Political rally: David Seymour's anti-awake party

At the weekend, the leader of the law, David Seymour, has revived his party in a way that will polarize the electorate, triggering hatred and respect. At the center of this latest attempt to reinvent the party, there is a firm focus on political freedoms and "freedom of speech" – which aligns Seymour's party with a variant of right-wing populism and an anti-establishment idealism that resonates. widely in other parts of the world. world.

This is a change that could well ensure the survival of the law – and perhaps even its growth – in elections next year. By repositioning the party as a kind of Contrary to what Seymour sees as the "waking" liberal establishment that is reformulating New Zealand politics, Act may be more relevant than it has been for a long time.

The question has a growing potential for winning votes. As Graham Adams argues today, "Seymour has undoubtedly calculated that it is a sleep problem that will attract new voters, even among those who should normally keep their noses. other policies that may displease them "- see: Can the defense of freedom of expression improve the fortune of David Seymour? .

Adams also claims that putting the emphasis on political freedoms enshrined in Act's traditional libertarian philosophies: "Seymour has decided to fight for freedom of expression." Act has always been a party that is dedicated to keeping the state arm out of its lives (and its pockets) in a way that National claims often do not be.This is a topic – such as medical aid in dying – that is appropriate perfectly to Act's liberal philosophy. "

Of course, at the base, Seymour's new political act party is still the same economically right-wing party that it has always been. At the weekend conference, we witnessed the usual reaffirmation of these values ​​and principles with the return of Roger Douglas's style policies around lump-sum tax bills, education vouchers and reduction of bureaucracy. The rose touch that has been added to the party logo should not be considered as much more than an indication to soften the old-fashioned image of the party.

There are reasons to be skeptical as to why Seymour motivated the reorientation of Act towards the Zeitgeist problems of freedom of speech and hate speech. In the past, Act and Seymour have certainly sunk into political despair and opportunism at times. Their last annual conference in August was embarrassing to see how much the party was inclined to populism and social conservatism. At the time, I wrote that the party might lose the last semblance of a consistent appeal or a political soul – see my column, The death of the party of the act .

However, Seymour's position on freedom of expression seems to be genuine. He has pushed such positions on political freedom for some time. Moreover, this last reorientation has something very different. This is partly because the ideological landscape has changed so much in recent months. It is a response to the Christchurch massacre, but also to the proliferation of "culture wars" and debates about personal behavior and speech.

Of course, the government has also announced its intention to strengthen the hate speech laws. Clearly, Seymour is aware of the growing divide around issues of political freedoms and is positioning himself strongly on one side. These divisions related to "culture wars" must be taken seriously, as they could still have a significant impact on New Zealand politics.

For Seymour, which he has exposed this weekend, the political left has become increasingly illiberal and authoritarian. This is best described in the article by Nicholas Jones, "The intolerant left" wants to censor your thoughts and your speeches, said party leader David Seymour .

Seymour suggests that the political left has now renounced the principles it previously defended in terms of political freedoms: "For a long time we could count on the liberal left to defend freedom of expression. would leave your thoughts and opinions. "

As this article explains, Seymour has announced a new "Freedom of speech" policy aimed at reforming existing laws regarding hate speech. Apparently, a deputy's bill "would repeal parts of the law that made it illegal to speak out against him, was abusive or insulting, and could" provoke hostility "towards a group of people or to make him scorn for color reasons, race Seymour said today that the bill would remove from the Human Rights Act the words "abusive" and "insulting" and would only "threaten" As a crime. "

Seymour explains: "Insulting or abusing someone with a language, should never be a crime, because no one should ever be punished on the basis of a subjective opinion."

Seymour also made Saturday in Newshub's Nation to explain his new law on "freedom of speech" that he intends to submit to Parliament as a private member's bill – see: The offensive of the Nazis and racists, but should not be stopped – David Seymour .

As the article that accompanies this interview explains, "Seymour wants the Kiwis to have the right to be offended without having to fear being arrested." Instead, he hopes that "contempt and ridicule" will prevent racists from spreading their poisoned opinions.

