Jonathan Ayling
Wellington, February 25, 2023
On 19 January 2023, Sport Northland denied the booking request of a local community group meeting to oppose co-governance.
Sport Northland’s Spaces & Places Manager claimed: “Sport Northland have recently adjusted their trust deed to recognise Te Tiriti o Waitangi and have changed their board structure to that of co-governance, due to these factors… we have unfortunately have (sic) made the decision to decline your facility booking. I hope this is understandable.”
Yes, it is unfortunate, but not understandable.
The following week, the Free Speech Union picked up this blatant disregard for free speech and managed to get Sport Northland to very promptly agreed to allow the meeting to go ahead, and as an act of goodwill waived any charges to use the venue.
A worrying trend
This is the closest we will see Sport Northland acknowledge their mistake.
In our increasingly comms-driven world, a public apology will not be forthcoming.
And that is a problem.
The decision by a large regional organisation to pick those that can use their facilities based on their political opinions is a terrifying example, even if they did back down.
What would have happened if this group, Stop Co-Governance, had not been able to get any media coverage? What if they had not known that there was an organisation dedicated to defending free speech? Should access to basic civil liberties be limited to those who can throw their weight around when their rights are denied?
Recent court decisions (both in the High Court and the Supreme Court) have upheld the duties of organisations and venues that receive public funding to respect the speech rights of those who use their facilities.
While the law defends this freedom, our culture increasingly views this as wrong.
In response to the Free Speech Union’s defence of this community group’s speech rights, many claimed that ‘racism and hate speech should not be allowed to hide behind free speech.’
This was the same claim critics made when the Free Speech Union took Auckland Facilities Ltd to the Supreme Court over refusing to allow speakers to use their venue because of the ideas they would express (note, the Supreme Court’s decision maintained the duties of publicly funded venues to respect free speech).
Censor is more expensive
It is very similar to the claim made when we took Palmerston North City Council to court for refusing to allow a feminist group the right to use a library to hold a meeting.
Like the case with Sport Northland, the court ruling enabled this meeting to go ahead – but only after a major fight.
If free speech does not include the right to make deeply offensive claims that are perhaps antiquated and even abhorrent to the average Kiwi, but that does not incite violence, then we no longer have free speech. And without free speech, we would never have had the Springbok tour protests, the Maori Land Marches, the Nuclear Free New Zealand movement, or many other examples of speech that stood up to prejudice, bigotry and hatred.
Free speech is not free. It certainly runs the risk of allowing incorrect, stupid, hateful, or wrong views to be expressed. But censorship is not free either and the cost is much higher.
‘Stop Co-Governance’ went ahead with their meeting, undoubtedly with many more people attending than they would have had if Sport Northland had just accepted their booking.
It is possible their ideas were legitimised by some in the audience because of the opposition they faced in trying to have their say.
Good one, Sport Northland.
If you believe in co-governance, if you are anti-racist, if you hate being hated, then get in behind free speech – ultimately, censorship will backfire every time.
Jonathan Ayling is Chief Executive of Free Speech Union based in Wellington.
