it does not intend to suppress an individual’s gender identity. This is an important defense of both staff and students’ speech and conscience rights.

    “Ethos’ policy document deals with a complex question and provides recommendations for how teachers can respectfully maintain their own freedoms of conscience and speech while also supporting students around them. It is a welcome contribution to this important discussion.” 

    ENDS

    Find Ethos' policy report here.

  • Free Speech Union proud to be New Zealand Schools’ Debating Council 2024 named-sponsor

    Posted by · May 03, 2024 8:39 AM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    02 May 2024

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Free Speech Union proud to be New Zealand Schools’ Debating Council 2024 named-sponsor 

    In line with the Free Speech Union’s commitment to invest in a culture that values free speech and debate, we are excited to announce our partnership with the New Zealand Schools’ Debating Council (NZSDC). We will support them in presenting their finals debate at Parliament this year at the end of May, says Nick Hanne, the Union’s manager for education partnerships. 

    “Alongside our work in high schools around the country through our ‘Speak Up’ programme, and supporting events at universities (such as the free speech moot we hosted yesterday with the Auckland University of Technology Mooting Society), we are excited to help champion the important work of the Debating Council. We’re pleased to join our name with theirs in championing a new generation of critical thinking, free speaking, debaters.

    “The work of the NZSDC aligns with our own organisational mission of promoting a culture of free discourse and independent critical thinking amongst young Kiwis.

    “We’re proud not only to defend those who are silenced and deplatformed today through the case work and campaigns we run, but to also champion, celebrate, and sponsor those demonstrating the value of debate, and training a new generation in this important skill. 

    “A growing generational suspicion of the impact of free speech must be countered. While censorship is a very human impulse, it is one that is antithetical to our liberal democratic society. Through our educational workstream, including our partnership with the Debating Council, we believe we will ensure a new generation of Kiwis embrace the emancipatory value of free speech.” 

    ENDS

  • Free Speech Union urges Auckland University to ensure speech rights are upheld at pro-Palestinian rally

    Posted by · May 01, 2024 4:07 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    1 May 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Free Speech Union urges Auckland University to ensure speech rights are upheld at pro-Palestinian rally

    In response to a pro-Palestian rally planned by students at Auckland University, the Free Speech Union calls on the Vice-Chancellor to ensure that freedoms of speech and protest are respected and upheld, says Dane Giraud, an Advisory Council member of the Union. 

    “As a member of the Jewish community, I am well aware of the depth of feeling that is held by many on the war between Israel and Gaza. It is because of the depth of feeling, not in spite of it, that we must respect students’ speech rights. 

    “We applaud the comments made already by the University in support of the right for students to hold the rally, and their commitment to work with participants to ensure it is safe and legal. 

    “Free speech is either for all, or it’s not at all. Some may consider a pro-Palestinian rally or expression at the rally (such as chants) confronting or offensive. However, unless these extend to calls for imminent, physical violence, they must be tolerated. 

    “The rights to free speech and protest are the lifeblood of our democracy and are especially important within a university. However, these rights do not validate illegal activity, which threatens others’ personal safety, or their property. 

    “We can’t expect to have our say unless we allow others to do the same.”

    ENDS 

  • DIA’s report on Safer Online Platforms overwhelmingly in favour of free expression: submitters say ‘no’ to online censorship

    Posted by · May 01, 2024 2:48 PM · 1 reaction


    MEDIA RELEASE

    1 May 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    DIA’s report on Safer Online Platforms overwhelmingly in favour of free expression: submitters say ‘no’ to online censorship 

    The Department of Internal Affairs has released its summary report on the public submissions to 'Safer Online Services and Media Platforms'. With over 20,000 submissions, this was an overwhelming rejection of these proposals and online censorship, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “Of the 20,000 submissions on proposed online content regulations, almost 19,000 were from Free Speech Union supporters. Kiwis have spoken up. It's clear that censoring the internet would be dangerous for New Zealand and our democracy.

    “This is one of the largest-ever responses to a public policy consultation in New Zealand (ahead of the proposed hate speech laws in July 2021).

    “Submitters felt it necessary to distinguish between ‘harmful’ content and illegal content to ensure guidelines don’t limit freedom of expression. Others raised that ‘harm’, ‘unsafe’, and ‘misinformation’ are necessarily subjective terms, not easily defined and easily abused. 

    “The proposed censorship for online content was just 'hate' speech laws for the internet. With most media consumed online, and social media being the new ‘public square’, it’s important for our democracy that opinions are freely shared on the internet. 

    “Many had concerns that a regulator would lead to less public discourse and more self-censorship. Submitters said the proposals were an unnecessary addition to the laws we already had in place. 

    “If we put censorial powers in the hands of a few, it will easily be used to silence dissenting views. Likewise, this is why the proposed hate speech laws were abandoned. 

    “Kiwis believe in free speech and a free internet. The Government must respect that.”

  • Free Speech Union to hold panel discussion on free speech if Victoria University doesn’t

    Posted by · April 30, 2024 4:45 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    30 April 2024

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Free Speech Union to hold panel discussion on free speech if Victoria University doesn’t 

    The Free Speech Union has written to the Council of Victoria University to advise them that they will hold the postponed panel discussion on free speech if the university doesn’t, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “As a registered trade union, we intend to use our union status to meet on employer’s premises and to hold a union meeting. We'll host a panel discussion on free speech at Victoria University if they don’t follow through with their promise to host the event they postponed within a month.

    “We applaud the university for seeking out panelists with varying viewpoints to ensure a diversity of opinions is platformed at the event. But we warn them that the tactic of those opposed to free speech is to avoid conversations altogether and to silence critics. 

    “By pandering to student and staff concerns that the conversation on free speech will make some people feel “unsafe”, they’ve sent the message that it’s okay to stifle opinions they don’t like. This is the antithesis of how debate should occur at a university.

    “600 people were registered to attend the original event. There’s a hunger to dig deeper into the topic of free speech. But Victoria University has put itself between a rock and a hard place. 

    “If there was ever a time to discuss the necessity of academic freedom and free speech on our campuses, it’s now. We’re ensuring it happens.”

    ENDS

    Note to editor: Please find our letter to Victoria University here.

  • Union to hold panel discussion on free speech if University won’t

    Posted by · April 30, 2024 4:22 PM · 1 reaction

  • What's the point of a university without free speech?

    Posted by · April 30, 2024 4:21 PM · 2 reactions

    What a couple of days it's been!

    As you've probably seen, there's a major fight going on right now for free speech at our universities (specifically Victoria).

    Good thing we have a speaking tour specifically on academic freedom coming up in two weeks!

    This is what I told Heather Du Plessis Allan from Newstalk yesterday (and RNZ, and The Postand Sean Plunket, and Michael Johnson, and Andrew Urquhart) when students claimed that the fact we defend individuals who express "hate speech" means we would make them "unsafe":

    If students (and staff, for that matter), can't deal with someone speaking out in favour of free speech, reason, and the need for competing ideas to be freely expressed, then... they shouldn't be at university! 


    Victoria University, at this very moment, is the scene of a critical test for free speech in NZ, and I'm worried what happens if it doesn't go our way. 

    As a publicly funded institution with its proud history of academic excellence, the case before us has dire implications for young people throughout the country. 

    Our future leaders – political, corporate, professional - are shaped profoundly by their university experience. We want them to emerge educated and empowered to think for themselves, able to freely express their opinions and, just as vitally, be ready to listen to others with whom they may disagree.

    Help me think this through; what happens if this is the new normal?

    Perish the thought; this is what we're doing to make sure that doesn't happen. We have to act now.  

    We've written to the University Council, noting that they are not meeting their legal obligations. We know that many academics do not feel free to voice their expert opinions- and that's one of the defining features of academic freedom. We told them: 

    Whether intentionally or not, the Vice-Chancellor has confirmed to your students and staff that they are entitled to stifle views they disagree with; and simply, this is wrong. It is antithetical to the necessity of debate and difference at universities.

    As a publicly funded tertiary institution, it is your duty to uphold and promote free speech and the necessity of deliberation and debate. It is paradoxical and ironic that this conversation about how to have conversations has been deferred. The University’s actions here have shown it is only reinforcing prejudices, not fulfilling its purpose.

    We've told them that if they don't follow through with a panel, we'll hold our own. As a registered union, we have a right to hold meetings on employment premises. We need to see leadership step up and ensure this event goes ahead (with us included), or we'll do it ourselves.  

    Most importantly, we've decided to launch a specific membership with the Free Speech Union for academics.

    The Inter-University Council on Academic Freedom, chaired by Prof. Paul Moon from Auckland University of Technology, and Prof. Elizabeth Rata from the University of Auckland, will be a branch of the Free Speech Union for academics, so we can take the fight for free speech into the academy.

    It's time that academics and students who believe in free speech had a banner to organise under so they can get to work and stand up for this crucial freedom. We're going to make that possible.  

    Each of these actions takes work for our talented (but small) team, and it takes money. To just do the last item, we need to launch a new website, set up a system to provide academics with a profession-specific membership, and engage with the profession of more than 20,000 academics. We're talking tens of thousands of dollars. 

    The fight for free speech in our universities will not be won without Kiwis partnering with us to ensure we have enough money to keep the lights on! 

    This whole saga needs to be a wake up call. If debates on free speech can’t occur at universities, where else should we expect them to take place?

    A society that abandons free speech is necessarily condemned to be less equal, less free, and more violent.

    Now is the time for each of us to take action and stand up for free speech.

    Jonathan


    Jonathan Ayling
    Chief Executive
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

  • What happens if we don't defend free speech at universities?

    Posted by · April 23, 2024 3:07 PM · 1 reaction

    'Academic freedom' seems like a pretty abstract value for the lucky few who live in an 'ivory tower'. But the right for experts to speak freely is crucial. 

    If those at our universities don't have free speech, how does knowledge develop?

    How is innovation possible if ideas cannot be tested?

    How do we progress as a society if we become so uncomfortable with dissenting ideas that it stops us from speaking about them altogether? 

    These are major questions we're considering right now. We're preparing for a tour on academic freedom, and as we do, we're realising again and again why this matters so much as we face yet more examples of academic freedom under threat. 

    If we don't fight for academic freedom, who will? 


    Attacks against free speech at Vic Uni; but opportunities to counter, too

    Last week, we were sent draft principles for what discourse Victoria University intends to allow on campus.

    Granted, there are some good parts, like the acknowledgment that academics should feel able to fulfill their role as a critic and conscience of society and should be open to changing their minds. (Fundamental stuff to the role of the university, but unfortunately we know many academics across the nation don't believe they have this freedom.)

    But mostly, these principles were deeply concerning.

    Here's an example:

    "We should not provide a platform for, nor invite, individuals or groups to speak on campus that have previously demonstrated or are expected to express hate speech as the current law defines..."

