Jonathan Ayling - a wolf in sheep's clothing

Mark Honeychurch - 9 December 2024

I’m sure many of you will have heard of the Free Speech Union (FSU), which formed in 2021 by registering as a Trade Union. They’re a successor to the Free Speech Coalition, which formed in 2018 in response to problems Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux had with finding a venue in Auckland in which to spread their weird ideas on topics like immigration (I’ve watched a couple of Lauren’s documentaries, and they’re not exactly what I’d call factual).

Now, free speech is an issue that’s dear to the hearts of skeptics and rationalists. If free speech is curtailed, we are at risk of not being able to criticise the kinds of nonsense we speak out about regularly. It’s possible that overly draconian free speech laws may stop us from being able to criticise ideas because they’re religious in nature, or because we could ruin someone’s livelihood (such as a psychic or a homeopath). And so it’s tempting to want to jump on the bandwagon and join an organisation like the Free Speech Union, who loudly proclaim that they are protecting academic freedom and the right to criticise others. But I’m concerned that the FSU may not be the liberal, rational, truth-loving organisation it appears to be at first blush, and that Jonathan Ayling, its CEO, may be pushing for free speech for all the wrong reasons.

Jonathan Ayling moved to New Zealand from Africa at the age of 18 to study. He’s been here ever since, and after graduation he found work as an advisor for the National Party, including a stint working for the then Prime Minister Bill English. He left politics to get a masters degree in theology, as he felt that God had called him to do this. Then at some point after graduating he helped to found the Free Speech Union.

Since starting the FSU, Jonathan has been prolific in his promotion of the group, frequently appearing in print media and on TV, and regularly spamming academics in New Zealand with emails like this one:

Today, the Free Speech Union, in conjunction with Curia Market Research, has released its second Annual Academic Freedom Report, which considers the views of hundreds of academics from across each of New Zealand’s eight universities. As I argued in my Stuff op-ed this morning (and as you know), academic freedom is indispensable if the university is going to perform its role as the ‘critic and conscience of society’. Yet, this report outlines considerable concerns for Kiwi academic freedom and the culture of open debate and research in our universities. It deepens concerns that we have raised for some time about the ability for Kiwi academics to voice controversial or unpopular views.

A majority of comments from academics reflected concerns about the state of academic freedom, with a clear sense of growing difficulty in raising and discussing a range of issues in the university context. This was seen at all levels of academic discourse, including with colleagues, university management, students, teaching, or speaking in public. Many responses referred to a ‘climate of fear’ and many mentioned concerns about job security and barriers to promotion for expressing the ‘wrong’ views. Across every metric, responses indicate academics feel less free than they did last year.

Concerningly, this report shows that a majority of academics who responded at five of our eight universities disagreed that they were free to state controversial or unpopular opinions, even though this is one of the specific features of academic freedom as defined in the Education and Training Act 2020. Across all eight universities, only 46% of academics agreed they felt free to question received wisdom and state controversial and unpopular opinions. The rest disagreed. When asked about their willingness to speak about the Treaty of Waitangi and colonialism, at least one-third (30%) of academics at every single university said they would feel ‘Not at all comfortable’. Almost half (45%) of academics from Otago were ‘Not at all comfortable’.

Freedom in the university sector is stagnating, and its leaders either don’t know or don’t care. We need to pay attention and do something- our future is far more bleak without solutions that move us forward, as disruptive or unexpected as they may be.

Every academic who is concerned about academic freedom in New Zealand should join the movement that is actually fighting for their right to perform their role. Academics are welcome to join the Free Speech Union while also remaining members of the Tertiary Education Union.

To date, we have proven to be reliable advocates for academics’ freedom and (unfortunately, because we’d love for this not to be true) it is unlikely the TEU is actually going to pick up this important work any time soon.

We would like to thank those who participated in this survey, and hope the results are helpful to all those working to defend this crucial freedom. We’ve passed these results on to you as someone we believe is interested (the report is here, along with a cover note from Prof. Grant Schofield of AUT attached). However, if you are not interested we’re happy to remove you from our list.

Kind regards,

Jonathan Ayling

Chief Executive | Free Speech Union

Mob +64 21 842215 | Email jonathan@fsu.nz

Free Speech Union (New Zealand) Incorporated | PO Box 10512, The Terrace, Wellington 6143 | http://www.fsu.nz/

The Free Speech Union is a registered trade union under the Employment Relations Act 2000. If you would like to stand with us to protect and promote free speech click here to receive our updates.

