Free To Speak
Free to Speak is the New Zealand podcast that goes beyond headlines to explore the principles behind our most contentious debates.
Produced by the New Zealand Free Speech Union, it examines freedom of expression and why it matters to a free and democratic society.
Expect interviews with guests from New Zealand and around the world, plus deep dives with our Council into the cases and policy work shaping free speech today.
Any questions, queries or feedback? Email: podcast@fsu.nz
www.fsu.nz
Free To Speak
Andrew Doyle: How Blasphemy Laws Are Returning as 'Harm' and 'Islamophobia' | Free to Speak
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Comedian, broadcaster and author Andrew Doyle, creator of the satirical persona Titania McGrath, joins Dane Giraud to unpack how Britain is sliding back towards blasphemy law, not by name, but through the language of "hate," "harm" and "Islamophobia" - and why that should worry New Zealanders with an election on the horizon.
Doyle and Giraud trace the case of Hamit Coskun, convicted after burning his own Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London in protest at Erdogan, whose attackers were treated by the original judge as evidence his own protest had incited hatred. The conviction was overturned on appeal, and then the Crown Prosecution Service tried to have that appeal quashed. They cover the recent threats made against Doyle's friend John Cleese over his UK tour dates, why "Islamophobia" functions as a word designed to ring-fence a belief system from criticism, and why hate speech laws historically did more to help the Nazis than hinder them. The conversation ranges across antisemitism inside supposedly anti-racist movements, the authoritarian instinct behind censorship, and why Doyle, who says he isn't anti-migration, thinks the real failure has been demanding assimilation to core liberal values.
Andrew is in New Zealand from 12-16 September for the No Offence Taken Tour, starting with the Free Speech Union's AGM in Auckland, where a panel on blasphemy laws follows his keynote. Tickets: https://fsu.nz/events/andrew-doyle
We're fighting to keep blasphemy law from returning by the back door before the election. Chip in: https://fsu.nz/donate/no-blasphemy-laws/
Support the show
https://www.fsu.nz/
https://x.com/NZFreeSpeech
https://www.instagram.com/freespeechnz/
https://www.tiktok.com/@freespeechunionnz
Promoted by Free Speech Union New Zealand Inc, PO Box 10423, The Terrace, Wellington 6143.
https://www.fsu.nz/
https://x.com/NZFreeSpeech
https://www.instagram.com/freespeechnz/
https://www.tiktok.com/@freespeechunionnz
Welcome And Upcoming New Zealand Talks
SPEAKER_00Welcome to Free to Speak, the New Zealand Free Speech Union podcast. If you enjoy the show, subscribe for uncensored conversations and free speech news from New Zealand and beyond.
SPEAKER_02Jordan, and welcome to the New Zealand Free Speech Union Podcast. I'm your host, Dane Giroud, a board member of the Free Speech Union, and joining us today is comedian, political satirist, and author Andrew Doyle. I would say all the way from the UK, but of course you're in Phoenix, Arizona. That's correct, isn't it?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I moved to Phoenix about a year and a year and a bit ago. So I'm now fully based in the desert here in Cowboy Country, which is rather wonderful.
SPEAKER_02So Andrew, you're going to be down here soon. That would be, and I've got it all here. That's on the 12th at our free speech union AGM and conference. Um the 15th, you're in Parliament in Wellington, which is a fantastic old building. We um we took James Lindsay there and he he really had a great time there. Uh that's the old parliament building. Very, very, you know, you'd love it. And um, and then Christchurch, of course, which is um a city in recovery and looking really good. And that's on the 16th of September. So we'll uh advertise those dates, obviously, but it's gonna be fantastic to have you down here. So one of the topics that we'll be talking about with you is blasphemy, and you'd have experience of that um from uh uh from the UK, where things uh, you know, I I guess you probably the UK, I I I would say probably has always been a little more sensorial than uh New Zealand. We've had hate speech laws on the books for for many, many, many years, but no culture of arrest. I think the last guy who who was arrested for it was like uh part of a Vietnam protest, and it was more a public disturbance type thing. And and he didn't I I don't even think he got it convicted. So it's it's the culture of arrest hasn't really been here, but in the UK it seems to be ramping up and ramping up. And I know that you're and I'm very jealous of the fact that you're you're friends with John Cleese. And I thought that could be quite a good way to enter this um discussion because I uh I yeah, I saw online just the other day there's this Islamic website uh called Five Pillars. And uh and it's pretty putrid, I think. I mean that they they're pretty unpleasant group by the looks of things, and um they were basically making thinly veiled threats that that you know he shouldn't be allowed to come into a certain uh uh town with a high Muslim population because of his past comments and things like that. And this is John Cleese.
