Brian Tamaki exposed ACT's free speech problem

Most people know how I voted at the last election. I gave my party vote to ACT and my electorate vote to National. Unless something changes dramatically between now and polling day, I can’t see myself doing that again.

The final straw was seeing ACT MP Parmjeet Parmar report Brian Tamaki to the Police Commissioner over comments he made on his podcast.

The comments were made in the aftermath of reports of horrific violence against Christians and churches in India. They were clearly emotional, angry remarks made in the heat of the moment. As I understand it, Tamaki was venting his outrage. I do not believe he was instructing anyone to go out and commit acts of violence.

Despite that, politicians seemed determined to turn the matter into a criminal investigation.

What happened next should concern anyone who values freedom of expression. Police launched an investigation and seized Tamaki’s firearms.

This is a Kiwi bloke who has held a firearms licence for more than 30 years. To my knowledge, he has never been known as a violent individual. Suddenly, after decades without issue, his firearms become a problem because politicians have got their knickers in a twist over comments made on a podcast.

ACT built its reputation as the party that stood up for free speech. It repeatedly argued that offensive speech should be challenged with better arguments, not with police investigations. It criticised expanding hate speech laws and warned about governments deciding which opinions were acceptable.

Now one of its own MPs has chosen to involve the police over speech.

If an actual crime has been committed, the police don’t need politicians pointing them in a particular direction. Their job is to independently assess the law and the evidence. Politicians should be focused on making laws, not encouraging criminal investigations whenever they dislike someone’s comments.

The true test of supporting free speech isn’t defending speech everyone agrees with. It’s defending the principle when the speech is offensive, unpopular or emotionally charged.

I supported ACT because I believed it understood that distinction. Increasingly, I’m not convinced it does.

When politicians who claim to champion free speech are among the first to call for police intervention over controversial remarks, they’ve abandoned one of the very principles that set them apart. That is not the ACT Party I voted for.

At this stage, I struggle to see how they’ll earn my vote back.