Written By:
- Date published:
10:18 am, July 6th, 2026 - 39 comments
Categories: democratic participation, law, political education -
Tags: free speech, hate speech, hate speech law
This years debate was held on July 2nd. I was in Invercargill with a nasty cold, so I’m about to watch it now whilst catching up on code.
The web page for the 2026 debate with details on the speakers in on Keith’s website. The debate was sold out again for attendance.
For the Affirmative:
Martyn Bradbury (leader), Verity Johnson, Thomas Beagle
For the Negative:
Simon Wilson (leader), Anjum Rahman, Yasmine Serhan.
The inaugural debate in 2025 may be of interest as well. It’s moot was China is a threat to regional peace. It was also sold out.
There is a form at the bottom of the 2026 page. Bearing in mind the demand for the limited space, if you want to attend, then it may pay to get on the list đ
This is a site https://keithlocke.org.nz/ that contains many of his writings both outside of parliament and inside.
The problem with binary framing is that it locks people into a dichotomy of thought. Free-range players prefer biodiversity. At the very least a tertiary option ought to be included on the basis of intelligent design. Metapattern 3 bridges any chasm.
Use of threat in their public promotion is a nifty way to anchor everyone into a darwinian default position. Is entrapment suitable ethos though? I suspect not.
Readers may be tempted to point out that polarising raises consciousness, not just hackles. True, and awareness of other is the first thing a baby experiences – so biological grounding socialises us from the start. Others exert a social constraint on us.
What âbinary framingâ? The OPâs title is not a binary; the debate thatâs the topic of the OP is about a wicked problem and thus not a binary. The problem with straw man is that they avoid addressing the raised issue and fail to address the topic properly, which is just one of your commenting habits here on this site.
They framed the debate as binary thus: a team of 3 for the affirmative side, likewise for the negative. Perfect symmetry exhibited by that dyad. No need to hallucinate any invisible straw man!
You win, I lose?
Your straw man is that you reduced this debate to a crude binary despite the fact that the debate’s title was not [framed as a] binary and thus would not necessarily lock people into dichotomous thinking, as you claim it did. By extension, you imply that all debates with this design are crude binaries.
Not a win/lose proposition though. An audience may render a mixed verdict like a jury. All Black supporters often critique their performances. Such tertiary stances often catalyse helpful cognition of situations. You may feel the ABs are trapped in their binary relation to opponents yet their play exhibits no such problem. So the straw man you are fixating on isn't really there.
You’re [still] diverting away from the issue (i.e., the question posed in the debate’s title and this OP’s title), which was not a binary and you distorted it into one, i.e. a straw man.
Sure, the audience declares a winner & loser, as it did too in this specific debate, but such votes rarely are unanimous, so this is a non sequitur. In any case, the vote, in this specific case, doesn’t reduce the debate topic to a crude binary nor does it lock the debate/debaters or audience into dichotomous thinking, as you want us to believe (i.e., your straw man).
So, let me ask you again, what is the binary framing of the title of this debate? Or let me ask you differently, how would you have framed the debate title to make it non-binary? Let’s see if you can provide a straw man-free answer this time that’s on-topic.
Nope, the design of the debate was binary as specified by whoever designed the format for 2 teams with opposing stances on the topic. I had nothing to do with any of that. Can you explain why you believe I did?
Of course, you had nothing to do with the design of the debate and, of course, I don’t believe that you had!? Odd straw men.
If you don’t want to engage then don’t waste my time here. It’s bad enough that you reduce a complex topic of a constructive debate to a mere binary and claim that it locks in people into dichotomous thinking. It’s worse that you don’t realise what you’re doing or don’t want to admit it. With players such as you, genuine public debate of wicked problems is dead meat and you commenting history here reflects that.
I see a wicked problem, I see a tension, but I don’t see a binary. So, why do you keep insisting there’s one? And if so, where does that lead [us]? Why are you so hung up on the design format of the debate that you cannot or will not look past it to the title, topic, and content of the debate? Have you got nothing sensible to say about hate speech laws in relation to free speech? Is that it?
I await LPrent's report of the event. I look forward to any issues that emerge and will address those when they are published here.
