If You Cannot Criticise Your Side, You Do Not Have Free Speech - William McGimpsey

We argue that real free speech requires the courage to criticise the radicals on our own side without sliding into denunciation or cancellation. We test where open debate ends and coercion begins, from political correctness and taboo research to hate speech laws and contested definitions of antisemitism. 
• why “never criticise your right” weakens debate and traps movements in loyalty tests 
• media and institutional power shaping the Overton window of acceptable speech 
• political correctness as stigma and censorship rather than honest disagreement 
• Orwell as a model for improving your own side through hard critique 
• whether “moderate” and “extreme” are cultural fashion labels 
• race, IQ, biology, and the risks of building policy on abstract assumptions 
• trans politics as a flashpoint for sex based differences in law and safety 
• diversity, social trust, and conflicting evidence versus lived experience 
• hate speech laws in Australia and the Joel Davis case as a warning 
• the IHRA definition of antisemitism and how broad rules can chill debate 
• platforming controversial voices versus correcting misinformation in public 
If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and consider sharing the podcast with others. 

Transcript

Welcome And Why It Matters

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Welcome 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_01 0:24

William, glad you could be with you here with us.

SPEAKER_02 0:27

Thanks, Dane. It's good to be here. Good to talk to you on the podcast.

SPEAKER_01 0:31

Great. So William and I have had our differences in the past, but that's okay. We might settle a few scores now or not, or get on like a house on fire, which tends to happen when people actually dialogue, I find. But uh we're going to talk about a um piece that William recently wrote, which struck me because I feel a little bit victim to the sentiment expressed in this piece. So just take us through the piece. Give us a high, like your elevator pitch for it, William, and then I'll start sort of feeding back on what appealed to me in it.

Orwell And Attacking Your Own Side

SPEAKER_02 1:05

Uh well, the piece is titled Uh The Importance of Criticizing Your Radicals. And it's really responding to an idea that's been put out uh into their public discourse about uh not criticizing people to your right. So I'm kind of a right-wing guy, uh, and I'm part of you know conversations on the right about uh how we can advance what people on the right want to do. Um, and this idea of not criticizing people to your right, uh, where that's come from is uh there are many people who feel that uh mainstream conservatives, people in like the center-right parties across the we the Western world, across this, particularly the English-speaking world, the Anglosphere, that they've engaged in a uh a uh a technique or a uh a practice of uh disavowing uh people to their right and uh attempting to uh sort of read them out of the conservative movement, uh uh censor them, blacklist them. And the critique of doing this is that this has uh uh weakened uh not just obviously it's weakened the uh the more far-right elements, but that it's also weakened uh mainstream conservatism. It has uh resulted in it uh you know reducing its support base, uh, minimizing its support base, splitting the movement, creating uh internal divides, and uh moving left uh uh over time. So it's and the people uh people say that you know the reason over previous decades that we have, you know, sub, you know, moved uh the culture has moved to the left over a long period of time is because uh uh mainstream conservatives have engaged in this practice of uh attempting to appeal to the the mainstream media and the mainstream institutions that don't share their values uh by repeatedly disavowing people to their right. And that that has that has actually benefited the left. It has locked in uh left-wing values and resulted in this. So my piece responds to this idea, and I'm coming at this from a uh the point of view of someone who wants a free speech. The reason why uh never criticizing people to your right is bad is because you you don't really have free speech, you don't really have a completely open political discourse uh in that case. Um it means you know, it sort of deadens the political discourse means you can only criticize people to your left. Uh the a lot of the very important debates uh can't happen in that case. Um and uh we want debates to happen. So my um my but rather than uh the problem being um conservatives consistently denouncing people to their right, which I agree that this is a problem, but really that's a uh a feature, I think, of uh a deeper and more important problem. And the deeper and more important problem uh is that over uh I'll I'll, you know, for this period of the last uh few decades, let's say it started in the 1960s, but that's probably not right, but you have to start somewhere, uh, is that there has been a media and institutional control uh by people with who have these uh broadly uh left-wing values. And uh the media, of course, has great power to uh decide the limits of the Overton window, what kind of speech is acceptable and what kind of speech is unacceptable. It can platform people with the speech it thinks is acceptable and de-platform people with the speech it thinks is unacceptable. And uh as a result of this, uh this has caused this uh mainstream media control and institutional control that uh left-wing people or people who broadly share left-wing values have. That really, I think, is the reason that uh conservative movements have uh opted for this policy of disavowing people to their right. They've done it for sort of practical political reasons. Uh, you can call it cowardice, but I mean it's really just sort of standard uh political practice to try and appeal, uh, you know, if you if you don't do that often, uh, you know, that you have the mainstream media and the institutions coming after you, and it's it can be just easier, if perhaps a bit short term, uh, to engage in that sort of behavior. Uh so that's that's really uh sort of overview. Um uh my argument for a really long period of time now on uh free speech has been that um political correctness, uh calling uh different things racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, bigoted, far right, uh all these types of words, um it's presented to us as if it's really about uh fighting hate or these more abstract things. But uh, and there might be a degree of truth in that. But what also happens is that a lot of um legitimate points of view uh get caught up in those politically correct censorship terms. And people aren't allowed to say them anymore as a result. And if you do, and uh this may be not such a big problem now because I think there's been a lot of progress in tearing down these uh tearing down political correctness uh or delegitimizing it to a certain extent. So people can have more of these uh difficult conversations now. I think Elon Musk's uh free speech policy on X has probably helped in this regard. Um, but uh that's bad for a lot of reasons, and it's not just political. Uh, it it affects broader society outside of politics. So if you think about the process of science, for example, um, people can't do uh science on uh human genetic differences. Well, they can't. It's difficult. It's difficult to get funding for it, and it's particularly difficult to talk about it openly. Um, a very the famous uh geneticist James Watson, who died recently, uh, he uh spoke publicly about a human differences in IQ and what effects that that might have on uh you know socioeconomic outcomes. And he was uh pilloried for it and sort of unparsoned as a result. And you know, it's not a one-off thing. This sort of behavior is endemic. And it it uh I think that that is uh drastically uh affecting not just politics in our society, but the way a broader society functions in terms of um you know everyday life, in terms of science across all our institutions, what what ordinary people who aren't political are doing. And there really has to be something to uh something done to address that. So this idea of not criticizing people to your right is a sort of a legitimate uh response, I think, to that problem. Um, but I'm uh I'm what I'm trying to do is put a little tweak on that. And the little tweak is uh we shouldn't, you know, denounce uh people. Um, we shouldn't, you know, engage in really harsh, uh vindictive behavior. We especially shouldn't engage in uh cancellation, cancel culture. Um, but we should uh it is good actually to engage critically with these views that are considered more radical or extract because people put these views on the table, not just for them to sit there uh austerely and no one ever talk about them. You actually want them to become part of the culture and the conversation. And so uh uh that's what I'm calling for, really. It's I'm calling for free, open, tolerant, uh, constructive conversation of ideas, uh not uh not denunciations and not uh ignoring and not talking about extreme views either.

