This is the left's chance to take charge of free speech - but we will probably waste it

The ACT Party’s latest attempt to save itself from oblivion could pay off more than it yet knows. At a much-touted, media-saturated ‘rebrand’ press conference for the party, David Seymour remarked that people were “looking for something more”. He said “National are voting with the Government almost half the time. People are saying we need some real opposition”. This is true because in the main the Ardern-led, Greens-backed Labour-NZ First coalition government is largely sticking to the policy agenda set down by the previous National government, with the exception of some flagship policies like the ‘Families Package’ and KiwiBuild. While Simon Bridges flops in desperation and continues to be outshone by Paula Bennett as Opposition Leader, there does indeed appear to be no real attacking force against the government. There are no left parties outside the government as there have been previously in MMP cycles. ACT wishes to rebrand itself as the political opposition to Jacinda Ardern.

How will it do this? If I was particularly churlish and narcissistic, I would say David Seymour appears to be taking notice of my warnings to the left.  He has opted for a right-wing spin on my critique of the ‘liberal left’ (he uses this exact label to describe his enemy), highlighting the very real threats it now poses to freedom of speech and from censorship in our country.

After the disturbing and heart-shattering Christchurch terrorist attack that killed 51 Muslim New Zealanders at prayer, Prime Minister Ardern decided that speeding up the corporate-led programme of Internet censorship was the solution du jour, which went virtually unopposed in the media and political commentariat. Ardern went to visit French President Emmanuel Macron to lead the summit. Of course, the floundering French Government is attempting – with little success – to silence the gilets jaunes movement which is now in its 37^th consecutive week of protest. Ardern’s government banned the publication of the fascist terrorist’s manifesto under a law the party theoretically did not support (the ‘Objectionable Publications Act’ – but, in typical Labour style, despite not agreeing with the thrust of the bill they voted in support of it anyway when it came to crunch-time). Media are censoring the terrorist’s statements, which will of course nicely cover up his stated support for the police and military apparatuses. It is hard to see how anything Labour has done since has aided the situation and it is incredibly naïve to think fascist thought will be eliminated by imposing such ridiculous measures.  Not only that, but as we, of course, later found out, Ardern’s strategy of blaming the Internet was a fig leaf that covered her government’s security services’ complicity in the attacks even taking place. While they were busily surveilling harmless Greenpeace activists and members of leftist protest groups, a fascist with a plot known to Australian intelligence was able to enter the country without so much as a squeak.

I have been covering for some time now the self-destructive attempts of the liberal left to rid itself of the latest wave of fascistic sentiment through state- and corporate-led censorship. This is highly embarrassing considering the entire history of the socialist left has been a fight to secure the freedom of speech, and is first in line to be censored by parties who seek to suppress or re-channel worker uprising (this includes the ‘Labour’ Party). The radicals of today do not seem to realise that the ‘House Un-American Activities Committee’ – now known as the ‘McCarthyite era’ – began with a wipeout of fascism, before it then moved on to a more pressing target - leftists. They need to be aware that if they actually want to get serious with their politics beyond carping from the sidelines and being perennially disappointed, Labour and the Greens will not protect them from future censorship encroachments.

On social issues, it seems even some of the most committed of socialists are in lockstep with liberals. A huge fraction of socialists continue to advance a ‘movementist’ politics based on postmodernism – Ernesto Laclau’s ‘chain of equivalences’ – an idea which is over forty years old and whose real-world materialisations have largely failed. Although there continues to be an academic wing of the left that reliably produces lucid and provocative analyses of the world and the problems it faces, this does not translate into any real new or refreshing political ideas. It has been marginalised in comparison to an explosive force in humanities academia whose primary goal is to constantly regurgitate and reiterate the narcissistic discourses of identity politics. Although some dents have been made in this vacuous machine, with genuinely interesting and profoundly intelligent figures like Akala assuming the position of the radical, socialist pop-writer, identity politics is too producing its drab, uninteresting ultraliberal spokespeople such as Ta-Nehisi Coates and Afua Hirsch, who see the world through the singular prism of ‘race’ (i.e. an ideological worldview). The mainstream left has focused more on filtering bizarre and patently wrong ideas from ‘culturalism’ into everyday language than it has even merely trying to answer a growing wall of working-class resentment beyond lip service.

As a left-wing defender of free speech, it is hard not to feel cynical amidst a tide of liberal-left support for censorship, backed up of course by much of the global mainstream centre-right. History will probably repeat itself – except, of course, without the part where the left actually posed a threat to capitalist society, as it did during the time of the ‘House Un-American Activities Committee’. Instead, the mainstream left is more likely to be seen upholding the current state of society implicitly, running to the arms of the state for shelter. This signals nothing but total estrangement from the world with the problems it once held at its centre.

As for the ACT Party, they are now starting to attack laws protecting people that actually codify violating speech – the right not to bully or publicly verbally abuse people, or incite violence. This is incredibly dangerous and one should not underestimate ACT’s ability to pull National onto its side to do this in any future coalition government. But the fact that such laws already exist may surprise people who bother to listen to the Greens on this issue, who have made a lot of noise about the need to widen existing hate speech laws but have remained coy on how this might be done – which will only work to their detriment.

What will the worrying signs be if the left does not take action? The ACT Party re-emerging to become a legitimate force in politics in this country is just one scenario that may occur – ACT may find it can never recover from its wily brand, tainted by personalities who infamously fell from grace like John Banks and Donna Awatere Huata, as well as David Garrett, who once stole the identity of a dead baby boy to forge a passport application. We may chuckle now at the stupidity of such a party continuing to exist. But this does not stop a future extreme-right party emerging in its place. With no left alternative on the horizon to a censorious Labour-Green alliance, we may soon find ourselves unable to laugh.