Friday, December 1, 2017

Freedom of speech, Rachel Stewart-style

New Zealand Herald columnist Rachel Stewart is a true champion of free speech. Except, that is, when someone wants to say something she doesn’t like.

In her column this week she savaged an occasional Otago Daily Times columnist named Dave Witherow. Witherow is guilty of the unpardonable sin of being (like me) an ageing, conservative male. In the eyes of the left-leaning bigots who have acquired almost total control of the public conversation in New Zealand, this automatically disqualifies him from having a valid opinion on anything.

What specifically pushed Stewart’s buttons is that Witherow wrote a column criticising Maori Language Week – or as he put it, “media apologists the length and breadth of the land prostrating themselves before the holy altar of te reo”.

He was especially critical of Radio New Zealand. “For the last couple of years,” Witherow wrote, “RNZ has been ahead of the pack in obsequiousness. Everything indigenous is sacrosanct, and even formerly redoubtable interviewers now shrink from the slightest demur when boring bigots drone on about the mana of all things native.”

Witherow used provocative language, as he’s entitled to do, and duly copped a barrage of self-righteous condemnation.

One of the more frenzied responses came from someone named Glenn McConnell, who was described as a Stuff reporter. That word “reporter” used to mean someone who reported, but that was before journalism training was politicised and new entrants to the profession were inculcated with the view that their mission was to correct the world’s iniquities. Many of them struggle to string three coherent words together, but they can spot sexism and racism a mile off and never hesitate to pass judgment. So McConnell had no compunction in labelling Witherow as a racist and accusing him of “casual bigotry”.

Hmmm. I wonder who the real bigots are here, but we’ll come back to that.

McConnell condescendingly allowed that most racists don’t know they’re racist. Ah, but he knows a racist when he sees one. Such are the superior moral insights conferred by modern journalism training.

Meanwhile, on the news website The Spinoff, Madeleine Chapman (no, I hadn’t heard of her, either) indulged in her own casual bigotry. She apologised for having to condemn yet another “bad column” (sigh – it’s just so tiresome having to constantly correct all these knuckle-dragging reactionaries) but justified it by saying she hoped it would be “the last goodbye to a generation of old men standing on their media platforms, yelling at clouds”.

You almost have to admire the conceit underlying that statement. Chapman seems to think the irresistible force of her argument will shock people like Witherow into silence. Good luck with that, as they say.

Another Spinoff contributor, Danyl Mclauchlan, categorised Witherow as representative of a “mostly older, mostly Pakeha subset of the population” whom he said were routinely provoked into outrage by Maori Language Week. Mclauchlan sneeringly referred to “drunken uncles at summer barbecues, bores holding forth in work tea-rooms and columnists and cartoonists on provincial papers”, all perpetuating their own ignorant versions of New Zealand history.  

(If I can slightly digress here, you can’t help but note a striking consistency in both Spinoff pieces. In an era when the Left is vigilant to the point of obsession in condemning stereotypes and prejudice, the one form of discrimination that’s not just tolerated but encouraged is the disparaging of older white males. The epithet “male, pale and stale” now serves as a coded synonym for someone who is misogynistic, racist, homophobic and stubbornly resistant to everything that’s progressive and enlightened. It’s a caricature, used to dismiss the legitimacy of anything that older white men might say or any opinions they might hold. So much for the Left’s supposed embrace of diversity.)

Witherow’s column also attracted the inevitable admonishment from Race Relations Commissioner Susan Devoy, who unfortunately has emulated her immediate predecessor, Joris De Bres, by morphing into a tedious, finger-wagging prig.  But the most poisonous attack, and I use the word deliberately, came from Stewart.

Stewart has the gall to say she believes in free speech – “absolutely” – before going on to say she “struggles with what basically amounts to gratuitous hate speech”. But she can’t have it both ways.

What she really wants is to deny Witherow a right that she claims for herself – that of free speech. She goes a step further by attacking the Otago Daily Times for publishing his column and therefore, in her eyes, being complicit in hate speech.

That’s why I describe her attack as poisonous. In a breathtaking display of moral and intellectual conceit, Stewart wants us to accept that her opinion is legitimate and noble while that of Witherow is hateful and contemptible. But she can’t exercise her own right of free speech while simultaneously seeking to deny it to others. A democratic society is built on the contestability of ideas. The moment any set of ideas is outlawed, democracy is diminished. Enlightened leftists (that is, those who can genuinely lay claim to the honourable term “liberal”) realise that. Stewart either can’t, or doesn’t want to.