SPEAKER_01 8:42

Cool. Okay, well that's that's that's good. You've laid it out really, really well. Um yeah, the the reason why your piece really spoke to me is that I sort of feel like I am the left-wing guy who has only ever really criticized the left. I don't tend to criticize the right too much. Uh I do at times, but uh uh the first political writer I ever engaged with when I was about 17 or 18 was George Orwell. And, you know, I I read most of Animal Farm uh and and uh uh I got through 1984 eventually, but these weren't the books or that that I that really spoke to me. It was his political essays. Are you familiar with his political essays, George Orwell?

SPEAKER_02 9:28

Uh I think I may have read one or two of them, but not extensively.

SPEAKER_01 9:30

Yeah, well, see, I I think he's just absolutely incredible. And he used to take a lot of flack in his day for uh attacking the mainstream left and uh and writers like H. G. Wells, you know, the War of the Worlds. Like he was a big lefty, and uh where where that often butt heads was over Hitler and and the rise of fascism. So H. G. Wells would be, oh, Hitler's a buffoon, we've got nothing to worry about. Churchill's a warmonger, just don't worry about him, he'll be cool, everything's gonna be great. And Orwell was the no, no, no, we're gonna have to confront this character at some point. Um, that's gonna happen. Uh, but he was he was radically honest. Well, what one of the great books that he uh wrote that that I think everyone should really read if they get a chance is Homage to Catalonia, where he's an idealistic socialist and he goes to fight the Civil War in Spain, to fight Franco and and and the um fascists, who were basically just the the far right of the Catholic Church at the time, um, and he encounters Stalinism up close. And uh what happened is that all the left factions were actually devouring each other, with the Stalinist sides wanting to basically uh execute and cancel out everyone else. And it was uh really eye-opening. And I I guess for him, probably illustrated why you uh it is so important that you criticize your own side because he learned that there were some extremely nasty characters working within the left. So he's wanting to make the left better through critique. And and and I believe that would be your position too. You're wanting to make the right better. Yeah, yeah. And and that's what he what he was doing. Now where I would criticize you on this is that uh and and you know, you'll probably be able to help me here because you're gonna know more about uh the the whole ecosystem of the right. But I I I don't really believe there's a spectrum. I I I don't really believe we have like when I think about uh being on the left, if there was a a spectrum wouldn't that mean that I was closer to the woke left than I would be to uh a conservative? Like I I don't believe I am. I think that I'm a sort of workers-focused center leftist. Uh and and the center part of it is interesting because it because when when people say centrist, what do they mean? Like, I I I'm am I talking economics? Am I talking culture? The culture I was raised in in South Auckland was very socially conservative. It was actually quite influenced by uh, well, you know, I mean, a lot of those families out there, including the Polynesian and Māori families, were naturally conservative, quite family-oriented, many had you know forms of r of religion. Um so I'm more radical on the economic side. I'm probably I'm I can uh live with social conservatism, but I tend to be uh quite radically progressive as a um culturally, but then when you look at the ACT party, they might be a little more radically um liberal than me. So when you say I'm critiquing the the person to that side or that side, are they on your sides? Or or does a conservative completely stand alone from some of these people that you that you think are part of a larger collective?

SPEAKER_02 13:23

Well, I think you're making an excellent point that I agree with. Like to a large extent, the the left-right spectrum is a uh is a construction, right? And uh it's overly simplistic. People um can combine uh their political views in all sorts of different ways across all sorts of different, you know, domains of policy. But you know, the economic policy and social policy is uh uh a very simplistic sort of the the tip the political compass way of doing it. But I mean, politics is a lot more complicated even than that. So um, yes, I mean, uh I agree with this. But I mean, I I and I'm also uh critical of the idea of uh moderation and uh radicalism. I I I critique that idea as well because uh what is it um what is the sort of objective basis for an idea being moderate or radical? It it just seems to be uh whatever is considered uh uh acceptable or within the Overton window at the time is what's considered moderate.

SPEAKER_01 14:26

You could say taste and aesthetics.

Left Right And The Overton Window

SPEAKER_02 14:29

Well, it's it's I mean, you're pointing to something that's real, which is that it there's a great degree of subjectivity. Um when you when you talk about uh moderate and extreme in this way, and you can you endow these uh terms with uh sort of uh a power um or uh you know influence or importance, uh what you're doing is you're sort of uh privileging uh what the general culture thinks right now in a way that may or arguably uh may not uh be uh be warranted. I mean, the um because things things go on trends. If you look at fashion, for example, there's nothing uh does fashion uh uh you know approach an objective uh ideal of uh you know good uh tailoring and and uh physical beauty over time, or does it just sort of go round and round in circles and cycles with experiments and then coming back to coming back to something that's been before? It seems to me that fashion is fashion is sort of like that. And uh it it it's doesn't it's not really tending towards, if it was working in any sort of uh, you know, evolutionary sense, or if it was, you know, it was pulling towards something objective, it fashion would improve over time. But I don't think we can really say that that's what's happening. And uh ideas are a little bit like that too. Um they they sort of they go around in circles. There are intellectual trends and intellectual fads. And uh should we really privilege uh what uh ordinary people think now? Um if you are if you're the Catholic Church, for example, uh surely your opinion would be that uh rather than progress, uh what's happening in the morality of humankind is uh is a a regress, a fall away. I mean, people are becoming less religious across the Western world. So so yes, I mean, uh what's radical and what's moderate, it's a construction, what's left and what's right is a construction. I think the real world's more complicated than that. I think that we probably agreed there.