In fact, Jonathan’s so prolific with his emailing that he mentioned in the sermon he gave below (to a church in Masterton last year) that people come up to him in church and tell him that he’s been filling up their spam folders. Yep, that’s right, I said sermon. Because Jonathan regularly preaches at church, and it’s in these sermons that we can start to learn a little more about what motivates him:

Watching sermons like the one above often makes me think that what I’m watching is someone who desires the power to have a command over others, who wants others to take their ideas seriously, but who would be roundly ignored in somewhere like academia where usually evidence is required to back up statements. However, in a church setting, people are given a lot of freedom to simply assert their ideas to a receptive crowd, without needing to provide any supporting evidence. We hear confident pronouncements about what God wants of you, of what is important in life, of how we should think and act, as if these people have a direct line to a Higher Power. But, objectively, as far as we can tell there’s no divine influence, no guiding power - this is all in their head, make-believe nonsense that they have “discerned” or heard as a voice “speaking” to them.

And so it is with Jonathan, as we can see in the sermon above. Jonathan thinks he has a special connection to a being who created the universe, and that this spiritual being is instructing him on how he should tell others to live their lives. There’s a huge arrogance to holding this belief, especially when there are so many other people out there who just as fervently hold differing beliefs about very different creator gods.

This particular sermon highlights that Christians supposedly have to choose between fear and faith. It’s an overly-simplistic message that reminded me of the scenes in Donnie Darko where Donnie, played by Jake Gyllenhall, rails against the message from a life coach played by Patrick Swayze that life is a choice between Fear and Love.

There are also several other sermons online where Jonathan speaks at Victory Christian Centre. This is a church in Lower Hutt that I’ve visited in the past, because we were tipped off at the NZ Skeptics that the South African pastor, Stefan, was telling his congregation before the last election how they should vote - something that I was able to witness happening at one of his Sunday services. Incidentally I’ve also seen Stefan’s wife, Vanessa, speaking in Tongues inside parliament at a “Jesus for NZ” event, where Christians were decrying the removal of the word Jesus from the prayer at the opening of parliament.

The church teaches the scam that is Prosperity Gospel, promotes Donald Trump (along with RFK Jr and others in Trump’s inner circle), tells everyone that evolution is a lie, and claims that Christians can call on Angels to come to earth and overthrow governments. If you want to know more about some of the ridiculous beliefs of this church’s leaders, watch this one titled “Don’t Trust your eyes”, where pastor Stefan Schlogl shows his complete lack of understanding of science and technology:

It’s concerning to see Jonathan aligning himself with such an extreme church, a fringe Christian sect that’s divorced from reality in so, so many ways.

In one guest sermon at Victory, from 2 years ago, Jonathan talks about how churches should have a say in politics, and outlines his belief that around 200 people in New Zealand are in control of our culture. He thinks that these 200 people are consciously working towards normalising transgenderism for all 5 million New Zealanders, and that therefore the church is losing this particular battle. He also talks about his family’s missionary work in Mozambique, and of the very real battle between goodness (Christianity) and dark forces (traditional African beliefs).

In another, from just 2 months ago, Jonathan despairs about the direction society is taking, hearkening back to a long-gone era when nearly everyone was Christian. He calls on the congregation to work to bring Christian “order” (domination) to the world, so that then we can have peace. He tells everyone that we used to live in a Christian Nation, but that now we are living in a godless Babylon. Simultaneously, he claims that we’re living in one of the most “peaceful, prosperous, stable civilisations that have ever existed”, and that this is because of the work of the Christians in our society. There’s also a lot of talk about how Jonathan’s particular flavour of religion is the “Truth”, a message that’s given with a total lack of doubt. This kind of unwavering confidence in a belief should be anathema to skeptics and rationalists.

Finally, he reiterates the conspiracy theory from his previous sermon at Victory that a small group of strategic, dedicated people are able to influence society, and that they are telling “evil lies” (presumably about giving equal rights to everyone). Despite the “majority of Kiwis” not believing in the lies, these shadowy influencers are still having a major impact on our society. He sees himself as one of a small group of counter-influencers working for Christ, similarly applying an outsized influence on our society, but in his case being a “light” for “good”.