SPEAKER_01So I mean How did we yeah, I mean five I mean Five Pillars would would claim they made no threat whatsoever. What they did is they published uh an image of John and where uh the tour he's undertaking and said that it's outrageous that venues would uh uh would would would allow, I think they called him a renowned Islamophobe or something ridiculous like that. Uh of course the problem with that sort of thing is you know, and many of many critics have pointed out that's sort of uh exposing him, targeting
Islamophobia As A Silencing Tactic
SPEAKER_01him so to a lot of uh unsavory types. So that was the problem there. Um, but you know, uh that word Islamophobia is is a meaningless word, it's a nonsense word, it's a word that was that was really promoted uh by Islamists um uh even in the Middle East, going back decades, as a means to silence dissent, as a means to uh and it works, it's quite uh stealthy in a way, because that term Islamophobia has become so accepted among the Western political class that what happens is it's it's deployed as a weapon uh to imply that any reservations one might have about a belief system is a kind of pathology. It's it's it's it's a it's a fear, it's an irrational fear. Uh, and of course, that's not the case at all. And it and and nor is it a hatred. Um, there are all sorts of re reasons to take issue with certain tenets of Islam, as there are to take issue with any uh religious uh uh belief system or political belief system. Uh the word Islamophobia is simply a term to attempt to ring fence this particular belief system from criticism. It's been remarkably effective to the extent that the Labour government of the UK at the moment has been uh pushing forward with an official uh uh new definition of Islamophobia, although they changed that to anti-Muslim hatred because of the flack they were receiving. But clearly, I think what they're doing is laying the groundwork for the reintroduction of future blasphemy codes in the UK. Uh, I mean, it's effectively happened anyway, insofar as well, I'll give you an example recently. Uh, there was a chap called Hamat Kuskin who uh burnt a copy of his Quran, his own copy of the Quran, outside the Turkish government as a protest against Erdogan and what he perceived to be Erdogan's enabling of Islism in Turkey. And of course, the best place to do a protest against the Turkish government is outside the Turkish embassy. Um, he was attacked by two passers-by, one with a knife, the other was a delivery driver who just kicked him while he was down. The judge in the case actually ruled that the violence inflicted upon him for his peaceful protest is evidence that the protest would have stirred up hatred or stirred up a visceral reaction. That is uh it's a really astonishing example of victim blaming. I remember I did a joke as my online character, Titania McGrath, when the assassination attempt against Trump happened. And she said, Oh, well, you know, this assassination attempt against Trump proves that Trump is guilty of inciting violence. That was the that was the quip. This judge is using the precise same logic for real in our country when it comes to this man who was attacked, a peaceful protest who was attacked. Thankfully, the free speech union in the UK supported him. That was oh that was overturned. But then the Crown Prosecution Service tried to have the appeal, uh the successful appeal quashed. In other words, the Crown Prosecution Service was trying to impose blasphemy laws that don't exist in the UK. That's how bad the situation is over here. So you're right to flag up that we are a more sensorial nation generally, even though historically speaking, you know, we we have cultivated free speech and liberty as a sort of sacrosanct principle. But there you have it. The the engine, the engine of the justice system, the crown prosecution service itself is so captured that it wants to try and censor. Really scary situation here.
SPEAKER_02Well, that's a part of the story that just sickens me to my stomach. The fact that it yeah, that the the the crown actually wanted to overturn that appeal.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, and we say the crown is we're not we're not talking about the royal family there, but we but you're right, the state. It's the absolutely the state we're trying to do it. Yeah, that's what's so frightening about it. And that you know, there are there are plenty of people in parliament, plenty of politicians who do believe that we should ring fence Islam in particular from criticism. I mean, that is a that is an authentic because their belief is that because they bought into this intersectional hierarchy thing, they believe that for whatever reason Islam is at the top of the victim hierarchy and must be protected at all costs, and that includes criticism, which they deem to be offensive, but but it's not it's not remotely offensive to to criticize a belief system. That's that's everyone's right. But I'm preaching to the converted, I mean, you know this already, don't you?
SPEAKER_02But you know, well, yeah, look, I'm Jewish. If people have a question with circumcision, uh I wouldn't consider that to be anti-Semitic um at all. If they're like, oh, you know, um I'm glad that Hamas you know rose up on October the 7th, then I've got questions.
SPEAKER_01I I think well, I mean that's just support for utter psychopathy, isn't it? So that I mean that that's that's someone I would back away from very slowly, you know. But but no, of course, there are valid criticisms. I mean, uh there was a Jewish comedian here um who uh who did a whole show at the Edinburgh Fringe about his opposition to the principle of circumcision or to the fact that circumcision happens, his argument being that that a young child can't consent to the practice, which seems fairly uh a reasonable uh argument to make. So um, no, I don't uh I don't at all. Uh and I think most religious people are robust enough to accept uh criticism. I remember when I was um a school teacher, I I I took uh a bunch of the sixth formers to quite a quite controversial uh piece of theatre which was deemed to be blasphemous. And um the bursa at the school freaked out and said, Oh, you can't do this, this is offensive to our faith, all the rest of it. It was the chaplain of the school who intervened and said, No, my faith is compl is strong enough to take criticism, and and and so should yours be. And that that's that's really the ideal, isn't it? Yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_02Well, I I mean, like, I'm religious, I'm not uh uh off my nut religious, but um, but I I've always really enjoyed atheists and uh uh Christopher Hitchens and so forth. I like being tested. I actually like my ideas being tested and thinking, oh, okay, well that wow, that's a doozy. How do I how do I deal with that one? Like I I don't know, like intellectually, it's quite stimulating to have someone that really disagrees with you push back, you know.
