Let them come
Our mums and dads used to tell us that sticks and stones can break our bones, but words will never hurt us. It was, of course, over-simplified advice that didn’t fully recognise the power of language and a sharp, poisonous tongue, but it helped to undermine that power to inflame, hurt and destroy.
It helped us to better recognise what is truly damaging and hateful, and what is merely offensive and comfortably dismissed.
There is a difference. It’s an important demarcation. Hate speech is against the law, with a potential to incite violence, even if that remains a vague and largely untested threshold; causing offence is a lesser category and tolerated within the flexible ecosystem of the freedom of speech.
The application of offence and our understanding of its rightful place are practically enshrined in our cultural constitution, through academic pursuits, innovative disruption, comedy and other artistic endeavours. Without the possibility of offence we would be a bland, totalitarian state devoid of interest, imagination and ideas.
Controversial Canadians Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux have built an impressive global profile by testing the boundaries and pressure points of that ecosystem. They are variably described as far and alt-Right commentators and provocateurs. They want to visit New Zealand and offer their polarising views on, among many things, immigration, gender and feminism.
The Islamic community and Auckland Peace Action want Immigration Minister Iain LeesGalloway to stop the pair. They believe allowing them to spout their ‘‘fascist ideology’’ will ‘‘empower local racists and encourage racist violence’’.
We believe that what they are likely to present may qualify as offensive to some, but will fall below what the great majority of Kiwis would regard as hate speech.
That’s an important point. It recognises that most New Zealanders will either see this pair for what they are – provocateurs looking for a reaction to justify their pretence of victimhood and boost their profiles – or will be tolerant and phlegmatic enough to recognise that everyone, even the ignorant and the offensive, has a right to an opinion that is not matched by a right to object violently.
Those groups concerned about potential insults against their religion or sexual orientation should instead be comforted that this country allows such a breadth of opinion without reacting with hatred or oppression from other parties, including the state. As happens in some parts of the world.
The same tolerance that allows that freedom – even if it comes with some abuse – also recognises people’s right to pursue their own religious practices and cultural values in a diverse society. But banning these people actually undermines the foundation of those rights. It assumes that the system is not robust enough to tolerate that breadth of views or the populace sophisticated enough to respond rationally.
It also plays into the hands of those seeking publicity and profile.