SPEAKER_01 16:33

Yeah, and I think the other thing too is like if you're sort of wanting to gatekeep or protect a political movement or make it better, uh what are you making it better for? You know, I think that's something to to discuss as well, because it's like, you know, I can have all these grand views of what Dangerot thinks leftism should be. Uh I would tend to think I have my finger on the pulse of the the working class more than say a uh David Farrier or or someone like that, you know. I I think I would. But I could I could still go out there and be quite shocked and surprised by reactions to some of the things I propose. Ultimately, if we are critiquing one side or the other, uh you know that that can that can be happening in a bubble, really. What do the voters think? Uh are they being canvassed? We're not really canvassing them on X, you know. Um, even when I write my blogs and stuff, I'm not really canvassing voters. Not really. I'm talking to a very small group who may or may not uh agree with me, but it but it's happening within a political bubble in a way, you know. Um, and I think that's where political parties uh uh, you know, find themselves getting big shocks like Trumpism, you know, because that that that they almost there was a sense then that it's like, well, they'll follow us anywhere, uh these working poor, the rust belt types. They'll follow us anywhere. But I I I could even sense back then I I was watching his speeches in 215, 216, 215 probably, and I was thinking, he sounds like a guy that would turn up to a union hall in Otahuhu when I was a kid. He was sounding left wing. Everyone was calling him fascist, but he was actually sounding quite left-wing, and I I I knew that they were gonna miss something, you know. I'm I'm not saying I predicted the win because I didn't. I I thought he wouldn't get there in the end. But I I do worry sometimes when you know we talk about critique, critique for whose sake is it for is it intellectual sport, or are we really trying to uh do what's right in terms of of the vote? You know, I mean some of your ideas are quite radical, obviously, and and I know we just talked about it being taste.

SPEAKER_02 19:02

Well, I would I would sort of dispute that. I mean, I I I think that my ideas are the normal ideas of uh, you know, 50 or 60 years ago. I don't think there's anything too radical about that.

SPEAKER_01 19:13

I know, but that's 50 or 60 years ago where people had many different views. I mean, how tested are they? I guess is what I'm saying, beyond a relatively small circle. Like, how do you now take them into the public and really communicate them and test them? Like the way I would jokes around a table when I'm writing a comedy. Sometimes they work in my head, but then they're settled out and it's like it died. I'm putting a line through it, you know? Like, how how because I guess ultimately it's the it is the the voters that that are really going to decide what's moderate and what's radical.

Taboo Ideas And The IQ Debate

SPEAKER_02 19:52

Well, in terms of what I've been doing myself, I'm not uh a politician, I'm not running for office. Uh what my what I'm doing uh is you know, first of all, I'm interested in public policy and I comment on it publicly. But uh there's something deeper than than that, and it's that I'm addressing this problem that I sort of laid out at the beginning, where I think there's uh political correctness and this sort of the censorship and demonization and stigmatization of certain ideas that are deemed racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I think that's having really negative consequences for our society. Uh and so what I have been trying to do is to uh surface those uh stigmatized ideas and uh put them out into the public space and uh give them a fair hearing. And also uh trying to sort of uh explain or explain and sort of break down uh political correctness as a uh censorship and stigmatizing uh phenomena. So that is that's really the reason I'm doing it. It's not um uh some of these ideas I obviously I think are correct. So I mean, let's take um uh race and uh IQ differences, okay? So this is this is really important because um a lot of sort of uh uh woke ideas like the idea of systemic racism, institutional bias, you know, institutional racism, uh these that those sort of ideas they come out of the idea that um you know everyone is basically equal. All these groups are basically equal, uh, and they would achieve equal outcomes uh um if things were fair. So the fact that they're not achieving equal outcomes, therefore, it must mean that there's some sort of unfairness baked into the system. And therefore, we've got to, and that's what systemic racism is, you know. So um the this whole woke idea of systemic racism, institutional bias, it has really been it's been allowed to. Flourish and take hold in our institutions because the truth of the matter, that uh, you know, these these uh racial groups are different, they have different average IQs, and uh given a fair playing field, some will achieve uh better uh socioeconomic outcomes on average as a result. That uh idea has been censored and purged from the uh the public domain, and people who bring it up have been punished, they have lost their children. It feels really impolite. Yeah. It's warped the the politics, and it's resulted in uh really bad uh public policies uh being implemented as a result. So I'm trying to address that problem and what I do.

SPEAKER_01 22:45

Well, well well uh well two things there. I mean, I I can't just let that the IQ thing just just just pass by. But like for me, and and and I don't know enough about it. I haven't really looked into it. I I feel culturally I'm I'm inclined to believe that there are um predispositions to certain types of thought. I think being Jewish, there is a way of thinking sometimes, which is you know, we tend to question a bit more. We are a civic theology more than a supernatural theology. So it a lot of it's about the boundaries of of behavior and conduct in in in a society. Um we don't have the idea of being saved and grace, and which is a different sort of foundation of thought. Um and sometimes there's a there's an urge not to question so much, you know. Um the the redemption narrative is another one. We have the messianic idea, but I I don't personally believe in it. I I poke holes in it a lot. I I just don't think there is redemption, you know. So that that really I don't I don't think there's redemption. I don't think it's a I think that's a that's a Hollywood film. That's not life, you know? Uh I I I think this stuff is you know cyclic and just happens and and goes on and on. So uh but but in terms of the IQ thing, and this is where I get a little bit sort of you know, uh like for me, take me, right? So carve me up into my parts. So I'm I'd be ethnically probably only about an eighth or a quarter or less than a quarter as Khanazi Jew, right? That's my father, through my father's side, right? Then then I'm I'm French Italian, but the French is more we're Ocata, we're from we're all from Okita, right? Then I've got Lithuanian in me. Okay. And uh so Southern European, Askenazi Jew, Lithuanian, I think we may have some Indian, believe it or not. So who wins? You know what I'm saying? Like, like so many of us are mixed in everything. Like, who how how do you even know? I mean, you you might be thinking this is a stupid question, and it's fine, but how how would you know what the what the what the race IQ thing is gonna work in me? How can you sort of pinpoint me? How could how could you pigeonhole me? How would that work?