SPEAKER_01It just it extends way beyond religion, doesn't it? I mean, how how tedious would it be to live surrounded by people who disagree with you all the time? I mean, you know, I I don't understand uh that mentality. I understand it's more uh uh comfortable, I suppose, because every time you have to revise your belief system, it takes thought, and thought is difficult for some people. Uh it does take more energy than not thinking. Uh so I I do I do understand that. Um, but I don't understand why you would surrender yourself intellectually like that and say, no, I must never be challenged again. You know, I I it's not something I can compute just on an instinctive level. I don't really, I don't really get that.
SPEAKER_02Well, well, the the other thing that I I get very confused by, and and you know, this is we're I'm trying to read minds at this point when I get into this, but it's like, okay, you you're you're gonna bring back blasphemy laws eventually, because you know, you
Protests Punished And Victims Blamed
SPEAKER_02it's a slow, well, it's not even that much of a slow crawl towards them. I mean, we we're getting there quite quite rapidly. Yes. Um, and the idea that is there's going to be better cohesion because people in a highly developed democracy who, you know, um are free of the shackles of the church finally, uh, which wasn't that long ago, were sort of, you know, dictating who could sleep with who and all sorts of things like that. So we're free of that now. We're quite comfortable being free of that now, but we're gonna bring it back for the sake of social cohesion, and you're all go along, gonna go along with it. There's not gonna be a problem. There aren't gonna be riots, the working class aren't gonna rise up or or anything like that. You're not gonna get intellectual pushback. We will be able to suppress everyone, all these little pockets of people that aren't gonna like it, and society will be more harmonious. People must be gaming it out that way in their minds.
SPEAKER_01Uh yeah, I think a lot of people they genuinely believe uh that if they could just silence all the people who disagree with them, that the the world would be a utopian place. They've no idea how human nature works, and and that does that does concern me. This this constant push towards censorship as the knee-jerk reaction uh uh uh about anything. I mean, it it happened with in Australia, didn't it, recently with the that horrific shooting? Uh and the the the the the you know parliamentarians were using that as a an excuse to push through greater censorship laws, not not addressing the problem of radical Islamism, by the way, which was of course the problem there. Similarly, in the UK, when Sir David Amos was murdered, that was a a politician who was murdered in his surgery, you know, where he's um uh taking questions from his constituents and a crazed Islamist stabbed him to death. And very soon after, uh, you had MPs in parliament saying, This means we need to crack down on the internet on mean comments online, had nothing to do with this case. It was it that's just an excuse. Again, we're seeing it recently with the Jason Arde tragedy, the the obviously the uh uh the man who took his life after creating all sorts of false narratives about himself and plagiarizing his PhD. Uh a very tragic story. It's horrible that he killed himself. Obviously, it is. People are using that as a pretext now to uh to push for press censorship, press regulation, uh, because they say that the press hounded him to death. So you see how every time this happens, uh people in power, their go-to is censorship. You know, there might be there are all sorts of terrible things happening in the world, and there are all sorts of terrible things that require rectification. But if your instinct is well, uh we'll just shut people up and then it'll get solved, you obviously don't know much about history. That's the first thing. And you're also probably a bit of an authoritarian. Um, and I have a thing, I I don't think there's a single uh Western government that isn't to a degree uh authoritarian at the moment. I there isn't anyone who I can support in in any respect, really. So that's that is but that that seems to be the default, that seems to be the impulse of most people in power, doesn't it?
SPEAKER_02Yeah, no, it it really does. I mean the Bondi one really troubled me because I I'm on Australian Twitter having I was actually born in Australia, I've been here most of my life, but but I I do have some I'm familiar with the place, but uh I was um you know on online and just looking at all the the commentary, and these people were media commentators. A lot of them were clearly you know middle class, upper middle class people. And Australians tend to be a lot more racist than Kiwis.
SPEAKER_01We're is that right? Okay, well I'll I'll defer to your judgment on that.
SPEAKER_02I don't know that they they uh they are like even my father was pretty rough. He was pretty rough with working class or stuff. He was he was pretty rough, he didn't really like anyone. It's not like a dirty harry when it's like, is it true that Dirty Harry doesn't like Mexicans? Dirty Harry doesn't like anybody. He sort of he he was kind of dirty Harry because he didn't like anyone, he was all right, right? He was not discriminated in his hatred, he just didn't like anybody, okay. Not not a great way to live, though, is it? Not a great way to live, no, but um but anyway, so the Australians, but you know, these were sort of middle upper middle class people and like the anti-Semitism and the outrage at the fact that Jews were going to censor their speech. Now, these people would have been all for hate speech laws two minutes ago.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. There seems to be a I don't understand this. There is a blind spot uh for whatever reason, like anti-Semitism is the form of racism that just uh keeps recurring, doesn't it? And it and it keeps recurring from those who claim to be anti-racists. It's the astonishing uh hypocrisy of that, you know, that you you're cheerleading for I mean, look, there have been many marches, peaceful pro-Palestine marches in London, um, but a lot of them have contained really unsavory elements. I mean, we're talking swastikas, Nazi salutes. Now, I'm not saying that the most of the people involved in those marches are participating in that. Of course they're not. Uh, but what I am saying is that most of the people participating in those marches are turning a blind eye to that. And they're allowing that to fester within that movement. And that's when you know that there's a problem within a movement, when you, when you sort of when that becomes either normalized or just ignored. Uh that's a very serious problem, I would say. You can't spend years calling everyone who disagrees with you a fascist. And then when there's fascists standing next to you on your side, you don't call them out. That doesn't make any sense to me.