In the interview, Seymour also addressed the Human Rights Commission, explaining that he would abolish it, stating: "As an electoral deputy, I went to the Human Rights Commission and I asked him to help him with his constituents, the hills ".

Liberal / illiberal backlash

Seymour's bill and its move to a campaign on freedom of expression sparked a strong reaction. Newshub reported that Matthew Tukaki, chairman of the Maori Council, asserted that Seymour's bill was a "racket of protection for those who think it's their right to call me a", and besides, "I tell David Seymour if you were black and someone called you a ************, or a big black bastard or a black c ***, you would like to have protection and a right of court challenge "- see: A Maori leader "sick and tired" advocates of freedom of expression looking for an "excuse to call me the N-word" .

Besides that Tukaki associates Seymour to racism ("This is not South Africa from the time of apartheid where he has to choose which names are called people of color, like me" ), this article reports that attorney Thomas Harre asserts that courts need to have the power to decide whether certain statements are "freedom of expression or something that should be punished".

Another lawyer, Thomas Beagle, chairman of the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties, suggested that reforming Seymour's speech laws would be bad for civil liberties: "The problem we're seeing these days is that people use the speech to stop other people speaking, they use it to delete certain groups "- see Ollie Ritchie David Seymour bitter against Free Speech Bill .

Beagle also said, "I think this could be a dangerous approach because a lot of speech is very harmful to people, and when we look at the laws of change, we have to worry about the harm as well as the freedom to expression".

Many media have condemned Seymour's position on freedom of expression. On Twitter, for example, a number of journalists expressed disgust and disagreement with Seymour's position. For example, Philip Matthews, Stuff's reporter, tweeted, "I do not think David Seymour is a Nazi or a racist, but there is no question that he's trying (and will not succeed) to seize an opportunity which is offered to him by the murder of 51 Muslims .I would like him to have rethought it. "

On the other hand, Duncan Garner of the AM Show supported this morning: "I think it's dangerous to limit freedom of expression – it's a hot debate right now." The chief of the law, David Seymour, made some good arguments over the weekend, so you have to be very careful not to pass too many laws and rules about what we can and can not say "- see: The government's crackdown on freedom of expression is dangerous for all of us .

An ongoing campaign for Seymour

This weekend was not the first time that Seymour was frank or controversial about speech or political freedoms. In recent months, he has written several opinion pieces on his concerns. For example, last month he explained how Now more than ever we must defend the freedom of expression . In this, he argues that freedom of expression is vital in a democracy because it helps to solve problems and allows open debate. On the other hand, he argues that hate speech laws are counterproductive: "laws that criminalize offensive opinions are likely to create resentment and anger rather than heal hatred".

It poses three challenges to advocates of increasing hate speech laws: "Here are three important questions for those who favor strong hate speech laws:" How to define hate speech? Who can define it? And how can we trust these people not to use the laws of hate speech to suppress ideas they do not like? "

For another useful example of Seymour putting forward his arguments against an opponent, see the TVNZ question and answer debate: Deputies David Seymour and Louisa Wall vie for Israel Folau affair during hate speech debate .

Seymour faced a much more controversial confrontation, saying that Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman was "a real threat to freedom in this country" because of his campaigns on hate speech. This provoked a strong reaction, not only from the Greens, but also from Judith Collins, who condemned Seymour's language – see: David Seymour, Leader of the Act, accused by Golriz Ghahraman .

At the time, Ghahraman was threatened by white supremacists, which required improving his parliamentary security. For the chief's response to all this, see Belinda Feek David Seymour: I'm not racist, it's "absolutely nonsense" & # 39; .

Seymour claimed that the clashes with Ghahraman had resulted in increased offers of help for his party – with a 30 percent increase in membership and improved fundraising. According to a report: "Seymour qualifies his speech as public" freedom of expression "with Green deputy Golriz Ghahraman as an unexpected donor, giving money during this week was the best week of the party since that he was president and probably for ten years, he said "- see Collette Devlin Is it the last sacraments of the Act party or its rebirth? .

Finally, where is the national party in all this? And does Seymour also criticize the main right-wing party for its position on freedom of expression? For the best discussion on this subject, see Graham Adams & # 39; Simon Bridges gets entangled in hate speech debate .