Alt-right activists Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern in limbo after venue backs out of hosting event
Opinion by Emma Moran and Michael Fitzpatrick-Cockram
THREE KEY FACTS
Far-right Canadian pair Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern were set to speak at the Bruce Mason Centre in 2018, but that was called off when the council-controlled organisation Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) revoked their booking.
The cancellation led to the duo, who hold far-right views on topics ranging from feminism and immigration to Islam, being unable to speak publicly in NZ.
Recent court cases, however, have provided clear guidance for thosewho run venues as well as for those who are booking events, making it much easier to avoid future issues.
For example, consider Colin, a hypothetical administration assistant working at a community centre. Last week he took a venue booking for a group he hadn’t heard of before.
Two days later, his colleague tells him to check social media. It turns out the group has extreme views on LGBTQI+ issues. Other groups are now planning a large counterprotest at the event and aggressive insults are flying in the comments section.
Colin panics. He emails the event organisers and cancels. Shortly after, he gets a letter from their lawyer saying he has breached the Bill of Rights. The group threatens to go to court unless Colin rebooks the event.
This situation looms large for many in the community and events sectors, including charitable, private and public organisations. There’s no doubt that rights of freedom of speech and expression are essential but what does that mean for Colin and the team as neutral hosts stuck between two competing groups?
The New Zealand courts have long regarded the right to free speech to be “as wide as human thought and imagination”, but balanced and limited against other considerations, such as defamation, which can be justified in a free and democratic society.
This contrasts with the approach in other jurisdictions, famously the United States, which excludes certain types of speech from the very broad protection in its constitution. The New Zealand approach is to take the broadest possible definition of speech, and the courts seek to find appropriate limits when it comes into conflict with other rights.
The scenario above is inspired by real cases that have made their way through the courts.
We also know from experience that similar situations occur regularly. The most important case to be aware of is Moncrieff Spittle vs Regional Facilities Auckland, in which the Supreme Court found that venue booking decisions engage with Bill of Rights issues, and this means the court can review them.
That case involved an event featuring controversial Canadian speakers, Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern.
The event promoter hired the Bruce Mason Centre but didn’t inform the venue of the nature of the event or any precautions taken until the day prior. The organisers received complaints about the speakers and protesters said they would blockade the event.
The venue obtained further information from the organisers, including details of precautions taken at earlier events, and then decided to cancel the hire contract.
The Supreme Court found that short-notice safety concerns were a valid reason to cancel the event, given the very real concerns about the anticipated level of protest action.
However, a later decision from the High Court in Whitmore vs Palmerston North City Council went the other way, finding it was not permissible for a library to attempt to replace a “Speak Up for Women” event with a facilitated discussion as a “platform for informed and balanced dialogue”.
Far-right Canadian speakers Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux being interviewed by Paddy Gower in the Newshub Studios in 2018. Photo / Caolan Robertson
A key point in both decisions is that the content of the planned speech will rarely be a valid reason for cancelling an event.
Private organisations, obviously, have more discretion. A church should not be required to host speakers with views diametrically opposed to its congregation, for example.
For the community centres and venues hosting events where two opposing groups decide to vigorously exercise their free speech, sometimes in colourful language, the concerns are more practical. Many venues and hosts may not be resourced, and booking fees not priced, to provide the necessary staff and security to host these events safely.
Venues and hosts will find themselves on much safer ground if they have a policy in place before they receive that lawyer’s letter, and if that policy is communicated to customers when booking the venue.
If a venue is not equipped to deal with protests, or regularly deals with vulnerable members of the community who require some protection, this can be communicated to potential customers, along with the suggestion that other locations may be better suited. If the decision is challenged, it will be more defensible if hosts can show a consistent and carefully considered process was followed.
Urgent court proceedings can be reactive, highly stressful and expensive, so hosts will thank themselves for having done all that thinking beforehand.
Similarly, if a particular group or speaker is likely to attract protesters, or a particularly rowdy or passionate crowd, hosts can require sufficient notice to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place to accommodate both protesters and counter-protesters. Some facilities are better equipped to deal with safety concerns, and booking fees are understandably higher as a result.
On the other side of the ledger, when booking a venue for an organisation, if there is a risk of protest - be a good guest and let the hosts know, so plans can be put in place.
New Zealand’s recent court cases on this topic make it much easier to avoid future issues.