SPEAKER_02Well, well, the standard reply is like, well, criticism of, and it's like, well, you know, what is criticism? You know, we know what criticism is. Uh saying that uh it was good that you know so many Jews died on October 7th, and and that's not criticism. That's just a peership statement. Like, you know, there's you know, we know what criticism is. But um, so so these people in power in in England, so they've convinced themselves uh through ideology, or is it just peer pressure? Is it just that because they know everyone else is going to feel the same way, uh, that you can censor your your way to harmony?
SPEAKER_01And and I guess I mean well, I don't think it's I don't I mean I don't think it's even ideological necessarily. I think I mean the last book I wrote, I I uh it's called The End of Woke, and I made the case in that book that I think that authoritarianism is the human default. And I think if you if you need evidence of that, you just have the whole of human history for you. Um it's it's just clearly the case that I don't think it needs to be ideological. I think I think uh there's a kind of instinct within humankind that if you don't like something, you squash it and you get rid of it and it goes away. And I so I think that's just what happened. When the political when the political class and the those in authority retain that instinct, it's because they haven't been effectively socialized or educated out of it. I think that's what's happening. And I think we do live in a broadly infantilized culture, uh, which means that you can have people effectively with the minds of children running running the running the country. So uh I I think that's that is what it is. I think it is a childish impulse to want to silence those you don't like. I think it is. I think people are uh but I also think it's an innate impulse, in the same way that a small child that doesn't like a piece of food will just spit it on the floor and not care what people think. Yeah, but they're educated out of that, they're socialized out of that. I still feel the instinct to spit out food I don't like, but I I know not to do it because I've been educated away from that. Similarly, I get that impulse when we know when someone is libeling me online, saying something outrageous, my impulse is, oh, I just wish I could get rid of them. But I I don't want them arrested as it happens. And the reason I don't want them arrested is because I have been educated or I've educated myself away from that uh from that authoritarian default impulse, which I think is just there in all of us. I think we have to be really uh watchful and guard against it. And too many people in power are not. I see them embracing it. That is a that is a a sad indictment of our culture.
Authoritarian Instincts And Class Politics
SPEAKER_02I mean, the the there's a class element to this, though, isn't there? Like I many of the work that I've encountered in this country tend to come from the the middle to upper classes. Yeah. I I've looked at it for a long time like a as a bit of a white culture war, a white civil war, in a way. Like it's a it's a separation of the working poor. Uh it's it it's because a lot of it's about a lot of it's sort of an employment scheme. A lot of it's well, you know, uh like I'm the I couldn't get work as an actor, but now I'm the um intimacy coordinator on this film set, you know, like that they've created all these so you know, and and it's just for and if you don't speak the right way, you're not really allowed into those sorts of roles. So it's sort of creating a more of a divide between classes, I think. And and and uh, you know, the middle to upper classes of course their culture and values are the good ones.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I don't think it's as I mean, I don't think it's conspiratorial in that way. I don't think it is let's create a plan for us to be more uh moneyed and and and I don't think it's I don't think it's that. I think it is um, well, I suppose there's a number of reasons. We know that all the top, the the most privileged, the most affluent students and the universities they attend also tend to be the ones that correlates very strongly with pro-censorship uh and pro-woke uh uh policies and an obsession uh mania about identity politics. I wonder, I mean, it could in part be a kind of displacement, the most privileged people in the world desperate to be victims. You know, when you when you have a society that elevates victimhood and gives it power and gives it clout, well, where are the rich going to run? Because they're not victims and they are privileged. So, you know, if they can find some other way to be victimized, maybe they they identify as they them and suddenly they're a victim, and isn't that great? And now they can wield that victim power over other people. So I think psychologically that could be part of it. I you know, I'm very wary of trying to psychoanalyse whole swathes of people or indeed any individual person, but I think that there must be an element of that to some of that that kind of behavior. And also, I suppose, um, well, uh there are elements, I suppose, whether it's subconscious or not, where uh you know the richer people are not able to oppress the working class as they could back in the feudal days, right? They can't really do, but this does give them that opportunity. I mean, a lot of the the woke that I see, a lot of their energy seems to seem to be expended on on talking about how evil the working classes are, how racist, how fascist, how prone to violence they are, how not to be trusted they are. It's a lot of that. So uh I think it probably is, you know, old-fashioned class snobbery has found a new outlet. I mean, what the woke has done quite brilliantly is it's just found a new outlet for these very innate, unpleasant elements of humankind, authoritarianism being the main one, but also racism. I mean, not just the anti-Semitism. I mean, the whole idea of dividing people up and and uh ident and judging them because of their skin colour rather than the content of their character is a racist idea, which they have effectively rehabilitated. Uh they've so they've made us more racially divisive. So those innate racist impulses can come out that way. It's definitely a homophobic movement. It's a movement that that thinks that uh homosexuality doesn't really exist, that it's just a feeling that effectively um this is why, as you know, most lesbian dating sites or lesbian groups are now infiltrated with men claiming to be lesbians, and the woke support that. Now, there's nothing I can think of better, you know, gay rights was secured on the recognition that some people are innately attracted to their own sex. The woke come along and say, No, you're attracted to a gendered soul. Uh, if you don't include men who identify as women into your lesbian dating pool, you're a bigot and a transphobe, etc. So, in all cases, they call themselves anti-racist, anti-fascist, pro-LGB, etc., but they're the exact opposite. And if they're not the exact opposite, they're promoting policies that do make society more racist, do make society more homophobic, definitely make it more prone to fascism or fascistic. Um, so that's why it's such a complex movement, because it's that mix of, I think, opportunism from some bad actors, uh, but also a lot of misunderstandings of very good, decent people becoming fellow travelers with a movement that, if they properly understood it, would realize how against their own interests it actually is. You know, I don't think you can call yourself a liberal and claim to be woke. Those two are antithetical, in my view.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, I mean, there's a there's a lot a lot there I want to pull out. Um, like on the anti-Semitism thing, Nick Cohen, one of your um uh great columnists, I think, um, he m made a comment years ago which always stayed with me that like all reactionary movements have anti-Semitism in there. Like that they just tend to do, they tend to have a lot of people. Yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_01Well, and all conspiracies come back to come back to the Jews, don't they?
