Beware the Backlash: The State Will Not Be Surprised A Second Time.

Right Back At Ya: In the minds of more and more New Zealanders it is now the defence of society itself that must take precedence over free speech. Increasingly, the defenders of free speech will come to be seen as the defenders of those who not only use their freedom of expression to cry “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, but then do all they can to persuade the audience to burn the theatre down.

THE FAR RIGHT ORGANISERS of the now suppressed occupation of Parliament Grounds will in no way consider themselves defeated. On the contrary, they will be celebrating their spectacular migration from the unnoticed ideological fringes to the glare of prime-time politics. In exactly the same way that a largely unknown provincial agitator was catapulted into the national German spotlight by his failed “Beer Hall Putsch” of 1923, the rioters of 2/3/22 have succeeded in seizing Middle New Zealand by the ear.

The Daily Blog’s editor, Martyn Bradbury, estimates that the dramatic events of 2/3/22 have recruited 100,000 followers for the Far-Right string-pullers behind the occupation and its cataclysmic finale. If he’s correct, then that is roughly enough voting power to crest the 5 percent MMP threshold and secure 6 seats in the House of Representatives – assuming, of course, that the Far-Right can arrive at an ideological consensus strong enough to permit the creation of a coherent political party.

There is, however, no evidence to suggest that such a coming together of the volatile elements on display in Parliament Grounds is imminent. Paradoxically, the same social media that brought the doings of the “Freedom Village” to around 30,000 people per day during the occupation all-too-easily emboldens those on the losing side of major debates to strike out on their own. Not only that, but it provides a public stage where the personal animosities of the major players can be played out for the edification of friends and foes alike.

In the absence of an Adolf Hitler-type figure with the requisite intellectual, ideological, rhetorical and political skills to transform the brawling and fissiparous Far-Right into an effective electoral force, the conclusions of the SIS’s Combined Threat Assessment Group (CTAG) are almost certainly correct. The locus for effective action on the Far-Right will shrink down to the level of the “Lone Wolf”. Those dangerously alienated individuals who see themselves as either the “saviours” of their race, or the “avengers” of those whose rights and freedoms have been stripped away by tyrannical blood-drinking paedophiles.

Under discussion here is terrorism – pure and simple. Across the national security community there will be many who, even as they witnessed the fire and smoke of the twenty-third day, were thinking of what a more organised and tactically aggressive leadership might have achieved on the first or second day of the protest, when the defences and defenders of Parliament were at their weakest.

Had 500 or 1,000 brawlers of the sort who hurled paving stones at the Police on 2/3/22 rushed up the steps of Parliament Buildings on 9/2/22 and forced their way through the doors – who could have stopped them? Would New Zealanders, like Americans, have been presented with live images of a crazed anti-vaxxer seated in the Speaker’s Chair? Would a noose-swinging lynch mob have made their way up the Beehive stairwells crying “Ja-cin-daaa!” And, having seen a dozen of their comrades shot down by the Prime Minister’s bodyguards, would they have set fire, not to pup-tents, but the Beehive itself?

There are senior “public servants” across Wellington brooding worriedly today upon what could so easily have happened because, exactly as the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Mosque Shootings warned, far too little attention has been paid, by those whose duty it is to protect the national security of New Zealand to, the Far-Right and its kindred subversives and terrorists.

Not the least worried of these public servants will be Police Commissioner Andrew Coster. He will be asking all manner of questions about why his own intelligence division failed to anticipate the scale of the crisis the foreign-inspired Far-Right promoters of Convoy 2022 were determined to provoke on the grounds of Parliament. One can only imagine the cold fury with which the Prime Minister directed the same questions at New Zealand’s chief law-enforcement officer.

With the events of 15 March 2019 – and now 2 March 2022 – etched upon her mind, Jacinda Ardern will be more determined than ever to curb the expression of hate speech. On her side of the House (and among a fair proportion of those seated on the opposite side) there will now be even less patience for those who attempt to keep the banner of free speech flying.

Among the public there will likely be a surge of support for the Government’s stance. In the minds of more and more New Zealanders it is now the defence of society itself that must take precedence. Increasingly, the defenders of free speech will come to be seen as the defenders of those who not only use their freedom of expression to cry “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, but then do all they can to persuade the audience to burn the theatre down.

That so many members of the Free Speech movement genuflect to the Right, rather than the Left, will only harden the resolve of those determined to silence the pedlars of arson and murder who – to borrow the Prime Minister’s expression – “desecrated” the holy precincts of New Zealand’s democracy.