    Likely to express hate speech?

    No one in New Zealand has ever faced a criminal prosecution under our current hate speech laws. So really, what this would amount to would be academics claiming a particular perspective is 'hate speech', accusing a speaker before they've opened their mouth.

    It's yet another speech code that will be used, when it suits the university, to avoid unpopular opinions.

    They go on to say they will not provide a platform for those whose views differ from the university's values, and they'll only give speakers platforms based on "their history of being able to follow the guiding principles".

    While not only prescriptive, this is also contradictory, isn't it? When their values include being open to others' opinions?

    If they're really committed to "the pursuit of knowledge" and "acknowledging we are all part of an ongoing discussion and are prepared to listen respectfully and to be open to changing our minds", then they need to wake their ideas up. 

    It's just as well the Free Speech Union can be part of the conversation. 

    Next week I'm speaking on a prominent panel at Victoria University, which the Vice-Chancellor is hosting.

    We will discuss the necessity of free speech for academic freedom, and the university's role in contributing evidence and critical thinking to debates. I'll be aiming to put a strong case forward!

    Next generation of lawyers refuse to debate 'free speech moot' 

    The opportunity to sit on a panel to discuss free speech hasn't come too soon. 

    The ability to debate is a dying art.

    So, we were thrilled when the AUT Mooting Society asked us to sponsor a moot on free speech. It's a chance to see free speech in action in an academic context.

    Ten teams were lined up to participate. That's dozens of our future lawyers cutting their teeth on why law that defends free speech is so important.

    But, last week we found out all six teams from the University of Auckland have pulled out.

    Why? Because we're sponsoring it, and they need to be seen as politically neutral. (Which I suggest probably means they are anything but politically neutral...)

    Since when was standing for everyone's right to speak their mind, regardless of the content, biased?

    Can they see the irony of pulling out of a moot on free speech because of our association with it?

    It's a debate!

    If the next generation views free speech itself as biased, what does that mean for our future?

    This is the very reason why we have to continue work to create a new generation of free speech champions.

    I, for one, wasn't willing to let this derail an important event. We're pushing ahead, and have made sure dozens can still engage with these crucial issues. Free speech will be demonstrated and debated.
    Mooters will argue a case about the cancellation of an event at a public venue and grapple with the tension between free speech, health and safety, and the ‘heckler’s veto.’

    Our next tour: Jonathan Rauch on academic freedom

    So often our role involves putting out fires and holding people to account. But we're also proud to shift culture by prompting conversation.

    Our next international guest is a leading voice in academic freedom all the way from Washington DC. Author and journalist Jonathan Rauch will tour with us next month visiting universities, meeting with vice-chancellors, and speaking at our public events on the importance of academic freedom. 

    Rauch is the author of eight books including The Constitution of Knowledge and Kindly Inquisitors - two books our team often refers to which defend free speech, science, and robust criticism.

    Rauch is well-versed in discussing how to address disinformation and cancel culture and brings an important perspective to New Zealand. 

    During Rauch's visit, you'll see interviews with dozens of journalists and media, and have the chance to attend public events in Auckland or Christchurch, or if you're an academic, to the symposium we're hosting with the New Zealand Initiative in Wellington

    Reserve your place at an event here.


    Universities should be places where ideas and theories are freely debated and tested, but we’re continually seeing that this is not the case.

    We're working to be the change we want to see. 

    Donation

    It's easy to take free speech for granted until it's not there. But together, we can keep up the fight.

    Jonathan


    Jonathan Ayling
    Chief Executive
    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    PS. RSVP now to hear prominent free speech advocate Jonathan Rauch speak in Auckland or Christchurch, or in Wellington if you're involved in academia. 

  • Man arrested and charged for ‘offending’: FSU to defend

    Posted by · April 19, 2024 3:36 PM · 4 reactions

    MEDIA RELEASE

    19 April 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Man arrested and charged for ‘offending’: FSU to defend 

    Paul Burns was arrested after engaging in a debate in a public space and the Free Speech Union will defend him in court next month. This is yet another example of an unjust and unlawful arrest by Police based on someone’s views says Nadia Braddon-Parsons, Communications Manager for the Free Speech Union. 

    “Burns was standing on Lampton Quay holding a sign that said, ‘$100 to the 1st person who proves that slavery is more evil than abortion’ with $100 worth of notes taped to the sign. 

    “He was approached by a group of young people prepared to engage in the conversation. They argued that because of overpopulation, abortion is justified. Burns responded to their argument with, “if you think that the world is overpopulated, then why don’t you kill yourself?”.

    “Burns was handcuffed, taken to Police cells, and charged under section 1(4)(b) of the Summary Offences Act. He will appear in court on 17 May. If convicted, he’ll be fined $1,000 and acquire a criminal record. 

    “The man who assaulted a woman at Albert Park was discharged without conviction. Burns simply engaged in a debate. Our justice system has its priorities seriously wrong. 

    “This arrest follows the dangerous pattern of ‘catch and release’ that we’re seeing from the Police. Here the Police have taken words out of context and acted prejudicially.

    “It is unacceptable to be punished for engaging in debate and holding strong views on a subject, no matter how provocative. That is not how democracy works.”

    ENDS

  • Is this the new normal we want?

    Posted by · April 19, 2024 12:17 PM · 1 reaction

    A semi-interesting fact about me is that I believe I am the only individual in New Zealand who is both a practising doctor and barrister. While the two professions often require different skills, I pursued both for the same reason.

    My desire to care for people. 

    It's the same reason that led me to take this role of the Chairperson of the Free Speech Union. I simply can't sit by and see injustice occur. 

    That's why I'm writing to tell you the story of a case we've just taken on, standing with a man called Paul Burns who I'm defending in court on behalf of the Free Speech Union.

    You may ask why he is before the Court. Good question.

    Well, (brace yourself, now) according to the police, Paul engaged in a debate in a public place. For that, the police arrested him and charged him with a crime of speaking with "an intent to offend"!

    If he is convicted he will be fined $1,000 and acquire a criminal record. 

    You can't make this stuff up... punch a granny in the face at a protest, and you'll be discharged without conviction. Dare 'offend' someone with your opinion, and the police will turn up with handcuffs. 

    Is it just me, or has the system got its priorities incredibly wrong?  

    There need to be serious consequences for indifference to basic liberties.

    I know these are issues you care about. Together, we’ve had meaningful impact before. I'm writing to ask if you will join us in defending all Kiwis' right to speak freely. 


    Paul Burns has a strong view on abortion - one that, personally, I don't share. But far be it for me to let that get in the way of us defending his speech rights. 

    Paul feels so strongly about abortion that he wants debate it in public, and he puts his own money on the line to do so. 

    Taping $100 worth of cash to a sign, he offers this money to anyone who 'proves that slavery is more evil than abortion.' He stands on the street in Wellington with his sign and debates his opinion with anyone who chooses to stop and engage with him. He is forceful but polite and respectful, and only locks horns with people who are interested.  

    Paul's sign

    Several weeks ago, he was speaking with a group of young people, when one of them claimed that abortion is not only not evil, it is a good thing, because there are too many people in the world.

    Because of climate change, depopulation is needed, so fewer births are good. To this, Paul asked him, according to that logic, why don't you kill yourself? That is it. That is what he said. 

    It's a provocative question, for sure, but one that follows in the context of the discussion. If the world is overpopulated, how do you justify your existence?

    Apparently the police have not heard of irony. It is a standard debating tactic to turn a person's own logic against them to try and show what is wrong with it. It is not meant to be taken literally.

    Paul was not telling people to kill themselves. He was arguing exactly the opposite: killing is wrong. A child of ten understands how arguments like this work.

    But Paul was arrested for it. His trial is scheduled for the 17th of May. 


    When I was first approached about this case, I was sceptical. Every week, individuals approach us with stories of suppressed speech. Often, when we look into them, it's quite a different story. 

    But in this case we have the police's word for it.  The document below is the official Summary of Facts that is placed before a court when a person is charged with a crime. Read it for yourself. 

    Statement of Claim

    A society in which we are not able to publicly voice opinions or ask questions that confront others is a society in which we are all much poorer - and obviously, less free. 

    We currently have half a dozen cases before the courts or tribunals, defending a series of Kiwis who have been charged with a crime for saying something. 

    If we don't stand with them, who will? It’s in moments like this that I believe we each have a role to play. 

    Join us, again. As I stand in court for Paul, would you join us and help us fund this fight?

    Last week, we announced that the charges brought by police against Daniel Maxwell, a supporter we were working with, have been dropped. 🎉Daniel was arrested and charged for peaceful protest. 

    This week, we announced we are suing the police for the wrongful arrest of Lucy Rogers, a counter-protestor in Auckland. 💪

    There is a wider picture here. Police are arresting and charging people for simply expressing themselves. Open societies have understood for hundreds of years that it is not a crime to state your opinion, even if other people do not like it. It is a sinister turn in the life of our nation that police officers, even at a senior level, no longer understand that. 

    This is what keeping up the fight looks like, but we can't do it without you.

    I will represent Paul in the Wellington District Court for free. However, the wider campaign takes resources. We will do the work. But, frankly we can't run the organisation without money. 

    Thank you for joining us in the fight to keep Kiwis' speech free. 

     


    Dr. Roderick Mulgan
    Council Chair

    Free Speech Union
    www.fsu.nz

    P.S. Last week, we reported the Human Rights Commission was taking a free speech case to the Court of Appeal. But not in favour of free speech, in favour of hate speech laws. 😲

    Paul's is the sort of case the Human Rights Commission should be supporting, or even the Council for Civil Liberties. But instead, it's up to us to ensure justice; would you chip into the fight?  

  • Free Speech Union Submission on the Inquiry into the 2023 General Election

    Posted by · April 15, 2024 3:29 PM · 1 reaction

  • Free Speech Union files suit against Attorney-General for unlawful arrest of peaceful protestor

    Posted by · April 15, 2024 3:06 PM · 2 reactions

    MEDIA RELEASE

    15 April 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

    Free Speech Union files suit against Attorney-General for unlawful arrest of peaceful protestor 

    The Free Speech Union has filed a suit against the Attorney-General in the Wellington High Court on behalf of Lucy Rogers, a Union member who was wrongfully arrested last year while peacefully protesting, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “In November 2023, Rogers was arrested in Auckland while standing on the footpath to the side of a pro-Palestinian protest on Queen Street. She held a sign that said, “SELECTIVE CONDEMNATION OF GENOCIDE IS EVIL”.

    “Rogers was approached by Police who took her sign, ripped it up, and instructed her to move away from the protest. When she asked why she must move away, Rogers was handcuffed and arrested for breaching the peace.

    “While detained, Roger’s request to speak with a lawyer was denied and she was subject to a rubdown search. Rogers was released only on the condition that she leave the area.