SPEAKER_02Because it's entrenching, it's used to entrench that reactionary sort of embed that reactionary thought, you know, like that was that was what he was saying. The other thing with calling the working class fascist is that, you know, I was brought up in South Auckland, which is very working class. Um, I have a lived experience of multiculturalism. I'm not sure many of my woke friends do. If you're in Meadowbank or some of our neighborhoods, which are more affluent, you don't really have a great lived experience of multiculturalism. Like we were uh working together. Uh I mean, my my first job was digging holes at a at a steel um smelter, or what do you call it? Yeah, um foundry. And um and very multicultural crew I was with, racist jokes all day long.
SPEAKER_01Yes, but but but but but they know that they're jokes. I mean, this this is the point. No, that that's what that's what happens, is people who have no experience of that whatsoever hear these jokes, they assume it's genuine authentic racism. And of course, it's actually the opposite. The reason those jokes can be made is because everyone has a shared understanding that that's not what you say or believe. So so the but you're right. It is astonishing that that upper middle class people uh uh smear working class people as racists. Whereas, as you say, working class people are those who are most exposed to various different people, who are most diverse, and who most don't have a problem with it. That's the odd immersion here.
SPEAKER_02We settle a lot about differences in the bedroom.
SPEAKER_01Well, speak for yourself. Um, I am.
SPEAKER_02Um yeah, but but but on the but on the fascist thing, too. It's like if you look at the rise of like Hitler. There was a there's a good Ian Kershaw, you know, he had the great biographer of Hitler. He's he's got a book called the I don't know if it's called The Making of Hitler, but it's about the propaganda side of it, the selling of Hitler. It's a really good book, quite a short book comparatively to like his, you know, two two volumes, each one about you know you could murder a person with they're so thick, those books. But um it it you know, the working class were quite slow to fascism, actually. You know, they they were more they were still more attracted to the left. It was the academ, it was academia. It was yeah, you know, academia was a place where where Nazism caught on, and the middle classes, like uh a lot of I think Catholics and um, but the working class came to it relatively late. So the idea that like even with Trump, you know, the promise of Trump for a lot of people in in the States, because in the first election, he won in the Rust belt. He that they weren't going, oh great, finally a fascist that I can get behind. They weren't thinking that that they were attracted to him talking about bringing jobs back, actually. Uh he attempted from the from the left,
Fascism As A Misused Insult
SPEAKER_02really.
SPEAKER_01But isn't it as simple as people don't know what fascism means? I think it's as simple as that. I mean, yeah, Trump is not a fascist. Um, the uh in fact, I I don't think I've ever met a fascist. And yet I'm told that there are there are the fascists absolutely everywhere, and and you have mainstream commentators and politicians using the word. Trump himself used the word about Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris called Trump a fascist as well. So when you've got the two candidates for the presidency both mit showing they don't understand what fascism means and they're prepared to use it against the other, George Orwell wrote a brilliant essay about this. I mean, back in the in the in the war, in the second world war for goodness sake, talking about how fascism was just reduced to the level of a swear word. It doesn't mean anything. And he's he's complaining about this and he's saying how dangerous this is. And no one seems to, you know, you could just read that essay and you would get you would understand why, why wrong how wrong-headed uh this all of this is. And so I just don't believe, I mean, I've seen a lot of people on the left writing big long screeds about the rise of fascism. It's all in your head, people. It's not a thing. If you're gonna use that term fascism, you should use it very specifically in terms of what it means. It doesn't mean people telling jokes that you don't approve of, or jokes that you find offensive, or or criticizing a religion which you think shouldn't be criticized, or believing that human beings cannot change sex, which by the way is not a belief, it's a it's an incontestable fact. None of these things equate to fascism in the real world. But but but for these people, it does because they don't know that fascism is a very specific uh movement, a political movement that was uh militaristic, that believed in the militaristic opposition and oppression and suppression of dissent. Uh, this is not something that they engage with. If you want to know what fascism is, you can read um the original uh uh defining essay on fascism by Mussolini and uh who was the philosopher who wrote it with it? Is it gentile? Anyway, you can look that up. And and I I I've written about that essay, I've I've gone through it. It's very clear what fascism means. And it's not, oh, I think that man in a dress is is is uh is a man. That's not it's it's not it's not close to it.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, see, I I I would have thought, I mean, it's interesting that essay. I because I I would have thought that uh uh unlike um Marxism, you know, there's a lot of writing from Karl Marx where he's trying to really you know uh pinpoint exactly what it is that he's trying to you know do in his philosoph. That that fascism was a bit was not quite like that.