In any case, who defines “hate speech”? Stewart doesn’t explain, so I’ll attempt it for her. Hate speech, in the eyes of some on the Left (not everyone, by any means), can essentially be defined as any opinion that runs counter to identity politics. This is the ideology that seeks to polarise society by breaking it down into supposedly oppressed minority groups, all pursuing their own divisive agendas, and which assesses everything in Western civilisation – art, literature, history, politics, the media – in terms of class, race and gender.

Playing the “hate speech” card is one of a range of tactics now routinely employed to marginalise any opinion the Left doesn’t like. Others include dismissing any expression of conservative opinion as a “rant”, thus implying it’s the product of a deranged mind, or caricaturing even moderately right-of-centre opinion as extreme, as New Zealand writer Ben Mack did in a hysterical, pants-wetting Washington Post column describing New Zealand First as a “far right” party and its involvement in the coalition government as “terrifying”. (The headline read: How the far right is poisoning New Zealand. Notwithstanding my own detestation of Winston Peters and his role in the shonky formation of the new government, I didn’t recognise the country portrayed in that headline and I don’t know any New Zealander who would.)

“Denier” and “denialist” (which are used in the context of the climate change debate to imply that global warming sceptics are on a par with Jew-hating Holocaust deniers) are part of this repertoire of attack too, along with the terms “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobe” and “misogynist” – all of which are used to portray the person so labelled as either stupid, evil or both, and thus to shame or intimidate them into silence. The ultimate objective of this strategy is to redefine the boundaries of public discourse so as to exclude anything that doesn’t conform to the neo-Marxist agenda.

But here’s the thing. Stewart’s entitled to fume all she likes about hate speech, just as long as she doesn’t attempt to shut other people down. I’m not in the habit of attacking other columnists and wouldn’t be criticising her here if she hadn’t stepped over that line. (Incidentally, I don’t know of any conservative group that argues people like her should be silenced. It’s always those on the Left who seek to stifle opinions that upset them.)

Now, back to McConnell, the Stuff columnist who accuses Witherow of bigotry. But who are the real bigots in this debate? My Oxford dictionary defines a bigot as an obstinate and intolerant believer in a religion or political theory. If that accusation is going to be hurled at Witherow, then it should be thrown right back at some of those attacking him. People should never make the mistake of equating bigotry with conservatism. Some of the most resolutely closed minds I’ve encountered have belonged to diehard lefties.

Fortunately there are left-leaning commentators who see the danger of the route people like Stewart would take us down. They are prepared to defend Witherow’s right to an opinion, and the ODT’s right to publish it, even if they don’t agree with what he says. On Pundit, for example, Tim Watkin described Witherow’s column as insulting and narrow-minded (fair enough), but drew the line “when criticism becomes an attack on civil debate and free speech”. And in the Herald, veteran writer Gordon McLachlan chided Stewart for thinking her own opinion sacrosanct. She should accept, he wrote, that she was not in command of ultimate truths.

Amen to that, but I suspect Stewart is so wrapped up in her own conceit, and so lacking in critical self-awareness, that reasoned criticism will fly straight over her head.

This debate still has some way to run. It’s likely to be revived tomorrow when Radio New Zealand’s Kim Hill interviews Don Brash, who endorsed Witherow’s column and posted a statement on Facebook saying he was “utterly sick” of hearing Te Reo Maori on RNZ. Brash identified Guyon Espiner of Morning Report as the worst offender and accused him of “virtue signalling”. (Good on Espiner for learning Maori, but he does give the impression that he enjoys showing off his fluency. And it’s hard to see the point of the increasingly frequent usage of Maori on Morning Report, unless it’s to make listeners feel that they’re not being good New Zealanders unless they learn it too. RNZ needs to understand that it’s not the function of the state broadcaster to inspire us to good works – we can go to church for that – or sign up to some idealistic vision of biculturalism.)

I can’t decide whether Brash is being foolhardy or courageous entering the lion’s den with Hill, since he has about as much chance of fair treatment as I have of being crowned Miss Universe. In my experience, the only time Hill interviews conservatives, it’s with the intention of trying to demolish them or make them look stupid. But good luck to him.


Barry said...

Another great post Karl. Thank you for it.

Best wishes to Don Brash for Saturday morning.

Brendan McNeill said...

