Section 14

In the previous post I talked about today’s Dominion Post editorial Chipping away at freedom of speech, which explored the contrast between Nicky Hager’s book, whose publication was prevented by legal injunction, and O.J. Simpson’s book If I Did It, whose publication was prevented because the publisher belatedly and after public badgering grew a sense of good taste.

A third example that should be added to this comparison is Scholastic Australia’s decision not to publish Army of the Pure, a children’s thriller about Afghan terrorists plotting to blow up Sydney’s Lucas Heights nuclear reactor. (Hat Tip: Pacific Empire)

Scholastic’s general manager, publishing, Andrew Berkhut, said the company had canvassed “a broad range of booksellers and library suppliers”, who expressed concern that the book featured a Muslim terrorist.

“They all said they would not stock it,” he said, “and the reality is if the gatekeepers won’t support it, it can’t be published.”

In the cases of both If I Did It and Army of the Pure the publishers voluntarily halted publication. In both cases the decision was a commercial decision. In neither case (as far as I know) were threats of violence made against anyone. I think the decision not to publish If I Did It was sound, although I don’t feel strongly either way, but the decision not to publish Army of the Pure is spineless, and bodes ill for the future. So what’s the difference?

If I Did It is simply in poor taste. It looks like an attempt by O.J. Simpson to make money out of murders that many people still believe that he committed and got away with. People are rightly revulsed and have said they won’t buy it.

Army of the Pure is a victim of the chilling effect - the self-censorship that occurs when people fear harm from others’ reactions to what they say. While no violence has specifically been threated against shops or libraries that stock this book, clearly that fear is there. Muslims have, in the very recent past, reacted with violent self-righteous fervour whenever anyone has dared criticise or mock Islam or Mohammed. Witness the extreme reaction to the Danish Mohammed cartoons, in which embassies were burnt down and perhaps 150 people were killed in riots.

The pulling of Army of the Pure is not because of concerns about poor taste, or the quality of the story-telling. It is because booksellers and librarians feel intimidated by previous acts of violence from volatile Muslim protesters and would rather voluntarily silence themselves than have rioters attempt to silence them by force. The appeasers are doing the oppressors’ work for them.

We must not be cowed by these protestors’ hyperbolic reactions and their exaggeratedly thin skins. Jihadists demand that everyone submit to Allah or face the sword. We must defend our freedom to think for ourselves and to voice our thoughts. We must not willingly surrender our freedoms in the hope of avoiding a fight.

The Dominion Post’s editorial this morning is entitled Chipping away at freedom of speech.

Last week was an intriguing one for advocates of free speech.

It first notes two instances of news censorship around the world - the failure of the Russian state media to report that former KGB colonel Alexander Litvinenko may have been poisoned by Vladimir Putin’s hired thugs and the cutting in the Tongan re-broadcast of One News of a segment about the aftermath of Nuku’alofa riots.

The editorial spends most of its words on Don Brash’s injunction that prevented the publication of Nicky Hager’s new book and muses on how the court might have handled the case in the U.S. with its much stronger First Amendment culture. It also constrasts the halt in publishing Hager’s book with the halt in publishing O.J. Simpson’s pseudo-confessional.

The Simpson case is perhaps the most far-reaching because it showed that, even in a country where the right to free speech is enshrined in the constitution, public opinion can make even the planet’s most influential media magnate reconsider a profitable proposal that offended not only the families of the late Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman but ordinary Americans, too.

And that’s fine. The First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law…”

If a media organisation makes a commercial decision not to publish a book because people have expressed disgust at its contents, that shows common sense an eventual succumbing to good taste. It cannot really be spun as censorship; It’s simply a case of the market setting standards without any legislative interference.

In New Zealand rugby is the national religion - it certainly has a far wider following than Christianity - but we still have laws that hark back to the days when Christianity operated in cosy collusion with the government.

