Part 2 – What the Free Speech Union NZ really does
Hint: it's not what it says it does
My colleague Mohan Dutta wrote a blog post called Part 1 – “Zionist hate-mongering, the race/terror trope, and the Free Speech Union.” on his blog at http://culture-centered.blogspot.com/2023/10/zionist-hate-mongering-raceterror-trope.html . He then invited me to write the second part – which is printed below.
Mohan ended the previous blog post with the following:
Here in Aotearoa that the Free Speech Union peddles out those attacking academic freedom systematically as advocates for free speech should give us pause about the intent and organising objectives of the Union.
In this blog post, I want to examine the true telos of the Free Speech Union NZ (FSU). In short, I will show that they are not about championing free speech for the sake of free speech, but rather they exist to push the Overton window of political acceptability sharply towards the right by ensuring that far right-wing hate speech is platformed in Aotearoa.
Becoming a union was a brilliant tactic because traditional workers unions necessarily push the Overton window sharply towards the left. But we know that - as it’s obvious - however the FSU called themselves a Union as a mechanism to hide their true intentions.
My argument in support of my thesis above will be tri-partite. First, I will examine the very nature of free speech itself and argue that the marketplace of ideas that is so beloved of free speech absolutists is inherently right-wing because it is already constructed on top of colonialism, neoliberalism, and racism.
Secondly, I will look at the governance structure of the FSU itself to see how individual personalities shape its values. My governance professor at biz school taught us the power of board culture in setting an organisation's priorities and values. These will not be ad hominem attacks, rather I am looking at how those individuals' (well-known) biases affect the output of the FSU. All my assertions will be backed up by evidence.
Thirdly, I will look at the actions of the FSU itself. Two points here: the first is that to understand an organisation you need to look at what it actually does in terms of actions, not rely on its stated strategies and tactics. And secondly, and quite powerfully, one should always look at what an organisation chooses not to do. In reality, they show through their actions they only choose to protect far-right pro-zionist, gender-critical, racist, and colonising speech.
1. The nature of free speech itself and the inherent biases in the marketplace of ideas.
Free speech is a seductive idea, it's neatly packaged, and when you say ‘free speech’ it kind of looks around for spontaneous applause. The Free Speech Union are free speech absolutists – they believe there should be almost no legal or practical restrictions on public speech. When the subject of hate speech, and its chilling, silencing effects on those to whom the hate is directed is bought up it resorts back to the ‘marketplace of ideas’ argument. This argument is encapsulated well in the following quote:
…the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas – that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.
Justice Holmes, Abrams v US (1919)
We are so steeped in the language and mythology of neoliberal economics that the term marketplace sounds like a hopeful place where commerce in the power of ideas is fairly conducted. The free speech absolutists's argument is that the best way to counter hate speech is by shining a disinfecting light on it by putting contrasting or contradictory speech forward into the marketplace like matter and anti-matter.
There are two main arguments against the marketplace of ideas. The first is that hate speech has a chilling effect on minority and protected groups' participation in the market. They don’t even get to the gate of the bazaar, they are stuck in the medina too afraid to conduct commerce. This is undoubtedly true – survey after social survey points to the fear that protected groups have of speaking out and having their voice silenced.
I have started a group called Countering Hate Speech Aotearoa to campaign for hate speech laws in NZ. One really good argument for hate speech laws is that the suppressive effect of hate speech goes away. ACTUALLY, people who propose hate speech restrictions maximise the number of people coming and participating in the marketplace. Think of it a bit kind of like a Pareto optimal scenario, we are trying to maximise free speech for the widest number of people.
The second argument against the marketplace of ideas is that it is already rigged. The marketplace of all ideas in Aotearoa is built on top of settler colonialism, neo-liberalism, and anti-LGBTQIA+ (by the assumption of heterosexuality as the default) ideas. Speech already occurs on top of that scaffolding. The marketplace of ideas would need to be decolonialised, queered, and have neoliberalism replaced by a green party form of capitalism. If such a marketplace of ideas existed then the argument that hate speech should be neutralised by more free speech would be a little more plausible.
So we can reasonably expect the FSU as an upholder of the virtues of the CURRENT marketplace to itself be steeped in racism, anti-LGBTQIA+ thought and radical neo-liberal economics. Well reader, lo and behold in the next two sections we will see that they do in fact privilege far-right pro-zionist, gender-critical, racist, and colonising speech.
2. What the governance structure of the FSU tells us about its values
The FSU consists of a handful of staff and Jonathan Ayling as its CEO. It has a powerful advisory council. Like any organisation the board’s priorities set the CEO’s agenda.
The current council members are:
· Dr David Cumin
· Dr Melissa Derby
· Stephen Franks
· Ani O’Brien
· Christ Trotter
· Jordan Williams
· Dr. Roderick Mulgan
· Steve O’Hagan
· And up until a month ago Dane Giraud was listed as a council member.
Some of these people have big online and in real-life profiles and it is worthwhile delving into their values as these values undoubtedly shape the FSU organisation and determine their priorities and where they put their time. Once again to state, I am not making ad hominem arguments against these individuals – I am showing how their values translate into their actions – which I will demonstrate in the third prong of the argument.
In both this section and the following I am drawing on the FSU’s own comments, individuals’s tweets and other publicly available information about the personalities involved.