    “This is a breach of free expression under section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and a breach of the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained under section 22. 

    “This arrest sets an unacceptable precedent. Peaceful protest is a crucial part of our democracy, guaranteed by our speech rights. 

    “If police are concerned an individual counter-protesting may face violence, it is the police’s role to stop anyone acting violently towards them, not to remove them and abuse their speech rights.  

    “We will not standby while Police undermine this right and allow them to send the message that peaceful protest is not okay.”

    ENDS 

  • Police back down from unlawful arrest, but will they actually take responsibility?

    Posted by · April 12, 2024 2:34 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    12 April 2024

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Police back down from unlawful arrest, but will they actually take responsibility?  

    Police have confirmed that they have dropped charges against Daniel Maxwell for breaching the peace. We defended Maxwell after he was wrongfully arrested for counter-protesting at a pro-Palestinian rally in November last year, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “While we are pleased the police have withdrawn these charges, they should never have been laid in the first place. This is one of three cases we are currently managing where we believe charges were used to silence legitimate speech. 

    “Laying charges for ‘breaching the peace’ and then withdrawing them before they are assessed by the Court allows the Police to remove those exercising their speech rights from protests without having to account for their actions. 

    “Police must arrest and charge those committing criminal activity, not those expressing opinions others dislike. This ‘catch and release’ pattern undermines the notion of the rule of law and has a chilling effect on free speech. It sends a dangerous message to Kiwis that it’s better to remain silent.  

    “We understand from the Independent Police Conduct Authority that over 10 complaints have been laid in similar contexts over wrongful arrest. We are working with the Authority to address these concerns and seek confirmation that this tactic will no longer be used.

    “Peaceful protest and counter-protest are crucial elements in a functioning democracy. It is vital that they’re respected and upheld by Police.”

  • Prominent American journalist and author to tour New Zealand universities with Free Speech Union

    Posted by · April 11, 2024 11:47 AM · 2 reactions

    MEDIA RELEASE

    11 April 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

    Prominent American journalist and author to tour New Zealand universities with Free Speech Union

    Prominent American journalist and author Jonathan Rauch will visit New Zealand with the Free Speech Union next month to discuss the importance of academic freedom, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “Rauch is a senior fellow in the Governance Studies program at the Brookings Institute, the author of eight books and many articles on LGBT rights, public policy, culture, and government. 

    “We’re pleased to bring Rauch to New Zealand for a week from May 12 to specifically engage on the issue of academic freedom. He will speak on university campuses across New Zealand, meet with vice-chancellors, and give the keynote address at a university symposium co-hosted with the New Zealand Initiative in Wellington. 

    “Especially relevant to the tour are Rauch’s books The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth and Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought, which defend free speech, science, and robust criticism. 

    “We’ve documented a consistent decline in academic freedom and academics’ ability to perform their crucial function in society. Universities should be a place where ideas and theories are freely debated and tested, but we continue to see that this is not the case. 

    “We look forward to Rauch’s visit contributing to this important discussion.” 

    ENDS 

  • Do we really want to be like Scotland, Minister?

    Posted by · April 10, 2024 4:17 PM · 1 reaction

  • Hate is subjective, whether hate crimes or hate speech

    Posted by · April 10, 2024 8:42 AM · 2 reactions

  • Personal grievance filed against IRD for suppressing employee’s speech

    Posted by · April 08, 2024 2:04 PM · 6 reactions

    MEDIA RELEASE 

    08 April 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

    Personal grievance filed against IRD for suppressing employee’s speech

    The Free Speech Union has supported a member in filing a personal grievance against IRD with the Employment Relations Authority after an employee was threatened with disciplinary action for sharing particular opinions in a social media chat, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.  

    “IRD employee Christine Massof was recently threatened with a formal disciplinary process by her employers after making a comment on an internal work forum set up specifically for women. 

    “After IRD installed feminine hygiene products in all of its bathrooms, Massof posted a comment on the forum: ‘This is awesome but a shame it took so long coming. And interesting, that now that men can menstruate, free period products are available in all bathrooms.’

    “IRD accused Massof of not being inclusive and told her if there was any risk that her words could be offensive that she should ‘refrain from sharing opinions altogether’ and ‘remain silent’.

    “That’s pretty ironic in the name of ‘inclusivity’. It is unacceptable for an employer to tell employees not to share their opinions in a forum designed specifically to support women. 

    “The personal grievance has been filed on the basis of unjustified disadvantage and discrimination after being labeled ‘anti trans’ and being told she was acting in a way contrary to IRD’s ‘inclusive’ policies. 

    “We expect compensation for Massof and recommendations from the Employment Relations Authority on how IRD and other employers can avoid this situation in the future. 

    “IRD should not discriminate on employee’s views differing to their own.”

    ENDS 

     

  • FIANZ questions why hate speech law reforms abandoned

    Posted by · April 05, 2024 1:11 PM · 1 reaction

  • Looks can be deceiving

    Posted by · April 03, 2024 4:38 PM · 1 reaction

    Hate speech laws can sound noble at first. Who doesn't want to combat hatred? 

    But looks can be deceiving. 

    You'll know by now why we strongly (not to mention successfully) opposed the hate speech laws. We'll say it again and again: Bad ideas are beaten by good ideas. 

    Censorship drives toxic ideas underground to fester, meaning they can crop up in unexpected and far more dramatic ways. 

    I'd rather know when a 'hateful' message exists. As the member of a minority group myself, how can I combat hatred against my community if it is spoken in whispers behind closed doors?

    Suppressing bad ideas doesn’t make them go away. As American journalist and author Jonathan Rauch says, the problem with hate speech is the hate, not the speech.

    This is why I don't see the Government's legislation to ban gang patches any differently from the hate speech laws that were proposed in June 2021. 

    Many of you have raised your concerns when we've spoken about this issue so far:

    "How can you defend gangs?"
    "But patches are for intimidation!"
    "They don't deserve the same rights as us."

    Remember, standing up for someone else's freedom of speech and expression does not mean you have to agree with them or like them. It doesn't mean your moral compass is slipping either. You're standing up for someone else's rights today so that yours will be defended tomorrow.

    We must insist that the Government doesn't set a dangerous precedent. And if you think these new laws won’t suffer mission creep you wait until you get to the end of this email!


    A problem with censorship

    Yes, most people find gangs detestable. This topic triggers strong feelings for many. But we need to take a step back.

    Where will the Government draw the line next? 

    What happens when other symbols, slogans and phrases that are unpopular become banned?

    If we don't like something, we have to find another way to oppose it than banning it, because such laws will quickly be used against us. 

    Free speech for all or not at all

    If the Government is okay with this breach of rights, then what's next?

    We should all be concerned when the Government is prepared to suppress the expression of a particular group of people, because when will it be our turn? 

    We need to crack down on the criminal activity of gangs and enforce the laws already in place. Stopping gangs from telling us who they are doesn't actually help us address what they do.

    The Bill of Rights should not be breached as a solution to fix criminal activity. The Free Speech Union (then Coalition) was formed expressly to defend our Bill of Rights. We have a duty to defend it as does every supporter of free speech.

    We've written a submission to the Justice Select Committee on the Government's legislation.

    Our submission

    We've recommended some constructive amendments to the legislation that we can all agree on without breaching the Bill of Rights. We've recommended that a sunset clause is added so that in six years, the Government and the public can review if this legislation has turned into a slippery slope or not. 

    We've also recommended that the definition of 'gang' is tightened and that the Attorney-General must sign off on any further additions to the 'gang list'.


    Below is a tweet from Labour opposition MP Shanan Halbert.


    We all have an opinion on Destiny Church, and at the Free Speech Union, we do not support law-breaking actions such as some of the vandalism we have seen. But should they be treated like a gang? Could this law end up including them? And if Destiny, why not other churches, or certain disruptive environmental groups?

    Censorship is a hungry beast. It is never content. Whenever a society opens the door to any censorship, it does so at our peril.

    Still think we're just being dramatic? Or do you think these laws are tight enough to be beyond the risk of a slippery slope?

    Attorney-General Judith Collins is a fan of being strict on gangs, and even she says that these laws are an unjust breach of human rights. 

    The Government would be advised to listen to her.  

    Dane Giraud

    Dane Giraud
    Council Member
    Free Speech Union

    PS. The Government's new legislation banning gang patches is a risk for us all. Read our submission to the Justice Select Committee here.

  • Free Speech Union Submission on the Gang Legislation Amendment Bill

    Posted by · April 03, 2024 1:43 PM · 1 reaction

  • Gang patch ban further erosion of Kiwis’ speech rights: FSU submits to Justice Select Committee

    Posted by · April 03, 2024 1:34 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    3 April, 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

    Gang patch ban further erosion of Kiwis’ speech rights: FSU submits to Justice Select Committee

    The Government’s Bill to ‘crack down on gangs’ is an unjustified breach of the Bill of Rights according to the Attorney-General. She’s right. Banning gang patches and insignia may be a politically popular decision in some communities, but is a troubling precedent further eroding Kiwis’ freedom of expression, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “We have submitted to the Justice Select Committee highlighting four significant areas in this legislation that must be reconsidered. You do not need to support the illegal activity of gangs to see the dangerous flaws in this legislation.  

    “We don’t get to pick and choose whose rights are protected under the Bill of Rights. It has to apply to all Kiwis, or we may quickly find our own rights being removed. 

    “We also propose five amendments to the legislation to address the pitfalls in the current design. These include requiring the Attorney-General to consent to the addition of groups defined as ‘gangs’ under the legislation, and introducing a sunset clause giving the Government and public the opportunity to review the legislation.

    “This legislation is too broad, appeals to emotion rather than evidence, and does not consider the wider implications on our nation. 

    “Playing politics with fundamental rights is a risky game in which we all lose. Where any community is committing illegal activities, they must face the consequences. But criminalising expression is a slippery slope.” 

    ENDS

    Read the submission here. 

  • Hastings District Council cancels Rainbow Storytime, denies right to speak and counterprotest

    Posted by · March 27, 2024 1:45 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    27 March 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

    Hastings District Council cancels Rainbow Storytime, denies right to speak and counterprotest

    For the second time in two weeks, a council has cancelled a Rainbow Storytime event. Where threats of violence and disruptions are made, council and Police should respond forcefully, but counterspeech and protest should not be a reason that councils cancel an event, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “Whether you agree with Rainbow Storytime or not, it is a protected form of speech. But so is the right to protest, provided it is peaceful and does not break the law. 

    “Hastings District Council has claimed that they’ve been ‘forced’ to cancel the event due to two reasons: an escalation of ‘hateful and bigoted rhetoric’ and lack of resource to cover extra security. 

    “If there are threats of imminent violence, then it is the Council’s prerogative to cancel the event and expect the Police to enforce existing law. But a protest in and of itself does not fit this high bar for legitimate cancellation. 