SPEAKER_02 25:20

Well, I I don't know why I need to be uh pigeonholing you. I mean, the the the point of um the point of pointing out that uh different races and IQs, uh different races have different average IQs, uh, is to so we can get rid of uh these uh negative public policies around systemic racism and uh but the do they explain everything?

SPEAKER_01 25:46

Because it's like mathematics. If you look at the difference between mathematics with men and women, right? You could say men achieve yeah, men are uh are better mathematically, right? But mathematics isn't one idea. Like it you you have mathematics its itself is broken into about 36 or 37 different sort of ideas, right? And and there's variation within those ideas. It's an average that that the men on average are gonna uh are gonna perform better. So I don't know whether that's I mean to me it feels just as abstract actually as the other idea, which I do believe is abstract. I'm completely with you on that. The the whole thing of systemic racism, I I don't quite know uh they've never been able to explain it. Not really, you know, in terms of it's happening over there in that. That's what it is. Look, we could pick it up, we can hold it, we can touch it. There's no one's ever been able to do that. And I wonder if this is just as abstract, really.

SPEAKER_02 26:46

Uh well, I mean, no, I mean it's this is a uh it's a field of study in science. Uh but the average scientists study uh racial differences, just like they study the differences between different dog breeds or or anything else. Uh, humans are divided into a number of different uh racial groups, and then from their ethnic groups, uh, and then you can even have subcategories further down. Uh, these groups are identifiable through uh genetic testing. Uh, and uh you can ascribe a sort of average characteristics to members of that group. Uh, Englishmen tend to be different from Japanese in these types of ways. Um, that doesn't mean that every Englishman is different from every Japanese person in the Japanese. But that's right.

SPEAKER_01 27:37

And and we're dealing with individuals in society, aren't we?

SPEAKER_02 27:40

But you're you're what you're doing there is you're making war on the idea of taxonomy and of dividing things into groups. Uh, all of human knowledge is based on dividing things into different categories and noting the general categories of the things in those groups. Trees, dogs, grass, uh, birds. Uh, if we applied your way of thinking at everything as an individual to those, you wouldn't be able to assign any crack categories to anything. You wouldn't be able to have language really. You wouldn't be able to have nouns. Um, and so so you couldn't really talk to each other or describe anything or do any sort of stuff.

SPEAKER_01 28:21

Sure, but I think the potential uh I mean, I'm speaking, I'm I'm kind of shit talking, man. So, you know, I you've you've read up on this stuff more than me. So I'm trying to learn and work this out. Okay. So I I I'm not, there's no um, I'm not driving to this big moment because I I don't I haven't done enough look looking into this. But I would say say you say trees or dogs, like a human being has more potential for growth and mental expansion and everything than say a tree or a dog. So so the averages may work and totally be there and be fine. I'm not disputing that. I just wonder how much it ultimately teaches us.

SPEAKER_02 29:03

Um you're getting at the something sort of demeaning or limiting about using uh these categories with different types of use.

SPEAKER_01 29:11

I I'm not actually doing that. I don't believe that. Sorry, I don't want to accuse you something and not. No, no, no, no. It's cool, man. No, no, I don't think I am doing that. I'm just wondering because of our because we know that um, you know, there's the nature idea, there's a nurture idea, um, but also, you know, levels of education, different kinds of education, people aren't we're not all resistant to that, you know. I don't think this that this average is going to win out all the time. Uh the individual is always going to teach us more than the average will. I just wonder, does it at a level get as abstract and unhelpful as the systemic racist idea? That's all.

SPEAKER_02 29:53

No, I I think it's, I mean, um, these are scientifically quantifiable things. Scientists do stuff on it. It's a field of knowledge, uh, knowledge of humanity. You're not saying it doesn't exist. It's important for understanding human society, and it's important for uh uh acting rationally within human society. Particularly for finding averages, but how particularly in fields like public policy. You can't do uh sensible public policy without having a a background knowledge of human differences across racial categories, sexual categories, and other categories, and then applying that to uh public policy challenges. If you refuse to, then you get absurdities like the systemic racism thing and the institutional bias thing and the wokism thing in general. That's a that's a good example of the things that can go wrong. Also that the transgender thing.

SPEAKER_01 30:46

Um That's more pronounced. It's like a female boxer versus a male boxer. To me, it's like that's we're not talking about averages at that point.

SPEAKER_02 30:57

Well, I think all the same. I think the same the same basic principle applies there. There are you you can divide humans into different biological types, and the different biological types uh differ on average, but not all the individuals within those types are are different in the in the way the average would suggest. So, yeah, so women uh and men are different in the same way that uh, you know, black people and white people, not in the same way, but black people and white people are different based on biology, and women and men are different also based on biology. So uh, and everyone, you know, the the trans movement uh reminded us of this. It sort of brought it into focus. We had uh decades of feminism uh that told us, you know, that uh gender was uh mostly about uh uh what you were taught, that gender roles were taught. And uh it was considered a sort of a dirty thing or a low thing if you were to point out you know innate biological differences. I bet they regret that now. Well, it it turned around and it bit them, right, right? The the uh the the trans movement uh sh showed uh, I think uh women that um you know, if you that there are biological differences and that they are important. And they're not just that pointing out these biological differences, uh, it isn't just uh important. It isn't just done by men to hold women down. Uh the you know, knowledge and uh incorporation of uh knowledge of biological differences uh into what you're doing is important for protecting women from men uh as well. And so, and the woman you know, men in women's sports is the obvious one here, but the men in the women's toilets as well. Uh we we need to understand that these differences exist in order to design uh policies, public policies, social policies, the way our society works uh in general, in order to uh protect women and help women and give women the type of uh society they need. And so it goes for men and women. Uh, also it goes for uh different uh racial and ethnic groups as well. We're not all the same, you know, and the the types of public policies that work for uh one racial or ethnic group of people may not work the same way or as well for other uh ethnic or racial groups of people. And you have to take that into account. Um, people who are some, you know, some groups of people are more likely to commit crimes than others, more likely to commit violent crimes. Uh, you can demonstrate that statistically. What that means is in order for them to achieve flourishing, they're going to need a harsher and more repressive uh legal system that punishes uh crime war and is harsher on crime in order to uh enable uh the bulk of the population to live in a crime-free society and flourish. But then we're not in a democracy. Exactly. Exactly. Right? So this is my point.

