Three issues. One goal.

This week we've seen legislation introduced to Parliament on academic freedom that we had a key role in developing, filed an application for leave to intervene in Janet Dickson’s appeal to defend professionals' right to speak, had dozens attend our very first student social with university students in Auckland, published a podcast with a prominent international free speech advocate, plus we drafted three pieces for major publications (and it's only Tuesday).

I thought you'd be interested in some of the comments we made on the following three issues: 

1. 307,000 voices: What the New Zealand Treaty Principles Bill teaches us about free speech.

As I argued over the weekend in The Spectator, without free speech, there is no democracy. And without democracy, Kiwis lose the freedom to speak their minds. What has the Treaty Principles Bill taught us about free speech?

"Ultimately, this proposed legislation evoked a greater response than any other Bill in New Zealand’s legislative history, with over 307,000 submissions. The opinion on the Bill expressed in these submissions was not ambiguous, with 90% opposing the legislation.

By no means does this mean the issue of the role of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti in contemporary New Zealand is settled...

Deeply held and conflicting opinions on that question remain. However, it seems clear that the very parties who were most opposed to the conversation being allowed are those who have most effectively used the conversation to argue their perspective and mobilise those who agree with them.

This was only possible because of our enduring commitment to free speech — a defining feature of democracy."

Read more here.

2. Reclaiming our institutions: Why free speech matters more than ever

This week, an op-ed was published in Stuff​ about our campaign to re-democratise InternetNZ and ensure Kiwis' voices are free on the internet. Once again 'safety' is a reason used for justifying censorship. 

I'm sick of 'safety' and 'inclusion' being reasons to exclude voices. When will we learn that free speech is not the enemy of inclusion?

Read my right of reply: 

"O’Donnell writes that ‘If the FSU takes over, InternetNZ risks becoming a political football rather than a neutral steward of the internet’.

This asserts that somehow the FSU is ‘taking over.’ We exercise no proxy voting rights, we’re not telling anyone what to say. All we’ve done is draw attention to what’s at stake, and invite them to develop alternatives with us.

Likewise, this claim naively rests on the assumption InternetNZ is governing our domain registry as a neutral steward. But thousands of Kiwis, when reviewing the facts, have come to believe they are not...

Free speech is the essence of neutrality. Free speech is not the enemy of inclusion. It is its foundation. That’s why this fight matters."

Read more here.

3. When apologies and silence replace inquiries and dissent

In the world we now live in, feelings don't care about facts. This is something we've talked about a lot as a team. How often is the truth buried as a result of not being allowed to cause offence? Hear what our Education Partnership Manger, Nick Hanne has to say:

"I’m not a security expert, and the Free Speech Union is interested solely in that: free speech. But this is exactly the sort of situation free speech helps us avoid; contexts where approved narratives dominate and where uncomfortable realities are swept under the carpet.

What free speech allows us to do is challenge the status-quo, ask the uncomfortable question, and make the heretical claim that so many, silently, agree with. Mr Rainbow has every right to say sorry if he so wishes. But equally, our public discourse, respect for institutions, and trust in their credibility are not well served if he is simply saying sorry because he made a claim (whether correct or not) that others disagreed with.

If you believe Mr Rainbow's critics, NZ is vulnerable to every other international trend in the West - except violent Islamists. This may or may not be true, but imposing silence and suppressing anyone who disagrees isn’t what would make it true. On the other hand, you must accept without reservation highly emotive claims regarding The Patriarchy, Colonisation, Misogyny, Transphobia, Islamophobia, Incels because these things are happening elsewhere, and therefore they obviously happen here, too."

Read more here. 

We're proactively shifting our culture from the inside out. Our team is pumping out work, and we're seeing real-life results because of it. 

None of it would be possible without the over 100,000 Kiwis like you behind us ensuring all of our voices remain free. 

Jonathan Ayling | Chief Executive
Free Speech Union