Monday 17 October 2022

The Greens’ Politics Of Fear.

Safe Space: What sort of mentality is required to draw up a list of rules that will not only make vigorous debate impossible, but which is also an unabashed attempt to curb the freedom of expression of politicians, activists, and their fellow students, along with any other group or individual in possession of strong opinions? What is it that drives groups like Auckland University Greens to engage in such extraordinary behaviour?

THE AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY GREENS (AUG) have scaled new heights of political absurdity. In an act of what can only be described as unconscious self-parody, they have decided to boycott the “Baby Back Benches Debate 2022” until such time as “further equity provisions have been enacted”. These provisions, helpfully listed in the AUG’s Facebook post, are of such an onerous nature that political debate, as generally understood, would no longer be possible on the Auckland campus.

Taking one’s party out of a debate in which its rivals: Labour, National, Act, Te Pāti Māori; will all be energetically represented, is unlikely to strike many people as the most intelligent of electoral strategies. Undaunted, the AUG go on to recommend that the University of Auckland enjoin all organisations planning to hold debates on its campus during 2023 – Election Year – to conform to the AUG’s provisions.

Were the University authorities persuaded to follow the AUG’s recommendation, it is most unlikely that any of New Zealand’s leading political parties would bother showing-up. NGOs such as Greenpeace, The Council of Trade Unions and the Free Speech Union would, almost certainly, follow suit. Auckland’s students would, thus, be prevented from engaging in the activity for which were once so notorious: loud, rancorous, scandalous – but hugely entertaining and enjoyable – political debate.

How, then, is the AUG’s conduct to be explained? What sort of mentality is required to draw up a list of rules that will not only make vigorous debate impossible, but which are also an unabashed attempt to curb the freedom of expression of politicians, activists, and their fellow students, along with any other group or individual in possession of strong opinions? What is it that drives groups like AUG to engage in such extraordinary behaviour?

This is how the AUG begin their explanation:

A structural shift from our current system is necessary, as marginalised minorities are actively undermined by the political status quo. University of Auckland Greens is an organisation that offers an alternative. To practice what we preach, our executive committee has decided to abstain from attending Baby Back Benches 2022. Our vision is establishing safe spaces on campus that encourages positive policy-based kōrero, instead of entertaining drunken debates that are not conducive to constructive conversations.


It is difficult to imagine a more embarrassing and self-revelatory political beginning.

Structural shifts in entrenched economic and political systems are not usually achieved by engaging in “policy-based kōrero” in “safe spaces”. It is difficult to imagine Maximilien Robespierre and his fellow French revolutionaries limiting themselves to earnest policy discussions in rooms from which all strong and/or disturbing opinions had been banished. Even harder to see Lenin and Trotsky insisting that their Bolshevik comrades engage only in “constructive conversations”. Would the platform of the Finland Station, crowded with workers’ and soldiers’ deputies from the Petrograd Soviet – most of them carrying banners and brandishing rifles – pass muster as a “safe space”? Would the noisy late-night discussions of Mao Zedong, a man not averse to a few drinks, and his boozy Communist Party comrades, qualify as “drunken debates”?

As Mao famously opined: “A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”

But this is precisely what the AUG want their “structural shift” (why not call it by its proper name “Revolution”?) to be. They cannot seem to conceive of a politics that is anything but leisurely, gentle, temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. The last thing they want to encourage by their actions is an act of violence:

Instead of sowing the seeds of conflict, we should be creating community with each other. This vision is only possible if we focus on redress over reactions, policy over personality, and whanaungatanga over fighting.

Such a pretty picture – until one thinks about their proposed provisions – especially the one that reads: “Anyone in breach of the rules should be immediately removed.”

Removed by whom?

Since it is difficult to imagine members of the AUG removing rule-breakers themselves, it must be supposed that the job of enforcing the AUG’s provisions would fall to University of Auckland security guards. Or, if the rule-breakers refused to go quietly, the Police.

Is this a structural shift? Or is this simply a group of highly-privileged young people using the enforcers of the university and/or the state to impose their notion of political debate on everybody else? And if that is the nature of AUG, then in what way is it distinguishable from the “current system” – in which a tiny minority of privileged and powerful individuals use their control of the forces of organised violence to impose their notion of economic and political order on everybody else?

AUG does not truly seek a structural shift – let alone a revolution. What it is attempting to promote, with its safe spaces and constructive conversations, is a political style that, should it ever be adopted by those with the power to enforce it, would render “one class overthrow[ing] another” impossible.

