Freedom of political expression: a week of it

while Taylor Swift endorses tortured poets

It’s been a good week for thinking about rights to free speech and academic freedom – and about how and when to criticise, or for that matter to endorse, any of our elected public officials.

In general, we have a lawful democratic right to express our opinions freely. But, under certain conditions, such as an employment contract, there can be reasonable restrictions. We have political preferences and can vote accordingly, but career public servants are required to keep those political opinions to themselves – or to be “apolitical”. That’s a part of the public service’s professional code of ethical conduct, applicable to all its employees, especially to those most “in the know” who work closely with cabinet ministers.

What about sport and politics?

This week, the Hurricanes women’s team performed a haka that criticised the Luxon government, with the words “karetao o te Kāwana kakiwhero” (“puppets of this redneck government”). It was claimed that this had prior backing from the team’s management, but the CEO of the Hurricanes said he wasn’t made aware of it. Political statements, he said, shouldn’t be made – or not without full agreement across the organisation. The government would be receiving an apology.

As we learned in 1981, you can’t separate sport from politics. But, then again, it may be unwise to bring the game into the political fray when it’s not really called for. You may lose fans, at the least.

A similar slip-up was made by Prof Joanna Kidman of Victoria University of Wellington, who’s also a co-director of He Whenua Taurikura (“a country at peace”) the National Centre of Research Excellence for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism. Her tweet needs to be read in full:

“There is so much evidence that military-style youth boot camps don’t work and are expensive, that I can only assume that this government hates children, most of whom will be poor and brown. Plus, it wants to snatch children’s lunches. Is this a government or a death-cult?”

I too have questioned the boot camps (on grounds of a lack of evidence of effectiveness) and queried the possible reduction of the school lunches programme. But Prof Kidman let herself down, as an academic, by resorting to an ad hominem attack. Accusing the present government (the elected representatives) of hating children and asking if they’re a “death-cult” was nothing unusual on X, but was well below par for credible academic debate. And she does display the title Prof. on her X profile.

The ACT Party were quick to counter-attack, saying that Prof Kidman’s “extreme rhetoric” was inconsistent with her leadership of the centre for preventing extremism. The centre was set up by former PM Jacinda Ardern in response to the Christchurch mosque attacks. It’s funded by the Dept of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) and is hosted by the university – an arrangement that already compromises academic freedom as its professorial directors are beholden to the government of the day.

The ACT Party MP Todd Stephenson said, “The board of the Centre must move immediately to sack the extremist in their midst.” That was harsh – almost Stalinist in tone.

In this case, however, I can’t defend the professor, as her words strayed from academic standards. Of course she’s free, by law, to say what she likes, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences for her academic reputation.

For its part, ACT’s reaction to Prof Kidman’s tweet pre-empted any public statement from the prime minister or from DPMC – which appeared to be out of line with the “no surprises” rule. It would have been diplomatic to let DPMC front it, but coalition partners do see a need to grab attention when they can.

DPMC have since expressed concern that Prof Kidman’s comments “may bring the centre into disrepute”. May? I’d say the damage is done.

Originally I’d worried that the Centre would be accused of being an agent of state surveillance, looking for extremists in our neighbourhoods, and encouraging us all to dob them in. (The SIS produced a handy take-home guide for you back in 2022 so that you’d “know the signs”.) But now the Centre risks falling out with its new political masters.

---

Taylor Swift, in contrast, has been taking a more cautious approach to politics – thus far. She urged her millions of fans simply to vote (if eligible) in the Super Tuesday primaries this week. In 2020, she endorsed Joe Biden, but Biden isn’t officially the Democratic candidate (yet) for the election this November. It’ll be interesting to see how she uses her political clout this time around.

Political scientists are generally sceptical about the electoral impact of celebrity endorsements. They do at least have expressive and symbolic effects. They may be saying more about the celebrity than about the candidate for election. And Taylor Swift is not your ordinary celebrity. She’s simply inescapable at the moment. But endorsements can backfire.

My advice to her (in case she’s reading!) would be to stick to “I encourage young people to vote”. Biden’s policy on Israel/Gaza has led to protests from many young liberals, and she may not want to get offside with them – nor with those folk considering voting for Trump, many of whom are moderate conservatives. No matter what she does – even if she stays silent on the presidential election – there’s bound to be controversy.

There’s no stable footing on the political stage. That fence in the middle is wobbly and made of barbed wire. If your core business isn’t politics (and instead it’s scoring tries or singing songs) then maybe just stick to your lane, in as much as you can.

Veering out of my own lane for a moment, I’m thrilled to hear about Taylor Swift’s forthcoming album, The Tortured Poets Department. I can’t wait.