In 1688, 46 years after a Dutch explorer briefly visited a chain of islands far from home, a countryman - the future King William III - invaded England and swept to power in what came to be known as the "Glorious Revolution".
In what was less a revolution than a carefully orchestrated coup, William and his wife, Mary, ascended the throne knowing that their first Parliament intended to pass a Bill of Rights - which it did weeks later, as practically its first order of business.
That historic document, which still has some legal effect in that far-distant chain of islands 334 years later, included a provision that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
That provision, a purely political device, albeit one backed by centuries of critical thinking and debate, was the template for what became the affirmation of the right to free speech in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789, the first amendment to the constitution of the United States in 1791 and eventually section 14 of New Zealand’s own Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Our own right to freedom to expression was not quite as controversial - it did not take violent revolution for it to become law - but it was still no less important.
However, the right to freely express one’s opinions of any kind in any form can be a fraught and vexed one.
"Any" is the key word here, as those opinions may well be factually incorrect - be that by accident or design - or deeply disturbing to others ... but 300 or so years ago so was the notion of suggesting that the king might be a tyrant, or that one should not be taxed by the state without being represented in the state’s political forums, upset a fair few people as well.
It is unlikely that "Responsible Politics and Free Speech", an event being held on the University of Otago campus next Wednesday, will spark any kind of insurrection, but it has already proven to be divisive and may well end up being controversial.
The event has been organised by the Free Speech Union and panellists speaking include Dunedin National list MP Michael Woodhouse, Act New Zealand list MP Jamie McDowall and Dunedin city councillor Lee Vandervis.
As campus magazine Critic noted when reporting that students’ association president Melissa Lama had pulled out of the event citing "pressing work and study commitments", that does give the gathering a right-leaning look.
Which might well dissuade some people from attending, but should not in any way impinge on freedom of the organisers, audience members and panellists to assemble peacefully, as guaranteed at New Zealand Bill of Rights Act section 16.
Not should it stop anyone from protesting against the meeting being held, should they choose to - take your pick from sections 13, 14, 16 and 17 for that one.
Hopefully, that would be a peaceful protest and not require any consideration of sections 21-27, which cover search, arrest and detention.
Be it an exchange of ideas or preaching to the converted, the Free Speech Union is entitled to provide a forum for people to speak their minds. We would be living in a far more troubling society if they were not allowed to do so.
It would be equally as troubling if those people’s opinions could not be challenged in a free, frank and respectful way.
Somewhere along the line freedom of speech, a foundational notion in any representative democracy, has become a politically controversial right, and one increasingly dominated by shrill voices at either extreme.
At one end of the spectrum, some seem to regard their freedom to express themselves as a licence to insult others ... which it is not, and your decision to use it in that way could well be forestalled by the law of defamation or other laws created to ensure civil discourse.
At the other end - and they are often the people at the receiving end of insulting speech - they argue that they are opposing the fomenters of hate and division.
So they should, and the clearest way to do so is to argue publicly against them rather than try to ban them from speaking at all: the battle of ideas in the Octagon last month between the Freedom and Rights Coalition and Anti Fascist Otepoti, which Anti Fascist Otepoti won convincingly, is a good example.
This is politically tricky territory for the likes of Mr Woodhouse.
His advocacy of free speech is deeply entrenched and based on classical political philosophy, but in defending that right he often finds himself keeping company with people whose views he would not in any way espouse.
Mr Woodhouse’s unwavering condemnation earlier this year of conversion therapy, while at the same time voting against a Bill purely on the grounds of freedom of expression, to ban it is a case in point.
It is no less tricky for the left, which can feel the electorally crucial middle ground shifting under its feet whenever freedom of expression debates become fraught.
But whether "Responsible Politics and Free Speech" sheds light or heat on any or all of these issues we will have to wait and see.
Bula Vinaka
Taieri Labour MP Ingrid Leary was one of many absentees from the House this week, having jetted off to Fiji.
This was not some winter junket though.
Ms Leary, who has extensive personal connections to Fiji, and the foreign affairs, defence and trade select committee are officially "strengthening bilateral relations between New Zealand and Fiji".
The politicians are also "gaining an understanding of regional strategic decisions", and you can guarantee that is the key to this visit.
While they might be focused on Fiji, MPs’ eyes will also be glancing over the horizon towards China and its ever-increasing role in the region.
Having called for greater engagement, National’s foreign affairs spokesman, Gerry Brownlee, the deputy chairman of the committee, is walking the talk and helping lead the delegation.
