But we’ve had our moments of upheaval, too. It hasn’t always been peace and quiet. The 1950s saw the waterfront strikes, and the 1970s gave witness to Dame Whina Cooper’s Māori Land March, and the occupation at Bastion Point.
Who can forget Tania Harris’ inspired Kiwis Care march through Auckland in 1981, where, complete with ticker tape, tens of thousands of ordinary New Zealanders expressed their anger over the behaviour of the trade union movement, as strikes and stoppages threatened our ability to get to work, to travel internationally and even to have a beer.
Just a few months later, in 1981, we split ourselves in two over the Springbok rugby tour, a situation that produced scenes never seen before or since in this tiny country at the bottom of the world.
There have been others, too. The Vietnam War, nuclear ship visits, and the Seabed and Foreshore Hīkoi in 2004 all come to mind.
In 2022, the Covid-19-inspired protests in Wellington were the latest episode in a series of ordinary Kiwis stepping out and creating a ruckus, in the interests of what they believe in.
During this past week, we were at it again. And that’s a good thing.
As you might guess, this writer doesn’t care much for the cause of the latest series of protests across the country that culminated in Wellington on Tuesday. Neither do I appreciate the tactics, particularly those employed by one of our political parties in what should be the sacred chambers of the nation’s Parliament.
But I do agree that our people, all people, should have the right and the opportunity to participate in such protest action, if they see fit.
I once wrote a column entitled The Protesters Shall Inherit the Earth. The theme of the article was that those who tended to lead such shenanigans were usually from the political left, harbouring a range of grievances that they outwardly complained about, while the rest of us, the majority of us, focused on our lives, our jobs and our families.
This last week was no different. Those from the political left, represented by Māori, Green and Labour politicians, actively demonstrating their grievances for the world to see, while the rest of us carried on with our lives.
Irrespective of the cause, such protests always attract the usual suspects; the rent-a-crowd types such as the perennial protesters who cover everything from climate change to Indigenous rights, the gang members who turn up to thumb their noses at police, and the politicians looking for a photo opportunity or a microphone.
But as we have seen this week, there will always be those who genuinely believe in the theme of their protest action, and their desire to right what they perceive as an unjust wrong.
And that’s okay.
Among others, New Zealand First politician Shane Jones has been vocal in his commentary that such events are ‘not a good look’ for a peaceful nation that sees itself as a destination for tourists and investment from a world currently awash with money looking for a home. I agree with that, too.
But we’re not the only ones who are struggling to adapt in a rapidly changing world. The UK has protesters supporting the Palestinian cause clashing with those who favour Israel. The Irish are uprising against illegal immigrants being housed in their civilised villages. Europeans are starting to push back against immigration and crime. The pictures go around the world, irrespective of the cause. But we have recovered our reputation before and we will do so again.
In our case, the majority of us will not agree with those advocating for change. But we should all agree with their right to protest their point of view.
At this present point in history, freedoms are being threatened in many parts of the world. Those who represent the climate movement want us to stop doing many of the things that are central to our way of life. Environmentalists would rather we freeze than have us burn a block of coal. Samaritans would see us import more refugees despite our inability to afford or assimilate them.
Closest to home, our neighbour Australia, is currently in the process of introducing parliamentary legislation that will prevent people under the age of 16 from using social media. To enable such legislation, every Australian will require a ‘digital passport’ ensuring they are old enough, to be interacting with the online services of their choice. Such a move has major ramifications for the privacy of every internet user and their freedom to surf the internet channels of their choice, with anonymity.
That same Australian Government is currently in the process of legislating against the distribution of misinformation. Called the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, the aim is to provide new powers to combat harmful misinformation presented through online platforms.
Meanwhile, back in the UK, the Online Safety Act, introduced last year, has resulted in online warriors being imprisoned, solely for comments they have made on social media platforms.
It’s quite obvious that the introduction of such laws can easily overwhelm the desire for free and open dialogue, or if you like, freedom of speech.
The questions are numerous. Most importantly, who decides what content is misinformation? Many of us would suggest that plenty of misinformation comes from those in Government. Is that captured by the proposed laws?
However well-intentioned, the risk of imposing such laws is that those very freedoms are punished, the people become silenced, and opinions and debate are no longer tolerated.
The reality is that, without the platform provided by such freedoms as that of speech, expression and the press, this website would not exist. Similarly, our capacity for being informed would be massively marginalised and almost entirely eroded.
Misinformation has been around for as long as protest has. Many of us will remember walking past “Speakers’ Corner” at Hyde Park in London and hearing various commentators, stood on an upturned bucket or box, spouting forth their version of events ranging from religion to politics, and even imaginary aliens.
Of course, there is a major difference in the ability to distribute one’s message via a spot on Speakers’ Corner versus that on YouTube or X. But the freedom to do so matters.
There is an old saying that suggests any attempt at censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in debating its challenges. I like that.
It implies the importance of those freedoms listed above is so great, that we must make every attempt to maintain them, even if it means that some of the messages are inaccurate, or the protests are not to our own liking.
But part of the challenge is that we don’t know what to believe any more.
In the 2016 US Presidential election, Donald Trump introduced us to the concept of fake news. During the pandemic, Governments, including ours, controlled and manipulated the media, to get us to do what we otherwise might not have been willing to do. Despite plenty of commentary to the contrary, this was not the media’s fault. Like us, they were in uncharted territory. But an element of trust was lost as a result.
Today, there are many organisations with agendas. Sometimes those in authority seek to curb our freedoms to eliminate opposition to their own agendas. Agendas which many of us would regard as restrictive and undemocratic.
And so it is more important than ever, that every person must be able to make up their own mind about what is important to them. As I have said many times, ito be right we don’t need someone else to be wrong. But we do need to be able to understand the various points of view, and make an informed decision on our own behalf.
That means we need the facts, from the front line of any matter. We need permission to seek accurate, honest, non-partisan, and unbiased information.
Every participant in a democracy has a role to play in such understanding. We should be free to research, debate, free to speak, free to move around and indeed, free to consider the unfiltered opinions of others. We must be educated enough to read or hear the information and rational enough to make sense of it. Once informed, we should be free to educate others, or at least to share our views with them.
And so, no matter how much we may disagree with a point of view, the opportunity to listen to that perspective, and to consider it, is a freedom we must viciously protect.
I am not a Māori nor am I a Pākehā. Like many New Zealanders, I am a descendant of Scottish, Irish and English immigrants who came here 180 years ago and settled. Since then, we’ve worked, raised families, built communities and paid taxes. I am, therefore, a New Zealander.
I should be proud to live in a country that allows such a journey. A country where we are free to be ourselves. Free to observe, to learn, to carry an opinion and to share it.
And let’s not forget, free to protest. It has made us who we are.
