Where Is the Consistency?

Greg Bouwer
IINZ

When Jacinda Ardern built her international reputation – most visibly through the Christchurch Call and her advocacy for hate speech regulation – she advanced a clear proposition: words matter, platforms confer legitimacy, and institutions have a responsibility to act when public discourse contributes to real-world harm. That proposition was not abstract – it was embedded in public policy following Christchurch and framed around timing, context, and community safety. As Ardern herself stated, “We must build resilient societies that reject and resist acts of terrorism and violent extremism… and where we regulate, these regulations must not become a barrier to a free, open and interoperable internet”.¹ This emphasis on balancing free expression with the protection of vulnerable communities establishes a framework for assessing institutional responsibility.

Earlier this month, the Adelaide Festival board withdrew the invitation to Palestinian-Australian author and academic Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah from its Writers’ Week programme. The board stated that, in the wake of the Bondi Beach terror attack, in which 15 people were killed at a Jewish Hanukkah celebration, it had determined “it would not be culturally sensitive to continue to programme her at this unprecedented time so soon after Bondi”. The board explicitly stated that it was not suggesting Abdel-Fattah or her writings had any connection to the attack.²

Within hours, dozens of authors – including prominent novelists, journalists, and festival sponsors – withdrew from the event in protest, and three board members plus the chairperson resigned.³ Among those withdrawing was former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. She has not made a public statement explaining her withdrawal, and media outlets reported only that she had withdrawn from the festival without elaborating on her reasons.⁴

Abdel-Fattah’s Public Statements

Opposition to Abdel-Fattah’s disinvitation has often been framed as silencing a Palestinian voice, but her record includes statements that have raised legitimate concern. In 2024, she posted on social media: “The goal is decolonisation and the end of this murderous Zionist colony,” asserting that Israel’s existence is dependent on violence against Palestinians.⁵ Her public statements have also included posts such as “if you are a Zionist you have no claim or right to cultural safety” and “May 2025 be the end of Israel”.⁶

These statements are significant, not only for their content but for what they reveal about the selective invocation of cultural safety. Abdel-Fattah explicitly rejected the concept of cultural safety for Zionists, yet her supporters framed the festival’s decision as a violation of cultural sensitivity toward Palestinians. This suggests that “cultural safety” is being deployed as a political tool rather than a universal principle, highlighting the tension between principle and its selective application.

In 2024, Abdel-Fattah co-signed a letter urging the Adelaide Festival to remove Jewish columnist Thomas Friedman from the programme – the board rejected that request and affirmed its commitment to artistic freedom, officially attributing his absence to scheduling rather than content.^7,8 The irony is stark – she now claims her own disinvitation constituted censorship, despite having previously sought to prevent another writer from appearing. This comparison highlights a pattern of selective principle – advocating free speech only when it aligns with her ideological preferences – while the festival applied “cultural sensitivity” in the opposite direction.

Cultural Sensitivity and Institutional Decision-Making

The festival’s rationale was that Abdel-Fattah’s inclusion “would not be culturally sensitive” following an antisemitic attack. Abdel-Fattah argued the decision was “a blatant and shameless act of anti-Palestinian racism and censorship,” claiming that labeling her presence culturally insensitive reduced her to an object onto which others could project fears.⁹ This controversy illustrates that cultural sensitivity is not a neutral standard: it can be invoked selectively, depending on the community affected.

Ardern’s Withdrawal and Principles in Practice

Ardern’s withdrawal raises questions of consistency. Her Christchurch Call emphasized that institutions must consider the potential harm of public platforms, particularly following acts of terrorism.¹ Yet she withdrew from an event after the festival removed a speaker citing community trauma and safety concerns, without publicly explaining how her action aligned with her own framework. The absence of explanation is itself notable, as it leaves room for interpretation about whether principles of context-based restraint were applied consistently.

When Selective Principle Collapses Institutions

The aftermath of the decision underscores the cost of this inconsistency. Following the boycott, Adelaide Writers’ Week was cancelled in its entirety, nearly 200 participants withdrew, and the festival board effectively resigned, apologising to Abdel-Fattah while simultaneously retreating from its original rationale.¹⁰ What began as an assertion of “cultural sensitivity” ended in institutional collapse. This outcome does not vindicate the boycott – it illustrates the danger of principles applied selectively and defensively rather than consistently and transparently. When standards shift depending on who is speaking, who is offended, or which pressure campaign mobilises fastest, institutions lose moral authority altogether. Cultural safety, once politicised, ceases to protect anyone – and instead becomes a catalyst for division, coercion, and ultimately paralysis.

Broader Implications

New Zealand continues to grapple with tensions between antisemitism, free speech, and cultural safety. Jewish communities have reported concerns about intimidation and the normalisation of eliminationist rhetoric, and these concerns have sometimes been reframed as free speech conflicts. When a former prime minister who previously argued that speech can enable harm appears to endorse a narrative that dismisses context-based decisions after an antisemitic event, it reinforces a double standard.

Principles Require Universality

The invocation of free speech is most powerful when it protects the vulnerable, not when it eases discomfort for a preferred ideological audience. When principles about speech, platforms, and harm are applied selectively – as appears to be the case in this controversy – they no longer function as safeguards but as tools of factional advantage. If principles are to matter, they must be universal.

When the architect of the Christchurch Call appears to abandon those principles when applied to a different community, it raises fundamental questions about whether those principles were ever truly universal, or merely convenient.