SPEAKER_01 33:58

So if you brown out, you're gonna have them here, is that what you're saying?

Diversity Claims And Community Trust

SPEAKER_02 34:02

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying if you if you mix different types of people together, it it creates the need to compromise between the type of laws and institutions that are conducive to this people's flourishing and the type of laws and institutions that are conducive to a different type of people's flourishing, meaning that neither side, neither group of people can really get the type of society that best suits them and enables them to flourish. It makes everyone worse off. And this isn't just, you know, that's me explaining it from a theoretical point of view, but there is uh there's evidence uh in the literature from um I forget his name, but about diversity uh literally destroying communities. So um in diverse societies uh or communities, uh people tend not to do things together so much. So if you think about a community, you you go out and you have barbecues with your community, you go to a bowling club. Uh Robert Putnam's the guy's name, I just remembered it. Um so he famously did a study on bowling, bowling clubs, people going and doing, you know, temp and bowling together. And he used that as a stand-in for voluntary association in general. Like in, you know, traditional conservative thinking, the existence of these uh community groups, voluntary associations, that was thought to be the essence of community. Um, and what Partnham found is that uh that those voluntary community groups had been declining in American society over a long period of time. So you know, the community was disintegrating. And he wanted to know why that was. And he did uh you know, did a bunch of studies and he found that one of the things that was contributing to it was the increase in uh diversity, so racial, ethnic, uh various other types of diversity. In more diverse communities, people don't do things together anymore. And uh, you know, when you really think about it, it's it's actually very intuitive. People don't do things together when they have less in common with one another.

SPEAKER_01 36:01

I I that wasn't that wasn't my up my upbringing. Like like in South Auckland, I would say that there was more um social activity and it was more diverse. Like maybe it's the lowest socioeconomic thing. I wonder if it's got to do with that, because if you're working with diverse, because you know, I I left school really, really young, like about 14 or 15. I was digging holes at Pacific Steel and stuff, and the crews I was on were really multicultural, but they were completely free speech. So everyone was just having cracks at each other and having a great old time, you know. Um, but but the but this group was very social. And if I ever went to parties and stuff, we we weren't really in clicks the way um the way you're describing. I wonder if it's got to do with are these people also working together? You know, are they uh just how how close are the bonds in that community? Because in South Auckland, we we were mixed up on the league field, mixed up in uh on the process line at Massport, Pamure, all these places. I I just wonder if it's got to do with if there is an economic dimension to it. Or what sort of neighborhoods is he looking at, maybe? Because like a lot of policymakers, I was talking to Annie about this the other day on another podcast. A lot of people writing the policy that you're talking about that you would critique. I would question whether they have they had multicultural backgrounds, because they clearly have a cynicism towards multiculturalism. Even Paul Spernley, you know, the sociologist, who I think is probably a lovely man, if you spoke to him one-on-one, he thinks we need uh speech laws because the demographic demographics are changing. And I hear that and I think, well, that's that's a very cynical take on multiculturalism. He obviously believes that we need a quasi-police state in order to sort of get along. Um, that wasn't my experience.

SPEAKER_02 38:03

And that's our view of uh Chris M. Sorry to interrupt you. That's the view of um Chris Mans, who's the premier of New South Wales. He sort of said that explicitly. So that's created waves, you know. We um I bristled at that. Yeah, well, well, good. I mean, I want uh free speech too. So but I I think that the analysis, you know, the actual factual basis for it, it has something to it. We are seeing a demand for more uh hate speech laws and other types of uh, you know, uh social repression, but maybe mild social repression, at least uh initially, in order to manage tensions and multicultural societies. And we're seeing that, you know, in the UK, uh, where you know people are writing reporting mean tweets to the police. Uh you've got Starmer, you know, they're introducing, just introduced a new uh definition of uh being mean to Islamic people.

SPEAKER_01 38:58

Um Islamophobia, yeah.

Hate Speech Laws And Joel Davis

SPEAKER_02 39:00

Yeah, I didn't say that the right way, but you know what I mean. Yeah. Um and all sorts of other things. And in in Australia too, like we're we've got more of we've seen this as well. They've passed a bunch of hate speech laws recently banning um uh various types of groups, and and that's actually something I want to get to now is um uh so there's a there's a bloke called uh Joel Davis, who's he was a member of the National Socialist Uh Network in Australia, whatever you think of that group. Um, and um he is in jail now. Uh and the reason he's in jail is that he uh he said that a uh a sitting MP should be uh rhetorically raped uh for uh what you said. And I did look up what she said, but I can't quote it.

SPEAKER_01 39:48

That's the quote. He said rhetorically raped.

SPEAKER_02 39:51

He didn't say raped, he said rhetorically raped. Now that might not be a very nice thing to say, um, but it's definitely not something that you should be in jail for. And I think that you would agree with that, right?

SPEAKER_01 40:04

Uh yeah, I I completely agree with that. Um I don't I I don't think anyone should really go to jail for words unless uh unless it was uh a very clear direct call for violence uh against people. But but even then, I don't know. Like it would it would have to be very extreme for me. I I I'm I sit on the absolutist end. What really got me about the piece that you sent the newspaper article there is um I'm reading this and thinking, no, I wouldn't agree with this guy, obviously, and all that stuff. But then it said he was in prison when his was it first child was born?

SPEAKER_02 40:43

Yeah, yeah, I read that as well.

