Jonathan Ayling
Listeners of Newstalk ZB’s Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald were treated to an on-air rant last Friday decrying the “appalling”, “awful, awful” and “dangerous” people protesting outside Tuahiwi School in North Canterbury as the Prime Minister visited. Echoing tones we’ve recently heard from senior Ministers in Parliament, MacDonald drew to a close with the comment:
“They are despicable. And I think the best thing that could happen would be a blanket ban on protests outside schools.”
To be fair, this is a perfectly consistent response given the “Safe Areas” Bill prohibiting protest outside of abortion facilities which is about to finish passing through Parliament. This is exactly what the Free Speech Union predicted would happen last year, when we submitted against this bill. Once we start buying into this notion that we need to preserve certain areas to be “contention free” because of the “danger” of ideas, where do we stop?
No one is going to argue that children shouldn’t be kept safe. A responsible society works hard to ensure that the next generation isn’t exposed to unnecessary dangers. Equally, who actually thinks that bullying or threatening a woman seeking an abortion is a helpful action?
But this is where it gets a bit more complicated — is it still legal to do unhelpful things? What is “unnecessary”, and who gets to define “danger”? What exactly does “harmful” mean? Do I get to determine that for myself or does someone else decide?
MacDonald was particularly appalled at the protesters outside Tuahiwi School calling the Prime Minister a “murderer”. It’s the same accusation often thrown at women seeking abortions. Is it unpleasant and offensive? Absolutely. Is it “dangerous”? That really is a much higher standard.
Free speech is a problematic concept. Harm can be done in our society because of free speech. Start to curtail free speech, and you will certainly curtail at least some of the harm it causes.
But first know that the alternative to free speech is always worse. Censorship invariably prohibits speech it never intended to, and it’s usually the speech of the very people it was supposed to protect.
While, yes, free speech enables hateful, angry, possibly even stupid, people to express themselves freely, those people don’t just go away or change their minds. Words and ideas are impactful — that’s why we should allow them out in the open, where people can have their say and then go home, rather than force them to live silently with their hate or anger, and take more drastic steps.
It is clear the old refrain “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me” is only comparatively true. Words do harm at times and it can hurt a lot. But let’s be honest. Not in comparison to being beaten with a stick or having a stone thrown through your window. When we consider it in that light, the “hurt” and “danger” words place us in is bearable.
As aways, the Free Speech Union insists that threats of violence and intimidation are beyond the pale of free speech, and acts of violence are the very antithesis of what we stand for.
The disdain MacDonald has for the protesters outside the school is palpable. Ironically, his characterisation of them could quite possibly fall afoul of hate speech laws which were proposed last year and are set to be introduced into Parliament. And this irony is what highlights the “appalling”, “awful” and “dangerous” agenda of those who oppose free speech. It always ends up undermining all of our right to express ourselves. That’s an own goal for a media personality who gets paid to give his opinion.