TV3 is looking for an exemption to s81 of the Broadcasting Act, which forbids the broadcast of advertisements from 6am to noon on Sunday mornings. Sunday mornings are generally the low-rent end of television, so the gagging of advertisers to protect Christian sensibilities goes unnoticed, but that won’t be the case during next year’s rugby World Cup. Five potential All Black games, including a semifinal and final would fall during restricted hours.

Canwest, who presumably paid a fair bundle for the broadcasting rights to the tournament, have petitioned Broadcasting Minister Steve Maharey for an exemption to these archaic regulations. Maharey has delegated the decision to Sports Minister Trevor Mallard.

The real question should not be about just the World Cup but about what right the government has to dictate when broadcasters are allowed to broadcast advertising. Clearly this should be at their own discretion. Advertisers have the right to express themselves and broadcasters have the right to provide them with the means.

The Broadcasting Act bans television advertising on Sunday and Anzac Day mornings and all day on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. Gagging advertisers to protect religious sensibilities has no place in a free country.

Free speech’s biggest cliché is “I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The saying is usually attributed to Voltaire although it actually first appeared as a line in The Friends of Voltaire, written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in 1906. The phrase was intended as a paraphrase of Voltaire’s attitude to freedom of expression rather than a quote.

Voltaire (born François-Marie Arouet on 21 November 1694) was a French Enlightenment writer and philosopher. He fought for civil rights, including freedom of religion and the right to a fair trial, and was an outspoken critic of the Church and France’s Ancien Régime.

His satirical, polemic writing led to several imprisonments and an exile. Criticising the aristocracy got him nearly a year in the Bastille, where he wrote Oedipe. Later he was exiled to England without trial for offending a French noble. On his return to Paris he wrote a book explaining how the English monarchy was more respectful of human rights than its French counterpart. The book was publicly burned and Voltaire once again had to leave Paris.

Later in life, an invitation from Frederick the Great to join him in Berlin ended in another book-burning and arrest and a welcome to live in Geneva (after another ban from Paris) ended with his theatrical performances and publications being banned - a degree of trouble-making to be highly admired.

There’s an interesting Bob Brockie World of Science column in this morning’s Dominion Post (p B5). Entitled Muslim Science in Doldrums, it summarises a series of Nature articles about the state of science in the Islamic world.

Muslim countries only have one-tenth the number of scientists that Western countries do, spend next to nothing on science, and register virtually no patents. The picture is consistently dismal from the most poverty-stricken backblocks of Africa to the oil-rich Gulf. The only notable exception is Turkey, which has rapidly rising scientific output and a university that made the world top 500 list. Turkey is also a notable exception in being a constitutionally secular state.

Brockie (and Nature) put the problem down to limited freedom of expression:

Political leaders in the Muslim world are notoriously intolerant of dissent and don’t encourage independent, sceptical thought - a necessary part of the scientist’s tool kit.

The Nature writers conclude that science gets a bum rap in Muslim countries; that scientists can’t expect any improvement from new Islamic politicians; that further restrictions on freedom of expression are likely and, given today’s trends, the situation of science in Islamic countries can only get worse.

The High Court injunction forbidding anyone from releasing the contents of Don Brash’s e-mails raises some very interesting free speech questions.

The interim injunction was gained by Don Brash on Friday. It enjoins unknown respondents (John and Jane Doe) from copying, issuing to the public, broadcasting or making an adaptation of any of Don Brash’s e-mails. There is already a criminal investigation going on into the copying of these e-mails from Brash’s computer.

Nick Russell of Chen Palmer says in this morning’s Dominion Post (Brash blocks ’stolen’ e-mails) that this sort of prior restraint is very unusual.

“This is absolutely a gagging writ on the media.”

It’s worth noting as an aside that this injunction doesn’t cover documents tabled or read out in Parliament or select committee as these arenas are covered by parliamentary privilege.

There are a whole swag of questions here: In what circumstances (if ever) should we allow prior restraint of the press? To what extent can a “public figure” (or anyone) expect privacy? Should the probably illegal manner in which the information was gathered have an impact on whether it can be published? Are copyright restrictions relevant here and how should they apply?

