Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux: 'Thugs' veto' canned visit, court told
Disputes over a controversial Auckland visit by two Canadian alt-right activists have returned to court.
Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern’s 2018 event was cancelled when Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) pulled out of the deal to use Takapuna’s Bruce Mason Centre.
The lawfulness of that decision is being contested at the Court of Appeal in Auckland, 10 months after the High Court rejected a review of RFA’s decision.
Lawyers for two men appealing the High Court decision believed this was the first modern case to discuss public authority responses to the “hecklers’ veto” or deplatforming attempts.
READ MORE:
* Freedom of speech untested in Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern ruling: Academic
* High Court denies review of decision to bar Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux from Auckland Council venue
* Phil Goff's 'Twitter fingers' itched over call to cancel Canadian right-wing speakers' event
Malcolm Moncrief-Spittle and Dr David Cumin have argued the council-controlled RFA acted unlawully, and denying acess to Molyneux and Southern impacted freedom of expression.
In submissions, the two men also said RFA’s decision was unreasonable or irrational, and in breach of the Bill of Rights.
On Tuesday, Moncrief-Spittle and Cumin’s counsel Jack Hodder QC said most events RFA hosted would be uncontroversial.
"If the Beatles were to reform and turn up, there would be no complaints."
Hodder said the appeal did not intend to resurrect the cancelled event, but to confirm principles including access to public facilities or assets for people organising “unpopular or controversial events”.
Court of Appeal president Justice Stephen Kós told Hodder another venue was found for Southern and Molynex.
"Auckland's awash with these. And they found an alternative.”
Hodder said other venues existed but RFA offered no such alternatives.
Auckland’s PowerStation in Eden Terrace booked the event but cancelled it too.
Hodder said the “thugs’ veto” was used as a cancellation strategy by people opposed to the Molyneux-Southern event.
Justice Mark Cooper said that veto term was “loaded” and best avoided.
“What's wrong with a protesters’ veto?”
Hodder said RFA’s claims about cancelling the event for safety and security reasons were disingenuous.
"There was no process, there was no consultation.”
He said an email from Auckland Peace Action activist Valerie Morse to RFA’s Robbie Macrae did not suggest violence was imminent.
In submissions to the appeal court, Moncrief-Spittle called himself a classical liberal who’d acquired a ticket for the event.
Cumin said he was Jewish and did not support some of Molyneux and Southern's views but was concerned about the “thugs’ veto”.
For RFA and Auckland Council, barrister Katherine Anderson said definitions of a "public venue" could be complicated.
She said RFA was told the speakers were a philosopher and a documentary filmmaker, and it accepted that without initially investigating further.
‘CENSORSHIP’ DISPUTE
Anderson said promoter Axiomatic Events planned to pay Molyneux and Southern $10,000 each and give speakers a share of merchandise sale proceeds.
“It's clearly a paid speaking engagement. It was not an event that was open to the public.”
Justice Kós asked what difference that made.
“These are public facilities which people like Dr Cumin’s rates have generated.”
He said RFA was not responsible for censorship, “however ugly and unpleasant” speakers’ views might be.
Justice Kós said it was dangerous to use claimed health and safety concerns to suppress public discourse.
Anderson said protest groups would have had four weeks to plan action before the event went ahead in Takapuna, creating a security dynamic absent from the alt-right speakers’ mid-2018 Australian tour.
Anderson said Cumin didn’t plan on attending anyway. She questioned why he raised freedom of association concerns.
“I am utterly against that submission ... Let us move to something you might succeed on,” Justice Kós said.
The appeal will also hear argument about court costs.
Cumin and Moncrief-Spittle suggested they shouldn’t have had to pay costs and their case was of genuine public interest.
The hearing is expected to last up to a day-and-a-half.