 |
| Note the different scores. pn250 |
By Late Emeritus Professor Ian Shirley
Published on August 21, 2018
Ian died on the 20th January this year. In this article he discusses free speech and hate speech, and free speech for personal aggrandisement and free speech in the public interest.-- ACW
The public discussions that have dominated the airwaves in New Zealand over the past two weeks serves to illustrate how far we have come as a country and how far we need to go!
Both mainstream and social media captured the ‘free speech’ debate which first involved two alt-right Canadians who were able to advance their pathological views on race and multiculturalism even though they were unable to secure a speaking-venue in Auckland. Of course, their views were widely known through news media reports on their Australian tour but apparently this news did not reach the organizer of the Free Speech Coalition in New Zealand.
In the process of setting up a platform for home-grown extremists in New Zealand, academic Paul Moon claimed: “I have no idea who these Canadian speakers are!”And then instead of exploring the background of Southern & Molyneaux (an approach that should be expected of any academic appraisal) he concentrated his attack on ‘politicians’ who banned these speakers from publicly-owned facilities. In fact, politicians did not ban these speakers at all. They were allowed into the country and their pathological and extremist views were widely reported.
Whereas Molyneaux has built a profile by distinguishing between different races on the basis of IQ (white people are ranked higher than black people, Arabs or Latinos), Southern’s claim to fame centres on her support for an alt-right group stopping rescuers saving migrants at sea. Both have built their profiles on resentment and fear by attacking migrants, indigenous populations and races other than white settlers. One of the positive aspects to emerge from their New Zealand venture was the way in which their views were comprehensively refuted, first by Professor Jim Flynn (an international expert on IQ) who scientifically denounced Molyneaux’s argument distinguishing between cultures on the basis of intelligence, and the views of New Zealand journalists (especially Simon Wilson) who picked up the debate when it moved from the Canadians to the former leader of ACT and National, Don Brash.
The focus shifted to Don Brash when he was denied a platform by Massey University. The Free Speech Coalition set aside their court case (initially aimed at Auckland Mayor Phil Goff) by focusing instead on Don Brash who was portrayed as a victim of those people who discriminate against free speech in New Zealand. The campaign aimed at making Brash a victim relied on New Zealanders ignoring the victim’s history, a past that was also conveniently ignored by those advocates of free speech who wanted to focus on the decision of Massey’s Vice Chancellor rather than the record of Dr. Brash as a right-wing politician.
Two series of events stand out in defining Dr. Brash. The first event was a campaign launched by Dr. Brash during a speech he made to the Orewa Rotary Club in 2004. In this speech, the leader of the National Party, (at that stage languishing in the opinion polls), claimed that Maori in New Zealand enjoyed special privileges and he set about attacking those social programs that were aimed at ameliorating social inequities and injustices especially programs framed as Closing the gaps between Maori and Pakeha populations. He called the programs racist, and he broadened his attack by denigrating the processes established by successive governments aimed at pursuing policies arising from 21st century interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi. Brash categorized these policies as the ‘grievance industry’.
These attacks by a political leader clamoring for attention sowed anger, fear and resentment. It was a campaign that was fueled by the mainstream media and generated the desired response – the National Party recorded a 17-point jump in the opinion polls and the Labour government discarded those programs aimed at Closing the Gaps judging them to be too politically dangerous to pursue. Although the ‘smear and fear’ campaign did not succeed in defeating the Labour government of Helen Clark it established a foundation for a second series of events leading up to the 2006 general election.
In a book published by journalist Nicky Hager, The Hollow Men records the politics of deception that characterized the ongoing leadership of the National Party under Don Brash. Hager’s exposé records how National became an anti-democratic political party which set out to exploit deep-seated anxieties about New Zealand’s cultural tensions and economic future.
Whereas the attack on Closing the Gaps was a flagrant abuse of free speech, it laid the foundation for Brash’s political strategy which was aimed at building a constituency for National comprised of wealthy corporate elites associated with the Business Roundtable, the far-right ACT party, the Centre for Independent Studies, and Christian right wing networks headed by the Maxim Institute.
When one of the secret right-wing partners of National was outed during Hager’s exposé on Hollow Men Brash denied that the Exclusive Brethren were actively involved in his election campaign. And when that subterfuge was publicly revealed he served an injunction on the publication of Hager’s book. Exposing these machinations to the glare of public scrutiny forced Brash to resign and the following day the public record of the 2006 election campaign (in the form of Hollow Men) was released.
How quickly this history has been sanitized by those who have conveniently buried any distinction between so-called ‘hate’ and ‘free’ speech. Journalist Simon Wilson began the task of unravelling this ‘confusion’ by distinguishing between two different forms of speech as defined by Athenian society, historically referred to as ‘the cradle of democracy’. The Greeks distinguished between parrhēsia (the licence to say whatever you like) and isegoria (the equal right of citizens to participate in public debate). This distinction needs to be taken further by the government as it revises Human Rights legislation in New Zealand.
It is not enough to spout ‘free speech’ as current protagonists are doing when they conveniently ignore the history of free speech used as a cover for ‘smear and fear’ campaigns of particular population groups or individuals.
The principles of free speech are fundamentally important in building society but ultimately we need to distinguish between speech that is delivered in ‘the private interests’ of individuals, groups, elites (or political parties for that matter) versus the public interests of society.
It is clear that the nomination of Don Brash (or his off-course substitute) as exemplars of free speech in a superficial election for New Zealander of the year falls into the narrow definition of free speech based on who benefits?
My vote goes to free speech in ‘the Public Interests’ of a multicultural society.