Why? You can watch the debate in full and form your own opinion, canât you? Do you need somebody elseâs opinion to pivot yours? Without watching this debate, you have nothing sensible to say about the relation and potential conflict between hate speech laws and free speech, do you? Are you a sheeple? What a fucking waste of space & time [FYI, not a binary but a duality].
What a fucking waste of space & time
The fact that no commenters have addressed the angle that you believe everyone ought to be using on the debate ought not deter you from doing so. I get your frustration, but it's where everyone seems to be at currently. I agree everyone needs a topic to pivot upon as per usual though. Perhaps LPrent will front several topics from the debate that seem worthy of analysis, since nobody else has.
Sigh
Instead of reading and sticking to the facts you distort and spin your own fantastical narratives, as per usual (not to mention the inappropriate editing of long copypastas, which youâre still doing after being moderated for it).
You pretend being a mind reader knowing what I believe and claim that I push for one angle in the debate. This is particularly rich from you given that you havenât addressed the topic at all, so far. Itâs also incorrect.
As to the assertion that everyone (!) needs a topic to pivot, this is a distortion of what I said to you â you cannot help yourself, can you?
Waiting for LPrent to front with several (?) topics (?) from the debate is pathetic and kinda proves what I said to you, but you donât seem to realise this. Fortunately, LP did reply and gave you an opportunity to agree with him and say something semi-sensible, finally.
The good thing is that on this site there are many other commenters and authors who are capable of independent thought and can create material thatâs worthy of analysis and even a response by others. Long may it last.
I didn't actually go, I'm in Invercargill and the debate was in Auckland Law School. Just watched the video.
Bomber was bombastic, but over all the debate was as ambiguous on both sides as I am.
Speaking as a history buff, a former soldier, ex-medic and someone who has been wandering on social media in a heavily verbally armed mode since BBS and usenet days, I think that we both need strong defences of freedom of expression – and really really nasty hate speech laws as deterrence.
As a student of history and a ex-soldier, I worry about the hate speech being used as a trigger for violence, as it has done so often in the past. Its potential for storing up social chaos leveraged by social suppression – pretty much what I continually see in the 'Free speech union' playbook.
Soldiers, police, ambulance crews hate that. They wind up having to deal with the aftermath.
Our current hate speech laws are simply too limited and way way too slow. What is needed is something that encourages idiots who want to sprout off offensively some reason to think first.
Some kind of committee or jury who can issue preemptive banishment or public exposure or humiliation for going over the bounds of civilised behaviour – and can do it on a majority.
Perhaps it is time to break out the stocks – start with shoving Brian Tamaki in it.
Of course I can foresee problems with that as well. That was the principle that the brown shirts in Germany or the lynch mobs in the Americian south or the Cultural Revolution in China used as well.
over all the debate was as ambiguous on both sides as I am.
And me. Your both/and suggestion seems the best way forward.
A good workable law would target the trigger effect you mention, to design for optimal public safety in the arena. Seems like whatever we currently have isn't fit for purpose (notable lack of prosecuting).
Some kind of committee or jury who can issue preemptive banishment or public exposure or humiliation
That seems a good basis for enforcement. Even if just provisional, as in "This panel advises that X is a potential threat to public safety due to Y." Linkage of offensive behaviour to sociopathy and toxicity can be deployed in Y to provide rationale for prosecution.
Perhaps the 'potatoes' on DF's shoulder fuel some of his many reckons: Helen Clark's "relentless mediocrity" and Dennis' inability to discern "any evidence" of her intelligence; "a classic exhibition of leftism"; 'sheeple' [DF's mot de l'année]; "the Socialist of the Year award"; etc.
"Of course it's happening inside your head Harry. Why should that mean it's not real?"
Still, all this binary dichotomy free-range biodiversity tertiary metapattern nifty darwinian default entrapment ethos dyad triad tetrad mumbo jumbo sounds frightfully clever – only lackwits could fail to recognise such immense and profound understanding on dull display.
edit: on full display
Nah, he ain't no lackwit. Just has a tendency to find word salad bewildering. Any other commentator could help him out but strangely they always seem to steer clear…
Is it any tossing wonder – – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad
That seems strange to you? Self-preservation ‘strange’, imho.
