Karl du Fresne on Free Speech and Rachel Stewart

NZ Herald columnist Rachel Stewart

Karl du Fresne writes about free speech and Herald columnist Rachel Stewart:

New Zealand Heraldcolumnist Rachel Stewart is a true champion of free speech. Except, that is, when someone wants to say something she doesn?t like.

In her column this week she savaged an occasional?Otago Daily Times?columnist named Dave Witherow. Witherow is guilty of the unpardonable sin of being (like me) an ageing, conservative male.In the eyes of the left-leaning bigots who have acquired almost total control of the public conversation in New Zealand, this automatically disqualifies him from having a valid opinion on anything.

What specifically pushed Stewart?s buttons is that Witherow wrote a column criticising Maori Language Week ? or as he put it, ?media apologists the length and breadth of the land prostrating themselves before the holy altar of te reo?.

Gee, I might be in trouble too. I think MLW is a crock.

He was especially critical of Radio New Zealand. ?For the last couple of years,? Witherow wrote, ?RNZ has been ahead of the pack in obsequiousness. Everything indigenous is sacrosanct, and even formerly redoubtable interviewers now shrink from the slightest demur when boring bigots drone on about the mana of all things native.?

Witherow used provocative language, as he?s entitled to do, and duly copped a barrage of self-righteous condemnation.

He’s not wrong though he is merely stating his opinion. Seems those are endangered these days.

One of the more frenzied responses came from someone named Glenn McConnell, who was described as a?Stuff?reporter. That word ?reporter? used to mean someone who reported, but that was before journalism training was politicised and new entrants to the profession were inculcated with the view that their mission was to correct the world?s iniquities. Many of them struggle to string three coherent words together, but they can spot sexism and racism a mile off and never hesitate to pass judgment. So McConnell had no compunction in labelling Witherow as a racist and accusing him of ?casual bigotry?.

Hmmm. I wonder who the real bigots are here, but we?ll come back to that.

Every time I hear “woman of colour” or “old white men” from SJBs and virtue-signallers we are hearing casual bigotry.

McConnell condescendingly allowed that most racists don?t know they?re racist. Ah, but he knows a racist when he sees one. Such are the superior moral insights conferred by modern journalism training.

Meanwhile, on the news website?The Spinoff, Madeleine Chapman (no, I hadn?t heard of her, either) indulged in her own casual bigotry. She apologised for having to condemn yet another ?bad column? (sigh ? it?s just?so?tiresome having to constantly correct all these knuckle-dragging reactionaries) but justified it by saying she hoped it would be ?the last goodbye to a generation of old men standing on their media platforms, yelling at clouds?.

You almost have to admire the conceit underlying that statement. Chapman seems to think the irresistible force of her argument will shock people like Witherow into silence. Good luck with that, as they say.

Casual sexism, but since she is attacking old men that seems to be OK.

Another?Spinoff?contributor, Danyl Mclauchlan, categorised Witherow as representative of a ?mostly older, mostly Pakeha subset of the population? whom he said were routinely provoked into outrage by Maori Language Week. Mclauchlan sneeringly referred to ?drunken uncles at summer barbecues, bores holding forth in work tea-rooms and columnists and cartoonists on provincial papers?, all perpetuating their own ignorant versions of New Zealand history.

The test-tube washer speaks…all bow and hail such erudite proclamations.

(If I can slightly digress here, you can?t help but note a striking consistency in both?Spinoff pieces. In an era when the Left is vigilant to the point of obsession in condemning stereotypes and prejudice, the one form of discrimination that?s not just tolerated but encouraged is the disparaging of older white males.?The epithet ?male, pale and stale? now serves as a coded synonym for someone who is misogynistic, racist, homophobic and stubbornly resistant to everything that?s progressive and enlightened. It?s a caricature, used to dismiss the legitimacy of anything that older white men might say or any opinions they might hold. So much for the Left?s supposed embrace of diversity.)

Yep, they can’t see their own sexism, racism and ageism.

Witherow?s column also attracted the inevitable admonishment from Race Relations Commissioner Susan Devoy, who unfortunately has emulated her immediate predecessor, Joris De Bres, by morphing into a tedious, finger-wagging prig.? But the most poisonous attack, and I use the word deliberately, came from Stewart.

Stewart has the gall to say she believes in free speech ? ?absolutely? ? before going on to say she ?struggles with what basically amounts to gratuitous hate speech?. But she can?t have it both ways.

Oh but she will. These socialist whinge-bags always can contort themselves.