(more…)

Auckland City Council has joined Wellington in kicking Falun Gong out of their Santa Parade. Last week, this site reported (Importing Chinese Repression?) that Wellington City Council had excluded the Falun Gong float from the Christmas parade because it was being ’streamlined’. This week, Falun Gong reports (Falun Gong discriminated against in New Zealand) that the same thing has happened in Auckland.

Their 2006 application was initially welcomed as Parade organisers said a 60-piece brass band would be a great addition to the parade. There was also an offer of $250 to help band members as they are all volunteers.

When organisers were subsequently told the band members comprised Falun Gong members, the application was withdrawn on the grounds that the “organization does not ‘fit’ with the Santa Parade,” and would not, “turn children’s fantasies into reality, to delight families staging an annual fantasy Santa Parade to herald the start of the festive season in Auckland.”

As I said in my post on the Wellington decision:

The biggest concern is that city officials have been pressured (either explicitly or implicitly) by China to exclude Falun Gong from council-sponsored events. As a public entity, the city council must ensure that it doesn’t use its sponsorship of cultural events as a way to censor political or religious expression.

I asked Wellington City last week about concerns that they were keeping Falun Gong out of the parade because of pressure from China. I asked for assurance that we weren’t importing Chinese repression into New Zealand. I haven’t had a reply.

Auckland City has a sister city relationship with Guangzhou in China. Presumably Auckland councillors are also willing to censor religious expression to protect their ratepayer funded holidays.

Former Progressive MP Matt Robson is going to be hauled before Parliament’s Privileges Committee for implying that United leader Peter Dunne was in the pocket of the alcohol industry. (Hat tip: No Right Turn, via Not PC.)

In his November 1st newsletter (since modified) Robson, angry at Dunne for not supporting the bid to raise the alcohol purchase age, said that “the liquor industry’s support for Peter Dunne, as with that of the tobacco, has always meant that he has faithfully delivered his vote for their interests.”

Rather than accuse Robson of libel, as the rest of us would have to do, and have the matter decided in a real court, Dunne went running to the speaker to try and get Robson hauled before the kangaroo court of the Privileges Committee. Speaker Margaret Wilson determined that Robson has a case to answer.

Standing Order 400(n) establishes that the House may treat as a contempt reflections on the character or conduct of a member in the member’s capacity as a member of the House. Its purpose is to protect members going about the business of the House from unfounded, scurrilous allegations of serious impropriety or corruption.

I am satisfied that to allege that Mr Dunne has “faithfully delivered his vote” as a result of support from the industries concerned could carry such an implication. Whether or not it actually does is for the Privileges Committee and ultimately the House to decide.

Accordingly, I have determined that the statement in the newsletter does involve a question of privilege in that it may constitute a reflection on the character or conduct of a member in the member’s capacity as a member of the House. Consequently, the question of privilege stands referred to the Privileges Committee.

Remember that Robson is no longer a Member of Parliament. This is not an internal matter - the proper domain of the Privileges Committee. This is Parliament attempting to shut down external criticism without the hassle of getting a libel conviction in a real court.

UPDATE 6/12/06: Matt Robson had his appearance before the Privileges Committee yesterday and has apologised for any offence he caused. Hat tip: No Right Turn.

Two reference tools have been added to FreeSpeech.org.nz, a ‘Landmarks in Free Speech‘ timeline and a free speech glossary.

(At the moment the timeline is best viewed in Firefox. In IE7 it’s a bit crap, in IE6 it’s very crap. I’m looking into it.)

The timeline has been filled with a couple of dozen events so far and, likewise, the glossary has a couple of dozen terms to get started.

Both of these will be expanded over time as various terms and events are discussed here and based on users’ suggestions. So what’s missing that you’d like to see included?

UPDATE 16/11/06: The ‘page not found’ problem in Internet Explorer and IE6’s layout problems have been fixed. The problem with the detail bubbles not staying visible has not been fixed.