In articles for Baptist New Zealand, Jonathan Ayling has talked about how he is eagerly awaiting the time when Jesus returns to overthrow governments and rule the world:

Being a Christian is high treason, then, in a spiritual sense, to the powers which surround us. We audaciously proclaim a time not long from now, and a power which is coming, when a worthier, more highly exalted King shall reign… Our hope is not founded in a democratic system which ensures representative governance, but in he who will have absolute rule. And our love is not directed primarily to a nation state, but to all people who are the creation of God.

He also talked about how he saw his career as a political adviser as an opportunity to exert his influence over politicians, and steer them towards more Christian-based policies:

In the tumultuous arena of politics, there abounds those who do what is right in their own eyes, and who seek to lead our nation to do the same. As those of us who work in this space seek to influence leaders around us to do what is right in the eyes of God, we walk through many troubling seasons.

And here, he argues that he’s looking forward to the time when choice and sovereignty is taken away from us, and God becomes the focus of our government and people:

This hope is particularly dear as we look at the state and direction of our country. Is it possible that even in such a place and time as this, God will be exalted in our nation? As brick after brick is wrenched from the foundation of our society in the name of individual sovereignty, freedom of choice and endless self-promotion, some begin to ask whether Christians should even associate with politics anymore. I find encouragement in one of the lesser known biblical characters who would heartily respond, yes, even in our day and age, the Lord will use us to exalt his name. Even through the brokenness of politics, godless policies and self-interested power, the name of the Lord will resound.

Finally, in this article Jonathan laments the increase of tolerance and diversity in society, and talks about his efforts to help return our country to its Christian roots:

In New Zealand, the once prominent and revered position the Church held in our society’s mind has been diminished by no end. Christianity continues to face greater marginalisation than ever before as the fruits of post-modernism, secular-humanism, liberalism, and an untold number of other anti-biblical and anti-Christian perspectives are more clearly seen. As a political advisor in the previous Parliament, I helped coordinate opposition to key issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and drug reform.

In that last article, he frames the work of turning New Zealand into a Christian nation, forging the way for the return of Christ, as a sacrifice that will involve being persecuted - despite the fact that it’d be the Christians who would be doing the persecuting:

As we also run in such a way, the world will see Christ in us, and hate us too. And in that day, let us rejoice and be glad, that we “should be counted worthy to suffer for the name” (Acts 5:41, ESV)… The blood of the martyr truly is the seed of the church. While a grain of wheat may remain alone unless it dies, if it dies, it will bear much fruit. Let our daily deaths through insult, injury, and abuse bring forth a great harvest of fruit for our Lord

So, enough about where Jonathan’s coming from - what about the Free Speech Union? In what ways are they championing free speech? At first blush, it appears that this group doesn’t discriminate, and are happy to take up causes from across the political spectrum. However, on closer inspection it becomes apparent the group’s passion, and a lot of their effort, goes into issues that would be considered to be at the extreme conservative end of the spectrum.

Going back through the Union’s press releases, I can see that they’ve publicly expressed their support for Candace Owen, Julian Batchelor, the ACT Party, Destiny Church, Family First, Posie Parker, Graham Lineham, Bethlehem College and the Parliament protestors. In some cases the Union’s even taken, or threatened to take, legal action on their behalf.

On the flip side, they’ve spoken out against the new Gang Patch legislation, and in favour of rainbow storytime (but also in favour of protestors against these events) and in favour of pro-Palestinian protestors (as well as the pro-Israeli ones). You can see here that this list is a lot smaller than the previous one.

Of course, it could be argued that the FSU are putting more time and effort into conservative issues simply because conservative views are more likely to fall foul of free speech laws, and more likely to be suppressed by a progressive society like New Zealand’s. However, looking at the FSU’s Campaigns page we can see that, although they may be paying lip service to some progressive free speech issues, their passion and effort really is reserved for the issues that conservatives hold near and dear to their hearts. The group may put out press releases for progressive issues, but these causes, like the Story Time kerfuffle and the new Gang Patch legislation, don’t appear in their list of current or past campaigns - all they’ve had from the FSU is some press releases.

Knowing what we now know about Jonathan’s beliefs, and what appears to be a bias towards conservative causes, we need to look at how Jonathan’s beliefs might inform his work for the Free Speech Union. Why is he doing this work, and how does it fit in with his desire to see New Zealand become a Kingdom of God?

