Written By:
- Date published:
5:30 pm, July 28th, 2026 - 46 comments
Categories: Daily review -
Tags:
Daily review is also your post.
This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Don’t forget to be kind to each other …
Rob Campbell has written a timely piece on free speech. The likely trigger was the self-inflicted brain implosion of Stuart Gnash although Rob didn’t mention him or any other politicians by name, but he did appear in the accompanying photo.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/07/27/politicians-vulgarity-is-just-litter-real-free-speech-is-about-who-gets-heard/
I wish we wouldn’t have to collect & clear the litter. I wish we wouldn’t have to warn with DNFT (aka DNFTT), warn the culprits, or even ban them. But reality is like a cold harsh winter sometimes.
I had been wondering today about why staunch & loud free speech activists tend to be RWs, often tilting towards hard-Right. Freedom of expression is, theoretically speaking, a non-partisan concept, but in practice, it is not. The Left tends to express this freedom differently, when it speaks with a collective voice rather an individual one. This is much more than a contest of world views because it has real consequences for many who have little real power, who are marginalised and ignored by the powers that be, who are excluded from society by the powerful, and who experience less freedom as a result of this.
Paraphrasing Rob, all this is a distraction, and in my view a diversion, from [the] real problems, which happen to be hallmarks of trolls. The real work can start in earnest and make genuine progress once we’ve cleaned up the trolls and troll farms.
This is really strange from Rob Campbell because he agreed to go on a FSU town hall type meeting with the hard RW, FSU rep/employee/paid Ani O'Brien. She represents the FSU which we have established today is the very definition of a troll farm.
Auckland Council via Julie Fairy is trying to get this booking using Auckland Council property nullified because, as she quite rightly says, entertaining Ani O'Brien and the FSU is aggressive toward the Auckland queer community.
No surprise, David Farrar is having a massive, crybaby meltdown over it, claiming that because the hard right Ani O'Brian is a lesbian then she's immune from political criticism.
Stalking Horse, anyone?
that's not DPF's argument. He is pointing out that only the right kind of lesbians are allowed freedom of expression by some of the liberal left. Which is true.
As far as I can tell the talk isn't going to be about trans issues. Are we really at the point where people should be denied access to public life because of their beliefs? Which is ironic given the topic of the talk.
FSU baited the liberals and Fairey rose to the challenge. The left should be standing up and make the good, progressive counter arguments instead of this ineffectual cancel culture that makes people hate the left even more.
Fortunately in NZ councils can't easily deny access to public use of their facilities on political grounds, because that would impinge on our Freedom of Expression laws.
The right will use cancel culture against us, and do a better job of it. We should be very careful what we wish for.
No, Farrar's argument is that Ani Obrien's credentials as a lesbian render her immune to criticism for her take on rainbow issues while at the same time framing Julie Fairy's protection of the queer community illegitimate because she is married to a man, a leftie man at that.
Same old concept from the exclusionary crowd. Only cisgender queers should have a voice. Heteros and trans people are not to be trusted. If we're talking about people being denied access to public life because of their beliefs, what about because of their actual identity?
The right using cancel culture for advantage is well known, including through proxies on this forum.
that is an exceptionally weird paragraph.
yes, trans people, queers, lesbians should have a voice. Duh. Ani is a lesbian, why shouldn't she have a voice. Please do say it's because she has the wrong voice.
What DPF said (in part),
He says nothing about AO being immune from criticism. You made that up.
He says that it's ironic that Fairey as a het woman is trying to deplatform Ani O'Brien, a lesbian, on the basis of safety for homosexuals and gender non-confirming people. How is that not ironic?
I really wish liberals would just front up and say 'we are right and everyone should think like us or shut the fuck up'.
Some progressive liberals and some conservative liberals may well believe "we are right and everyone should think like us or shut the fuck up", but actually saying it could wreck respectful exchanges of information and ideas – imho.
Certainly not something I’d wish for – I wouldn’t learn nearly as much.
better to be honest.