    “Not only has Hastings District Council denied Rainbow Storytime’s platform, they’ve denied the opportunity for public protest. If attendees decided not to attend because of the protest, that would be up to them.

    “We have written to the Hastings District Council and to the local Police with an OIA request for communication over this cancellation, as we did last week to the Rotorua Lakes Council when Rainbow Storytime at the Rotorua Library was cancelled due to ‘safety concerns’.

    “If it turns out that the Council has simply cancelled the event because others who disliked it were going to express that, the Council is the one to blame for the event being cancelled and putting a stop to public debate.

    “Protest is an essential part of our democratic society, and we should not cancel public events because of them. Spurious health and safety claims are unacceptable.”

  • Letter to Hastings District Council: Hastings Library Rainbow Storytime and teen events

    Posted by · March 27, 2024 1:11 PM · 1 reaction

  • Letter to Hastings Police: Cancelled Hastings Library Rainbow Storytime and teen events

    Posted by · March 27, 2024 1:11 PM · 1 reaction

  • Letter to Rotorua Police: Cancelled Rotorua Library Rainbow Storytime event

    Posted by · March 27, 2024 1:05 PM · 1 reaction

  • Over 2,000 submissions in just 24 hours urge Royal Commission’s COVID-19 Inquiry to examine speech rights

    Posted by · March 21, 2024 9:49 AM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    21 March 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

    Over 2,000 submissions in just 24 hours urge Royal Commission’s COVID-19 Inquiry to examine speech rights

    In 24 hours, over 2,000 Kiwis have submitted feedback using the Free Speech Union’s online tool to ensure the Royal Commission’s expanded terms of reference for the COVID-19 Inquiry includes an examination of speech rights, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.  

    “Arguably, no single event in recent history has had such an impact on our speech rights than the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “Whether it was the Prime Minister’s message that the Government was the only reliable source of truth, academic freedom being suppressed on university campuses, or threats from professional bodies against individuals dissenting against the Government’s COVID-19 response, our right to openly receive and exchange information was undermined. 

    “We’re calling for the Royal Commission’s COVID-19 Inquiry to consider whether Government policies surrounding COVID-19 inhibited free speech in New Zealand. 

    “Thousands have echoed our concerns that the Government’s response to COVID-19 created clear divisions in our society and has influenced how we continue to communicate with each other.

    “This is Kiwis’ chance to make their voices heard.”

    Submissions can be made in less than three minutes at www.covidsubmissions.nz 

    ENDS 

  • Rotorua Library Rainbow Storytime event cancellation

    Posted by · March 21, 2024 9:14 AM · 1 reaction

  • Rotorua Library Rainbow Storytime event

    Posted by · March 20, 2024 3:17 PM · 1 reaction

  • Taituarā’s President censors work of revered and respected Māori leader

    Posted by · March 13, 2024 3:21 PM · 2 reactions

  • Parliament in urgency – the 100 Day Action Plan and potential effects on free speech

    Posted by · March 13, 2024 2:59 PM · 1 reaction

  • Proposed ban of gang patches sets a dangerous precedent

    Posted by · March 07, 2024 4:06 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    07 March 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Proposed ban of gang patches sets a dangerous precedent

    The Government has finally released legislation that will prohibit gangs from wearing patches in public. While this policy seeks to address an area of great concern for many Kiwis, this is not the way to address gang violence; it sets a terrible precedent that further erodes New Zealanders' speech rights, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    "We already have laws in place for crime and violence. The Government should focus on these, not banning what criminals wear. 

    "Equally, where New Zealanders feel actively threatened, intimidated, and harassed, the law already exists and should be enforced to protect those going about their daily lives. If we focus on banning certain forms of expression, where do we draw the line? 

    "Removing gang patches doesn’t mean gangs, or the crime and harm they cause, cease to exist. Suppressing the symptoms of this issue may even make it harder to address the cause itself. 

    "If the Government is concerned about gang activity, they should focus on exactly that. How these powers are used today sets us on a troubling path for the way they may be manipulated tomorrow." 

    ENDS

  • Letter to Simeon Brown: Hutt City Council censors work of revered and respected Māori leader

    Posted by · March 06, 2024 3:40 PM · 1 reaction

  • Hutt City Council censors work of revered and respected Māori leader

    Posted by · March 05, 2024 3:26 PM · 1 reaction

  • Hutt City Council censors work of revered and respected Māori leader

    Posted by · March 05, 2024 3:12 PM · 2 reactions


    MEDIA RELEASE

    05 March 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Hutt City Council censors work of revered and respected Māori leader

    Hutt City Council banned an insert of Sir Apirana Ngata’s ‘Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation’ from its premises on the basis that it “spread a very particular political viewpoint” and “viewed as spreading misinformation.” We believe this is an illegal breach of free speech, and simply another example of censorship, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “The insert was published in 31 NZME and Stuff newspapers throughout the North Island last year. When the New Zealand Centre for Political Research (NZCPR), who funded the advocacy, asked for an explanation from the Hutt City Council as to why they banned the insert, their response was a poor excuse.

    “The Council claimed the insert in The Hutt News was misinformation, spreading a particular viewpoint without counterbalance. 

    “Firstly, paid advertising does not require counter perspectives. Secondly, if the Council really believed this, why did they not supply a counter perspective themselves?

    “We don’t just believe in freedom of speech from a legal perspective, but as a social good that allows people to peacefully, freely advocate for the causes they care about without risking unjust retribution. You don’t have to agree with someone to uphold their rights. 

    “The Hutt City Council has a responsibility to uphold free speech under the Bill of Rights Act. If you disagree with someone, debate it and invite counterarguments. Don’t censor someone’s voice, and in turn, stop others from hearing it.

    “We have contacted the Council for an explanation of their actions, and are taking advice on potential legal action for this breach.”

    ENDS

  • Defendant in Posie Parker assault case discharged without conviction, name suppression granted. FSU to appeal.

    Posted by · March 04, 2024 5:06 PM · 3 reactions

    MEDIA RELEASE

    04 March 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Defendant in Posie Parker assault case discharged without conviction, name suppression granted. FSU to appeal.  

    The young man who assaulted an elderly woman at the Posie Parker event in Albert Park last year has been discharged without conviction, with permanent name suppression granted. This is not justice. The Courts should not silence Kiwis’ from speaking about crime committed against them, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “Little promotes the use of violence more than impunity. Violence in response to speech, even speech of the most offensive kind, must not be tolerated. 

    “Victims deserve to be able to share their story. Name suppression gags victims and is salt in a very raw wound. Tens of thousands of Kiwis signed the Free Speech Union’s public letter to the police following last year’s incident, claiming the police failed in their role. This latest insult adds to injury (literally).  

    “The Free Speech Union is taking legal advice and considering appealing the decision to suppress Kiwis' right to speak about this crime.

    “Late last year we saw two people wrongfully arrested for peacefully protesting. Now, here’s someone who has physically assaulted a 70-year-old grandmother, and they’re let off. It’s deeply concerning.

    “Not only should the defendant be punished, the victim should be able to speak. They should have been able to freely attend and listen at Albert Park in the first place.” 

    ENDS

  • When we’re brave enough to talk.

    Posted by · March 01, 2024 5:15 PM · 2 reactions

    I once caught myself saying to my husband, “You just can’t say things like that anymore,” after retelling him what I’d overheard a friend say earlier that day. I didn’t disagree with what my friend had said. In fact, we shared the same values. But I’d cringed. I did know there were others out there who shared our opinion. But I also knew that most of us certainly knew better than to say it out loud in a break room.

    I stood for free speech then, as I do now, but I hadn’t realised just how much our culture against dissenting ideas had affected what I chose to say.

    At the Free Speech Union, we’re in the final phases of preparing for our tour with award-winning Irish comedian and author, Graham Linehan. Graham will be in New Zealand showcasing his recent book, Tough Crowd. His book goes into the details of his career in comedy, and then how his world changed when he spoke out on women’s rights.

    He lost jobs, friends, and industry connections. He was the target of online abuse. His live musical of his highly popular show Father Ted was cancelled too. This was all because of the views he holds. Yes, not because of the content of his comedy or work, but the views he holds on certain issues. 

    Because we at the Free Speech Union are opposed to hate speech laws, we’re often accused of being pro-hate. But how ironic is it that the same people who accuse us of this are forcefully shutting down what they perceive to be hate speech by verbally abusing the speakers they despise? All in the name of being ‘anti-hate speech’!

    Something wrong with no-platforming is the sheer arrogance of it. If you want to say what you think, you’ve got to be alright with someone else talking. You don’t have to agree with them to be okay with that principle.

    To give some censors the benefit of the doubt though, censorship can be a natural impulse. If what someone is saying undermines your strongly held values, you can feel like you’re doing the right thing to shut it down. But you’ve got to take a step back and look at the big picture.

    When someone is cancelled in New Zealand, we get many messages saying, “I don’t even know what they wanted to say. How can I decide what I think if I can’t even hear them talk?”. They make a point. Not only should we all be free to say what we like, but we should have the choice to listen to who we like and form our own judgments and conclusions.  

    Cancellation creates a huge ripple effect. How many of us self-censor because we’ve seen others punished for speaking up? I certainly do. And while I am often aware of it now, it’s still daunting to speak up at times.  

    Graham would tell you that if we all spoke up, there’d be no way that the censors would win. He knows his life would have been easier if he hadn’t spoken out but says he wouldn’t be able to live with himself if he hadn’t.

    Graham brings an important conversation to New Zealand. All too often, we see cancel culture used, and, as a response, people keep their views to themselves. Daily, we receive messages from people telling us these stories. How much of the world’s vibrancy is lost due to us suppressing our own voices?

    Sure, sometimes we choose not to say something because it’s the courteous thing to do. But how different the world could be if we didn’t keep our ‘unpopular’ opinions to ourselves. Maybe we’d find they’re actually not so unpopular after all – they’re just not ‘in’.

    By Nadia Braddon-Parsons | Free Speech Union

  • Free Speech Union Work on Academic freedom in New Zealand Universities

    Posted by · March 01, 2024 3:04 PM · 1 reaction

  • Ministry of Justice wrong to keep public in the dark on proposed OIA law changes

    Posted by · February 29, 2024 4:26 PM · 1 reaction

      

    MEDIA RELEASE

    29 February 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Ministry of Justice wrong to keep public in the dark on proposed OIA law changes

    The Free Speech Union calls on the Ministry of Justice to be transparent and foster open dialogue when changing laws affecting the Official Information Act (OIA). We echo the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties’ concerns that selecting a small number of targeted organisations to consult on changes is not in keeping with the intent of the OIA, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “Earlier this month, the Ministry of Justice opened consultation on improving scrutiny of proposed laws that exempt information or agencies from the OIA. But ironically, they only invited four non-government organisations to submit.

