Simon Anderson
A dickhead with a camera: the Establishment’s dissident.
The Free Speech Union’s Annual General Meeting was a fascinating event. The FSU is extremely well organised and their events are always intriguing.
I’d forgotten to take the microphone attachment so the audio in footage I shot is full of the camera mount creaking, which is a shame: some of the speeches deserve a broader audience. Fortunately there were professional camera crews and media in attendance so I’m sure their footage will be circulated. I recommend watching those clips when they become available.
The event was a meeting of minds. Many spheres of human endeavour were represented, notably the business community, academia, the legal profession, politics and media by intellectual and thoughtful people. Notably absent was representation from the public sector and leftists, with the honourable exception of Shadow Attorney General David Parker of the Labour party.
The highlight of the event was the keynote speech from Professor Nigel Biggar of Oxford University. Erudite and eloquent, Georgina Blackmore remarked afterwards that a presentation from someone with a lifetime at the lectern has a gravitas and polish others struggle to emulate and she was right – he held the audience spellbound. I’m looking forward to reading his book.
(Personal aside, one of Professor Biggar’s anecdotes concerned a Commonwealth war grave on Mount Etna in Sicily. By coincidence the pen I was holding to take notes at the time is constructed with volcanic rock mined from Mount Etna to achieve a hygroscopic characteristic.)
I attended all four of the breakout sessions, which were happening concurrently, two at a time, by moving between them. I think I gained a reasonable (though not thorough) sense of the discussions in all of them, so please keep in mind my assessments are not entirely informed.
The legal breakout got a little distracted into practitioners’ trivia but retired Judge Harvey presented his case well and David Parker performed admirably. Of course, coming from the perspective of the illiberal left, Parker’s argument was based upon the extreme censorship example of the Christchurch Mosque shooter’s horrific livestream while conveniently overlooking the terrorist’s manifesto: it was also censored because – no doubt – of its similarity to the Green Party’s manifesto (his government’s coalition partners at the time). I found the discussion rather elementary: it seemed to me that censorship considerations have not evolved very far in New Zealand, compared to other countries, amongst our legal fraternity. For example the speakers focused upon the term ‘safe harbour’ without ever mentioning the distinction between publisher and platform. I learned more from listening to Stephen Franks’ questions from the floor and speaking with him directly for a few minutes than I did from this session, I reckon.
The discussion during the academic breakout was more considered, in my opinion, and surprisingly well attended by the academic community, itself, amongst the audience. It was gratifying to see the chilling effects of censorship and mandated orthodoxy are issues that matter to many academics within those institutions, notably from those in real academic disciplines such as the sciences.
Of course the humanities – that bastion of ignorance and ideological zealotry – were poorly represented, if at all. The panel’s consensus that institutional management was too willing to cater to the sentiments of the student body echoed Professor Biggar’s comments but seemed to me a little ‘broad strokes’. While they made fleeting mention of postmodernism, I don’t think they quite appreciated that now that cancerous ideology has spread beyond sociology and the humanities to infest real science, there is no longer any latitude to use Enlightenment principles, such as rationalism, to mount a defence. The postmodernists are a cancer in my opinion, impervious to reasoned argument and intractable: beyond redemption, the solution is to cut them out entirely from the body academic.
I didn’t listen to much of the media breakout and the discussion was as one would expect: much lamentation at the demise of the vestigial media, properly attributing that to the narrow leftist orthodoxy media companies maintain and the public turning away from it. Peter Williams spoke well, of course (and performed expertly as the MC for the event). I found his comments on traction and reach particularly intriguing and these were echoed by other speakers throughout the day. I’m hoping for the opportunity to speak with him during a SimonTV LIVE episode to explore his ideas further, as his perspective on the rise of new media as a participant in it from the perspective of someone who had a celebrated career in old media will be illuminating.
Another media personality who impressed me was Tane Webster. He attended on behalf of Reality Check Radio and I observed him working throughout the day. Not only is the kid sharp – he’s dedicated to his profession.
The politics breakout was the most entertaining, as one would suspect from a panel comprising politicians. Maurice Williamson’s comparative analysis of New Zealand’s situation with other countries, from the perspective of someone who has served in a diplomatic post, was interesting.
David Seymour was relaxed and casual: in my assessment he has his finger on the pulse of New Zealand public sentiment and reflects the zeitgeist. Paul Goldsmith’s approach to fighting the culture wars is more middling in my opinion, I don’t think he even thinks there is one. In his defence, though, I don’t think leftist, state-owned, institutions are going to find too much funding for expansion from him, neither their private sector competitors seeking funding for their latest propaganda and drivel. I suspect the challenge now is to convince him that international social media behemoths shouldn’t be forced to pick up the tab either.
The audience reflected a broad cross section of New Zealand society, though tracked slightly older. It was wonderful to catch up with friends and I met many people I’ve admired from afar on social media. My overarching assessment is the audience comprised people who are decent and are concerned with the deconstruction of civil society. They are the Enlightenment: standing fast against the New Dark Ages.
In synopsis: a great day and I left both impressed and encouraged by what I saw and heard, and that includes the audience as much as it does the panellists. In my opinion the Free Speech Union is the most significant organisation in New Zealand civil society today and, if you’re not one of their 100,000 members, I recommend becoming one or, at least, following their social media accounts and reading their press releases.
Their discourse is having a palpable impact upon New Zealand domestic affairs, all of it good.
Finally a thank you for my gracious hosts. FSU CEO Jonathan Ayling and events manager Nathan Seiuli comped me a ticket and went out of their way to offer every assistance. Congratulations to them, the broader FSU team and everyone who participated in such a tremendous event. I very much hope you all have many such days exchanging ideas and celebrating your successes ahead.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack.