Cancel culture is based in the idea that the liberal left are right and the people they oppose are wrong and should be prevented from speaking. That is literally what cancelling does.
Is 'cancel culture' an exclusive failing of the (progressive) liberal left, or does it also emanate from conservative liberal circles?
When I typed that question into the Google search bar, it returned this (biased?) response, but I'd also like to learn from your perspective.
The Google response provided three supporting links, which I might read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open%E2%80%93closed_political_spectrum
https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/download/10891/10177
https://sapirjournal.org/cancellation/2022/when-right-cancels-right/
I made no claim that it was an exclusive failing of liberals, and your response suggests you are missing the point, and perhaps being defensive in the process. Why do you deflect like this?
You wrote @10:14 pm that "Cancel culture is based in the idea that the liberal left are right and the people they oppose are wrong and should be prevented from speaking."
Honestly, no deflection was intended. My question was a genuine atempt to understand that quoted comment; in particular whether you thought cancel culture might also be based in the idea that the conservative right are right and the people they oppose are wrong and should be prevented from speaking.
Your response has clarfied the quoted comment for me – thank you.
I've now read through the article at the end of the third / last link – an account of cancel culture as not only “one of the intolerant products of “Wokeness”“, but also as a product of conservative ‘values’ – written by a conservative Christian who wasn't conservative enough for his Nashville congregation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_French#Personal_life
Cancel culture was a particular strategy of liberals for a long time, and then the right caught up. This doesn’t mean no righties did it before, or that all of the left did it etc.
The left used cancel culture apparently believing it wouldn’t be used against the left (or more likely just didn’t think about it). Normalising it in the process. Now the right are much more likely to use it too. Own goal from the left.
My comment above to MB was in response to the idea that city council’s should refuse to hire their venues to people that MB or Julie Fairey disapproves of. In this case a right wing lesbian who is gender critical being part of an event that is nothing to do with gender or trans or gay people.
This is classic liberal cancel culture.
Your deflection is to do whataboutery. Aren’t the right also doing cancel culture? you say. Yes, they do. But I wasn’t talking about the right, I was talking about the left and the problem we, the left, have with freedom of expression and how this harms the left as well as society generally.
The right have their own problems, happy to talk about that some time, not happy to find yet another conversation derailed.
MB wants cancel culture, block the voices of people who have different beliefs. I say the left should stand up and make clear coherent arguments for our positions and stop being such dicks about freedom of expression. It doesn’t hurt us for Ani O’Brien to host a talk with a left wing man talking about freedom of expression. It actually strengthens the left because it shows we are competent enough to make our own arguments and defend our politics. We need people to 1) like our politics and 2) respect how we do our politics. We don’t have enough of that at the moment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture#Origins
It might be that simple. 'The right' have certainly deployed 'cancel culture' as a pejorative – similar to 'woke', if you think about it.
That's one of the (many) things I like about TS – the informed commentariat sometimes spurs me to read more widely on a topic.
With you there, and of course the broad left may make various (clear coherent) arguments for a range of positions on any given topic.
'Dickishness' is in the eye of the beholder – ideally, the principles of freedom of expression should protect 'dicks' and non-dicks alike.
Going back to my entry into this thread @1.1.1.1.1.1, I'm still not convinced that saying "we are right and everyone should think like us or shut the fuck up" could honestly be considered progress. It's a weak and inflammatory statement, imho – why wish for that?
Better to do the "clear coherent arguments" thing, even if one truly believes (progressive and/or conservative) liberals are thinking "we are right and everyone should think like us or shut the fuck up."
the only people who have the power to cancel anyone here are admin and moderators. None of them are right wing or right wing proxies.
You've explained your point very well here, weka.
