It is quite depressing to live in a country where there is such hostility towards free speech. A Radio NZ article covering the Free Speech trial in Auckland did not even try to hide its bias.
One of the people involved in the trial who is standing up for free speech was smeared with an incredible litany of adjectives. The bit at the end highlighting the man’s work was disgusting and is as low a blow as it was malicious.
would-be Dunedin Mayor, climate change denier, Donald Trump supporter and rare books dealer
Of course, there was no string of adjectives for Mayor Phil Goff although there is much to criticise about him. Imagine if he had been described like this…
Current Auckland Mayor, Free speech denier, Karl Marx supporter and terrorist hand holder Phil Goff.
The headline for the thoroughly biased news article started the way it intended to finish with a general stereotype and smear for all the New Zealanders who dared to turn up in large numbers to support the Free Speech Coalition.
NZ’s right-wing turn up in force for controversial free speech case
Free Speech is not controversial. Wanting to censor free speech is controversial but that is not what the headline meant.
Straight away the article claims that New Zealand’s “notable right-wing figures” were at the Auckland High Court but it then slyly fails to make clear which of the people it then mentions actually fits that description. Ask yourself if you have ever heard Phil Goff or Jacinda Ardern or even Helen Clark described by the media as left-wing figures recently. The media rarely if ever describe lefties as left-wing but when they use the right-wing description it is meant as a negative slur.
[…] Representing the Free Speech Coalition is the Queen’s Counsel Jack Hodder, who was recently snapped up by the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners to oppose changes to the country’s gun laws.
What a dirty little paragraph that is. It is a clear attempt to try to link one court case to another in the reader’s mind.
[…] They claim Mayor Phil Goff “ordered or dictated” this decision, for which they say there was no lawful basis.
The council claims the plug was pulled on the event entirely on health and safety grounds, after the strength of opposition to the speakers became apparent.
But Mr Hodder spent much of yesterday looking for holes in this assertion, claiming the decision was made without consulting police and with no credible evidence of a security risk.
This, Mr Hodder said, created a concerning precedent – “the thug’s veto”.
[…] The council’s lawyers steered clear of addressing the controversial views held by Ms Southern and Ms Molyneux,[…]
Of course, they steered clear of them. Phil Goff in his public tweet made it very clear that he wanted them banned because he disagreed with their views but the council now have to clean up his mess (an expensive legal battle) by attempting to make a case that the speakers were banned for a completely different reason.
To the average person on the street Goff’s tweet clearly conveyed the impression that he had banned the two Canadian speakers from an Auckland Council-owned venue.
Speaking outside of court, Mr Williams told RNZ he […] was only taking this action to overturn what was a dangerous precedent.
“This is somewhat unusual in New Zealand but pretty common around the world – it’s public-interest litigation,” he said.
“We’re not seeking money from Auckland Council, we’re seeking a declaration that what the council did was wrong so that in the future councils must take into account freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom of thought before they use health and safety as a trump card to cancel a speaker.”
[…]”The whole point of free speech is protecting speech you don’t agree with,” he said.
rnz.co.nz/news/national/398063/nz-s-right-wing-turn-up-in-force-for-controversial-free-speech-case