    “The OIA is meant to protect our right to access information, which is a crucial feature of free speech, so we ought to know when proposals are made to change clauses. The public should have a right to submit to this consultation and participate in this policy discussion. 

    “Freedoms of speech and conscience rely on the ability to access information freely. The OIA needs to be a reliable resource for New Zealanders to ensure their participation in a functioning democracy. It should simply be assumed that the public is consulted when changes are proposed related to public transparency.

    “For the OIA to work, we need to be able to trust it. Lack of transparency will not lead to this. We call on the Ministry of Justice to open the consultation to the public and allow all parties interested in these changes to submit.”

    ENDS

  • Ministry of Justice only consulting selected non-government agencies on proposed changes to the Official Information Act

    Posted by · February 29, 2024 3:16 PM · 1 reaction

  • Proposals to amend “free speech” at university

    Posted by · February 26, 2024 2:51 PM · 1 reaction

  • ACC’s “Transitioning Gender at Work” policy includes Compelled Speech

    Posted by · February 22, 2024 3:33 PM · 1 reaction

  • Letter to WOMAD re Ziggy Marley Petition

    Posted by · February 19, 2024 3:20 PM · 1 reaction

  • Feedback on COVID19 Royal Commission Terms of Reference

    Posted by · February 19, 2024 2:12 PM · 2 reactions

  • Princeton Principles to protect Academic Freedom?

    Posted by · February 16, 2024 12:14 PM · 2 reactions

  • Letter to CEO of Oranga Tamariki

    Posted by · February 13, 2024 5:32 PM · 1 reaction

  • Letter to Chlöe Swarbrick: "From the River to the See" and Hate Speech.

    Posted by · February 12, 2024 4:27 PM · 1 reaction

  • Concerns regarding cancellation of Wellington Rape Crisis services

    Posted by · February 09, 2024 4:55 PM · 2 reactions

  • Irish comedian Graham Linehan to tour New Zealand with Free Speech Union

    Posted by · February 08, 2024 4:07 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

     
    08 February 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Irish comedian Graham Linehan to tour New Zealand with Free Speech Union

    Graham Linehan, Irish comedy writer and author will tour New Zealand with the Free Speech Union in March, says Nathan Seiuli, Events and Outreach Manager. 
     
    “Linehan will showcase his recent book, Tough Crowd which combines a comedy-writing masterclass with a diary highlighting the challenges of cancellation. Known for his hits Father Ted and The IT Crowd, Linehan brings with him five BAFTAs and a lifetime achievement award. We’re thrilled to host such an industry legend in a series of events in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch between 11th-21st March.
     
    “With first-hand experience of cancel culture and no-platforming, Linehan has a topical, engaging story to share with New Zealand. Humour is a key part of a functioning democracy and doesn’t exist without it. Our tour sparks a much-needed conversation on this important aspect of our culture.
     
    “Linehan’s visit goes beyond book promotion, offering a deep dive into the issue of censorship in today's society. Linehan is a strong advocate for free speech, using his influence to give a voice to those silenced.”
     
    Keep an eye on Facebook (Free Speech Union) and X (@NZFreeSpeech) for updates.
     
    ENDS
  • Thousands sign petition calling on the Prime Minister to refocus Christchurch Call on original intent

    Posted by · February 05, 2024 9:41 PM

    MEDIA RELEASE

     

    05 February 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Thousands sign petition calling on the Prime Minister to refocus Christchurch Call on original intent 

    Thousands have signed a petition calling on Christopher Luxon to keep the Christchurch Call focused on its original intent of eliminating terrorist and violent extremist content, not censorship of unpopular opinions, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “Documents released by the DPMC show The Christchurch Call has expanded its focus from violent extremism, and is now specifically looking at gender-based 'hatred' (including anti-LGBTQIA+ speech) as one of its core functions. This could mean the Christchurch Call seeks to oppose and suppress the free expression of opinions - such as the view that individuals can change their sex.

    “It is curious to us that there is a policy advisor with the Christchurch Call responsible for ‘gender issues’. However, there are no advisors specifically delegated for either extremist violence or terrorism. Free speech is not violence; disagreeing is not terrorism. 

    “In less than 72 hours, thousands of Kiwis have echoed our concerns.

    “This expanded focus of The Call is inconsistent with New Zealanders’ rights to freedom of expression online. The Government must direct the Christchurch Call to refocus on its core mission of eliminating violent and extremist content.” 

    Sign our petition at https://www.fsu.nz/stop_christchurch_call_from_silencing_kiwis

    ENDS

  • The Christchurch Call has become a threat to free speech. The censorial mission creep must stop.

    Posted by · February 02, 2024 5:40 PM · 1 reaction

  • Letter to Paul Goldsmith on Electoral Review

    Posted by · January 25, 2024 2:24 PM · 1 reaction

  • Concerning pattern of abuse of speech and protest rights by New Zealand Police

    Posted by · January 23, 2024 3:55 PM · 1 reaction

  • Complaint regarding refused Official Information Act request on recipients of government disinformation fund

    Posted by · January 19, 2024 1:09 PM · 1 reaction

  • Government’s failure to send representative to Kīngitanga hui a missed opportunity

    Posted by · January 16, 2024 2:29 PM · 3 reactions

    MEDIA RELEASE 

     

    16 January, 2024
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

    Government’s failure to send representative to Kīngitanga hui a missed opportunity  

    The Free Speech Union calls out the Government for failing to send a representative to the Kīngitanga hui this weekend and missing an opportunity to participate in an important discussion. The role of The Treaty/Te Tiriti, te reo, and race relations more generally are fraught and complex issues. Wananga and kōrero are crucial, and we commend the Kīngitanga for this kaupapa, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    “Amidst complex disagreements surrounding The Treaty/Te Tiriti, constructive dialogue is what’s needed to make a path forward. That is exactly what the Kīngitanga hui is providing at Tūrangawaewae Marae this weekend. The Government should have a representative there. It is disappointing that they declined this opportunity to participate in free speech and exchange perspectives.

    As the Government is taking a policy stance on The Treaty/Te Tiriti, they ought to embrace the challenge of hearing dissenting voices and seek to understand these with a spirit of manākitanga and kotahitanga: respect and unity, despite differences.

    “The Kīngitanga’s national hui was announced in response to growing concern at the Government’s policies regarding the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. They invite all to foster dialogue and greater unity on these contentious issues.

    “We support the Kīngitanga’s initiative to talk, discuss, debate, and listen and look forward to joining this hui.”

    ENDS

  • Police must persevere to uphold protest rights, condemn violence

    Posted by · January 12, 2024 3:35 PM · 2 reactions

    MEDIA RELEASE

    12 January 2024

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Police must persevere to uphold protest rights, condemn violence 

    The Free Speech Union endorses the Police's search for the man who assaulted a pro-Palestinian protester at an Auckland rally yesterday, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    "The right to peacefully protest is a fundamental principle of our democracy. It relies on the Police to uphold it with the expectation that violence will not be tolerated. If someone disagrees with a protest or rally, they can counter-protest. This should be encouraged. But a resort to violence is unacceptable.

    "In recent protests on the Israel-Gaza conflict, Police have not always upheld the right of peaceful protest. Last year, two people were arrested for peacefully counter-protesting at rallies. This is not how democracy works, and it sends the wrong message to the public. Words are our tools for defending our views and for debating others. Without these, we resort to violence. And violence deserves punishment. 

    "Yes, this is a highly emotive and sensitive topic, but no one wins an argument by force. The urge to shut down an opinion we strongly disagree with can be a natural impulse, but we have to resist that. If we want to have our say, we must allow others the same right.

    "It is crucial that the right to peacefully protest and counter-protest is upheld and encouraged no matter which side of the argument you're on. Violence should not be tolerated. We're pleased that the Police are upholding this and urge them to continue."

    ENDS

  • Concerns regarding alleged removal from store for opinions expressed on t-shirt

    Posted by · January 12, 2024 2:16 PM · 1 reaction

  • IRD must respect employees rights to voice disagreement and dissent

    Posted by · January 02, 2024 9:50 AM · 1 reaction

  • Free Speech Union Submission on Worksafe’s psychosocial harm guidelines

    Posted by · December 08, 2023 4:43 PM · 1 reaction

  • Free Speech Union releases Briefing to Incoming Government, outlining key areas of policy to protect free speech

    Posted by · December 08, 2023 1:07 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    08 December, 2023
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Free Speech Union releases Briefing to Incoming Government, outlining key areas of policy to protect free speech 

    The Free Speech Union has sent 14 Cabinet Ministers a comprehensive Briefing to the Incoming Government, outlining five key areas of policy that the Government must address in order to protect and expand Kiwis’ speech rights. We look forward to working constructively with the Government across these five areas which interact with a variety of portfolios, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “These five policy areas are: 

    • Academic Freedom; 
    • Mis/disinformation; 
    • Online Speech; 
    • Hate Speech; 
    • Free speech in public places (Hecklers’ Veto); 

    “In the two years since our successful campaign against the original hate speech proposals, we have witnessed growing antagonism to free speech. Government is no longer the sole – or even the major – threat to free speech. The struggle for free speech now takes place in a much wider social and cultural context. 

    “As our Briefing outlines, while the cultural fight cannot be won by Government action alone, there are things the Government must do to protect and promote the speech rights of New Zealanders. 

    “At a minimum, any government should prioritise free speech considerations in any policy or legislative proposals, ensuring there are no unintended consequences for speech rights. While it might be assumed this would happen as a matter of course, in recent years, legislation has paid lip service to the importance of free speech, while treating free speech rights as simply one of many criteria to be weighed up and, often, traded away in favour of other concerns. 

    “We call on the Government to adopt a positive duty to protect free speech as a fundamental human right, and as the foundation of the democratic order. 

    ENDS 

  • Briefing for the Incoming Government

    Posted by · December 08, 2023 9:03 AM · 1 reaction

  • We applaud the Kingitanga Hui - Free speech is necessary for both expressing our differences and resolving them

    Posted by · December 07, 2023 11:02 AM · 1 reaction

  • Free Speech Union welcomes announcement of Kīngitanga hui and applauds call for constructive dialogue

    Posted by · December 07, 2023 10:29 AM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    07 December, 2023
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   

    Free Speech Union welcomes announcement of Kīngitanga hui and applauds call for constructive dialogue 

    In response to growing concern at the Government’s policies regarding the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, the Kīngitanga has announced a national hui to which ‘all are invited’, to foster dialogue and greater unity on these contentious issues. This is a positive response and the sort of leadership we need to ensure that New Zealanders are able to speak openly on these important questions, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    Differences alone do not cause division- it is the manner in which we address them that does. All New Zealanders have the right to be free, frank and fierce in their speech. This should be done while embracing opposing views with a spirit of manākitanga and kotahitanga; care for one another and with a desire to have unity despite our differences. 