SPEAKER_01 40:45

Yeah, and then so I think to myself, okay, so he's gone to prison for words, he's missed the birth birth of his first child. You know, this is I mean, that's gonna create just so much resentment and bitterness and hurt. I I don't think it's solving any problem that they think that they're trying to solve. And and I was gonna say that just before we moved on to this. You said there is a call for more of the these hate speech laws, uh, you know, uh b because you know, uh in in England and all that kind of stuff, uh just because there's a call for them, it doesn't mean that uh that it is gonna make society better. It's not gonna make society better. And this is one of the and Graham Edgler made the point too, actually. It's like if you're sending people to prison for words you know, prison prison can often mean uh can often lead to generational trauma between parents and children. You know, this isn't a small thing. You know, you send someone to prison for something like that. No. I I mean to me, I don't even know what the crime is. I wouldn't even have them dig a garden outside a rest home for that. W what you know? I mean, the w the solution if there was a solution to it, if you thought there needed to be a solution to it, sit across a table from the person. Humanize each other. Have a discussion that way.

A Call To Defend Free Speech

SPEAKER_02 42:14

You know, I agree. I think that's and I think I'm glad that you said that. What what I would like to propose, if if I may be so bold, is a is a call to action to um on behalf of it's not really the New Zealand Free Speech Unions area, it's the Australian Free Speech Unions area. But I would like to see, you know, I'd like to see a call to action for uh free speech union, be it the New Zealand one, the Australian one, or or any of them, to uh to go into bat for Joel Davis, to kick up a bit of a fuss about it, to send some letters, to put something on social media about it. Um, because, you know, and this is something that you agree with, but defending free speech means that you have to defend, you know, your radicals. That some of the people um that you you may not disagree with, you may not like all the ways they go about things. Um, but you have to uh stick up for them and you have to defend their right to uh say what they're saying. And I think that's what needs to happen with uh Joel Davis. And I would invite the Free Speech Union to get involved and do something about it.

SPEAKER_01 43:10

I I'd have no problem with that. Like we um we have been commenting on Australia. I I've actually recorded a podcast with a um a UN uh special reporteur who who looked at the Australian speech laws and he sort of pulls them apart. Um I guess because it's overseas, we tend to speak a bit more generally about what's going on rather than cases. But that can be a bit tough um to do because we could we could be doing it all over the world, you know.

SPEAKER_02 43:37

But um Well, don't get me wrong. I mean, I think the Free Speech Union is great and uh and it does great work. But I think this is uh this is a particular thing that probably more that more could be done about.

SPEAKER_01 43:48

Yeah. I I the thing about Australia is like I I could I can't I I can't see us going down that road. Maybe I'm uh that might sound a bit frightening coming from a poor. member, but I think I think culturally and I'm quite surprised by this because I thought we would have fallen before Australia, but we haven't. You know. We we we we are holding on to I think the line is a bit different for Kiwis. And I don't know where that came from. Because like I said, I thought that O Aussies would have been would have fought this harder, but they're not, you know?

SPEAKER_02 44:23

Um yeah I think you've pointed you put your phone on something. I mean you that we are we have defended our free speech better in uh New Zealand than they have in Australia. Yeah I don't know why that is but I think there is something to that.

SPEAKER_01 44:33

Well well Jacob Michigama when he came here you know he he's he's based in the States now he was wandering around he was looking he was talking to people shaking hands and everything um and um and he said look New Zealand and America are kind of the outliers you know like it's generally quite a healthy um environment for speech here comparative to what it could be I I mean we are I don't want that to sound like therefore I'm gonna relax and sort of smoke a cigar this afternoon and just you know take away take the weight off I'm not gonna that's not what I'm saying.

SPEAKER_02 45:10

And I I I I do believe that we did a lot to sort of um you know frighten the last Labour government uh uh about their speech laws but um I would just I think you know a a thank you and uh well done uh is in is in order I think Free Speech Union did great work there so well done.

SPEAKER_01 45:28

Uh only because we've got a lot of supporters, you know they're they're the ones you're you know five or six people can't frighten a government but like supporters can. That's the difference. You know like it's it's having those people that are prepared to s to to do the submissions and and to uh and to feed back and write letters to MPs and all and and just become aware you know just become aware of where the dangers are. But um but but yeah like these people aren't the ones that really want it they're not going anywhere. You know they're still they're still around and so we're gonna you know there's new fights every week like new fights every week but no I think we have held held the line pretty well but no that that's a terrible story about that that young man because he's a young guy he's missed the birth of his child and the thing with look he could be a racist it's racism shouldn't be illegal I mean and you know if you're doing if you're beating the crap out of your curb stopping people okay that's different it's violence and everything um but uh but one one of the really distressing aspects of their hate speech laws is the whole idea of any any clubs that they deem hateful they'll just ban and um you know you and I think it comes down to one minister who's looking after it but there's no appeal you can't appeal it.

SPEAKER_02 46:56

Yeah well I mean the there probably could be some things I'd say about that but I just want to flip on to a different issue while we while we're talking about Australia and that's and I and I'm I'll just apologize to you in advance because it's about the the definition of anti-Semitism and the the reason this is important.

SPEAKER_01 47:14

So you're an experienced podcaster he's moving it along aren't you?

The IHRA Definition Under Scrutiny

SPEAKER_02 47:17

You know you I I never run the podcast I just appear on them. But the uh the definition of anti-Semit I've got kids coming back at three they're gonna be all over the room all right yeah maybe a wee bit after three my kids are adults now so I'm so anyway like that the definition of uh the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's uh definition of uh anti-Semitism I just wanted to go through that and point out some of the problems with it the reason I want to do that is because uh in Australia now they've had this uh a special envoys report into anti-Semitism it's uh they've got a another uh a review at a Royal Commission or something into the Bondi attack uh and the the special envoys report into anti-Semitism has wrecked it it wants to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of anti-Semitism and imbue it with you know like official uh uh official importance uh legal importance or at least quasi-legal importance and use it to inform uh hate speech laws they want to embed uh you know very teams of people across uh various institutions in Australian society in order to combat anti-Semitism that's exactly what happened in England um was it Javed Khan was he the conservative um minister of justice at one point under Cameron but he was saying operationally it might not be official but operationally yeah use the use the IHRA that's what that's I believe it was so this definition needs to be critiqued for that reason because it's going to be used in a in an official legal or quasi-legal uh capacity and it can be in the consensus people and the problem with it is it's incredibly overly broad so I've just I've got the tab open here if you just bear with me I'll just go through it. So there's several sort of uh bullet points here um and the first one is reasonable but but they get progressively less reasonable as you go down. So the first one says uh the definition of anti-Semitism point one is calling for aiding or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion. Now that point I don't have any problem with that point but as we carry on they get uh less and less reasonable I think so second point uh making mendacious dehumanizing demonizing or stereotypical allegations about Jews such as the power of Jews as a collective such as especially but not exclusively the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy of Jews controlling the media economy government and other societal institutions.