SPEAKER_01Uh I mean Mussolini and indeed fascism and National Socialism dovetail on significant points as well, you know. So that all of that all that all but then similarly the word Nazi is used. Um I mean very specifically with Nazism, Nazism uh required a sense of ethnic purity, ethnic superiority. Um unless you have that really, uh I I don't see how anything could be claimed as being uh Nazi. But but but the word is used to suggest that it is.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, I'm with you there too. I mean, we get called far right because we we support free speech. It's like uh to me, you'd call a free speech supporter a progressive, I would think.
SPEAKER_01You you would like to think so, yeah. Well, exactly. But again, you know, when when Hitler was coming to power, I know this has been written uh about by many historians, it was hate speech laws that publicized it. You know, it's a the fact that whenever Nazis uh spoke out with their anti-Semitic bile, hate speech laws were used to prosecute, and every prosecution was a massive PR boon for the Nazis. And so, you know, when people say, well, if we didn't if if if if the if Weimar Germany had had hate speech laws, the Nazis wouldn't have come to power, it's the opposite. That that hate speech laws propelled them to power. And and that's something that people really do need to understand.
SPEAKER_02Julian Streicher of uh the editor of Der Sturmer, the Streicher, Der Sturme, he was prosecuted. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, and and and hung um at the end of the war, wasn't he? But uh yeah, for him, yeah, it was political theater. It was a good another opportunity to to talk about how victimized they are and everything. And the other thing that that a lot of people don't seem to grasp is the Nazi party itself was outlawed for two years.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, right. Oh well, there's that fame that that famous image of Hitler with uh uh tape across his mouth, you know, the uh you know, we are we are having our speech stifled. As soon as you stifle anyone's speech, it makes it more attractive, doesn't it? It makes you people start to think, oh, maybe they're saying something that's worth hearing, and that's why people are trying to silence.
SPEAKER_02And to circle back to the um the religious uh the blasphemy um argument, if there are people in the Muslim community who genuinely th uh aren't interested in the power grab, but genuinely think it's going to uh make their community safer, I would urge them to think about that because like that that's where I come from and and why I'm in the free speech union. And it's important to me because I don't think our community is protected by laws like this. I think we're exposed by laws like this. Yeah, I think that's right. I th I think that it makes and and the Bondi um uh example is is a is a very good example of that. People clearly thought the Jews always wanted to do this, they were waiting to censor us. Now they've got their chance. They forgot all about the murders. That that didn't even it it sort of stopped factoring in. It was like, oh yeah, well they're it was all a pretext, really. That was that was a sort of subtext to it all. It was all a bit of a pretext, you know.
SPEAKER_01Um yeah, I I I I'm I'm equally disturbed. I I agree with you. I think it's worth the the very communities who are promoting the idea that they need to be protected by hate speech laws should think again, should look at their history, should realise what's going on. But I think a lot of the times it's more opportunistic than that. I mean, I can't help but notice that when we had the case of the teacher who showed an image of the Prophet Muhammad at the school in Batley in the north of England, he's still in hiding, that teacher. Um, he there were mobs outside the school. Um, you know, and the the mobs were being very threatening, very aggressive, but they were using the language of the woke. They were saying that this teacher has caused harm uh to their students, to their to the pupils. It's got you know, using that same language that this is uh this is this is spreading hate. It's using all the same stuff. So they I think people, but certain agitators within the Islamic community know how to weaponize the language of the woke and the language of hurt feelings uh to get what they want. And they have a receptive ear, don't they, in the people who are in power.
SPEAKER_02Well, well, they're they're doing it, they're performing for those people to get to get there, you know, to get and it works. And and and it works, it does
Migration, Assimilation And Liberal Values
SPEAKER_02work. I I had Ben Ben Jones of the Free Speech Union on on this podcast, and and we we talked about his recent book, um Island of Strangers. And I you know, I I push back on him quite a bit. Like I wasn't really on board with the whole idea that the um that migration necessarily had to go this way. So I'm I'm not anti-migration, so I'm not I don't think it had to go this way. The issue is it's the whole give an inch, take a mile thing for me. It's like okay in the US, yeah, in the US, you've got that First Amendment, right? So how you know that there comes a point where they're like, well, we're just not gonna get these things because free speech is so embedded into that system that I I I think they'd need what 90% of Congress or something mad like that to to vote to to undermine it.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I mean there are some people who want to change the First Amendment uh to carve out exceptions for hate speech. Absolutely, there are.
SPEAKER_02But but it's it's not really likely to happen, is it?
