Simon O’Connor
Husband, step-father, and longtime student of philosophy and history. Also happen to be a former politician, including chairing New Zealand’s Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Committee.
To read Part One of ‘Worlds Apart?’, please click here.
As I was finishing up this Part Two, the horrific events in Germany were happening. You may have read of the knife attack in the town of Solingen, killing three and wounding eight. The attack was claimed by ISIS and even before they made the claim, the attack had all the hallmarks of Islamist violence – a knife, attacking people’s throats, and targeting people at an outdoor festival. While not the UK, we are seeing some similarities around reporting including an obsession with the ‘far right’. Some media, instead of asking the obvious questions – such as why Islamist violence is now a regular occurrence in Germany/Europe in a way it never was – are instead worrying about the reaction of the right. Predictably, we are also seeing attempts to downplay what has happened for fear it might offend the group(s) from which this attacker comes from. This lack of honesty is not lost on the general public and only fuels frustration and distrust.
All the talk of the United Kingdom’s woes, however, is not to take away from what is happening more locally. As I noted in Part One of this op-ed, we might be geographically worlds apart, but the issues and dynamics in play are the same. We too have the same pressures around free speech; narrowing narratives; and pushes to limit and regulate the likes of social media.
COMMISSIONING HUMAN RIGHTS
Here in New Zealand, the announcement of new Human Rights commissioners has caused an uproar from the usual suspects on the progressive left, be this in media or politics. That two commissioners hold more nuanced views on niche issues such as gender, race, or transgenderism has been deemed unacceptable. I say niche issues, because it appears lost on those attacking the new appointments that their role as commissioners is to address the rights of all humans and not only those of select groups.
Both commissioners have noted that society has a wide range of views on pretty much every issue, and that greater dialogue is a fruitful path forward. This, however, is not acceptable to those currently complaining. Be it trans issues, the Israel-Gaza conflict, or the Treaty of Waitangi among others – opponents of the new appointees believe there can only be one opinion on such matters, and this opinion alone is to be promoted.
As with the UK riots and its government response so far – there can only be positive stories about one group; only negative stories about alternative views; the narrative must be singularly controlled; those with different views named and shamed, or better still arrested; and organisations can only run by those who agree with the approved narrative.
The response to the new appointments also indicates how compromised the Human Rights Commission already is. It is understood by progressives to be their plaything. Put another way, all the complaints about new appointments only goes to show how prejudiced the commission is, and is expected to be, by the likes of the Labour Party, Green Party, and others. Hypocritically, a Green MP suggested these new commissioners with their nuanced viewed need to be “politically neutral”, yet she seemed very happy for former commissioners (of a more woke variety) to say whatever they wanted and particularly when attacking the policies of centre-right parties.
I have said it so many times, but the progressives only believe in free speech if it is their speech; democracy only if they get what they want; and political neutrality only when it silences others.
Let us then quickly turn our minds to the ongoing issue of New Zealand Police training officers to “recognise and record” hate speech. As readers will know, there is no such law in New Zealand so consequently it is quite outrageous that police are enforcing something that does not exist. As with the UK Police, we seem to have some in command who are happy to turn precious resources away from actual crime and towards thought crime. In many ways, what we see is a cautionary tale. Be it in the UK or here in New Zealand, this progression has been slow and evolving over many years. We have not arrived at this situation overnight, but after many years of lobbying by progressives, slowly chipping away at, and undermining, the very systems we have so carefully built over generations.
Leaded screenshot of NZ Police ‘hate speech’ training material.
SOCIAL LIABILITY
We should also be alarmed by the growing censorship we are seeing from many social media platforms themselves. A few recent examples illustrate this clearly, both deriving from commentary on the Olympic boxers from Algeria and Taiwan.
The world’s foremost atheist and evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, had his Facebook account removed after tweeting that “genetically male boxers … should not fight women in the Olympics.” In Australia, the head of the Women’s Forum had her LinkedIn posts removed after discussing the issues of gender and fairness in sport. A professor of law in Adelaide, Joanna Howe, who I interviewed on pro-life issues a few weeks back, has been under constant harassment by vexatious progressives for her research on abortion and advocacy on social media. She had to take her own university to a tribunal to protect her job, allow her the ability to speak her mind (as her opponents freely do), and not be forced into woke anti-bias courses (read struggle sessions or re-education camps).
The blame does not sit with social media alone. New Zealand and Australia’s mainstream media outlets also went out of their way to mis-report what was occurring in women’s Olympic boxing. Put briefly, they went out of their way to make this is a gender or trans issue, rarely if ever noting the biological and chromosomal realities in play. As always, those in mainstream media who talk a big game about combating ‘fake news’, ‘misinformation’, and ‘disinformation’ are usually the same ones explicitly creating such ‘fake news’. It is one reason trust in media (and other authorities) is declining so rapidly.
I am conscious this is a long list of issues and this a long two-part Substack. The key point is to illustrate the ongoing and near-relentless attacks on our fundamental rights – be these free speech, freedom of belief, and even freedom of association. Be it in the United Kingdom or Australia, the United States or New Zealand – the dynamics are the same. For some, it may be tempting to think this is simply happening to others. But be under no illusion, what is happening to them now is what will happen to you and others soon enough.
Our strength has always been as individuals willing to come together in common cause. In this instance, it is ironically a common cause of believing that people should be free to have different views, beliefs, and perspectives – and be free to express them.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack.