Both mainstream and social media captured the ‘free speech’ debate which first involved two alt-right Canadians who were able to advance their pathological views on race and multiculturalism even though they were unable to secure a speaking-venue in Auckland. Of course, their views were widely known through news media reports on their Australian tour but apparently this news did not reach the organizer of the Free Speech Coalition in New Zealand.
In the process of setting up a platform for home-grown extremists in New Zealand, academic Paul Moon claimed: “I have no idea who these Canadian speakers are!”And then instead of exploring the background of Southern & Molyneaux (an approach that should be expected of any academic appraisal) he concentrated his attack on ‘politicians’ who banned these speakers from publicly-owned facilities. In fact, politicians did not ban these speakers at all. They were allowed into the country and their pathological and extremist views were widely reported.
Whereas Molyneaux has built a profile by distinguishing between different races on the basis of IQ (white people are ranked higher than black people, Arabs or Latinos), Southern’s claim to fame centres on her support for an alt-right group stopping rescuers saving migrants at sea. Both have built their profiles on resentment and fear by attacking migrants, indigenous populations and races other than white settlers. One of the positive aspects to emerge from their New Zealand venture was the way in which their views were comprehensively refuted, first by Professor Jim Flynn (an international expert on IQ) who scientifically denounced Molyneaux’s argument distinguishing between cultures on the basis of intelligence, and the views of New Zealand journalists (especially Simon Wilson) who picked up the debate when it moved from the Canadians to the former leader of ACT and National, Don Brash.
The focus shifted to Don Brash when he was denied a platform by Massey University. The Free Speech Coalition set aside their court case (initially aimed at Auckland Mayor Phil Goff) by focusing instead on Don Brash who was portrayed as a victim of those people who discriminate against free speech in New Zealand. The campaign aimed at making Brash a victim relied on New Zealanders ignoring the victim’s history, a past that was also conveniently ignored by those advocates of free speech who wanted to focus on the decision of Massey’s Vice Chancellor rather than the record of Dr. Brash as a right-wing politician.
Two series of events stand out in defining Dr. Brash. The first event was a campaign launched by Dr. Brash during a speech he made to the Orewa Rotary Club in 2004. In this speech, the leader of the National Party, (at that stage languishing in the opinion polls), claimed that Maori in New Zealand enjoyed special privileges and he set about attacking those social programs that were aimed at ameliorating social inequities and injustices especially programs framed as Closing the gaps between Maori and Pakeha populations. He called the programs racist, and he broadened his attack by denigrating the processes established by successive governments aimed at pursuing policies arising from 21st century interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi. Brash categorized these policies as the ‘grievance industry’.
These attacks by a political leader clamoring for attention sowed anger, fear and resentment. It was a campaign that was fueled by the mainstream media and generated the desired response – the National Party recorded a 17-point jump in the opinion polls and the Labour government discarded those programs aimed at Closing the Gaps judging them to be too politically dangerous to pursue. Although the ‘smear and fear’ campaign did not succeed in defeating the Labour government of Helen Clark it established a foundation for a second series of events leading up to the 2006 general election.
In a book published by journalist Nicky Hager, The Hollow Men records the politics of deception that characterized the ongoing leadership of the National Party under Don Brash. Hager’s exposé records how National became an anti-democratic political party which set out to exploit deep-seated anxieties about New Zealand’s cultural tensions and economic future.
Whereas the attack on Closing the Gaps was a flagrant abuse of free speech, it laid the foundation for Brash’s political strategy which was aimed at building a constituency for National comprised of wealthy corporate elites associated with the Business Roundtable, the far-right ACT party, the Centre for Independent Studies, and Christian right wing networks headed by the Maxim Institute.
When one of the secret right-wing partners of National was outed during Hager’s exposé on Hollow Men Brash denied that the Exclusive Brethren were actively involved in his election campaign. And when that subterfuge was publicly revealed he served an injunction on the publication of Hager’s book. Exposing these machinations to the glare of public scrutiny forced Brash to resign and the following day the public record of the 2006 election campaign (in the form of Hollow Men) was released.
How quickly this history has been sanitized by those who have conveniently buried any distinction between so-called ‘hate’ and ‘free’ speech. Journalist Simon Wilson began the task of unravelling this ‘confusion’ by distinguishing between two different forms of speech as defined by Athenian society, historically referred to as ‘the cradle of democracy’. The Greeks distinguished between parrhēsia (the licence to say whatever you like) and isegoria (the equal right of citizens to participate in public debate). This distinction needs to be taken further by the government as it revises Human Rights legislation in New Zealand.
It is not enough to spout ‘free speech’ as current protagonists are doing when they conveniently ignore the history of free speech used as a cover for ‘smear and fear’ campaigns of particular population groups or individuals.
The principles of free speech are fundamentally important in building society but ultimately we need to distinguish between speech that is delivered in ‘the private interests’ of individuals, groups, elites (or political parties for that matter) versus the public interests of society.
It is clear that the nomination of Don Brash (or his off-course substitute) as exemplars of free speech in a superficial election for New Zealander of the year falls into the narrow definition of free speech based on who benefits?
My vote goes to free speech in ‘the Public Interests’ of a multicultural society.
1 comment:
Dearest Esteems,
We are Offering best Global Financial Service rendered to the general public with maximum satisfaction,maximum risk free. Do not miss this opportunity. Join the most trusted financial institution and secure a legitimate financial empowerment to add meaning to your life/business.
Contact Dr. James Eric Firm via
Email: fastloanoffer34@gmail.com
Best Regards,
Dr. James Eric.
Executive Investment
Consultant./Mediator/Facilitator
Post a Comment