    “Where so many would seek to silence discussions that have the potential to cause division, Kiingi Tuheitia’s royal proclamation will create an environment where all Kiwis can kōrero and wānanga; we have written to him to applaud this decision to facilitate a tolerant and inclusive discussion, and to offer our support in this endeavour.  

    “Inflammatory rhetoric exists on both sides of this discussion, yet the way to beat bad ideas is with better ideas; not silencing opponents or resorting to personal attacks and dogma. As New Zealand seeks to consider this complex debate, we call on all actors to take up the Kiingi’s kaupapa and use free speech and constructive dialogue to set a path forward. 

    Kia rangona te kōrero!” 

    ENDS

  • Embrace of all backgrounds and perspectives in QLDC DEI statement welcome but caution advised on statement’s application

    Posted by · December 04, 2023 4:01 PM · 1 reaction

  • Complaint regarding unlawful arrest breaching free expression rights

    Posted by · November 29, 2023 11:39 AM · 1 reaction

  • Art is political – free expression through art must be protected

    Posted by · November 28, 2023 3:58 PM · 2 reactions

    MEDIA RELEASE

    28 November 2023
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Art is political – free expression through art must be protected

    An art gallery housing an anti-Israel exhibition in Tauranga has been told to remove any public facing art from its front windows by a real estate agent. This is in spite of other politically motivated exhibitions it has hosted in the past attracting no such prohibition. This is the type of unjustified limitation on the gallery’s freedom of expression that we must not tolerate in New Zealand, says Dr David Cumin, Council member of the Free Speech Union.

    “The Israel/Palestine conflict is one of the most vexed political issues of our time. However, while some people may be offended by the art displayed on the window, we must continue to uphold the artists’ rights to freedom of expression.

    “The conflict carries with it centuries of strong, even violent emotion. As a result, it is essential people are allowed to publicly express their feelings; especially through art. It allows those who hold these opinions to have an outlet for their political expression in a non-violent way. 

    “I strongly disagree with the messaging that was displayed and am deeply offended by the 'Zionists not welcome' sign. And we must ensure that we uphold the rights of freedom of expression for everyone in our community even if they espouse disinformation or bigotry."

  • Letter to Acting District Commander: Woman arrested for silently holding sign in counter-protest to pro-Palestinian rally

    Posted by · November 28, 2023 10:41 AM · 1 reaction

  • Letter to Commissioner of Police: Woman arrested for silently holding sign in counter-protest to pro-Palestinian rally

    Posted by · November 28, 2023 10:39 AM · 1 reaction

  • Second arrest of protestor shows concerning pattern of police disregard for free speech

    Posted by · November 28, 2023 10:34 AM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE
     
    28 November 2023
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     
    Second arrest of protestor shows concerning pattern of police disregard for free speech
     
    In addition to the arrest of a peaceful silent protestor on Saturday, Lucy Rogers, at a pro-Palestinian rally in Auckland, another protestor has contacted the Free Speech Union after being arrested for 'obstruction' after standing peacefully near the protest. There appears to be a troubling pattern of police disregard for free speech and the right to peacefully protest, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 
     
    "The protestor, Daniel, went to central Auckland prior to the protest on Saturday, and asked Police if he was permitted to hold an Israeli flag there. He was advised against it but informed that it was allowed. 
     
    "When he later brought his flag along he was told to leave, and warned that if he returned with the flag he would be arrested. He returned without the flag and was arrested and charged with obstruction. He will appear in court on Thursday. 
     
    "Frivolous charges such as 'disruption of the peace' and 'obstruction' have become commonplace in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, as ways to constrain and suppress legitimate speech rights. We must not allow that to become the case here. 
     
    "The Free Speech Union has assigned a barrister to this case who will provide pro bono representation for this protestor in his court appearance. We are also assessing the value of a further Independent Police Conduct Authority complaint, or other legal action. 
     
    "New Zealander's basic rights are to be protected by police, not defied. There must be accountability for police who fail to respect these fundamental freedoms."
  • Woman arrested for peaceful counter-protest: New Zealand’s Police must protect right to peaceful protest

    Posted by · November 27, 2023 12:53 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    27 November 2023
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

    Woman arrested for peaceful counter-protest: New Zealand’s Police must protect right to peaceful protest

    At the pro-Palestinian protest on Auckland’s Queen Street on Saturday, a peaceful counter-protestor was arrested for silently holding a sign. New Zealand’s Police must not fall into the trap of using “breach of the peace” laws to silence legitimate speech as has become common overseas. We call on the Police Commissioner to stamp out this practice before it becomes commonplace, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “At Saturday’s protest, criminal defence lawyer Lucy Rogers was arrested for a ‘breach of the peace’ out of fear that her sign, which read “SELECTIVE CONDEMNATION OF GENOCIDE IS EVIL”, would spark a riot. She did not enact or threaten violence, nor were the protestors themselves violent. 

    “This arrest was unwarranted and unlawful. It is unacceptable that the Police would quash Lucy’s right to free expression and lawful counter-protest rather than protect it from any feared unlawful violence. 

    “Overseas, ‘breach of the peace’ laws have been frequently used to suppress lawful protests. It would be a tragedy and a huge step backwards for Kiwis’ free expression rights if New Zealand’s Police pick up this habit. 

    “Police Commissioner Andrew Coster must ensure this behaviour is swiftly stamped out and that the Police affirm their role in protecting peaceful protest and counter-protest, not preventing it themselves. 

    “The Free Speech Union is writing to the Commissioner and Auckland District Police Commander, and laying a complaint with the IPCA on Lucy’s behalf. We are also exploring legal avenues for redress following Lucy for her unlawful arrest and breach of her right to free expression."

    ENDS 

  • Free Speech Union welcomes Government’s early steps to defend free speech

    Posted by · November 24, 2023 2:59 PM · 5 reactions

    MEDIA RELEASE

    24 November 2023

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Free Speech Union welcomes Government’s early steps to defend free speech   

    Policy objectives announced today by the Incoming-Government will strengthen free speech in New Zealand. The Free Speech Union welcomes these early steps to once again protect free speech as the foundation of our human rights framework, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.   

    "The commitment to protect freedom of speech by ruling out the introduction of hate speech legislation and stopping the Law Commission’s work on hate speech legislation is a fitting conclusion to our long-running campaign to prevent hate speech law reform.  

    "Criminalising words that some may find offensive has never been the appropriate way to fix the underlying issues at play. Such laws are often used against the very minority communities they seek to protect.  

    "The final burial of these nonsense laws is a big win for free speech.  

    "Universities and academics have long held the position as society’s critic and conscience. They must be free to debate controversial issues, even if some find the ideas being debated viscerally unpleasant or even 'harmful'.

    "We welcome the proposed amendment to the Education and Training Act such that tertiary education providers receiving taxpayer funding must commit to a free speech policy in order to maintain this status.  

    "Throwing out the proposed hate speech laws and strengthening free speech in tertiary education are major wins for all Kiwis who care about the basic freedom to speak freely. 

    "We remain committed to our principles of non-partisanship and will remain vocal critics and opponents of any who oppose free speech, especially the Government. Likewise, we look forward to working closely with all who seek to protect and expand free speech in New Zealand." 

    ENDS

  • Principal’s eligibility shouldn’t depend on ideological litmus test

    Posted by · November 22, 2023 8:25 AM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    22 November 2023 

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  

    Principal’s eligibility shouldn’t depend on ideological litmus test 

    At the invitation of the Ministry of Education, the Free Speech Union has issued a submission opposing the proposed Principal Eligibility Criteria. As currently drafted, the criteria stand to impose specific ideology requirements on prospective principals, infringing on the rights of freedom of speech and conscience of those within New Zealand’s educational system, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 

    “Requirements that applicants “Show a commitment to being anti-racist” is indisputably ideological and subjective. Being anti-racist may be a commendable quality, but it means different things to different people, and it is not appropriate for this viewpoint to be required of principals.  

    “Principals’ rights to hold or not to hold particular beliefs is protected by s21 of the Human Rights Act 1993. They must not be forced into a particular viewpoint.  

    “Likewise, the following requirements from the criteria all presuppose a ‘correct view’ of highly disputed subjects: ‘Understanding the impact of colonisation on education in Aotearoa’, ‘Respecting and integrating kaupapa Maori and tikanga Maori’ and ‘being a leader who brings Te Tiriti o Waitangi to life in the school, as the founding document of a bicultural Aotearoa New Zealand’. 

    “Schools should be places where intellectual diversity is fostered, and all young people can consider a wide range of viewpoints. Enforcing a monopoly of ideological perspectives will make students shallower and less prepared for life after education.  

    "As part of our mission, the Free Speech Union aims to encourage a culture of tolerance and open debate, essential for intellectual progress and human flourishing. We urge a re-evaluation of the Principal Eligibility Criteria to address the concerns raised in our submission.” 

    ENDS 

  • Submission on the Ministry of Education’s Principals Eligibility Criteria

    Posted by · November 20, 2023 4:39 PM · 1 reaction

  • Freedom of conscience and speech must be upheld in the teaching of the RSE curriculum

    Posted by · November 15, 2023 9:29 AM · 1 reaction

  • Berhampore School must foster intellectual diversity and consult in good faith on relationships and sexuality curriculum

    Posted by · November 14, 2023 12:09 PM · 1 reaction

  • Cancellation of Sikh National Assembly by AUT on spurious grounds sets a poor precedent

    Posted by · November 13, 2023 4:22 PM · 1 reaction

  • Thousands sign public letter calling for tolerance in debate over Israel-Gaza conflict

    Posted by · November 13, 2023 12:16 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE

    13 November 2023

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

    Thousands sign public letter calling for tolerance in debate over Israel-Gaza conflict

    In just 48 hours, thousands of New Zealanders have joined their voices together in calling for a de-escalation of tensions over conflict in Israel and Gaza. We must insist that free speech enable us to peacefully express our strongly held opinions on this matter, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

    "This issue is deeply complex and we do not pretend to have the answer. But what we do know is that we will all be poorer if democratic principles are not upheld in the midst of anger and disagreement.

    “This letter is about civil discourse in New Zealand, not the appropriate response in the Middle East. If we can't debate and disagree civilly, I fear violence is the inevitable alternative. Tensions are escalating here in New Zealand, and we know there are incredibly strong feelings across the issue. Free speech matters especially for issues like this.

    “Last week, Phil Twyford was booed off stage for sharing his opinions on the conflict. He had to be escorted by police who feared for his safety as members of the audience followed him.

    “Likewise, yesterday, a nine-year-old boy was left in a serious condition after being struck with a shovel while attending a protest in Aotea Square. Examples like this indicate that constructive discussion is getting harder, and overt violence more likely.