The impulse vulnerable, relatively-powerless segments of society experience to protect themselves and critically-vulnerable members of their group from generalised harm resulting from some broadcast or other, from someone who may well know the likely result of their broadcasting, by preventing them from doing so, is understandable. The option for them to counter that impulse by "holding their own meeting" is not as viable an option as it might seem, given the huge advantage the "shock-jock" has; well, shock for a start along with financial backing, notoriety, history of media attention etc. The vulnerable community is likely only to attract its own members, who will have heard the message before and media coverage is unlikely for a number of reasons, as is any significant attention from readers, due to disinterest or discomfort with the topic. So the scales are weighted significantly in favour of the aggressor, imo.
That said, I agree with the points you have made and wonder what your recommendations for balancing the opportunities and creating a fair deal for the oppressed community might be. It could be that you've already done this, perhaps ad nauseam, so you could just say that and I'd accept your word. Sorry for the density of my language here; it is early-enough in the morning and coffee's still in the pot.
Here are a quick couple of low cost ways to help balance the scales
Publicly challenge the shock-jock to a debate
Counter their assertions via a YouTube
Yes but…
Shock-jocks are often well-versed/trained in the many advantage-giving techniques, I would say, under-hand techniques, "Gish Gallop" etc. that mean they "win" the arguments, at least in the minds of an audience; how to counter that? Going bravely into the breach, knowing you'lll get a hammering isn't going to do anyone any favours, unless you count your opponents.
A Youtube sensation? But if you're not taking the low-brow "sensational" approach, your YouTube offering is likely to sink without a trace.
But yes, thanks, Chairman. I remain skeptical.
People love to see an unknown underdog take on a hot-shot and win.
The more known the hot-shot, the more views it will receive.
As for your other poor excuse, are you claiming the left has no one capable of fighting and wining their argument?
I say rubbish to that as well.
"People love to see an unknown underdog take on a hot-shot and win."
What audience will the "hot-shot" have attracted and will they be rooting for the underdog?
Most followers of "hot-shots" will be supporters of their point of view. In any case, as I described, the dice are loaded in public debates, in favour of the manipulative player; ever listened to The Platform or Michael (shudder) Laws when he was joking it?
As for,
"…are you claiming the left has no one capable of fighting and wining their argument?"
Are you attempting to put words in my mouth?
Have you studied under a shock-jock? 🙂
People love a good fight. And most respect an underdog cleaning up.
I asked you a question which you failed to answer. I didn't put words into your mouth. Now look who is trying to be a shock-jock
It’s interesting that you don’t seem to agree with Rob’s reasoning!?
I agree with weka where they say: "the left should stand up and make clear coherent arguments for our positions and stop being such dicks about freedom of expression."
Are you saying that you agree with Weka but not with Rob or do you agree with both of them? Your comment @ 9:03 am doesn’t seem to fit your reply and it makes you appear self-contradictory or at least inconsistent.
Agree with Rob about what exactly?
And how does my comment @ 9:03 not fit my reply? And what reply are you speaking of?
So many straw men in that one sentence!
Collective noun for scarecrows?
A stiffness?
Really? Do tell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_farm
I thought that Rob explained his reasoning very well. His subject of conversation is “Public Service, Neutrality and the Limits of Free Speech”, which he’s indeed qualified to speak on, IMHO.
interesting read, thanks
Do you know what his Linkedin post was that led to his losing the directorships (in the Kiwiblog post)
I assume that’s a reference to this (but I haven’t read the KB post and I’m not going to):
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/485021/health-nz-chairperson-rob-campbell-fired-over-politicised-comments-health-minister-says
Kiwiblog July 2026
A regular contributor
Poses the (post-modernist) left as antisemitic because it criticises Israel.
Relevance: the right wing practice of silencing those pro Palestinian (US openly, in the UK calling Palestine Action a terrorist group).
The coalition will not recognise a Palestine state, even after the Knesset claimed sovereignty over the West Bank.
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2026/07/exploring_intellectually_dishonest_anti-israel_factions_part_1_leftwing_postmoderns.html
This comment nicely fits into the other thread here on DR about cancel culture, IMO.
