Last time we had National in charge we had NZ's pre-eminant fresh water ecologist labeled as an economic terrorist by John Key.
They can go and get fucked on the free speach
Last time we had National in charge we had NZ's pre-eminant fresh water ecologist labeled as an economic terrorist by John Key.
They can go and get fucked on the free speach
In theory a policy supporting free speech is a good thing. In practice I fear that this is a way to force universities to allow ridiculous points of view that don't deserve a platform.
Yo! It's all good if I necro-post? I think in general it isn't a bad idea to let people rent out a room and then advertise an event at their own expense?
When Lord Monckton came to New Zealand and spoke at a private venue I went to that event. Climate change is an area of government policy which affects the economy and our lives. I oppose the crazy ideas that they have in Europe, like wanting to phase out petrol cars by 2035, and allowing EVs into some central city areas but banning petrol cars. These ideas must be challenged, because not everybody is a rich political elite, living in Wellington, who drives a car worth $20,000 - $120,000. I can't afford to buy a Nissan Leaf, and I don't want crazy climate change fanatics to go unchallenged. It isn't about "denial". Usually it's the case that we simply don't like certain policies because they are sometimes more of an ideological goal, a benchmark, rather than a certain reality.
I disagree with your opinion that some views don't deserve a platform, or that some views deserve less time, or perhaps less reach. There's no reason to reduce the amount of speaking time, I mean are universities just short on time these days or something? In the worst scenario, I think that less popular speakers should be allowed a platform and access to a live stream. That way, even if they had a limited time slot, they could still talk for much longer via a stream, or something like that. Then people can follow the full speech and watch a replay, and not miss anything.
We are reaching ridiculous levels of paranoia over free speech and foreign influence. I personally don't care about any debate about maori language or the treaty, it always attracts the same crowds of people. Instead of bickering over co-governance, why don't we just do something simple, like build houses that people can actually afford, so we don't have maori people living in poverty? Instead of bickering over power politics, do something useful. If people want to argue over stuff, let them, but I'm not interested in most of it.
Each university will then have to adopt a "freedom of speech statement" consistent with the central government's expectations.
The changes will also prohibit tertiary institutions from adopting positions on issues that do not relate to their core functions.
free speech, but not that free speech
Also what is an isn't thier "core functions" will probably be dependent on whether or not the current ministers like what they're saying...
This is the thing.
The Freeze Peach morons were campaigning recently to allow Candace Owens in on free speech grounds, as if she doesn't already have a massive platform to speak whatever she wants.
Freedom for individuals to express themselves how they want isn't the same as forcing venues or institutions to host that expression if they don't want to.
A possibly pessimistic take is "speakers that support us keep getting their events cancelled so we have changed the law to stop that happening".
I think this is a form of bothsidesism, where they are requiring universities to give all sides equal weight where not all points of view deserve equal weight.
They have been been welcomed by the Free Speech Union, which said academic freedom is under threat, but the TEU said there was no problem to solve.
The free speech union is a NZ offshoot of a UK based body. Reading over a few of their campaigns, the wording they use seems reasonable (if somewhat angry) on the surface, but whist reading the feeling is very much of dogwhistle style politics.
Such as:
it could make it illegal to misuse someone’s pronouns or limit schools' boards of trustees even more in how they present diverse perspectives on gender.
This is representative of a lot of the rhetoric on the site, on the surface it seems ok, it makes it sound like making a mistake will be a criminal act; but the biggest dogwhistle is "diverse perspective's", this is clear bull shit, they want institutions (especially schools) presenting views on gender/sexuality that are very much not representative of reality. The site doesn't say who is funding them, it would be interesting to see that information.
...
A great response from the TEU:
"So it feels like we've got a heavy-handed approach from a government that apparently is anti-regulation but is now going to put in place the whole lot of requirements on a community that just doesn't need it."
...
This is just bad policy. It is not about freedom of speech, this is about allowing divisive views an official platform, to legitimize them in the eyes of the public.
There seems to be a lot of nanny-state crap coming out of a government who campaigns against the nanny-state.
Is The Nanny-State in the room with us right now?
Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!
This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi
This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick
Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA