On June 16, 2019, Professor Paul Moon was invited by NZ Friends of Israel Association Inc. to speak about Freedom of Speech amidst the ongoing public debate on how to react to hate speech rhetoric in the aftermath of the Christchurch Massacre.
The shock of the Massacre, the murderer’s manifesto, its distribution via social media, and the potentially devastating ramifications on public discussion and debate of stronger Hate Speech Legislation have combined to fuel interest. Not surprisingly, Professor Moon found himself speaking to a full house.
Being a professor of history, Moon gave numerous historical examples of how suppressing free and open debate had held back the development of Western society, and how the pioneers of the Reformation and the Renaissance had ushered in a new era of progress.
Free Speech has been a powerful agent of societal reform, enabling religious and ethnic tolerance under Cromwell, abolished modern slavery, given women the right to vote, birthed the US civil rights movement, the Waitangi Tribunal, and the Nuclear-Free Movement.
A survey of current legislation that impact freedom of speech in New Zealand showed that what can be publicly said was already moderated: The Human Rights Act, the Harmful Digital Communications Act, and the Defamation Act. Each contributing toward prohibiting activities commonly associated with Hate Speech but none coming up with a robust definition of what Hate Speech might be.
The Human Rights Commission is exploring the idea of protecting minority religions and suppressing “disharmonious speech”. Moon’s attempts to clarify what constitutes “disharmonious speech” were met with bemusement.
And this is the principal weakness of Hate Speech legislation, the difficulty in arriving at a robust definition gives authorities too much license to shutter uncomfortable public discourse.
But it is from the flow from the tap of confronting, uncomfortable and disruptive ideas that society maintains its vigour and vitality. And it’s freedom of speech that enables the public discourse which will allow society to become aware of these ideas, to test them, and identify the good ones and reject the bad ones.
Moon concluded with three thoughts:
- Exercising free speech responsibly and thoughtfully — rather than suppressing it — is the best antidote to hate speech.
- Surrendering free speech — in any way — sacrifices intelligence to force.
- Free speech can be unpalatable, but the alternative — of the state controlling our speech — is immeasurably worse.
There was a lively Q&A session and, as is so often the case, it is here that much color is added to proceedings.
Hate speech featured in the stories of the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide. Doesn’t it seem obvious that hate speech should be prohibited? On the other hand, both regimes prohibited freedom of speech and suppressed their opponents.
Furthermore NZFOI would add that the Weimar Republic had Hate Speech Legislation in place yet the Nazi Party was able to use them as propaganda tools, citing them as evidence of a “conspiracy” against them; implying that the Nazi party had answers to society’s problems that the German government didn’t want the public to hear. People flocked to Nazi rallies.
Others were apprehensive of further immigration from societies that have normative practices that most New Zealanders would find repugnant. Although these practices might be currently illegal, our society has shown an appetite for showing deference to minorities.
It was conceivable that these practices, such as vaginal circumcision, forced marriages and honour killings, could become permissible as legal exceptions on cultural grounds.
Yet voicing these concerns would likely make them appear paranoid, Islamophobic and bigoted. How could they exercise their right to free speech, and take part in legitimate public debate without being pilloried, ostracized or even attacked?
Others noted that many of Moon’s examples involved the Roman Catholic church and while they acknowledged that it had its faults, voiced their concern that the presentation could leave listeners with an unbalanced view of that institution.
Moon assured them that he had only chosen those examples because he felt that a New Zealand audience would be sufficiently familiar with that period of history to relate to them.
By the time the meeting ended there was a consensus that respectful discussion and debate that focused on the merits of opposing arguments rather than attacking the people who made them, was the best way for society to build solutions to life’s problems and to discredit hate speech.
Within that collegial atmosphere, Dr Duncan Webb, MP for Christchurch Central, approached us and said he would be happy to openly debate Dr David Cumin.
John Minto, after introducing himself as an advocate of Palestinian rights, said that if a supporter of Palestinians rights ever crossed the line into racism, then he invited NZFOI to contact him, and he would have a word with them.
Perhaps there is hope for humankind after all.
Professor Moon’s PowerPoint slide deck can be downloaded from here.
NZ Friends of Israel Association Inc wishes to acknowledge the support of the Holocaust Centre of New Zealand and Professor Paul Moon’s generous gift of his time and money in making this event possible.