Taking a rather simplistic view, the Left tends to criticise, constructively or adversarially & hostilely, just about anything or anybody, the Right, the Centre, the Left. In contrast, the Right tends to criticise the Left and stay silent with regards to the Centre and their own side. The Right have turned this behaviour, which is socially conditioned, into a formidable tool and weaponize it regularly to great effect against the Left counting on the fact that a successful wedge issue can easily make the Left turn on itself and tear itself into pieces in a cannibalistic frenzy. The Left should stop taking the fucking bait and remember that solidarity is more than a means to an end!
Yes, let's stop taking the afore-mentioned bait … and instead, do what?
Once the Left has left behind the bait, the trap, the side show, they can get on with the real work of which there is and always will be plenty. Some of that involves building bridges, not burning them, and repairing relations, not ripping them apart. Stick to values & principles, and to your goals, and write your own story and embody & enact it, but be nimble & agile & humble. Believe in yourself and what you stand for.
HTH
And when a popular figure from the far right comes to town and announces a public meeting to debate putting an end to the freedoms that such and such a minority/disadvantaged group has enjoyed "for too long", what will you do?
I’d continue with strengthening & protecting existing freedoms and continue expanding these to include other minorities/disadvantaged groups of people. I’d do this through formal support & funding of institutions and legal frameworks because actions speak louder than words. I’d explain my reasoning, based on my values, with sincerity and in good faith to others who’d want to at least listen, and I’d engage in constructive debate when appropriate and endeavour to create opportunities for such – I may or may not participate because enabling others may be more powerful & productive.
HTH
Solidarity is a unity based on shared goals and principles.
Tribalism is an "us versus them" identity mindset focused on deep group loyalty and the exclusion of criticism or questioning.
Currently, I find the Left tends to fit into the latter. Hence, are more prone to turn on itself.
I would contend that criticism and related debate and cancel culture were two different things.
The right use non economic issues to manage the many because they know that economic inequality results from their governance. Thus they operate with a form of manipulative insincerity to get the political results they want.
Adopting scarcely credible narratives at times.
"manipulative insincerity"
Indeed!
Cancel culture tends to be the result of not liking and handling the criticism while not wanting to have the debate. Hence, they cancel you.
Landlord tax cuts and tax cuts in general is an economic issue that tends to motivate their support base.
But yes, their policies tend to result in growing economic inequality.
Following on from The Chairman's comment, I would agree, the Left has lost it's collective aspect.
Collectivism has faced assault on many fronts. Neo-liberalism wants us atomised, Employment Contracts Act and the various attacks on unions.
All that without mentioning 100 years and the billions of dollars spent on consumerism, marketing and advertising, telling you that you are special and that your wants are legitimate. Once again I highly recommend 'Century of the Self's by Adam Curtis.
We have to look past the often trivial differences, tone back the rhetoric, quit the virtue signalling and look for what we have in common.
What we have in common is that we've suffered an assault that's atomised our collectivity.
In response to all that (you've described) you demand that WE have to…
It's like blaming baked-bean eaters for climate change.
What we have in common is class; identity is sometimes used to obscure the reality that the working class across the world is more alike than those on top would have us believe.
Capitalism wants us divided so our labour can be exploited by the owners of capital. The methods of division are varied and the working class is not immune to reactionary ideas. Organising collectively to improve our shared conditions requires prioritising the shared working class struggle over the identity divisions promoted by defenders of the status quo.
Indeed.
Adam Curtis has done some great work.
billions of dollars spent on consumerism, marketing and advertising, telling you that you are special
Strangely, I was already aware I was special before my consumer indoctrination.
I agree that insufficient attention has been paid to that final item. Whilst folk are often deeply shallow, paradox is endemic in life, so sheeple superficiality – making them controllable by elites – is an ongoing feature of normalcy.
Cheers arkie, Dennis and Chairman.
The mention of democracy is another divisive illusion. While it is far from ideal (a pure aristocracy, rule of the best or philosopher kings and queens would be preferred), democracy has become a shadow of its best form.
Party politics, donations and the most cancerous of them all, business lobbying, further take away from what little individual influence we have.