Open and shut free speech case
Name the politician who said this: ‘‘I disagree strongly with what these activists are saying but I think it’s a dangerous thing to say ‘because we don’t like what you’re saying we won’t let you in’. We should allow people we strongly disagree with to come. We’re a mature, liberal democracy.’’
That was National leader Simon Bridges, only six weeks ago, when the activists in question were Canadian alt-righters Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux. Few things tangle up politicians and commentators quite like free speech issues, which are rarely free of political baggage and ideological traps. So perhaps it is not too surprising to see that National’s immigration spokesman, Michael Woodhouse, now argues New Zealand should ban Chelsea Manning before her speaking engagements in September.
Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison after leaking sensitive US military documents to Wikileaks in 2010. She explained that the classified material cleared ‘‘the fog of war’’ and revealed ‘‘the true nature of 21st century asymmetric warfare’’. One of Barack Obama’s last acts as president was to commute her sentence to seven years. ‘‘Let’s be clear,’’ he said. ‘‘Chelsea Manning has served a tough prison sentence.’’
National is splitting hairs when it argues that its position on Manning is not about free speech. Woodhouse says instead that a ‘‘convicted felon’’ should not be allowed to earn money talking about her crimes, and it would ‘‘not enhance’’ New Zealand’s relationship with the US if Manning was permitted to speak here.
It is easy to see why National has taken this line. It would be impossible for National to argue that Manning is as much of a threat to public order as the alt-right Canadians, who often attempt to provoke minorities in cities they visit.
But the argument Woodhouse has chosen doesn’t bear much scrutiny either. The point about our relationship with the US shows that National is desperate to adopt a servile position. Australia, which is closer to the US, has not barred Manning.
The point about granting entry to convicted criminals seems inconsistent with earlier visits, under National governments, by former South African president Nelson Mandela and Jordan Belfort, better known as the Wolf of Wall Street.
Woodhouse was immigration minister in 2014 when Belfort brought his motivational speaking tour to New Zealand, charging up to $859 a ticket. Of course, it could be argued that Belfort was not strictly earning money from talking about his crimes as he was still paying back the US$200 million (NZ $298m) he owed investors he defrauded.
The examples of Belfort and Mandela have been cited by the Free Speech Coalition, whose defence of Manning has dispelled any suggestions that it was formed to back only Right-leaning activists. It has shown it is supporting the principles of free speech, rather than advocating for any particular brand of politics. As spokesman Chris Trotter argued: ‘‘It is [about] the right of New Zealanders to hear from someone who is noteworthy albeit controversial . . . New Zealanders should not be denied an opportunity to hear a personal account of military use of power, even by an ally.’’
Such an account would also be of greater public interest than motivational tips for would-be millionaires.
The point about our relationship with the US shows that National is desperate to adopt a servile position. Australia, which is closer to the US, has not barred Manning.