    “We are running a public letter urging New Zealanders to use their voices to call out intolerance and hate, and to speak up for peace. One side can’t get the right to have their say without the other receiving the same. The opportunity to listen and provide counter-speech must exist, otherwise this wouldn’t be a democracy.”

    ENDS

  • Free Speech and its Enemies by Lord Jonathan Sumption

    Posted by · November 10, 2023 8:43 AM

    Keynote for the Free Speech Union's AGM and Conference.

    Christchurch Town Hall. 4 November 2023.

    Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights requires states to “guarantee to all people the freedom to seek, receive or impart information or ideas of any kind, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of a person’s choice.” Freedom of expression is probably the most widely acknowledged human right in the world. Most national and international charters of rights contain a provision similar to article 19 of the Universal Declaration. Lip-service is paid to it even in totalitarian states. Freedom of expression is not worth much in Russia or North Korea, but their constitutions guarantee it in very similar terms. Yet, although the law recognises freedom of expression as a cultural value of great importance, it is today under greater threat than any other human right.  This is happening even, perhaps especially, in liberal democracies such as the United Kingdom, the United States and perhaps in New Zealand too. How are we to explain this paradox?

    Our approach to the whole issue of free speech is still largely moulded by attitudes born in the eighteenth century Enlightenment, when the main enemy of freedom of expression was the state and certain quasi-state institutions such as the established churches. But in modern liberal democracies, the real enemy of free speech is not the state. It is the pressure of opinion from our fellow-citizens. This is not a new insight, but it is a frequently forgotten one. Most of the issues were recognised by the great Victorian apostle of free speech John Stuart Mill, a thinker whose uncanny ability to anticipate the dilemmas of our own age can still take us by surprise. Mill foresaw that in a democratic age, such as was just dawning in Victorian Britain, a culture of conformity would be a greater threat to freedom of expression than any action of the state. Society, he wrote, is capable of practising “a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life and enslaving the soul itself.”

    Tolerance does not come naturally to human beings. For most of human history, what people believed about the natural world, about government and society and about the moral codes of humanity was laid down by authority, usually by people claiming to speak in the name of God. Pluralism and diversity of opinion have only been accepted as desirable for the last three or four centuries. They are essentially the legacy of the scientific revolution of the 17th century and the European enlightenment of the eighteenth. These movements rejected mere authority as a source of truth, in favour of observation, reasoning and rational discourse. But like all cultural phenomena, this is a fragile construct. In recent years, we have reverted to the older, more authoritarian model which prevailed before the 17th century, although God no longer has much to do with it.

    A large part of the explanation has been the decline of individualism. Mill’s outlook on life was profoundly individualist. He once declared that if all mankind were of one opinion and only one person of the contrary opinion, there could be no justification for silencing him. There have been times when individualism was the dominant theme of public discourse. But today it is widely rejected as a social value. It is regarded as selfish, uncaring and antisocial. This  attitude has infected the debate about the limits of freedom, and undermined the case for freedom of expression. It reflects a view of society as a single great organism which must have a single collective notion of what is true and good. Free speech is seen as a tool of oppression, which leaves the field open to powerful interests. Few things are more evocative of this outlook than the phrase “Repressive tolerance”, which was the title of a famous essay by the American Marxist Herbert Marcuse published in 1965.

    It is true that in a world of free speech, the most powerful voices will those of people influential enough to have a public platform. This is so even in an age when speech has been democratised by social media. However in a world of free speech what the powerful say will be open to challenge. The alternative to free speech is a world in which public discourse is dominated by a different and more sinister form of power – the power of those with loud enough voices and sharp enough elbows to drown out others. That power will not be open to challenge. The idea of a community with a common outlook on the world sounds more inviting than a community divided by ideological or economic conflict. However, it must be obvious that as long as human beings retain their individuality, their intellectual curiosity and their scepticism, a common outlook cannot be achieved without systematic coercion. What we are witnessing today is a powerful movement to achieve conformity by systematic coercion.

    John Stuart Mill anticipated many things, but he did not anticipate the internet. Social media can conjure up instant online lynch mobs. They make a powerful amplifier available to the most intolerant strands of opinion. The algorithms which determine what material is placed under people’s noses expose them only to sentiments which they already agree with, thus intensifying their opinions and eliminating not only dissent but even nuance and moderation. Mill assumed that the pressure to conform would come from self-righteous majorities. But modern modes of communication have undermined that assumption. Social media have conferred immense power on self-righteous minorities, often quite small minorities.

    The most remarkable illustration is the vicious campaign currently being conducted by transgender groups to silence those who believe that gender is the same as sex and is an immutable biological fact. Polling evidence suggests that overwhelming majority of people believe that gender is determined at birth and cannot be altered by medical or surgical intervention let alone by simple choice. That view is consistent with the current scientific orthodoxy, which regards gender as binary. It is precisely because the case made by transgender activists has no objective scientific basis and little support in the population at large that they feel obliged to proceed by bullying and violence. Pressure from this noisy minority has created a situation in which the public expression of the prevailing and probably correct view about gender can lead to dismissal from employment, the cancellation of speaking engagements and publication contracts, the withdrawal of essential financial facilities such as bank accounts or payment systems, and an avalanche of public shaming and abuse.

    John Stuart Mill taught that the only purpose for which power might properly be exercised against individuals against their will was to prevent harm to others. But what we are presently witnessing is a subtle redefinition of the whole concept of harm so as to cover the harm said to be caused by having to endure contradiction. The argument is that words wound, especially when they relate to another person’s identity or status. Words are therefore viewed as a form of violence in much the same way as physical assault. On this view of the matter, a university or a workplace where a person is exposed to disagreement with his strongly held opinions must be regarded, in the standard catch-phrase, as “unsafe”. Yet the difference between violence and words is obvious. Violence is coercive. Words, even if offensive, are not coercive except in those cases where they are calculated to provoke violence. Yet in North America, Britain and much of the Anglosphere, this notion of harm has captured the universities and the human resources departments of many large employers. They have complaint channels, often anonymous, by which aggrieved students and employees can claim to have been offended. Complaints commonly result in suspension and disciplinary proceedings and may imperil careers. Recent research in the United States suggests that 29 per cent of university professors have been pressured by the university authorities into avoiding controversial subjects; 16 per cent have been either been disciplined or threatened with discipline for their words, their teaching or their academic research, while another 7 per cent say that they have been investigated. Those working on any subject involving ethnic or religious sensitivities are particularly vulnerable. More than 80% of students report that they self-censor their work for fear of stepping out of line. In Britain there has been no equivalent survey, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the problem is just as acute there. In New Zealand, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the New Zealand Royal Society against the three members who dared to criticize in a letter to a magazine the government’s plans to confer on Maori indigenous knowledge a status equivalent to empirical science. The proceedings were dropped after protests by other members of the society. This incident has at least had the advantage of provoking a re-examination of the threats to freedom of expression in New Zealand’s universities.

    Underlying much of this debate is a fundamental challenge to the objective notion of harm. When interest groups object to some one’s opinion, they commonly call for a subjective approach to its impact. Harm is whatever the relevant group perceives as harm. It depends on their “lived experience”, as the phrase goes. This way of looking at the harm done by free speech is particularly common when the offended group is an ethnic, religious or sexual minority. The desire to accommodate minorities who feel themselves oppressed is understandable. It assists social inclusion. But carried to its logical extreme it gives them a right of veto, an entitlement to silence opinions to which they object. And it is being carried to its logical extreme. In many countries, including Britain, hate speech is in some circumstances a criminal offence or an aggravating factor when accompanied by some other criminal conduct. The British police and prosecution authorities have agreed upon a definition of their own devising, according to which a hate crime means any action which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice. In other words, they have adopted a subjective definition dependent on the feelings of the victim rather than an objective assessment of the words used. In New Zealand the same definition has been adopted word for word by the New Zealand police in its policy statement on hate crime, although it has no statutory justification in either country.

    All of these problems have been intensified by a powerful generational divide. Those who seek to suppress unwelcome views are not all young, but the power behind them is unquestionably the anger of the under-thirties. A mass of anecdotal evidence suggests that venues, publishers, and other media who shun controversial views are often pushed into it by their junior staff. Their concern is not that the product will fail to sell. It is that it may sell too well to people who may be persuaded by it. Polling evidence confirms the picture on a broader basis. Successive surveys by the Washington-based Pew Research Institute suggest that support for democracy is declining among the young in much of the west, especially in Britain and America.

    This rage of a younger generation against their own societies has complex causes which would warrant a whole lecture to itself, but it is not wholly irrational. Liberal democracy has always depended on economic good fortune. The turn in the economic fortunes of western democracies, both absolutely and relative to rising economic powers like China, has persuaded a whole generation that they will be the first cohort for many decades who will be worse off than their parents. The post-war generation seems to them to have lived on the fat of the land, deferring intractable issues like climate change, capricious patterns of inequality and poisonous race relations for their children and grandchildren to deal with. The young get a raw deal in many western democracies, but especially in Britain. Domestic issues have disadvantaged young people relative to their elders: housing shortage which have eclipsed their hoped of owning their homes, university fees which burden them with heavy debts at outset of their working lives, and the priority which the tax and benefit systems give to the old. The Scottish referendum of 2014, the European referendum of 2016 and every general election since 2010 disclosed a profound gulf between the political instincts of older and younger generations.

    The perceived power of vested interests and the inertia of democratic decision-making, have combined to persuade many of them that debate is worthless and  direct action the only answer. The European and American sense of moral and intellectual superiority provokes attempts by a younger generation to discredit their legacy. Hence the obsession with the eighteenth century slave-trade, the impact of the Black Lives Matter movement even in societies such as Britain where the police do not routinely murder people of colour, the attack on statues of past heroes, the demands for “decolonisation” of school and university syllabuses, and so on. The influential French philosopher Michel Foucault argued that what people regard as objective truth or independent opinion is really no more than the product of entrenched power structures. Debate is pointless in such a world. To get anywhere, you have to  break the power structures. I do not imagine that the young enemies of free speech have read Foucault’s opaque prose. But many of them act on the same principle. An angry and frustrated generation is unlikely to accept the conventions of rational discourse or the messy compromises of democratic politics as readily as their parents did.

    These developments have been a long time in the making and have caught us unawares. They have fundamentally changed the argument about freedom of expression. The issue now pits different groups of citizens and different generations against each other. The people who scream abuse at their adversaries from the roadside or from their social media accounts would claim to be exercising their own rights of free expression. The impact of their anger is indirect. They create an oppressive climate in which other people are silenced and may lose their careers, their livelihoods and their reputation, or else may simply be forced to keep away from controversial subjects. The screamers do not themselves bring about these consequences. They simply influence the mood in a way which causes other people such as editors, publishers, universities and employers to persecute dissenters, because in a world of heightened intellectual tensions they prefer to keep their heads down. An editor is under no obligation to give space to people of controversial views. A publisher is under no obligation to publish them. A university or other employer cannot be made to employ or promote them.