Thanks Karl. We have arrived at a time where a good number of Kiwi’s can define political correctness, identity group politics, and the totalitarian impulses of the political left. Even if they cannot articulate it they intuit its self-righteous sneering, and moral preening.

What happened to dialogue and debate? The testing of ideas in the public domain?

One of the reasons I cannot help but like Milo Yiannopoulos is that he knows how to press their buttons, and to defeat those foolish enough to engage him publically. Recently in Australia he was publicly denounced as a white supremacist, (hardly likely for someone married to a black guy).

It appears that name calling is reserved for those whom they most despise, yet usually refuse to debate. It’s all somewhat tedious really, especially as you note, these folks dominate our MSM.

David McLoughlin said...

Karl, you've coined the ultimate insult. A true beauty!

"You racist, sexist, homophobic misogynist denier, you!"

All it needs to encompass all of today's Despised Ones is to add in something like "male and at the higher end of the age bell curve," a whole new insult hurled last week at senior male journalists by the Camp Mother of the KJA FB group. Oh and we are trolls, too, according to her.

So: "You're a racist, sexist, homophobic misogynist, denier troll at the higher end of the age bell curve!"

PS: I felt Kim's interview with Dr Brash was one of her flattest. And I really enjoy Guyon's te reo nga korero. Ma te wa.

Karl du Fresne said...

For the benefit of those who don't know of it, the KJA referred to above is the Kiwi Journalists' Association group on Facebook. I don't go anywhere near it, but could David please identify the Camp Mother for us?

David McLoughlin said...

could David please identify the Camp Mother for us?

The group's Constant Moderator, Karl. Everyone who follows that group sees her in action many times a day.

It's an interesting group, with many members who disapprove of the "wrong" news being published and dislike the expression of views contrary to their own; and other members who stand up for high journalistic standards who are often dismissed as "trolls" or worse, as mean "nit-pickers".

I don't know whether to weep or collapse with laughter there some days, but it is an addictive place. They announced this week that any member subjected to three complaints to the moderators by any (anonymous) member would be banned forthwith, which will make it even more of an echo chamber than it usually is.

But I stay there despite being blocked and invited to leave, as they would cheer if I threw my toys out of the sandpit. It's more fun watching them do it daily!

Karl du Fresne said...

Thanks David. You've just provided a pretty succinct summary of the reasons I shun the KJA.

Michael Wynd said...

Thank you Karl for an excellent post. I read that piece and came to similar conclusions. You reminded me of a time I wrote at piece for the student magazine Chaff on the Civil Unions back in 2003. I got the same level of abuse including some very nasty emails. I did respond to some accusing me of being a homophobe with "what else you got? That term doesn't mean anything anymore". By challenging them and refusing to surrender to being labelled, it made them frustrated and without any further line of arguments.

Brendan McNeill said...

If you want to glimpse where where we are headed, Pat Condell describes the present situation in Britain in the following youtube clip.

Unknown said...

Kim Hill
Not many tears shed for Steve Bannon generally speaking around the world because he seemed to be quite frank, a particularly unpleasant person, what do you think?
Harry Horton
“Well he certainly held anti-globalist, nationalist views, populist views, he was driving the populist agenda that is at the heart  of Donald Trumps administration. And I think a lot of people in the white house would be happy to see the back of him as well.
Saturday Morning, 9:25 am on 19 August 2017
Listening to the Kim Hill interview the point about it being in the charter
(g) reflect New Zealand’s cultural identity, including Māori language and culture:
(e) stimulate, support, and reflect the diversity of cultural expression, including drama, comedy, literature, and the performing arts:
Is an appeal to authority argument. As it doesn't say what or how.
Guyon Espiner "admits he enjoys winding those sorts up". In How to Win Friends and Influence People advises: "If you want to gather honey you don't kick over the beehive", so what is with the culture at "RNZ".
DB said that they don't need Te Reo on National Radio as there are umpteen Maori language stations. KH replied "but you are against segregation Don". That would have got anyone, but maybe the answer would be something like "yes, but I support separate toilet cubicles"
Don could have gone on the counter attack. Ranganui Walker points out how Maori were ignored by the politicians over immigration policy and have now been over taken by Asians. That couldn't have happened without help from the media. RNZ have been very vocal in their support for demographic change [Smart Talk at The Auckland Museum - Auckland is an Island/ A Slice of Heaven -Smart Talk at The Auckland Museum]
New Zealand Immigration and the Political Economy

By Ranginui Walker
Published in The Social Contract
Volume 4, Number 2 (Winter 1993-1994)