Where is the line with hardwon freedoms?

I WOULD not have wanted a defender of Pol Pot to come to Dunedin where there were lots of vulnerable Khmer refugees and exercise ‘‘free speech’’.

Neither do I want neoNazis or other white supremacists, whether they are young Canadians or 1950s’ style New Zealanders, inflicting their hate speech on Maori, Pacific Islanders or African immigrants.

If you want to know what free speech is and what hate speech is, don’t ask a comfortable white National Party person or a racist bigot. Ask the target.

Ewan McDougall

Broad Bay

RECENT correspondence about free and ‘‘hate speech‘‘ mention preserving hardwon freedoms.

Many democracies forbid unrestricted free speech — Germany and others have criminalised Holocaust denial, for example. A constitution is no guarantee of citizens’ ability to conduct informed debate either.

Such ability is learned. Much of the problem with irrational ideas in multicultural societies is distorted information or insufficient education in critiquing all ideas, including religious ones.

Recently I joined a teacher group to advocate in a NCEA submission for a full seniorsecondary liberal arts curriculum including citizenship, philosophy — history of ideas and ethics for beginners — history (compulsory?), psychology and comparative religions.

Jean Holm, a New Zealand journalist in the United Kingdom in 1947, worked then with youth. With growing multiculturalism, she recognised the need for knowledge of values and ideas of differing cultures.

Following the UK’s introduction of religious studies for state schools in 1946, Jean moved into education, eventually becoming renowned head of religious studies at Cambridge’s Homerton College. In 1974 she wrote a prime text for teaching comparative religions, The Study of Religions, a source still referred to.

Why 44 years later do we still not teach such subjects in her home country? Steve Liddle

Napier

THE PC lobby does it again. Shortly after two Canadians were effectively prevented in Auckland from publicly presenting their challenging views, Don Brash (no friend of mine) suffered the same fate at the hands of Massey University.

A university of all places is supposed to be a bastion of the freedom of speech. Unless a speech advocates murder and mayhem or intends to seriously and flagrantly insult someone, no matter how nasty (like white supremacy) or idiotic

(like the flat earth ‘‘theory’’) or heartless (like denying indigenous minorities special rights), such events should be fully protected under the freedom of speech provisions as contained in the Human Rights Act and the Bill of Rights.

Hatespeech restrictions are exploited too readily, and excuses about social unrest and hurt ethnic, religious or cultural sensitivities are too readily cited as quasilegitimate reasons for suppression of unpopular views and arguments.

Free speech is a very precious and historically hardwon right, indispensable for a liberal democracy like New Zealand’s.

Three cheers for Voltaire who is supposed to have said something like this: ‘‘I may not like your views but I will defend to the hilt your right to express them.’’ Erich Kolig

Portobello ..................................

BIBLE READING: Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ — 2 Peter 3:18.