The Dominion Post reports today (p A5) that Wellington City Council has kicked the Falun Gong out of this year’s Christmas Parade. In previous years the religious group has taken part in the parade and won awards for their float featuring Chinese drummers and dancers.

Falun Gong spokesman Chris Thomas said he had tried to register the group in the Wellington Christmas parade but was told by organisers that, as the parade was being “streamlined”, they would not be included.

“When we asked what we could do to make the parade criteria, we were only told that we were not going to be in it. We feel that was an inadequate answer.”

The biggest concern is that city officials have been pressured (either explicitly or implicitly) by China to exclude Falun Gong from council-sponsored events. As a public entity, the city council must ensure that it doesn’t use its sponsorship of cultural events as a way to censor political or religious expression.

Wellington mayor Kerry Prendergast is currently in China on a sister-city jolly and presumably doesn’t want to put the free trips at risk. Others on the trip have said they have no intention of bringing up human rights questions because things aren’t perfect here. This is a disgraceful moral equivalence. In New Zealand when the ruling socialist elite want to vilify a dissident religious group they call them “chinless scarf-wearers” - they don’t shoot them and then cut out their internal organs.

One of the biggest upsides of globalisation is that as well as Coca-Cola and Versace, people in dictatorships also get a taste for other Western goods like freedom of expression. It would be a travesty if the reverse were to occur and we imported this dictatorship’s repressive policies into New Zealand.

UPDATE 22/11/06: Wellington City Council has replied to my enquiry:

(more…)

For decades, communism kept 300 million Europeans in slavery and silence. Between 1989 and 1991 these people freed themselves, most symbolically by tearing down the Berlin Wall, whose checkpoints were opened in the face of overwhelming popular force on 9th November 1989.

The BBC has reported (Hat tip: Boing Boing) Microsoft’s senior policy counsel Fred Tipson as saying that Microsoft might have to consider pulling out of repressive countries like China.

“Things are getting bad… and perhaps we have to look again at our presence there,” he told a conference in Athens.

“We have to decide if the persecuting of bloggers reaches a point that it’s unacceptable to do business there.”

Google was recently criticised because they were seen to be helping the Chinese government censor search results. (Compare the searches for “Tiananmen Square massacre” on google.co.nz and google.cn.) Google argued that having any presence in China was better than having none if freedom of information was the goal. Critics suggested that helping China censor the web didn’t sit very well with Google’s “Don’t be evil” motto.

Microsoft may be responding to criticism from Amnesty International, which last week highlighted the circumstances of several jailed bloggers (Hat tip: NZ Herald). Along with Yahoo, Microsoft has been attacked for shutting down blogs run by people the Chinese government wants silenced.

The Internet has tremendous potential to bring information from the outside world to people living under repressive regimes and it’s very encouraging to see companies with muscle, like Microsoft, using their position to encourage change in places like China. Meanwhile, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft need to decide how much persecution makes it unacceptable to do business there. Is the goal of free speech in China better served by providing a censored service, in the hopes that people demand more of their own government, or by refusing to provide any service at all?

Wellington Airport has refused to put up a National Party billboard because it is “too politically sensitive”.

The Dominion Post suggests that the reason for the refusal may be that the Airport is concerned about the Government’s pending decision on the Qantas/Air New Zealand codeshare agreement, which could cut flights to the capital and hence cut airport profits.

A chilling effect is the self-censorship that occurs when someone fears the actions of another. A newspaper declining to print a cartoon not because it isn’t news but because it fears reprisals from medieval thugs would be one example.

In this case the Government has the power to make decisions that could negatively affect the running of the Airport. The Clark Government has a history of being vindictive and so the Airport might rightly fear them and censor themselves in the hopes of getting the “right” decision from Pete Hodgson. An air of fear can sometimes be more effective than explicit censorship laws and it’s certainly more stealthy.

UPDATE: I’ve just seen on Not PC that Bill English was talking about the chilling effect on National Radio’s Morning Report this morning.