SPEAKER_01 49:54

Now what's ironic about that bullet point is that um the uh the anti-Semitism special envoy has recommended embedding uh special anti-Semitism groups into many of the institutions of Australian society presumably to you know gatekeep um anti-Semitic behavior out of it so it's not really a conspiracy when that's it's sort of uh they're recommending something akin to that in their official and you put you put your finger on something you know your answer is the point uh and is a point that I make all the time this doesn't help us it actually does ironically can affirm in many people's minds people that may have been either on the fence or a bit suspicious about Jews that that there there is a conspiracy to silence people I I thought let's go back a bit on the IHRA because and I think this is really important the the the person that came up with them didn't come up with them to use them to censor people but he saw them as a research tool for identifying anti-Semitism not for hate speech just in in study that he was doing right that's a bit different isn't it he was saying okay I've got a research team how are we going to identify anti-Semitism well we can do this we can do that we can do this we can do this he never foresaw it becoming law all over the world you know what I mean it was a research tool so that's something to consider um here yeah well thanks for pointing that out I think that's a really good point because when you're putting things into law for hate speech laws you really have to think carefully about what's caught and what's not but the other thing about that second point uh that Jews have influence or power I mean uh Jews particularly Ashkenazi Jews are a high IQ group and they do tend to be overrepresented uh you know in uh in the institutions in positions of power in the societies in which they live so it's not really you shouldn't be you should be able to talk about that uh if that's the case rather than uh censoring it.

SPEAKER_02 52:04

So point three, accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group or even for acts committed by non-Jews. Now what's crucial about that point is that accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real wrongdoing includes real wrongdoing. So this is really about um noticing patterns of behavior. If if a certain type of wrongdoing has been committed by Jews and people notice a pattern in that regard, it's it's considered anti-Semitic under this definition to point it out and talk about it. If you blame a real event or an imagined event it's not saying if you rightly point out it's about attributing things that an individual does to the group as a whole. But I mean all things that are done are done by individuals and it's legitimate to make generalizations and to notice patterns of of behavior.

SPEAKER_01 53:02

Well some well yeah some people are going to make those patterns I I've been having a back and forward with this guy uh uh on X for a while and and he he follows I know he follows you and you know we I I know I I I'm not always civil and you know that I'm not always civil but he you know he's pretty civil so I'll engage with him um and and and I've had some interesting back back and forwards with him he he got a German researcher to scold me at one point about Bolshevism right and and his theory is that you know Jews were disproportionately represented there and they were trying to say therefore it's sort of a Jewish thing right what I found interesting about it was uh everything else sort of fell away from the argument that that they they weren't considering communism or the ideology of communism or the context of czarist Russia or anything like that.

SPEAKER_02 54:01

They dismissed even though they couldn't disprove you know they didn't say it didn't happen but they said oh let's put that over there about all the pot like because they they said that one of the first things that happened was you know the Bolsheviks made anti-Semitism illegal well there you go and it's like well in those civil wars 5000 Jews died in pogroms from the anti-Bolshevik side side right and socialism was meant to be a universalist idea it's not surprising that they claimed at the time they wanted to get rid of all forms of racism you know they were communists that is this is this is the debate we should be having though whether that's is true or not uh we shouldn't be having a debate about we shouldn't be censoring people for saying it and no no no that that that that that's my point no we shouldn't be but what I'm what I'm basically saying is what I found interesting is because they were so fixed on the Jewish idea of what was going on there everything else sort of fell away until Lula I mean you're getting you're getting no argument from me there like there are people who fix hate on it yeah and and uh it uh you it does uh take a they they attribute it to everything and it does take away from articles.

SPEAKER_01 55:14

But I mean you know just to but it's a bit like like someone like Tucker Carlson right who I think is just getting worse and worse. Why you don't ban him and and why you wouldn't ban any of this stuff that you're talking about is because say he did a three hour podcast and and two hours and 58 set seconds of it was absolute garbage but two seconds or a minute at the end or whatever had this amazing insight that could help humanity.

SPEAKER_02 55:49

Well that justifies the whole podcast we have to hang on to it you know yeah well what I think Tucker is great and what he does is he surfaces a number of uh people and uh thinkers and ideas uh that otherwise might not have been surfaced might not have been uh presented I don't know why they might not have been I think it's but they might not have been presented before a a mainstream audience but that that doesn't mean that all the people he talks to uh are uh have good ideas or that all the ideas there are are are right but um it is you know it is good to put uh uh different perspectives that are have been excluded before is there a punk rock feel that oh he's saying what can't be spoken or what wasn't couldn't be said before is that sort of taking over rather than what he's saying is historically relevant and true and because like just the other day he was talking about Oswald Mosley and saying that he was the opposition in England and Churchill arrested him and he and he spent the war in prison.

SPEAKER_01 56:58

I mean that just wasn't true. And that was so demonstrably untrue like I I I don't I don't know what you what you see in him. You don't know what I see in Tucker and the well I mean I've explained it I mean he's he's talked to a lot of people But what about that I just thing I just said I mean he clearly he must either he's not very smart which I don't believe or he thought I'll I'll package this so it sounds like this guy was the leader of the opposition and and Churchill had imprisoned him.

SPEAKER_02 57:32

I I don't know that I don't I can't comment on it because I don't personally know the the details of the thing.

SPEAKER_01 57:38

Yeah it's it's a disturbing one dude.

