Tomas O’Brien
Dunedin, August 26, 2022
When recently attending the Free Speech Union’s event at the University of Otago, I was struck by two thoughts: who was there, and who was not.
I have come to realise that I traverse two increasingly separate worlds.
As a student, in the shadow of the ivory tower of academia, intersectionality, anti-racism, post-colonialism, and the destruction of anything old, white, and male reign supreme. Yet, among my wider family, and to many others in this country, these ideas confront the values which have enabled us to build this liberal democratic society.
As an example, in the views of the latter group, co-governance is perceived as an unjustified exception to the principle of equal universal suffrage, which many have fought and died for. Whereas, in uni-land, it is seen as the opposite: a necessity to fix past injustice.
Growing tensions
In between these two worlds, day-by-day, tension is growing as they diverge further apart.
We are becoming a polarised country. It seems clear to me, that the only way to resolve these tensions within society is through dialogue. Robust, critical, unrestricted, and open dialogue – and the fostering of a spirit of curiosity to understand the other’s worldview.
Consequently, I find the failure of anyone on the political Left to turn up to the event hosted by the Free Speech Union at Otago University, which sought to both protect and define the limits of freedom of speech, highly disappointing.
If freedom of speech means anything, it means giving others the right to say things you do not want to hear, even if these things appear upsetting or abhorrent. Moreover, up until very recent times the university has, as an institution, held itself out to be the arena in which all and any ideas can be contested – believing that it is only in this contest, no matter how difficult or controversial it may be, that truth can be found.
Universities prohibit freedom
However, it now seems that many (perhaps most) within the university system refuse to contribute to this contest. Moreover, for the most controversial topics, they even refuse to allow it to occur at all. Then, when those in the other world get louder and more vexatious towards them in reply, they are outraged. They pursue an ideology that seems to censor anyone who rejects their worldview. It is ideological hubris in the extreme.
All that said, I do not doubt that some people on the political Right simply wanted to use the event as a platform to hurl abuse. Their ad hominem attacks did not focus on the contest of ideas; they played the person, not the ball, and through this stifled genuine debate. I find it difficult to reconcile what I heard at points within the event with what I believe is freedom of speech’s requisite duty; the duty to allow others to speak – and the duty to listen.
Whilst, to his credit, Peter Williams guided the panel (of Michael Woodhouse MP, James McDowall MP, and Dunedin Mayoral candidate Lee Vandervis) in fielding difficult questions from the crowd despite these outbursts, it was clear this was not a productive debate that it could have been.
From the Left, there lacked the courage to front up and listen to those who think differently the courage to present their views on freedom of speech (and its limits) reasonably and rationally despite what they might have construed (probably correctly) as a hostile crowd. And from the Right the wisdom to control their emotions – to focus on reason – and give the debate the creditability it deserved.
A relative quagmire
Thus, instead of leaving with a concept of freedom of speech befitting both worlds, I was left in a relative quagmire. I agreed with what was said by the panel for the most part – but it was unchallenged – and I am the poorer from it. Moreover, the outbursts, unfortunately, justified the Left’s refusal to attend. The steady march of polarisation within our country carries on.
Free speech has been the foundation on which liberal democracy has been built.
In all its imperfection, I believe that it remains demonstrably the best option available.
The work of the Free Speech Union to protect the crucial liberty of speech, from both the Left and the Right is thus crucial.
Yet free speech is in itself not the full solution. It takes each of us to show up and respect the other side for the peace and stability we enjoy in our country to be maintained.
Tomas O’Brien is a Law student at Otago University in Dunedin. He is a supporter of the Free Speech Union.
