NZ Politics

Yo! It's all good if I necro-post? I think in general it isn't a bad idea to let people rent out a room and then advertise an event at their own expense?

When Lord Monckton came to New Zealand and spoke at a private venue I went to that event. Climate change is an area of government policy which affects the economy and our lives. I oppose the crazy ideas that they have in Europe, like wanting to phase out petrol cars by 2035, and allowing EVs into some central city areas but banning petrol cars. These ideas must be challenged, because not everybody is a rich political elite, living in Wellington, who drives a car worth $20,000 - $120,000. I can't afford to buy a Nissan Leaf, and I don't want crazy climate change fanatics to go unchallenged. It isn't about "denial". Usually it's the case that we simply don't like certain policies because they are sometimes more of an ideological goal, a benchmark, rather than a certain reality.

I disagree with your opinion that some views don't deserve a platform, or that some views deserve less time, or perhaps less reach. There's no reason to reduce the amount of speaking time, I mean are universities just short on time these days or something? In the worst scenario, I think that less popular speakers should be allowed a platform and access to a live stream. That way, even if they had a limited time slot, they could still talk for much longer via a stream, or something like that. Then people can follow the full speech and watch a replay, and not miss anything.

We are reaching ridiculous levels of paranoia over free speech and foreign influence. I personally don't care about any debate about maori language or the treaty, it always attracts the same crowds of people. Instead of bickering over co-governance, why don't we just do something simple, like build houses that people can actually afford, so we don't have maori people living in poverty? Instead of bickering over power politics, do something useful. If people want to argue over stuff, let them, but I'm not interested in most of it.

Each university will then have to adopt a "freedom of speech statement" consistent with the central government's expectations.

The changes will also prohibit tertiary institutions from adopting positions on issues that do not relate to their core functions.

free speech, but not that free speech

This is the thing.

The Freeze Peach morons were campaigning recently to allow Candace Owens in on free speech grounds, as if she doesn't already have a massive platform to speak whatever she wants.

Freedom for individuals to express themselves how they want isn't the same as forcing venues or institutions to host that expression if they don't want to.

I think the problem is that some views do not deserve to have a platform. In theory, having a reasoned discussion about climate change is a good thing and should be welcomed at a university. In practice, someone coming to a university to talk about how climate change is not real is not going to have a reasoned discussion. Saying the university should not take sides is good in theory, but in practice allowing equal time for climate change deniers as for climate change supporters in the name of free speech does not actually support free speech (given the supporters are 97%).

Its not that easy to narrow down what the scope of a University's expertise would be though - take Victoria University of Wellington. Let's look at say, the Arts department because they have one and I know some about it.

Would you say that VUW can thus allow expression on any topic of study that Arts schools typically study because the methodology across any of the specific topics is broadly lumped together?

Or, is it no, they can only talk about History, if within the Arts school they have a History Department? Well in that case, should they be expressing opinions on all of History, or only on those areas of History that they actually study?

OK well within that History department they are teaching courses on Pacific History, US History, some periods of European History so they can only opine on that.

Or should they only be allowed to talk on the specific periods / topics of US History that they are running courses on? Or should they only be allowed to talk about particular methods of Historical study when called upon so Dolores Janiewski (who was an awesome lecturer 20 odd years ago when I was there) is only allowed to talk about I dunno 20th Century US Feminism?

Realistically the people who could determine whether or not someone has enough expertise to be considered an expert opinion are the Universities.

Re the WCC asking the Government to butt out, that isn't a matter of expertise but more one of jurisdiction, democratic rights responsibilities & freedom than a matter of free speech.