Simon’s Wilson’s take on it here;
https://open.substack.com/pub/simonwilsonhopetown/p/what-should-we-do-about-brian-tamaki?
Simon reckons stirring hatred is bad. Leave it unstirred. Dunno why.
He incited violence in public. Don't we have a law against that? If we do, could be police prosecutors are pondering, ponderously, pros & cons of prosecuting.
Whilst Simon establishes Green street cred here, could be he was flying too high a kite? His thesis is only ever likely to impress via evident causal relation of billionaire polluting to the mid-Pacific gyre. Paying a pro economist to measure it could be the credibility test, huh? I suspect the bits of plastic come from consumers instead.
Wilson of course fails to mention the most egregious NZ example of "hate speech" actually resulting in violence: the violence against women attending a 'Let Women Speak' event at Albert Park in Auckland in 2023. Wrong tribe engaging in the hate speech and violence, so can't mention that one. Much easier to complain about Brian Tamaki, whose rant didn't result in violence. The people keen on hate speech laws never stop to consider how such laws might be used against them.
Indeed, Psycho Milt
And then there are the people who never stop adding their simplistic reckons marinated in subjective sauce that contribute nothing to [the] debate. Your comment is, of course, the most egregious example of this.
really? I think it's one of the most political issues of our time, and particularly relevant to the left and liberals who have a conflicted position on freedom of expression and apart from some notable exceptions are generally unwilling to talk about it.
??
It followed hate acts in Christchurch and Sydney, which followed earlier incitement speech by white nation identitarians and radical Islamists.
Thomas Mann "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil".
Sounds good in theory but is dependent on there being a generally accepted classification of what's evil, what isn't, and which category any particular event falls into.
Right again, Psycho Milt
It might be possible to come to a broad (global) consensus as to whether a "particular event" should be classified as evil, although consensus-building can take time. In Nazi Germany, for example, genocide was framed as a moral imperative on the utopian path towards a purified society.
'Master race' advocacy is more problematic now, but it only takes the sly application of a little 'water and fertiliser' to nuture supremacist shoots for various purposes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country
And today saying Israel is committing genocide would have another saying that's hate speech, they are defending themselves
Hard to secure a consensus when ones perspective is seen as hate speech, thus not tolerated during discussions.
Consensus is not the same as universal agreement – just ask a flat earther.
"Israel is committing genocide" – happy to discuss, but that's old news, innit?
Consensus still requires discussion, a majority and needs to be built.
Hard to do that when there can be no discussion with the other side. As we see in the trans debate – there is a "no debate" stance taken.
Is that what 'we' see? Seems dated – a variant of Godwin's law perhaps? And in any case, if the ‘trans debate’ is a (political) priority, then ‘we’ have the Opportunity to vote for the Women’s Rights Party.
Are you implying Women’s Rights is anti-trans?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Ovens#Anti-transgender_activism
Some consider the Women's Rights Party to be anti-transgender. Don't know if it's enough to constitute a consensus – it’s a niche issue, imho.
https://thestandard.nz/when-is-a-free-speech-union-not-a-free-speech-union/
It's not impossible that the party is pro-transgender, or transgender-neutral, but it seems implausible to me. How about you?
Tolerance to Jan 6 incitement and actions lead to acceptance of the agenda of Project 2025 which was a conspiracy to supplant the first amendment, with the US of A to become a Christian Nation.
Notably on July 4 2026 POTUS declared
He also stated that communism was a "mortal threat to American liberty" and that one cannot be both a communist and a patriot.
The thing he is now using the term godless communist as a generic for political opponents – thus posing such as an existential threat to the American way of life aka MAGA USA …next stage of internment camps for those deemed to be "ANTIFA"
I'm personally putting the odds of a 2nd civil war in the US in the next decade as being about 1 in 3.
how do you envisage the sides in that?
Good quote tWig. It reflects the problem, that often offence can be what one decides; it is a subjective matter. A simple response of 'That's not fair – that's not a good thing to say' may be what is needed. The responder with aggression or sly degrading words then is being inflammatory. But we don't want the wraparound UK list rubbish. Someone will always find something to complain about. And perhaps take pleasure in making many complaints showing how well-bred and sensitive they are or something.