What she really wants is to deny Witherow a right that she claims for herself ? that of free speech. She goes a step further by attacking the?Otago Daily Times?for publishing his column and therefore, in her eyes, being complicit in hate speech.

That?s why I describe her attack as poisonous. In a breathtaking display of moral and intellectual conceit, Stewart wants us to accept that her opinion is legitimate and noble while that of Witherow is hateful and contemptible. But she can?t exercise her own right of free speech while simultaneously seeking to deny it to others. A democratic society is built on the contestability of ideas. The moment any set of ideas is outlawed, democracy is diminished. Enlightened leftists (that is, those who can genuinely lay claim to the honourable term ?liberal?) realise that. Stewart either can?t, or doesn?t want to.

Scientists are the latest to subscribe to the views of Rachel Stewart, they are even resorting to suing people who stand up to them and hold different views, using lawfare to silence.

In any case, who defines ?hate speech?? Stewart doesn?t explain, so I?ll attempt it for her. Hate speech, in the eyes of some on the Left (not everyone, by any means), can essentially be defined as any opinion that runs counter to identity politics. This is the ideology that seeks to polarise society by breaking it down into supposedly oppressed minority groups, all pursuing their own divisive agendas, and which assesses everything in Western civilisation ? art, literature, history, politics, the media ? in terms of class, race and gender.

Playing the ?hate speech? card is one of a range of tactics now routinely employed to marginalise any opinion the Left doesn?t like. Others include dismissing any expression of conservative opinion as a ?rant?, thus implying it?s the product of a deranged mind, or caricaturing even moderately right-of-centre opinion as extreme, as New Zealand writer Ben Mack did in a hysterical, pants-wetting?Washington Post?column describing New Zealand First as a ?far right? party and its involvement in the coalition government as ?terrifying?. (The headline read:?How the far right is poisoning New Zealand. Notwithstanding my own detestation of Winston Peters and his role in the shonky formation of the new government, I didn?t recognise the country portrayed in that headline and I don?t know any New Zealander who would.)

?Denier? and ?denialist? (which are used in the context of the climate change debate to imply that global warming sceptics are on a par with Jew-hating Holocaust deniers) are part of this repertoire of attack too, along with the terms ?racist?, ?sexist?, ?homophobe? and ?misogynist? ? all of which are used to portray the person so labelled as either stupid, evil or both, and thus to shame or intimidate them into silence. The ultimate objective of this strategy is to redefine the boundaries of public discourse so as to exclude anything that doesn?t conform to the neo-Marxist agenda.

Every time someone calls me a homophobe I point out to them I am not afraid of anyone, and I’m definitely not afraid of poofs.

But here?s the thing. Stewart?s entitled to fume all she likes about hate speech, just as long as she doesn?t attempt to shut other people down. I?m not in the habit of attacking other columnists and wouldn?t be criticising her here if she hadn?t stepped over that line. (Incidentally, I don?t know of any conservative group that argues people like her should be silenced. It?s always those on the Left who seek to stifle opinions that upset them.)

She may be wrong, but I still think she can say what she wants. Same with the rat-faced Nicky Hager. While Hager sought to silence me, I have never sought to silence him, even though he used stolen emails to present a slanted view.

Now, back to McConnell, the?Stuff?columnist who accuses Witherow of bigotry. But who are the real bigots in this debate? My Oxford dictionary defines a bigot as an obstinate and intolerant believer in a religion or political theory. If that accusation is going to be hurled at Witherow, then it should be thrown right back at some of those attacking him. People should never make the mistake of equating bigotry with conservatism. Some of the most resolutely closed minds I?ve encountered have belonged to diehard lefties.

Fortunately there are left-leaning commentators who see the danger of the route people like Stewart would take us down. They are prepared to defend Witherow?s right to an opinion, and the?ODT?s right to publish it, even if they don?t agree with what he says. On?Pundit, for example, Tim Watkin described Witherow?s column as insulting and narrow-minded (fair enough), but drew the line ?when criticism becomes an attack on civil debate and free speech?. And in the?Herald, veteran writer Gordon McLachlan chided Stewart for thinking her own opinion sacrosanct. She should accept, he wrote, that she was not in command of ultimate truths.

Amen to that, but I suspect Stewart is so wrapped up in her own conceit, and so lacking in critical self-awareness, that reasoned criticism will fly straight over her head.


I can just hear the shrieking about this column from Stewart. I’ll bet her next tirade is against Karl.


-Karl du Fresne