Letters: Pollsters harsh on Greens, free speech

Short end of the stick

Audrey Young in Saturday's paper described the Greens' supposed "weak support" (Chronicle, September 5).

This comment on "weak support" is based on a single month-old 1 NEWS Colmar Brunton poll.

Last week's Roy Morgan Poll shows the Greens' support at 11 per cent. But the only poll discussed in the media is the month-old 1 NEWS Colmar Brunton poll which showed the Greens at 5 per cent.

While Roy Morgan may overestimate Green support, Colmar Brunton has, in my opinion, often underestimated the Greens.

The Greens are always getting the short end of the stick. A fresh example of this is the recent media's exaggerated and embellished beat-up on James Shaw's minor Green School gaffe.

This school fund had nothing to do with the education budget. It was one of hundreds of projects chosen from a Covid budget list to help with unemployment.

Reporters cherry-picked a single stale stereotypical set of wacky parents into "auras and crystals". They misleadingly implied that it was school policy.

Big-media anti-Greens bias aside, we need as many polls as possible for a fully functioning democracy. I only found one news site that mentioned Roy Morgan on a Google news search.

Only two other polls, Newshub and 1 NEWS Colmar Brunton are mentioned. In the 2005 and 2008 elections we had up too six different polls. Roy Morgan was always discussed. It has always been respected. This consistent oversight appears to be censorship by omission.

BRIT BUNKLEY
Whanganui

Free speech

It is always nice to be popular and clearly I was in today's Chronicle (September 8), with all three letters referring to me by name.

It begins with Bob Walker misrepresenting me in yet another effort of his to promote euthanasia. Neither of these worry me. What does worry me is the way he yet again misrepresents the current euthanasia bill and claims that its weak wording represents "strict measures" to protect the vulnerable.

In the last letter Martin Hanson quotes me correctly, that killing an innocent human being is NOT somehow pro-life, but then tries to play games with the term "innocent". Apparently Mr Hanson wants to justify killing babies because of "original sin". I think that is a new argument but I don't think it will gain much traction.

In between, Paul Baber returns to the topic of freedom of speech, the issue that allows these letters, protests on the street, and people in general to express their opinion. Mr Baber makes the error of wanting to extend that freedom only to those he deems to "use that right and privilege responsibly", claiming that saying something that others dislike "can further the oppression of some individuals and groups" and take away their freedom.

A direct call for actual violence against an individual or group is not "free speech", and should not be considered to be. Expressing views or opinions that others don't like is free speech, as is the ability to point out where you think those opinions or views are wrong. Even if you think either side is "hateful" or their words are mean and nasty, you need to be prepared to fight for their right to express those views and hope that others are prepared to fight for your rights when someone else deems your views "hateful".

K A BENFELL
Gonville