Importance of upholding freedom of expression

The risk of giving offence to a minority, however justified, undermines the proud traditions of a free press, writes Gerrard Eckhoff. 

What a privilege and pleasure it is to read the erudite columnist Gina Barreca. Her writings just percolate that most elusive of all human conditions - common sense - which I'm sure has been pointed out many times before, is sense, far removed from being common.

She writes of the essential role of newspapers upholding the freedoms and traditions of a free press with special reference to cartoons, especially of a political nature. The brilliance of a particularly insightful cartoon can also help defuse a smouldering issue or the rage of the righteous.

This past decade has seen, as never before in peace time, a continuous attempt to sanitise the media on which we rely to offer freedom of speech if this essential element in a democracy is to mean anything.

That is why the opinion pages of a newspaper are so important to those who "only stand and wait".

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison calls such people the "quiet Australians". Here in New Zealand, the clatter and the cry of the few demand futile declarations of a "Climate Emergency" which shows just how simple it is to cry wolf and be heard - if you are against something.

To mock or to satirise those aspects of New Zealand culture, protected by self-proclaimed defenders of the new left, is almost a life-threatening condition. By way of a local example, the demand for non-elected council seats to be set aside for Maori, despite the entirely patronising nature of such a requirement, is but one example.

One regular columnist to the ODT just a few years ago endured the most vitriolic nationwide condemnation for daring to challenge the politically-correct snowflakes as he called them, over where New Zealand's default position (constitutionally) is heading.

Political parties and their representatives still seem to be fair game but for how long, as politically correct tentacles intrude into mature debate on important issues that must only be debated in open forums. Genetic modification, abortion, euthanasia, fresh water, Treaty of Waitangi relevance - all are polarising with little or no respect shown for alternative points of view. It's a terminal condition called immaturity.

So why is it that we are still "allowed" to tell jokes about Irish intelligence and the English arrogance, not to mention the Scots' alleged meanness. Could it be that these countries and their people are mature and comfortable enough in their own skin that they can laugh at themselves?

Indeed, they appear to enjoy nothing more than the self-indulgent opportunity to lampoon the foibles they are so famous for. Dad's Army, Fawlty Towers and Blackadder are but three examples of exquisite ridiculing of the English by the English who seem to possess in abundance, that rare commodity of being able to laugh at themselves.

Contrast that with one of New Zealand's finest comedians, the late Billy T James who was vilified by many within Maoridom for his ability to recognise that humour was more about culture than race. Is the stereotyping of some Maori any different from portrayal of some Australians as beer-swilling okkers?

All farmers these days are portrayed as rapists and pillagers of the environment to the point where little defence is offered. For to do so results in a torrent of personal abuse in the media.

The risk of giving offence to a minority, however justified, undermines the proud traditions of a free press to "publish and be damned".

Here in Otago, reporting the anti-everything brigade dominates the positive and the productive to such an extent that there is a real fear factor of speaking your mind or discriminating against the virtue signallers.

We, however, discriminate in virtually everything we do, from shopping to choice of friends, to what TV channel we watch to a value system.

In a recent decision in the High Court in the United Kingdom, three judges stated that the holding and expressing of an opinion is not discrimination against those with an alternative point of view.

An MP from a long time ago once received a particularly descriptive email outlining his considerable faults and failings. He was compared to Genghis Khan in a foul mood and blamed as the cause of every disaster, natural or otherwise, as well as confirming a spot in hell which the devil himself had reserved for him.

The response by return email was: "so ... other than these very minor criticisms you clearly feel I'm doing a good job. Thank you". The correspondent emailed back saying: "well I laughed out loud at your response".

We went on to have a good discussion.

So yes, Gina Barreca is entirely correct when she wrote "humour is created and appreciated (only?) when people are free".

-Gerrard Eckhoff is a retired Central Otago farmer and former Otago regional councillor and Act MP.