First, Ani O’Brien. Ani is the de facto leader of NZ’s gender-critical movement. No other gender-critical figure in NZ has anywhere near her social media reach or influence. Ani was previously aligned with SUFW but I am not sure of her current group affiliations. From a gender-critical perspective she used to be more mild – only wanting single-sex spaces for women. Recently, based on her support of Posey Parker and tweets it is reasonable to assume that she has adopted a more radical position. This is an important point because one of the FSU’s current campaigns concerns the right for teachers to misgender students – this would impede social transitioning. Ani’s values also translate into the fulsome support the FSU gave to Posey Parker in insisting she be allowed in the country to speak (both times).
Secondly, Jordan Williams. Jordan is the head of the Taxpayer’s Union. He is the poster boy for libertarian-adjacent neoliberalism in Aotearoa. He has also made misogynistic and transphobic comments in the past. The Taxpayer’s Union also provides funding and support to the FSU so the linkage here is strong.
Thirdly, until recently Dane Giraud was on the advisory council. He is a far-right Zionist with a history of making highly transphobic comments and disparaging anyone who stands up for the oppressed Palestinians. Whilst he left the advisory council recently, he was instrumental in their advocacy for Lauren Southern and Stephen Molyneux the far-right wing extremists who platform the repulsive Great Replacement Theory. This is one of the ideologies held by the Christchurch Terrorist.
Fourthly, David Cumin. From his publicly made comment history, it is reasonable to assume that David also has far-right Zionist sympathies and a prejudice towards trans people. He also disparages anyone who stands up for Palestine. He often posts, and writes under the Israel Institute of NZ banner. He is currently trying to report Mohan to Massey for a post Mohan made which is covered by academic freedom. The hypocrisy is ripe.
Fifth, Chris Trotter. Chris is the most right-wing left-wing commentator in NZ. He also has a history of making transphobic comments.
Sixth, Stephen Franks. He is a former ACT party MP known for his extreme neo-liberal views. He has also recently ridiculed people who use pronouns – saying his old law firm has gone woke for including pronouns in their email signatures.
See what did I tell you – the marketplace of ideas is already loaded with values – and the FSU governance structure means they are more likely to resonate with supporting far right Zionist, gender-critical, and far-right white extremist speech. We shall see if this is true in the next section.
3. What do the tactical actions of the FSU tell us about its purpose.
Recall my thesis – that the true purpose of the FSU is to drive the Overton window of political acceptability further to the right. They want to take a marketplace of ideas that is already built on top of colonialism, anti-LGBTQIA+ and neoliberalism and make it EVEN MORE SKEWED BY THOSE THINGS. Normally, organisations are seeking to decolonise spaces and make them more LGBTQIA+ friendly, but the FSU exists for the opposite reason.
So here is a snapshot of actions have they undertaken in their short history:
(A) Recently they went into bat heavily for an anonymous X user called @momostjohn. Momostjohn is an anaesthetist for a DHB in NZ. She has a history of making transphobic, racist and ableist remarks (I have receipts). A member of the public complained to the DHB about one of her posts. Somehow a Stuff journalist got word of the complaint and was planning to write a story. The FSU organised a pile-on on the journalist by blasting her email to their followers. Some might say that was a thug’s veto on the journalist. Anyway, no story was published. Also, this action keeps in with the theme of the FSU supporting professionals who are breaking their code of conduct.
(B) The FSU have the Teaching Council in their sights. They want teachers, principals and other school workers to be able to insert themselves into the teacher-pupil dynamic by allowing them to misgender students. They are running a petition and lobbying the Teaching Council heavily. Ani is undoubtedly behind this – as it fits in with a worldwide trend of gender-critical groups going after the ability for trans teens/kids to access support for social transitioning. Here the FSU is doing the bidding for Ani’s gender-critical mates.
(C) The FSU went to bat heavily for Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux. Southern and Molyneux were supposed to speak in Auckland on far-right wing white extremist topics. The venue cancelled their booking and the FSU sought to have them platformed at every step of the way. And they encouraged a stalking horse to take the case to court – all the way to the Supreme Court where they also intervened and lost.
(D) The FSU supported Posey Parker coming to NZ twice. They wrote to the minister on both occasions and intervened at the judicial review the LGBTQIA+ groups sought of the ministers' decision. I am not sure if Ani was involved in bringing Posey Parker to NZ but she is certainly close with those who did organise the trip. Once again, the FSU is seeking to platform disgustingly far right-wing gender-critical speech.
(E) And lastly, let’s look at what the FSU CHOOSES NOT TO DO. As reported in the first part of this blog post Mohan has been targeted by Dane Giraud and David Cumin for writing an academic article about Palestine. They cherrypicked a quote to try and encourage an internet pile-on against him. Mohan is covered by academic freedom – he was writing about something within his academic area of expertise. The FSU have not come to his aid. The FSU do not care about supporting the centrist or leftist speech rights of individuals.
So we have evidence of supporting transphobic speech, far-right extremist speech and evidence of them NOT SUPPORTING a left-wing academic.
4. Wrapping it all up.
My thesis was that the FSU are essentially undertaking a political activity and Free Speech was just a mechanism to do that. If you look at their values and where they spend their time you see that they privilege forms of right-wing speech exclusively. This has the effect of skewing the marketplace of ideas further to the right because they want right-wing political structures in power because of their backers.
Their hypocrisy in not coming to the defence of Mohan in his current situation is rank.
The author is the CEO of Countering Hate Speech Aotearoa. He has an M.Sc from London Business School in Strategy and Leadership.