Marcail Parkinson, President of VUWSA, spoke to Newstalk NZ about the reasons behind the decision. She said that there was a lot of discussion about if the event was supporting informed and balanced debate. 

“We asked them [the university] to relook at how they were running the event and we raised the concerns that we had around how the event was being run. And what happened was the university came back to us and they said, look, we actually believe that your concerns are valid, that they make sense to us, and that we do think that we can do this event in a way that is better and that will better encapsulate what they were trying to achieve.” 

What did VUWSA take issue with?  Marcail said issue was taken that the Free Speech Union was being represented on the panel.  The argument was that the FSU was so prone to hate speech, that it should not be relied upon to support informed and balanced perspectives, especially that the university’s goal was to find better ways to have challenging but respectful conversations.

Earlier, Marcail, evidently now the leading representative of students on all things free speech, went on The Platform with Sean Plunket.

“We had some worries that it was going to end up being a forum which would breach the ethical needs for universities to protect the right to speak and challenge ideas that are based in evidence, research, and scholarship. We know that the views held by some people on the panel sometimes have not been based in evidence.” she said.

Ironically, in the video clip she then proceeded to completely fail to adequately produce evidence and good research to back up her claims.  If she was unable to produce evidence for the accusations, then on what evidence did the University agree to the postponement?

Fortunately for her, Young ACT Wellington has some evidence and research to work out who is spreading disinformation and promoting hate speech on campus… and I will give you a hint: it is not the Free Speech Union.

Let’s start with the fact that last year, Marcail’s organisation hosted Green Party candidates at controversial events in the lead up to the election.  This is the same political party whose youth wing at Victoria University has what is essentially a how to train your Pākehā post pinned on their Instagram.

“If we do not honour Te Tiriti, there is no honour in our existence here as Pākehā.”  The post says that if we are not here under Te Tiriti, then we are active colonisers.

The United Nation’s Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines hate speech as any kind of communication that uses pejorative language with reference to a group on the basis of their ethnicity, nationality, race, and/or descent.

The post demeans an entire group of people based on their ethnicity if they do not subscribe to the Green Party’s political perception of what it means to honour the Treaty. This means that this post fits the UN definition of hate speech. It would appear to us that VUWSA are complicit in the very acts of which they accuse the Free Speech Union. 

Marcail continued that she thought that certain panelists “have a history of kind of promoting disinformation and promoting hate speech and we don’t believe that hate speech is a legitimate discourse….“.  If VUWSA really believes that “hate speech” is not legitimate discourse, then they should hold everyone to the same standard and publicly apologise for their platforming and promotion of a group which has produced hate speech.

If Salient sub-editor Henry Broadbent really believes in the UN definition of hate speech, then he has to only look at VUWSA for an example.

Now let’s fact check some of the disinformation promoted by VUWSA and Salient.

Salient, operated by VUWSA, published verifiable lies about the ACT Party in their election issue of the Salient.  Even after they were fact checked, they doubled down on their hateful rhetoric and refused to correct the record with students.

Bizarrely, they claimed that “ACT wasn’t interested in speaking with Salient” and “ACT Party refused to engage with student media”.  Unfortunately for them, the claims are false as an interview had been agreed with Salient many weeks prior.  Salient however decided not to fulfil their promise of an interview.  Obviously, we know if Salient did that interview, they could not run that headline.

This unprovoked attack by VUWSA on factual speech could have legitimately led to harm against libertarian students on campus by painting them as anti-social.  If VUWSA really believes in not promoting disinformation, then VUWSA needs to make a public apology for their operation of a publisher which has created disinformation which has the potential to cause harm to a minority group on campus.

If Marcail agrees that conversations are needed to make sure that the event is “inclusive and doesn’t make people feel unsafe in any way”, then it is up to her to publicly condemn Salient for creating an unsafe environment on campus.

Now let’s address the university’s arrogant relationship with accountability.

Last year, they refused to handle complaints about VUWSA hosting an event for the Green Party in the pre-election period.  Instead, they created a conflict of interest by referring complaints to VUWSA.  They used every excuse under the sun to try and deflect.

A Senior Advisor from the Student Interest and Conflict Resolution Team apparently lied to us as well. We never received a clarification, correction, or apology for their false statement(s). The University also confirmed that there was no declared conflict of interest between the University and VUWSA in relation to this arrangement. In the end, the University produced a limp response where they did not accept responsibility for mishandling of complaints and possible breaches of university policy.

Perhaps Vice-Chancellor Nic Smith thinks that free speech needs to be picked and chosen by university elitists in order to be valid for discourse? All indications are that he agreed that postponement was the correct course of action to ensure “the right voices around the table”. 

However, if Vice-Chancellor Nic Smith really is a free speech advocate, he should support a public apology from the University for brushing off complaints about an organisation that platformed a group who incited hate speech.

And if he really feels the need to ensure the ethical needs for universities to protect the right to speak and challenge ideas is protected, then he should have no issue with reinforcing our call for VUWSA to publicly apologise for the disinformation.

If not, then some might think that Victoria University is complicit in hate speech violations.

While it is evident that VUWSA and the University have done what they think is right, and to their credit, they have been communicative on the facts of the postponement, it does not hold water. If you live in a glass house, don’t throw stones.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact media@youngact.org.nz.