    When the freedom of expression of one group is used to silence others, how is the state to mediate?

    The law has generally been on the side of free speech. In the United Kingdom, the common law has traditionally been concerned with public order and incitement of breach of the peace rather than with censorship. To be criminal, words have to be inflammatory and intended or known to be likely to stir up hatred against vulnerable categories of people. Modern statutes criminalizing hate speech have broadly speaking adhered to that policy. For good measure, the main UK legislation provides a broad exemption for the protection of free speech which in principle permits discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse. The British police have arrested Christian preachers. They have recorded as “hate incidents” gender-critical tweets, tweets critical of the police, accidental damage done by schoolchildren to a copy of the Koran, even speeches by ministers proposing restrictions on immigration. But when these cases have come before the courts, they have usually been thrown out. In one case where the police took action against a gender-critical tweeter, the judge remarked that their conduct offended against a “cardinal democratic principle”. “In this country,” he added, we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society.” In Britain, we have statutory provisions forbidding discrimination on the basis of ethical, philosophical or political opinion among other things. In a landmark decision of the English Court of Appeal, Maya Forstater was held to have been unlawfully discriminated against, after she was fired from her work as a tax consultant because her fellow employees could not bear her gender-critical tweets. In the United States, the First Amendment has successfully been deployed against public sector entities, such as state universities who sack controversial professors or public libraries which remove controversial books. The anti-discrimination provisions of the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993 are among the most broadly framed in the world.

    But there are limits to what law can achieve. The government and the courts are impotent to protect people against the worst threats to free speech: the howling trollers of the internet, the addictive outrage of the street protesters, or the oppressive self-censorship of publishers, journalists and academics. These things can only be addressed by a profound cultural change which it is beyond the power of law to bring about. Changing this culture depends on you, on me, on every one of us. The only reason that activists only try to disrupt and suppress unwelcome opinions is that experience shows that it works. Venues do not book controversial speakers. Publishers do not publish controversial books. Prominent commentators do not step out of line or, if they do, they are bullied into issuing cringing apologies simply to turn the heat off.

    None of us has to behave like this. J.K. Rowling has taken a prominent position on transgender issues and refused to back down in spite of attempts to boycott her books and associated films and shows. Because she refused to be intimidated, the campaign of harassment against her has failed and been seen to fail. Rowling is in a strong position because her writings are much loved across the world. Her publishers cannot afford to dump her as they have dumped other writers who broach controversial subjects. Kathleen Stock was hounded out of Sussex University, where she was a professor of philosophy, for her gender-critical views. She does not have JK Rowling’s advantages. But she too has refused to be intimidated, and as a result has become a famous figure. The attempt to silence her has greatly enhanced her profile and increased her influence. The Irish playwright Graham Linehan has refused to back down on the same issue in spite of the great personal cost. It has destroyed his career and ruined him financially. The harassment that he has faced has broken up his marriage.

    These are prominent figures. But all of us can contribute to the solution in a humbler way by being willing to make it clear where we stand, not just on free speech itself, but on the subjects which have become taboo. I return to the ideas of John Stuart Mill. He recognised that his harm principle was imperfect. What was needed was the courage of individuals to defy the mob. In language which might have been directed at our present problems, he wrote that “precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable in order to break through that tyranny that people should be eccentric…” By eccentricity, Mill meant diversity of opinion. “ That so few now dare to be eccentric,” he wrote, “ marks the chief danger of the time.” If, for example, we believe that gender is not an optional status but a biological fact, we can say so instead of being shamed into silence. If we reject concepts dear to particular ethnic or religious groups we should say so and refuse to back down or apologise when they take offence. We have to discuss the unmentionable, challenge the unchallengeable. I am not recommending rudeness or abuse, but there is a larger place for reasoned objection than we realise.

    The greatest challenge will be self-censorship by venues, publishers, film-makers, broadcasters and the media generally. They do not have to endorse the views of those whose views they publish. But they do have to welcome a diversity of a literary and artistic culture which includes the broadest possible range of opinion even on the most controversial issues. Otherwise, their business has no long-term future. The same goes for academic institutions. They are the guardians of free enquiry, and once it is limited or suppressed, their whole raison d’etre is gone. They will say, perhaps only to themselves or in the privacy of their editorial boards or faculty meetings, why should we expose ourselves? Why should we quarrel with our young and idealistic junior staff or students who do not wish to sully their hands with this or that book, film or lecture? Why should we court the unpleasantness involved in speaking up? The answer to that was given by Mill in his inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews after he had been elected as its Rector in 1867. “Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion,” he said; “bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”

    Free speech is not a luxury. Ever since the seventeenth century, the civilisation of mankind has been based on the notion that there is such a thing as objective truth. Objective truth is independent of human will. It may be only partly knowable, and more or less difficult to identify. But it exists somewhere out there whether we like it or not. We have built our intellectual world on the footing that we get closest to the truth by objective study of the available material, by abandoning immovable preconceptions, by logical reasoning and by willingness to engage with dissenting opinion. These are not just social constructs. They are universal principles, which are necessary if we are to discuss controversial issues in the same language. Historically, they have made possible the phenomenal economic prosperity and intellectual achievement of the last four centuries.

    The basic principles of rational discourse on which all this depended are now under challenge. Reason is rejected as arrogant. Feeling and emotion are upheld as suitable substitutes. Freedom is treated as domineering, enlightenment as offensive to the unenlightened. Current campaigns to suppress certain opinions and eliminate debate are an attempt to create a new conformity, a situation in which people will not dare to contradict for fear of provoking their outrage and abuse. These things are symptoms of the closing of the human mind and the narrowing of our intellectual world. Something in our civilisation has died.

    No one can be entitled to intellectual safety. That is because statements of fact or opinion are necessarily provisional. They reflect the current state of knowledge and experience. But knowledge and experience are not closed or immutable categories. They are inherently liable to change. Once upon a time, the authorised consensus was that the sun moved round the earth and that blood did not circulate round the body. These propositions were refuted only because current orthodoxy was challenged by people once thought to be dangerous heretics and disturbers of the peace. Historically, most societies have abhorred democracy, rejected religious and political tolerance and regarded the whole idea of racial or gender equality as ridiculous. These ideas, which were once thought to reflect obvious moral truths, died out in most countries in the face of rational argument. Today, minorities, racial, religious or sexual are said to need protection from hurtful words, but historically they have been the main victim of censorship and other forms of intellectual and social intolerance. Once upon a time the religious and social consensus justified the imprisonment of homosexuals, the ostracism of divorced women and the marginalisation of racial minorities. That too died out in the face of rational discourse. Knowledge advances by testing conflicting arguments, not by suppressing them. Understanding increases by exposure to uncomfortable truths.

    We all of us, in this place, live in democracies whose entire political order depends on the free exchange of ideas, on an acceptance of diversity of opinion and on a large measure of tolerance of intellectual difference. Our collective life depends on the resolution of issues between citizens by marshalling objectively verifiable facts. It depends on ordered debate about their implication under common rules which exclude coercion and falsehood. It depends on a culture in which the outcome of our processes of collective decision-making is accepted even by those who disagree with it. That is what is at stake in the current debate about free speech. The alternative is a narrow-minded, intolerant and authoritarian society in which the fear of giving offence or challenging existing shibboleths eliminates the most creative and original products of the human spirit. Ultimately, we have to accept the implications of human creativity. Some of what people say will be wrong. Some of it will be hurtful. Some of it may even be harmful. But there are greater values at stake. We cannot have truth without accommodating error and tolerating the challenge to received ideas. We cannot live together in society without allowing people to say things that other people regard as foolish, hurtful or untrue. It is the price that we pay for allowing human civilisation to advance and flourish. It is worth fighting for.

     

  • ACT Party must affirm its principles and oppose National Party’s gang patch policy

    Posted by · November 02, 2023 1:13 PM · 1 reaction

  • Policy to expand ban on gang patches and limit gang communication a violation of free expression rights

    Posted by · November 01, 2023 5:17 PM · 1 reaction

  • Censorship doesn’t work: National's policy to ban patches is counterproductive

    Posted by · November 01, 2023 2:11 PM · 1 reaction

    MEDIA RELEASE 

    01 November 2023
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     

    Censorship doesn’t work: National's policy to ban patches is counterproductive

    National’s policy to ban gang patches in public will cause more harm than good. It won’t protect those who are victims of gang violence and crime, and will push gangs further underground to fester. It’s a bad policy and will be counterproductive, says Jonathan Ayling, the Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.   

    “National plans to ban gang patches in public spaces and to suppress gang communication and social media usage. But this does not mean gang activity will cease to exist. Rather, it will simply push it out of sight. If associates of gangs are telling us who they are, we’re better to listen. 

    “National’s gang policies are grandstanding, appealing to fear. This policy not only fails to deal with the issue; it will compound the harms of crime and violence.  

    “This morning on TVNZ’s Breakfast, Christopher Luxon was asked several times if his policies were a breach of human rights. He was unable to answer, and was disturbingly unconcerned by the issue. But the answer is yes. No matter how much you dislike gangs, they are protected by the Bill of Rights, including freedom of expression, like anyone else.   

    “Luxon commented that gang members want Kiwis' rights without the responsibilities, and failure to meet those responsibilities means gangs lose their rights. Luxon should clarify what he means – the implication that Kiwis can lose their human rights if they don’t fulfill these unspecified responsibilities is chilling

    “We already have laws in place to prevent public disorder, soliciting criminal activity and incitement to violence, so enforce those.  

    “National says themselves that ‘Gang crimes don’t just happen; they’re co-ordinated and planned’; how do they expect to know what’s happening if everything is arranged underground?

    “There are underlying issues that won’t go away by breaching the Bill of Rights. We urge National to consider the risks of these policies.” 

    ENDS   

  • Freedom of expression protects right to burn Israeli flag

    Posted by · October 31, 2023 12:24 PM

    MEDIA RELEASE
     
    31 October 2023
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
     

    Freedom of expression protects right to burn Israeli flag

    At recent protests in Auckland denouncing conflict in the Middle East, protestors burned an Israeli flag. This action has been met with some condemnation, and several Police complaints have been laid. The Free Speech Union insists that this action must be protected by the protestors' right to freedom of expression, says Dr David Cumin, Council Member of the Free Speech Union. 

    "Freedom of expression allows for ideas and beliefs to be communicated openly, without fear of undue constraint. This right should not depend on the validity or justification of the expression. Burning the Israeli flag expresses the strongly held beliefs of some protesters, and it is their legal right to expres