For what is it that the AUG’s provisions actually promote? The answer, surely, is fear. The fear of the victim. The fear that grows in victims encouraged to embrace not their power – but their powerlessness. The fear that renders victims permanently incapable of confronting the emotional and physical violence out of which their victimhood is fashioned and constantly refreshed. The fear that turns them into the pliable playthings of those with power – the people who actually make the policies they are urged to discuss so constructively. Fear is the AUG’s currency. Fear of those with differing views. Fear of political passion. Fear of debate.

The same fear that, tragically, is fast becoming the currency of the entire Green Party.

To parody George Orwell’s desperately demoralising prediction from Nineteen Eighty-Four:

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a Green Party equity officer’s boot stamping out rowdy political debate – for ever.


This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Friday, 14 October 2022.

7 comments:

  1. When you have little to offer you need to restrict the abilities of others to offer more.

    I grew up with vigourous debate on most subject, politics not withstanding, and those of us still alive still do 😉

    Only a real sook can't handle debate or maybe they are showing their totalitarian bent, my way or else!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bill Maher recently coined the description “ Idiocracy” in assessing the presence of woke ideology within Americas education institutions .

    Seems NZ’s Green Party is vanishing into the same dark rabbit hole

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Green Party is no longer a Party of the Left - supposing it ever was. The Green Party is a Party of the Right. If the Greens are offended by my remark: Great! However slender, there's hope for you yet.
    Cheers,
    ion A. Dowman

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Bill Maher recently coined the description “ Idiocracy” in assessing the presence of woke ideology within Americas education institutions ."

    No he didn't. The word goes back to at least 1967. And there was a film of that title in 2006. Bill Maher has unfortunately turned into a whining old conservative.

    And if you're really that worried about "wokeism" why bother coming here? What you really need all those anti-woke websites like the so-called "free speech" Truth Social – or the anti-woke conservative dating site –Or fox news/Newsmax. But hurry – they're all going broke.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This article is very confusing. What are the "provisions" that AUG has taken to the “heights of political absurdity”. No links are provided. How does one find the AUG’s Facebook post? A Google and Facebook search provides nothing. Can you post a link? And what is this “baby back” debate about? Exactly why are the University Student Greens upset enough to demand rules? From what I can tell, it could be just a matter of respect ("establishing safe spaces")…or perhaps an overreaction to something disturbing which happened at the last debate (yet to be explained)? The bottom line is that the Greens are the only party still truly left on nuts and bolts economic and labour issues in addition to climate policies. So it would be sad if this was a major gaff (albeit this "demand" is not party policy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "And if you're really that worried about "wokeism" why bother coming here? What you really need all those anti-woke websites like the so-called "free speech" Truth Social – or the anti-woke conservative dating site –Or fox news/Newsmax."

    Because even people who are on the left are bothered about a very noisy segment of the left that is attempting to shut down free speech. "Wokism", if you will. These people aren't on the right. That was clear from the article.

    "But hurry – they're all going broke."

    It's funny when people come armed with the "facts" and dripping derision at people they don't like. I don't know about Newsmax but Fox is doing well financially. Their results are here - https://investor.foxcorporation.com/static-files/2a9f5b31-697e-4892-8c20-27ef1e9f35ea. Same for all their recent financial history.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Interesting gardener. For every instance you can put up of someone on the "woke" – pardon me for using a conservative snarl word – left trying to shut down freedom of speech I can give you a number of examples of right-wing politicians all round the world actually doing it.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/republican-dont-say-gay-bill-florida/629516/
    https://time.com/6168753/florida-stop-woke-law/
    https://www.cato.org/policy-report/march/april-2022/conservatives-take-aim-free-markets-free-speech (See, even the nutty libertarians see it)
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/24/michigan-library-defunded-gender-queer/

    The noisy section on the left are private citizens. They are allowed to lobby whoever they like on freedom of speech. The noisy section on the right are governments.

    Private organisations may censor whoever they wish, because capitalism. Are you suggesting that perhaps private organisations should be forced to carry speech which might lose them money? That's communism. Or fascism – you choose.

    And Fox which you probably know but have ignored are in the middle of $1+ billion lawsuit, which may well cut into their profits.

    I could even add to the list of the broke anti woke –
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-woke-superhero-movie-rebels-run-blown-up-in-dollar1-million-con
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpGdaxdMpeQ&t=2s

    So yeah – facts. Plus some derision – deserved in my opinionmostly because they have the nerve to call themselves "news", when they defend themselves from lawsuits by telling the judge that no sensible person would believe a word they say. Hours of innocent amusement here..

    ReplyDelete