In media interviews, there are hints of what appears to be driving Jonathan’s fight for free speech:

If we don’t like libraries allowing drag queen story times, there’s a credible argument to not allow state-integrated schools to teach traditional views on marriage.

Back in 2022, Jonathan talked to Andrew Urquhart on Shine TV, one of New Zealand’s Christian TV stations (along with Firstlight TV and the Hope Channel) about the proposed new Hate Speech law changes, and he made it fairly clear that the reasoning behind his championing of free speech, to the detriment of other human rights, seems to be a desire to ensure that discrimination by Christians of minority groups remains lawful:

Do you feel that freedom of speech will be restricted by these proposals?

Absolutely, there’s no question in our mind. Not only freedom of speech, but freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of opinion. These are the civil liberties upon which our democracy is based, as you’ve said, and as a Christian I would say that, while a secular notion, free speech is actually a great blessing to the spreading of the Gospel. You know, we don’t want to protect free speech only for ourselves, to stand up for our own rights, it’s also so that the Gospel will have a platform to be spoken from, and there are necessarily offensive elements of the Gospel. The Gospel is foolishness to the Greek, and insult to the Jew, but to those of us who have been saved it is the very power of God.

…

I think while the intention behind these changes is very laudable and noble, we want to do something in response to the horrific attack that occurred in Christchurch, these intentions are actually the pathway to Hell. The good intentions pave the way to Hell, as the saying goes, and I’m concerned that actually, in the long run, this will hurt the churches, will hurt minority communities, it will actually hurt the public conversation we’re seeking to have.

…

While of course we should recognise people’s right and decision to live as they wish, to elevate them in a piece of law, outside of public discussion, actually removes the public debate that our society is having at large at the moment. Across the board there are those who agree and disagree with the immutability of gender and that kind of thing. If we can’t have that conversation, we actually can’t move on together, and, as you’ve pointed out, that will actually then force us to pursue more extreme forms of expression in the long run.

So, there we have it. Jonathan appears to be protecting free speech simply to defend Christians’ right to spread their religion and its regressive, discriminatory views. And, as a bonus, he threatens that if free speech is not allowed, people like him may have to become “more extreme”.

There’s obviously a need for us as a society to balance free speech with other human rights. Those who are Free Speech Absolutists - who think that speech of any kind should always be allowed - tend to treat free speech as an ideology, and ideologies are rarely, if ever, nuanced enough to be fair and equitable for everyone. However, for Jonathan, it appears that free speech isn’t his end goal, rather the domination of New Zealand by Christianity is his ultimate aim. Any support of free speech appears to just be a smokescreen, behind which the real work of the FSU is in defending people’s right to discriminate against those who are different to them, for example those who are gay or transgender.

And so, whatever the merits of the Free Speech Union’s causes (and given their obvious political leanings, I’m not sure there’s much in the way of merit), I can’t get behind their message and support them, because I am inherently distrusting of the man behind the curtain, and of his motives. Jonathan has made a calculated decision that promoting free speech at all costs will benefit his religion, and aid its ability to dominate our society. I’m not sure whether he’s right, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he was - and at the very least, given his fervent, extreme religious beliefs, I would not be comfortable trusting him to make sensible decisions when it comes to lobbying for free speech rights. There may one day be an organisation dedicated to free speech issues in New Zealand that I could get behind, but the Free Speech Union is not that organisation.

Finally, one interesting thought that crossed my mind while writing this article was that of whether I’d be at risk of finding myself at the wrong end of a defamation lawsuit. Of course, as with every article I write, I’ve tried my best to be factual in this one, and to provide links to sources to back up my claims. And, where I’m guessing as to people’s motives, I’ve attempted to make sure I word what I say accordingly, to convey that some things I can’t know for certain. But there’s always a risk involved with the articles we write for groups like the Skeptics and the Rationalists - and a defamation lawsuit, even if it’s without merit, could still cost these Societies a lot of money.

However, I figure in this case we’re probably on relatively safe ground. Given Jonathan’s unswerving dedication to free speech, it seems unlikely that he’d want to try to suppress what I have to say. In fact, I’d wager that if anything Jonathan would want to defend my criticism of him, as proof of his dedication to free speech - so maybe I’m playing into his hands after all!