SPEAKER_01Like well, I mean, you say that um I was very concerned when Tim Waltz claimed in a the the you know the televised vice presidential debate against JD Vance. I mean, he claimed that the First Amendment doesn't cover misinformation and doesn't cover hate speech. That's what he said. Uh so he obviously thinks it Yeah.
SPEAKER_02Uh well, you know, if the Supreme Court changed dramatically, but uh because judges Well okay, but what does it mean?
SPEAKER_01What does it mean when the the person running for the vice presidency of the country, the Democrat, the second in command, uh obviously if if he well, firstly he's ignorant of what the First Amendment means, but clearly that reveals what he believes it should mean. Now that is a bit scary. If you have a party in power that that has promised to flood the Supreme Court as has been mooted a number of times, there is a possibility. I mean, I don't think we should get complacent. You feel as though the the the the First Amendment is ironclad. Well, is it? I I I don't know. I think I think with the with the sufficiently authoritarian power, uh party in power, anything could happen. So I think I think eternal vigilance is uh is is important. But I think what your point about migration isn't wrong insofar as it didn't have to happen this way. I mean, if you take the case of Sweden, now Sweden's a very small country with a small population, it cannot sustain uh the necessary shared cultural infrastructure and values uh uh with mass migration at that scale, which is why so many Swedish people, and I'm talking about decent middle class Swedes, very liberal, they they all so many of them are now saying we got it wrong, right? Because 20% of the country is foreign-born now. Uh that's not sustainable in such a small country. There was never any effort to make citizenship conditional on assimilation at all. So what you ended up with is is is multiculturalism. You end up with ghettos, uh, people living parallel societies, parallel lives. In the UK, we have over 80 Sharia councils, which is just a euphemism for Sharia courts. So uh the problem isn't really if migration, I mean, I do think migration has to be uh controlled to a uh a manageable number. I think that's a that's a reasonable position to have. But I think as long as you make citizenship conditional on that process of, you know, you can't come to a country and disobey the laws of that country and expect to stay. That doesn't make sense. So as long as you are applying the law equally, uh you know, encouraging assimilation, then migration would never be a problem, I don't think.
SPEAKER_02And I think we need to define assimilation too, because a lot of people uh give it, you know, they they they jump to this very ungenerous um uh meaning, attribute that to people like you and I, maybe. Uh it's not about what what meaning do they put to it? Well, uh you want these people to act white because you think you're superior, right? And it's like, no, that's not what it's about. I'm saying it's about it's about tolerance, it's about uh liberal values, it can apply to to anyone. And uh look through history. Um, some Muslim countries have been way more tolerant than um European countries in history. Uh you know that that that has happened. So it's just about how do how do cultures that are different live together? Because we know it can happen. The states is a good example.
SPEAKER_01Well, I mean, I think the first thing is to rid oneself of the folly of cultural relativism, because you know, the UK government has just produced a pamphlet, a leaflet to explain to uh asylum seekers why rape is bad. Now, that would suggest to me that when it comes to sexual ethics, this culture is superior to cultures that don't believe that women are equal to men. I have no qualms about saying that whatsoever. A culture that believes that cutting the genitals of a small child, FGM, female genital mutilation, is acceptable is not as morally, is not the moral equivalent of a culture that knows that's wrong. So I think you have to be able to say that. That is not to do with race or or or people's skin color or anything like that. It's to do with beliefs, it's to do with values. So I I mean I'm I I take the view absolutely that uh if for I mean if you look at the stats on uh perspectives towards gay people, uh for instance, in Pakistan, or towards women's rights in Pakistan, or indeed towards Jews in Pakistan, uh, you will find shocking figures, uh genuine uh hatred against those those individuals. Now, if you import sufficient numbers from that culture into another culture, but you tell them, but don't worry, you can keep those values. That's fine, you can keep those values, they're totally totally fine. Well, then you are stirring up a hell of a lot of trouble. So, as I say, the problem isn't that people are from there, right? The problem is that if if if if migration is allowed in such numbers that you effectively have a multicultural system where you say you preserve those values, then those values are imported along with them. Whereas what you should be saying is you're free to come, you're free to contribute to society to live here, so long as you adapt and accept these core values that aren't, I'm sorry, but non-negotiable for life in the West. Free speech being one of them, uh equal rights for men and women being another. This is that's not a big ask. And it's not, it's certainly not racist uh to suggest that. Because I expect it from white people too.
SPEAKER_02Right. Well, that well, that's that that's that's right. I mean, we've gone through this process ourselves where we have um re-evaluated our own histories and decided that you know gays can get married. There's no good argument why they can't get married. We didn't all feel that way 40 years ago, 50 years ago. My father didn't feel that way 30 years ago.
SPEAKER_01I I have friends who still don't I have friends who still don't feel that way. But the difference is that they know that the key aspect of wet of this society that we live in is you don't get to impose your values on someone else. My question was that with gay marriage, I don't expect people to support gay marriage. Uh, I just expect people to uh allow people to live their own lives and not get involved. Like I I I I there's no nothing wrong with disapproving of someone else's lifestyle. It's when you try to stop them doing whatever they want to do. That's that's that's I mean, that's the harm principle. I mean, that that's John Stuart Mills' key principle. You should, in a liberal free society, you should be able to do whatever you want and say whatever you want, right up until the point that you encroach on the rights of another person. That seems to me like a a wonderful uh value system. But again, it comes back to that point. There are some countries, some cultures where that absolutely is not the value. The value is we should we shall impose our ideas on everyone else, even if that means taking their rights away. And that that's just not acceptable, in my view.
