Free speech at risk, Brash says
Free speech advocate Don Brash has labelled protesters exercising their own free speech during an Auckland University debate as ‘‘puerile’’ and says it proves it is under threat.
Brash took part in a debate organised by Auckland University’s debating society on Thursday night.
For a time, it appeared Brash would not be able to speak as protesters, organised by A New University, sang and shouted over him.
But after a few minutes, calm was largely restored and Brash was invited to finish his speech.
The subject of the debate was ‘‘Has PC culture gone too far to the point where it is limiting freedom of speech?’’ with Brash arguing in favour.
‘‘It was certainly the most lively meeting I’ve ever been involved in,’’ Brash said yesterday.
‘‘I’ve been involved in some political meetings through my career but none quite as disruptive as that one last night.’’
Brash said he was originally told the protesters were not going to allow him to speak.
The order of speakers was then rotated to have him speak last to avoid disrupting the whole event.
He said the protesters eventually allowed him to speak but he said their actions were a demonstration of how much of a threat free speech was under.
‘‘They were quite determined that I shouldn’t be allowed to speak even though they did not know what I was going to talk about,’’ Brash said.
Although supporting their right to protest, Brash said their way of protesting was wrong.
‘‘Attempting to shut down completely a university debating society hosted event, I thought was quite puerile and for most people in the audience, they would have seen very, very silly people,’’ he said.
‘‘If they made a silent protest, held placards, whatever, OK, they would have been noticed, they would have made their point but they would not have been guilty of trying to stop me talking.
‘‘The whole point of the debate was saying people should not be stopped from talking.’’
A New University spokeswoman, Beth Stanley, said the group was happy with how their protest had gone and she disputed they had stopped Brash from talking.
‘‘We achieved everything we wanted to achieve,’’ Stanley said.
‘‘We wanted to show a front against him and show that there are people that won’t roll over and think what he has to say and what he represents is acceptable.’’
Stanley said Brash’s claims the protest showed how freedom of speech was under threat were ‘‘absolutely ridiculous’’.
His belief that protesters had attempted to shut down his free speech was ‘‘disingenuous’’, she said, as they had allowed him to speak.
The debating society had said no side of the debate would be labelled the winner but Brash said he believed the affirmative side had won based on applause.
‘‘We achieved everything we wanted to achieve.’’ Protester Beth Stanley