Crushing dissent

Samira Taghavi writes:

I have a question for lawyers of my age or older: in your student days, could you have imagined your law school dean writing that an eminent legal commentator, with years of senior court experience, was an “old racist dinosaur” who should “go die quietly in the corner”?

Unthinkable not that long ago.

My own respect for the value of debate was shaped in a country where there is no respect for debate, that country being the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Iranian regime explicitly seeks the demise of its enemies. We remember the promotion of the (nearly-successful) murder of author Salman Rushdie, for example. The Iranian dictatorship shows, I would suggest, that departure from disciplined debate can drag the undisciplined into violent rhetoric, making our society a more extreme and dangerous place – intellectually and physically. Wishing death upon your opponents not infrequently also silences them, an objective of regimes and hot-headed individuals alike. So it is deeply alarming to me now to hear Establishment voices in this country mimicking the intemperate language of merciless dictatorships.

Iran is an extreme example, but we should share the concern about the trend in NZ to suppress dissent.

One such campaign was against the recent Labour/Green-led group-think that resulted in the Sexual Violence (Legislation) Act, which makes the conviction of innocent defendants more likely.

Despite warnings that the campaign might attract unpleasant personal consequences, I chose to speak out. And the backlash was severe, including vicious emails wishing physical harm upon me.

For instance, following the publication of one of my articles on the then-bill, I received a reprehensible message suggesting that I should not be writing articles, but instead be raped. To me, that message and its maker underlined the severity of declining decorum in proper debates. The campaign, however, also drew support from those who recognised the importance of addressing difficult issues and reinforced my belief that engaging with tough topics is crucial.

Another disturbing thing I noticed in that campaign was that the New Zealand Establishment seems, like the Iranian regime, to have come to the view that, on many issues, there is only one true opinion and that other opinions should be silenced. The silencing is done with belittlement (such as labelling opponents “racist” and “sexist”), “deplatforming” and ultimately “cancellation”.

And we have NZ on Air which effectively will only fund those with the correct view.

In this context, the response from The Māori Law Society merits recognition for its reasoned and respectful tone. Such a response provides a commendable example of how to engage with contrary viewpoints. As highlighted by the reaction to Judd KC’s recent article in LawNews, there is a palpable need for platforms that facilitate thoughtful discourse. It is imperative for those who disagree with Judd KC’s opinions to see this as an opportunity to contribute constructively. I urge anyone who felt “offended” by his arguments to respond with a well-reasoned rebuttal for publication. This approach not only showcases the critical skill of persuasive discourse that is essential for any lawyer, but also reinforces the principle that differing views should be approached with logic and civility, rather than disdain or derogation.

This was once the norm.