If hate speech be defined as “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”, then surely Mr Broadbent's 'attack' (certainly in writing and threatened attack in behaviour) on Jonathan Ayling -- on the grounds that he has the 'identity factor' of belonging to the Free Speech Union -- IS ITSELF hate speech. Therefore, to take the thing to its logical conclusion, Mr Broadbent himself should be deplatformed -- at least prevented from publishing his 'hate speech' in Salient, if not actually excluded from the campus. But perhaps Victoria University has stopped teaching logic, as well as abrogating its (legal)? responsibility to act as "the critic and conscience of society".
Of course. The free exchange of ideas. It would by hypocritical of me to deny the devil rights of advocacy. In saying that I am reminded of Robert Bolt's comment in "A Man for All Seasons" where Thomas More said he would give the Devil benefit of law for his own safety's sake. It is a lovely scene and very inspiring but historically at odds with the way the real Thomas More thought and believed. He would never have given the Devil benefit of law and indeed was a fanatical pursuer (and burner) of heretics.
I occasionally listen to Sean Plunket when he's "interviewing" someone whose opinion interests me. I dislike his hectoring, bullying style but his bulldog approach takes no prisoners which is sometimes necessary to stop subjects sliding sideways. Such a subject was Victoria University's Student Association president, Marcail Parkinson, she who complained about the proposed debate on free speech and who was partly instrumental in having it modified. She was particularly incensed by the inclusion of the Free Speech Union, claiming they were racist (among other things), but when pressed she was unable to give specific examples of this, just generalities and hearsay. But hey, this doesn't matter, they support allowing the expression of all points of view, ergo they are right-wing and damaging and must be stopped.
OK, I'll spell it out. Firstly, I agree with everything you say, Halfling. But you've missed my point. What I was trying to say (hopefully without upsetting anyone)! was that the University administrator who cancelled this gig in the first place obviously DID consider this illogical and contradictory argument in Salient -- and should have seen that it was illogical and self-contradictory. In other words; Dear Victoria University administration, you got it wrong. You should have dismissed the argument written by Mr Broadbent, with a note to the author (copied to Salient) about your reasons for dismissing it (i.e. that this is a University, where illogical and self-contradictory arguments don't cut the mustard).
OK, so you didn't do that. You caved. What's done is done. Starting from where we are now: having hopefully now realised the illogicality and contradictoriness of this student's argument -- YOU SHOULD UNCANCEL THE GIG forthwith AND BE PLEASED TO HOST THIS DEBATE.
Full disclosure: I am not a member of the Free Speech Union (and to be honest was not particularly impressed by the only public meeting I've been to which was convened specifically to hear Mr Ayling). But that being said, I strongly believe that all this hate speech nonsense is nothing but an attempt by our globalist infiltrators to CONTROL the populace of every country -- as Tucker Carlson would put it "SHUT UP! You're a RACIST and a FASCIST!!". (Amusingly, I have actually had those very words shouted at me in a public market down the road from where I live. Ooh this politics business is a blood sport around here) !
But more to the point perhaps, I am a congenital optimist. Despite the fact that all the universities in NZ (along with almost the entire medical and teaching professions) have in my view behaved utterly disgracefully wrt the covid and climate scams, I still believe it is POSSIBLE for those important institutions to wake up and return to their stated purposes. One of which purposes, in the case of universities, is specifically to act as " the critic and conscience of society". And because I'm an optimist, I think hosting the gig in question with a good grace would be an excellent way to start that return. After all, you're supposed to be teaching your students to think critically. This would be a good way to do that.
(Got it now, Halfling? Thank you for your service. )
Thanks for your very good article. I guess I would say that wouldn't I, because I agree with your every point...... but who wouldn't, it just makes sense and stands up for the most basic principle of a democracy. So perplexing and worrying that the quality of these uni students' thinking is so poor. I really like your 'Marcusian miasma' 😆
Yes of course :-) My point was just that BY HIS OWN DEFINITION and mores, Mr Broadbent should be deplatformed! In other words, he's not only wrong, but catastrophically illogical with it.
Can't agree. That his argument may be illogical and contradictory should be expressed for the world to see. You can't evaluate an unexpressed or deplatformed argument
Wonderful writing which had me laughing out loud in sheer delight of truth be spoken.
You are correct, speech gives away (insight) the speakers motivation. We should all be Shakespearean in fearlessness of commenting on our human condition.
Shakespeare for 'freaking out' would be a succinct 'afeard' (afraid frightened scared) and one must ask what are the students afraid of?
Thanks Pamela - I am glad you enjoyed it. It was fun to write it up as well and it hyad a life of its own.
Indeed - afeard was used more than 30 times by Shakespeare but was rare in literature after 1700 when it was supplanted by afraid. I was fascinated to find out that afeard comes from Middle English afered, going back to Old English āfǣred past participle of āfǣran "to frighten.
In other words (if you will excuse the pun) it is a very "English" word - none of that Latin or Norman nonsense sneaking in.
It’s the world we live in - the demands and views of immature teens and twenty somethings are given far to weight in the important discussions that are always taking place as society processes change. A Vice Chancellor who allows himself to be emotionally blackmailed by young “adults” who have yet to earn their stripes proving they are worthy of the name. Deep sigh & much shaking of the head.
If hate speech be defined as “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”, then surely Mr Broadbent's 'attack' (certainly in writing and threatened attack in behaviour) on Jonathan Ayling -- on the grounds that he has the 'identity factor' of belonging to the Free Speech Union -- IS ITSELF hate speech. Therefore, to take the thing to its logical conclusion, Mr Broadbent himself should be deplatformed -- at least prevented from publishing his 'hate speech' in Salient, if not actually excluded from the campus. But perhaps Victoria University has stopped teaching logic, as well as abrogating its (legal)? responsibility to act as "the critic and conscience of society".
