KEY POINTS:
Welcome to the increasingly intolerant society. A society where free speech, the liberty from which all other freedoms spring, has been under systematic siege on three fronts for the past year.
The first attack on free speech was when Parliament decided to remove the right of the public
to satirise, ridicule or denigrate any Parliamentarian while at work in the chamber. Inside Parliament, the members possess absolute freedom of speech, including the ability to defame individuals without fear of retribution. Conversely, the citizens that the parliamentarians represent outside the House have only limited rights of free speech when targeting those on the inside. The ability to make satire of those in power is an essential part of free speech.
The historical precedents in this area to laugh at those holding the absolute power of the state date back thousands of years. Parliamentarians would be wise to remember that when democracy was conceived in ancient Athens, the risk for those who fell ill of the public was not just satires which have lasted thousands of years, but ostracism in their own lifetimes.
The second area where free speech is under attack is with the new Electoral Finance Act.
In an open democracy where we cannot be punished for our views, the identification of those seeking to exercise their free speech is not a prima-facie problem. However, under the new act the differences between classification and their associated limits, in addition to the need for registration, are very slippery slopes. Moreover, the desire to terminate undesirable influences in the political process is omitting the most obvious fact of all. That is, the tonic to undesirable influence in the last election was good investigative journalism, free speech and a free press to pursue it. Thereafter, the New Zealand public delivered the most effective judgment possible.
The third attack on free speech has been over gang insignia. At the moment, there is a move in some regions to restrict what gang members may wear in certain public spaces.
This may be the thin end of a very large wedge. We only need to look to the debates around some Muslim clothing in Europe to see how strongly questions of dress are linked to representations of identity.
Insignia should only be controlled when there is a clear and present threat to public safety. In any other situations, we are not seeking to regulate safety, but identity.
Freedom of speech encompasses all aspects of our lives. The test of how sincere we are about freedom of speech is in how much we are willing to tolerate those we disagree with.
The regulators in New Zealand disagree with many people. They disagree with those making satire, those seeking undue political influence and those who dress in certain ways. Each group of people is often horrid, somewhat extreme, and difficult to identify with. I do not appreciate poor political satire, extremist groups seeking undue political influence or gang members with long criminal records.
However, no matter how much we disapprove of these individuals, if we value freedom of speech and a tolerant society which respects difference then we must defend them. Restrictions on political satire, the control of difference and the regulation of dissent are not desirable features in a free country.
* Professor Alexander Gillespie is from the school of law at the University of Waikato.