SPEAKER_02 57:44

But I mean this is part of the debate though. I mean you I I would have thought that a a free speech union uh would agree that part of uh what needs to be done is expand the Overton window. So the the range so there's the you would agree that there's a there has been under political correctness for previous decades there has been a range of ideas and perspectives that have been excluded from the mainstream such that ordinary people don't believe in them not because they've they've thought about them and they've had a chance to see that they're incorrect but they they haven't they've never been uh given the opportunity to even consider them because they're excluded from the mainstream that that isn't that isn't right um we we need to get these perspectives uh into the mainstream and under critical examination well that's what he's doing yeah no I agree with that I'm not canceling him I like I said to you you know if if there were two minutes of his podcast that had worth I wouldn't cancel a three hour podcast like because because if you cancel anyone anyone can hold truth is what I'm saying anyone can hold some truth and then I don't understand the criticism of that you're making there like if you think it's good to get these uh stigmatized perspectives out into the public and that's what he's doing then isn't he doing a good thing? Like what what's the criticism?

SPEAKER_01 59:04

No he's not doing a good thing he's doing a bad thing. The good thing would be someone challenging him now they're out there and going after them and going this is why you're wrong and by doing that getting people interested in real history and well I think both sides of the both sides of that are good aren't they?

SPEAKER_02 59:23

I mean it's good to get uh devalued you know suppressed and censored perspectives it's good to give them the the light of day and it's good to have them uh yeah you yeah you're sort of uh I I wouldn't call this a perspective I'd call this an untruth like Oswald Mosley and it's unfair because you haven't read what he said you know um but you know that he was ahead of the the the local the people well I mean people deliberately putting uh things that they know to be untrue into the public domain that I mean we can say that there's a there's an an ethical problem with that but but it's uh so that you know that's deliberately spreading things that you it's polluting the the public space but conflating that with uh putting ideas that you you know that you don't know are untrue into the public space in order to you know like have them critically examined that's a different sort of a thing so um yeah promo yeah lying is bad uh promoting lies things that you know are lies that's bad too yeah but but I guess the the the the upside is if uh that uh and this is the Holocaust denial um uh uh argument I I I use a bit and I know people in the community differ with me on this some of them um like when Candace Owens was cut coming over people were like well she's a Holocaust denier and I said well then we we need to take her on we need to spend the week she's here um doing news uh you know putting putting the our facts on the table and everything oh don't use it don't use it you know don't stoop to her level and all that stuff and I'll say no no that's the that's what we should do like if if someone was to um uh put put anything out there that you thought was untrue and you had any sort of platform to correct it and you held on to knowledge you know you have an obligation to share that knowledge and say this is untrue because you know you're not gonna flip everyone on it but there it is going to open doors for some people and I think that's important you know I mean to to not do it is a sort of lost opportunity for it's a lost opportunity public public education or public debate or you know an important issue.

Speaking Under Your Name Or Anonymous

SPEAKER_01 1:01:48

Yeah all of that yeah well your children are going to be back any time but it this this hour went very fast. I really enjoyed it um and uh you know we're gonna have to do it again if well if you enjoyed it you know uh I liked it I don't know if he liked it you'll tell me uh no I did other very good very great your uh good good uh a good podcast day thank you no that's good well there's a lot we could talk about um and uh and we obviously um agree on on quite a few things um oh we have differences too but we can talk about it which is good and it's always better when it's face to face um uh even though this is virtual it's it's close enough in the modern era isn't it so that's that's all good. Um look uh you know I and I've said this to you in person when I said when I met you down in Wellington where where I have a lot of respect for you is that you are prepared to put your name to what you say and you're very you know you know you don't you don't play around like I I I mean are you I wouldn't even call you a provocateur. I think you're just sort of laying it out there as you see it and um but but the thing is you you know your name is to it and and and that does take courage and I think that needs to be um admired because a lot of people you know there's many people that might be inclined to to to say some of the things that you've said but they do it behind an anonymous account and uh and I don't think people quite realise how much that even though I know the risks of the modern era um you know it depowers your narrative I think. I mean would you agree?

SPEAKER_02 1:03:38

I think I I understand why people gravitate towards the anonymous account but it does I I think it does rob you of some mana actually I agree that there's there's more mana involved in uh doing things uh to your own name to to your own face particularly when there's risk or cost involved doing it but anonymous accounts uh have value as well they allow uh truths unpopular truths to be uh put out into the public arena that might otherwise not get out there because the the person would be uh identified and uh punishment uh brought brought to bear on them and so they allow some uh you know whistleblowers and things like that anonymous accounts are great for that sort of thing but uh thank you for the compliments thank you for the kind words let me uh let me uh return them back to you so you knew ahead of time that I was going to say critical things of uh uh Jews and I was going to bring up Joel Davis on the program and you're willing to have me on anyway and so that I think is uh praiseworthy. Uh so thank you for doing that.

SPEAKER_01 1:04:41

No no no no no problem at all I mean I I'm very clear that these I mean look you could argue it's a selfish position. I I I believe hate speech laws can only hurt our community. I I I think they've really hurt the trans community. The trans community for many is associated with censorship now. And I know some trans people and that's not who they are they're the people I know are lovely people. But the people pushing for hate speech laws have really tarred a lot of these people very unfairly. So this is an existential threat to minorities. I honestly believe that um good relations are important but we don't want anything throwing up walls between us which is exactly what they would be.

SPEAKER_02 1:05:30

So that would be my position on that no I agree and I think you know in general the uh we we live in a uh majority sort of British derived society. One of the great strengths of uh British culture, British society, the society that uh we are descended from that we now inhabit is it it is probably to a higher level than perhaps any other society or culture in history it's uh fostered this uh ideal of free speech um of uh you know free Free and open conversation. And that has been part of our competitive advantage as a society. It has enabled us to make great scientific and technological breakthroughs because we're prepared to go where no man has gone before. It has allowed us to have the most vibrant and dynamic sort of political culture, has enabled great personal freedom. So I think that that's something valuable and worth protecting about our society.

Final Thoughts And How To Connect

SPEAKER_00 1:06:26

Thank you for listening to Free2Speak. 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. If 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.