I will always defend Geoffrey Palmer’s right to be dull
Bob Jones has the right to castigate "fat Maori" beggars in the street, even if such comments are stronger on empirical observation than social context.
‘‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’’
Voltaire, the 18th century French writer, never said these words. The quotation has its origin in the work of one of Voltaire’s early 20th century biographers.
Historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall, publishing under the pseudonym S G Tallentyre, coined the phrase by way of discussing the wit’s reaction to the public incineration of a book that he himself held in low esteem.
Voltaire’s actual words – or at least their English translation – were metaphoric: ‘‘What a fuss to make about an omelette. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that.’’
Whatever the origin of the expression, or its worth in encapsulating the philosophy of a thinker who seldom expressed himself in such absolutes, it has been refreshing this week to hear about a group of high-profile New Zealanders who have taken its theme to heart.
Impressively, this call to defend freedom of speech at the country’s universities reaches across ideological, social and racial boundaries.
Many a strange bedfellow is tucked up together. Don Brash and Tariana Turia have co-signed the open letter. Bob Jones and Geoffrey Palmer have appended their monikers.
Auckland University academics Paul Moon and Albert Wendt have nailed their theses to the door.
Democracy requires a basic tolerance of opposing views. Freedom of expression is the starting point. If any words or concepts are ruled beyond debate or discussion, we lose something as a society.
Bob Jones has the right to castigate ‘‘fat Maori’’ beggars in the street, even if such comments are stronger on empirical observation than social context.
Tariana Turia has the right to declare the New Zealand foreshore the exclusive property of the tangata whenua, even if her fellow citizens read the Treaty of Waitangi a different way, or chose to ignore the document entirely.
Geoffrey Palmer has the right to tut-tut about booze culture, though many of us think him an out-oftouch old wowser who should stick to his constitutional musings and legalistic hair-splitting.
Even Susan Devoy has the right to complain about ‘‘hate speech’’ and call for draconian new censorship laws. Democracy must always contain within it the seeds of its own destruction.
There is absolutely no doubt that the freedom to express such views is under threat and not only in the nation’s ivory towers.
The culture of ‘‘being offended’’ smothers expression at every turn. If it isn’t social media leading the charge in this new Mccarthyism, it is the professionals, ever stoking the fire in search of click bait.
In the age of Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, the personal emotional response to a perceived transgression of some precious social norm is deemed more important than the principle of freedom.
It is narcissism writ large – because I find this offensive, you should immediately cease, desist and emphatically apologise. Fall into line or they’ll be hell to pay.
Racists and sexists must be rooted out. Death to the slut shamers and the fat shamers. All Donald Trump apologists shall be put to the sword. Conform. Conform. Conform.
It is ironic that most of these pseudo political rantings and the resulting folk censorship work on such a surface level that the structural underpinnings of real inequality and injustice are usually missed.
Why bother critiquing the policies and philosophies of neoliberalism when you can rail against the use of photoshop in taking a couple of inches off a supermodel’s thighs?
Superficial outrage works hand in hand with substantive indifference. Far from being a tool to create a better, more equal world, the internet is one big distraction, the 21st century’s ‘‘bread and circuses’’.
A far more bitter irony is that police themselves have called for an extension of their powers with regard to so-called ‘‘hate speech’’. Any move in this direction is truly a more toward fascism.
Given their inherent conservatism, a society where the police have the leeway to determine what is or is not acceptable in terms of political discourse is a recipe for disaster.
We need look no further than the police confiscation of equipment at Auckland’s King’s Arms last weekend to see how imperfect their grasp of freedom of expression is.
After 30 years as a celebrated live music venue, the iconic pub was closed down on the strength of a couple of noise complaints by new neighbours. If heavy metal music is deemed socially unacceptable today, what might be censored tomorrow?