Coming down hard on hate speech will only be the beginning. It is highly likely that the Law Commission will be tasked with reviewing the effectiveness of the legal weaponry currently available to a Government under siege. Geoffrey Palmer’s giddy 1980s bonfire of the repressive instruments of state power has taken on a less admirable lustre. Bonfires are no longer in vogue.

Finally, there is the formidable apparatus of New Zealand’s national security community, most particularly of the SIS and the GCSB. It should be presumed from here on out that those who blithely spout prejudice and hatred online will be simultaneously announcing themselves as “persons of interest” to all those who wield the swords of state protection.

To the stone-throwers and tent-burners out there, girding their loins for another crack at the lizard people and their lackeys, the most useful advice is simple and direct:

From now on, assume that you are not alone.

This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Friday 4 March 2022.

The Escalation Game That Protesters Cannot Win.

Death And The Marchers: What the so-called “Freedom & Rights Coalition” would be wise to factor into their calculations is how quickly the public’s tolerance will evaporate if its followers move beyond the energetic expression of their grievances towards violence and/or the massive disruption of daily life. At that point the forbearance of the state will cease, and the protection of life and property will begin.

PROTESTERS CALLING for the overthrow of the Government should take a deep breath and consider their strategic situation. According to the Ministry of Health’s own polling, the hardcore anti-vaxxers represent – at best – five percent of the population. Even assuming that that many again are in some degree supportive of the protesters’ aims and objectives, that would still leave them confronting the remaining 90 percent of the population – who are not.

Now, it is very easy to forget this grim arithmetic when you are in the middle of a crowd of 5,000 people, surrounded by flags and placards, and breathing in the exhaust fumes of 100 large motorcycles. In such circumstances, the protester’s mind is filled with intoxicating feelings of invincibility. That any force could successfully turn “We, the People” around seems impossible.

It is, however, an enormous mistake for protesters (let alone insurrectionists) to interpret the fact that nobody has so far attempted to stop them, as proof that they cannot be stopped. What they may see as weakness on the part of a corrupt and cowardly government, will be seen by many more as evidence of a Government doing its utmost to facilitate a tiny fraction of the population’s right to express themselves politically. For most New Zealanders this will be taken as proof of their country’s deep commitment to democratic principles.

What the so-called “Freedom & Rights Coalition” would be wise to factor into their calculations is how quickly the public’s tolerance will evaporate if its followers move beyond the energetic expression of their grievances towards violence and/or the massive disruption of daily life. At that point the forbearance of the state will cease, and the protection of life and property will begin.

The Freedom & Rights Coalition will then find itself caught up in a process of relentless escalation that it cannot win. If its followers use their fists and their boots against their fellow citizens, then the Police will don riot gear and equip themselves with pepper-spray, tasers, tear-gas and rubber bullets. If the insurrectionists then decide it is time to arm themselves with knives and firearms, the Government will call upon the armed forces to “aid the civil power” and the rebels will find themselves confronting highly trained military personnel armed with machine-guns and artillery. Anyone foolish enough to put themselves at the mercy of artillery will not be given a lot of time to regret their mistake.

This process of escalation will not be restricted to the armament deployed. Faced with violence and disruption on such a scale, it is highly likely that the Government will resort to measures not seen in this country for nearly 90 years.

Not the least of these will be the swearing-in of “Special Constables”. The last time this happened was in the immediate aftermath of the 1932 Queen Street Riot. Waikato cockies, many of them on horseback, were enrolled to ensure that the unemployed remained off the streets – by any means deemed appropriate.

Twenty years earlier there had been a similar mobilisation of conservative citizens. In the Great Strike of 1913, the Prime Minister of the day, William Massey, had unleashed hundreds of Special Constables against the militant unionists affiliated to the “Red” Federation of Labour. More than a few of these “Red Feds” were unabashed revolutionaries who, like the Freedom & Rights Coalition, believed in the right of the citizenry to overthrow a tyrannical government. “Massey’s Cossacks” reminded them, none too gently, of the resources available to a state which still commands overwhelming popular support.

Interestingly, during the Waterfront Lockout of 1951 the National Government considered, but then rejected, the use of Special Constables. The trade union militants were vastly outnumbered, not only by “ordinary Kiwis”, but even by the moderate unionists affiliated to the Not-So-Red Federation of Labour. Prime Minister Sid Holland’s notorious “Emergency Regulations” were more than enough to bring the Watersiders to heel.

The contemporary equivalent of those Emergency Regulations would, of course, be a Government decision to order a temporary shutdown of the Internet, giving the Police and the rest of the national security apparatus the opportunity to round-up what was left of the insurrection.

Most New Zealanders would likely consider it entirely fitting: if the shutting-down of social media – the prime generator of anti-vaccination militancy – turned out to be its ultimate cure.

This essay was originally published in The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 12 November 2021.