By Damien Grant on Stuff…
The claim being advanced by Winston Peters and others that Chlöe Swarbrick’s language contributed to the attack on his house is, possibly, correct, but in a liberal democracy this should not constrain the Green co-leader from her choice of words.
Those of us in the free speech community hold firm to the belief against the ‘heckler’s veto’, sometimes rephrased for effect as the ‘thug’s veto’. The possibility that someone might protest what you are going to say should not result in your event being cancelled.
Universities and Auckland Council occasionally cite this as an excuse to prevent speakers they disapprove of utilising their facilities. But. I did not come here to defend Swarbrick. But to define her.
Central to the debate over the war in the Levant is terminology. Words matter. Genocide, in particular, is the word of the day.
Chlöe, Greta and the flotilla of activists maintain that what is occurring in Gaza is a genocide. For this they rely on the United Nations definition that is more expansive that what the layman understands.
Read the full article on Stuff HERE.