SPEAKER_02No, no, no. It's it's it's not not acceptable.
New Zealand Censorship After Tragedy
SPEAKER_02And um, yeah, we we're hoping that um that the hate speech laws look like they might be rearing their ugly head again here, and yeah, it's it's it's a backdoor blasphemy law, and it's just something we have to be prepared to to tackle.
SPEAKER_01Um Yeah, I mean, am I am I right I'm alright thinking that in New Zealand after that horrific shooting in Christchurch, the uh the government tried to ban Jordan Peterson's book in uh in in in certain No, I don't think it was the government to be fair.
SPEAKER_02Um, but there was a uh somewhat working up from memory. Yeah, if I can um check this, but yeah. Yeah, there was there was there was someone working within Whitcalls, which was one of our big booksellers, who made an executive decision to withdraw Jordan Peterson, who has a whole chapter about if you see a cat, you know, always stop to Pat the cat. I mean yeah, such dangerous ideas off the charts, Hitler is in that that chapter, right? Yeah, I get chills even thinking about that one. Um, but uh but it was all a bit silly, and I I think a reporter even made the point that well, Mein Kampf was on the shelf. That stayed there. That was there, yeah. Well, it's like, oh yeah, we can buy Meinkampf, but no one wants to ban Mein Kampf. Like we're talking about Nazis a lot, but no one really wants to ban it. It's kind of weird. It's like, no, no, let's go after Jordan Peterson, you know. It's like I think if you're gonna go there, it's probably gonna be.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I I well, I I mean I'd like to check that because I thought that it was uh that Jacinda Arden was involved in that, but maybe I'm wrong.
SPEAKER_02Jacinda Arden was interesting because at the beginning of her um her reign, her premiership or whatever you want to call it, uh there was a rugby league player, uh, a Christian guy in uh uh Israel Falao who had an Instagram post that said, no fornicators, no drunkards, no homosexuals, uh, and you know, and but he was sort of but but I love you all and I want you all to convert and everything. So, but everyone obviously they didn't care about offending the drunkards, they just you know got onto the um the homosexuality thing, and he did end up getting getting dropped um from uh the national team in Australia, I think. I think he might be New Zealand born, but he was yeah, he wasn't the Australian national team. And uh when she was this is very early on, when she was asked about it, because she was raised Mormon. Like I I knew her. I did a comedy pilot. I didn't know that. Yeah, no, no. I I did a she was raised Mormon. I did a comedy pilot with her. Um, she gave me an afternoon once before she obviously became the leader. either and um made me a cup of tea and said did you know I couldn't drink this until I was I I'd never had a cup of tea until I was 23 or 24 and I was like why she's well I was raised Mormon and she just basically everything I know about Mormonism she taught me in that afternoon.
SPEAKER_01It's quite funny but she did comment on that that yeah she she did comment on that player and say well you know it's his faith it's got nothing to do with us and and I was like oh that's promising but then COVID happened and everything and and and and the the the mosque attack and they leaned into the the hate speech laws um after a commission and um it really didn't go that well uh they they couldn't sell them it was problematic and we were very effective actually as a as a union um yes I mean that that I that I mean that I suppose is the the again I I kind of understand like after something so horrific you do want to be able to blame something don't you you you want to be able to identify what the problem is and if you can say it's well it was this book or it was this film or is this newspaper or something it it sort of uh how can I put it it sort of makes sense of an of a an inexplicable horror and I suppose that's what what's happening there.
SPEAKER_02Um I don't believe that anyone you know that that's the that that that's the view they have but the and Jacob Michangama made this point when he came out a few years ago it's like the sad reality is if it's a lone wolf yeah it's it's exactly it's like it's one of those awful things that you kind of can't even really prepare for.
SPEAKER_01No you can't and and you know it happens and it's happened throughout history and the person responsible for those horrific murders is the person who did it. Of course that's that's what it is and and trying to outsource it the or trying to have that evil man share the responsibility the culpability with someone else it's understandable but it's not realistic. You know it's not it's not it's simply not true. I mean you may as well blame the killer of John Lennon you may as well blame JD Salinger.
Event Dates, Contact Details, Closing
SPEAKER_02Hey well look I'm afraid lovely have you we're gonna pick this up and continue this I've had a great time with you so we'll do that um and thank you so much and yeah at like like I said people the 12th that's in Auckland at the um that's our AGM Free Speech Union AGM 15th in Wellington in Parliament that's a fantastic space it's a it'll be really memorable you want to go to that one and in Christchurch on the 16th no offense taken tour is the name of it so Andrew thank you so much for uh talking today no worries at all looking forward to meeting you in person thank you for listening to Free to Speak if you enjoyed this episode please subscribe and consider sharing the podcast with others we release new episodes regularly and subscribing is the easiest way to stay up to date.
SPEAKER_00If you have any questions feedback or suggestions you can contact us at podcast at fsu.nz If you want to find out more about the New Zealand Free Speech Union visit fsu.nz