Brash ban suppresses free speech

Brash’s views on Ma¯ori affairs are unpalatable and often lack accuracy and logic, as Kim Hill exposed when eviscerating him in a radio interview last year, but they fall short of hate speech . . .

‘Universities support our staff and students to push boundaries, test the evidence that is put to them and challenge societal norms, including examining controversial and unpopular ideas.’’

So wrote Massey University vice-chancellor Jan Thomas a month ago in an opinion piece about how free speech is welcome on university campuses, but hate speech is not.

Thomas penned her thoughts at the height of the debate about whether Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux should share their far-right views at an Auckland Council-owned venue.

The decision to ban them was wrong and deprived thinking members of the public the chance to hold them to the ridicule and contempt they deserve.

The council cited security concerns in banning the Canadians.

Then yesterday, Massey tried to hide behind the same concerns when banning Don Brash from visiting Massey’s Palmerston North campus to talk to the university’s politics club about the National Party, which he led between 2003 and 2006.

Brash, of course, also founded Hobson’s Pledge, the anti-ma¯ori ‘‘privilege’’ lobby group.

He attracts derision among liberal thinkers and once famously took a clump of mud to the face at ¯Waitangihiso not long after rewa speech.

We’re told the politics club informed the university about safety concerns at Brash’s talk. The university decided against putting on extra security for the visit, saying the risk to public safety was too high against the backdrop of Brash’s support of Southern and Molyneux.

Brash rightly points out he only supported the Canadians’ right to speak.

One is left to wonder about the nature of the supposed threat and if the university investigated how genuine any public safety concerns are.

And then the waters get murkier. Thomas says: ‘‘Mr Brash’s leadership of Hobson’s Pledge and views he and its supporters espoused in relation to Ma¯ori wards on councils was clearly of concern to many staff, particularly Ma¯ori staff . . .

‘‘In my opinion, the views expressed by members of Hobson’s Pledge come dangerously close to hate speech.’’

Brash’s views on Ma¯ori affairs are unpalatable and often lack accuracy and logic, as Kim Hill exposed when eviscerating him in a radio interview last year, but they fall short of hate speech, unless that definition has widened to merely include offence or outdated ideas. And he was invited to Massey, ostensibly, to discuss the National Party.

It seems Thomas is banning Brash because she doesn’t like what he says – an extraordinary position for a university leader. As Thomas herself says, university staff and students should be allowed to examine controversial and unpopular ideas.

A university that stifles debate, no matter how uncomfortable the subject matter, is undermining its reason for being.