The uncomfortable test of ‘Free Speech’ when Paul Henry’s political event turned challenging

OPINION: The incident involving Mike “Chewie” Bennett and ACT candidate Paul Henry in Dunedin raises a question that deserves more attention than asking whether Bennett behaved appropriately. What does ACT actually mean when it talks about defending free speech?

According to public news reporting, Bennett was removed and later arrested after challenging an answer given by Henry. That does not make Bennett right, nor does it make those responsible for the event wrong. People can be disruptive, provocative or difficult and still have a right to express an opinion. Equally, free speech does not mean someone is entitled to prevent others from participating.

This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.

Image: Jacquelyn pictured wearing a traditional Māori korowai cloak over graduation regalia smiling against a dark studio backdrop as the feathered garment identifies her cultural pride and academic achievement. (Supplied / thisquality / Quiet Pact Network)

But there is a deeper issue here.

As a Māori person, I was taught the whakataukī, “Kōrero, te kai a te rangatira” — dialogue is the food of chiefs. To me, this speaks to something more profound than having the freedom to talk. It speaks to how we speak, how we listen and what we do with disagreement.

I was also taught that speech is for understanding, not for establishing who is right and who is wrong. A rangatira should be capable of addressing what is wrong with the same respect, humility and dignity with which they would acknowledge what is right.

This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.

That creates an interesting lens through which to view this incident.

Image: ACT candidate Paul Henry’s Dunedin event has put his free speech credentials under fresh scrutiny. (Supplied / Facebook)

ACT has made itself out to be the bastions of individual liberty and freedom of expression.

Free speech is easy to defend when the speaker is saying something we agree with.

The real test comes when someone is challenging us, embarrassing us or asking questions we would rather not answer.

Image: Outside the Glenroy Auditorium, Mike “Chewie” Bennett was detained by police after refusing to provide his details for a trespass notice, before being taken to Dunedin Central Police Station and later released. (Supplied / BHN / Mike "Chewie" Bennett)

Perhaps Bennett crossed a legitimate line of conduct. Removing him was entirely justified. But if that is the case, the standard should be clear and consistently applied.

This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.

The response should not become an excuse to avoid difficult dialogue.

There is an uncomfortable possibility for ACT here. A political movement that champions free speech must also be prepared to tolerate speech and questions that are uncomfortable, inconvenient and directed at itself.

This does not mean every form of speech is appropriate in every setting.

Image: Mike “Chewie” Bennett standing inside the Dunedin event, where he said he had been quietly taking notes on his phone before later questioning Paul Henry during the Q&A session. (Supplied / BHN / Mike "Chewie" Bennett)

Organisers have a legitimate responsibility to maintain order, or kawa and participants have responsibilities to one another, called aroha. Showing deep regard is aroha. But there is a crucial distinction between freedom from criticism and freedom to criticise.

Kōrero has traditionally carried responsibility. The rangatira does not speak simply to defeat an opponent and speech brings people toward understanding concepts and context, not just details of the context.

This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.

So the question is not whether Bennett was right or wrong.

Perhaps the better question is whether our political culture still has room for respectful disagreement, courageous questioning and genuine dialogue.

Because if free speech only survives when the conversation is comfortable, then we have misunderstood what freedom — and what chiefly speaking — really means.

Advertisement

Advertisement Why this ad? Advertising revenue keeps articles free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

Advertisement