Oh dear - I can't go along with the idea of deplatforming Mr Broadbent. 2 reasons:
1. I don't accept his definition of hate speech ergo what he says in my book is not hate speech.
2. Because I advocate freedom of expression Mr. Broadbent is entitled to express his point of view (Viewpoint neutrality).
Of course we can’t go along with the idea but we do love the devil advocating a bit now and the to drive home a point right?
Of course. The free exchange of ideas. It would by hypocritical of me to deny the devil rights of advocacy. In saying that I am reminded of Robert Bolt's comment in "A Man for All Seasons" where Thomas More said he would give the Devil benefit of law for his own safety's sake. It is a lovely scene and very inspiring but historically at odds with the way the real Thomas More thought and believed. He would never have given the Devil benefit of law and indeed was a fanatical pursuer (and burner) of heretics.
I occasionally listen to Sean Plunket when he's "interviewing" someone whose opinion interests me. I dislike his hectoring, bullying style but his bulldog approach takes no prisoners which is sometimes necessary to stop subjects sliding sideways. Such a subject was Victoria University's Student Association president, Marcail Parkinson, she who complained about the proposed debate on free speech and who was partly instrumental in having it modified. She was particularly incensed by the inclusion of the Free Speech Union, claiming they were racist (among other things), but when pressed she was unable to give specific examples of this, just generalities and hearsay. But hey, this doesn't matter, they support allowing the expression of all points of view, ergo they are right-wing and damaging and must be stopped.
OK, I'll spell it out. Firstly, I agree with everything you say, Halfling. But you've missed my point. What I was trying to say (hopefully without upsetting anyone)! was that the University administrator who cancelled this gig in the first place obviously DID consider this illogical and contradictory argument in Salient -- and should have seen that it was illogical and self-contradictory. In other words; Dear Victoria University administration, you got it wrong. You should have dismissed the argument written by Mr Broadbent, with a note to the author (copied to Salient) about your reasons for dismissing it (i.e. that this is a University, where illogical and self-contradictory arguments don't cut the mustard).
OK, so you didn't do that. You caved. What's done is done. Starting from where we are now: having hopefully now realised the illogicality and contradictoriness of this student's argument -- YOU SHOULD UNCANCEL THE GIG forthwith AND BE PLEASED TO HOST THIS DEBATE.
Full disclosure: I am not a member of the Free Speech Union (and to be honest was not particularly impressed by the only public meeting I've been to which was convened specifically to hear Mr Ayling). But that being said, I strongly believe that all this hate speech nonsense is nothing but an attempt by our globalist infiltrators to CONTROL the populace of every country -- as Tucker Carlson would put it "SHUT UP! You're a RACIST and a FASCIST!!". (Amusingly, I have actually had those very words shouted at me in a public market down the road from where I live. Ooh this politics business is a blood sport around here) !
But more to the point perhaps, I am a congenital optimist. Despite the fact that all the universities in NZ (along with almost the entire medical and teaching professions) have in my view behaved utterly disgracefully wrt the covid and climate scams, I still believe it is POSSIBLE for those important institutions to wake up and return to their stated purposes. One of which purposes, in the case of universities, is specifically to act as " the critic and conscience of society". And because I'm an optimist, I think hosting the gig in question with a good grace would be an excellent way to start that return. After all, you're supposed to be teaching your students to think critically. This would be a good way to do that.
(Got it now, Halfling? Thank you for your service. )
Sorry Susan
I got your point, now with the sharp end. Much and all as it may irritate you we must leave the matter where we disagree.
Thanks for your very good article. I guess I would say that wouldn't I, because I agree with your every point...... but who wouldn't, it just makes sense and stands up for the most basic principle of a democracy. So perplexing and worrying that the quality of these uni students' thinking is so poor. I really like your 'Marcusian miasma' 😆
Thanks Sheryl. The "Marcuisan miasma" kinda wrote itself......
Marcusian Minefield ?
For the influence of Marcuse see https://djhdcj.substack.com/p/free-speech-ambivalence-cancellation?utm_source=publication-search
Yes of course :-) My point was just that BY HIS OWN DEFINITION and mores, Mr Broadbent should be deplatformed! In other words, he's not only wrong, but catastrophically illogical with it.
Can't agree. That his argument may be illogical and contradictory should be expressed for the world to see. You can't evaluate an unexpressed or deplatformed argument
It looks like Universities have become bastions of white fragility. Massey is no better than Vic.
Wonderful writing which had me laughing out loud in sheer delight of truth be spoken.
You are correct, speech gives away (insight) the speakers motivation. We should all be Shakespearean in fearlessness of commenting on our human condition.
Shakespeare for 'freaking out' would be a succinct 'afeard' (afraid frightened scared) and one must ask what are the students afraid of?
Thanks Pamela - I am glad you enjoyed it. It was fun to write it up as well and it hyad a life of its own.
Indeed - afeard was used more than 30 times by Shakespeare but was rare in literature after 1700 when it was supplanted by afraid. I was fascinated to find out that afeard comes from Middle English afered, going back to Old English āfǣred past participle of āfǣran "to frighten.
In other words (if you will excuse the pun) it is a very "English" word - none of that Latin or Norman nonsense sneaking in.
An excellent article - thank you.
It’s the world we live in - the demands and views of immature teens and twenty somethings are given far to weight in the important discussions that are always taking place as society processes change. A Vice Chancellor who allows himself to be emotionally blackmailed by young “adults” who have yet to earn their stripes proving they are worthy of the name. Deep sigh & much shaking of the head.
The treatment of Posy Parker made this country a laughing stock, freedom of speech is the anchor of Democracy