The Free Speech Union is questioning why The Post’s
Andrea Vance appears to be reviving an old muckraking
campaign against newly appointed Medical Council member Dr
Manoja Kalupahana, warning that ideological litmus tests for
public appointments threaten both free expression and good
governance.
Executive Director Jillaine Heather said
the questions being asked concern Dr Kalupahana’s lawful
political views rather than her professional qualifications
or her suitability for the role.
“Dr Kalupahana is
an experienced and well respected medical practitioner. Yet
before she has even had the opportunity to serve, a
journalist appears intent on putting her political opinions
on trial.”
A few years ago Dr Kalupahana was the
target of an attempt to link her to anonymous online
identities. She faced the prospect of significant
professional and personal consequences before the Free
Speech Union stepped in to defend her, and the story was
ultimately abandoned.
Heather said the approach now
appears to be a political hit job, treating Dr Kalupahana’s
lawful opinions, and the Free Speech Union’s previous
defence of her right to hold them, as though they were
themselves grounds for suspicion.
“The implication
is that holding views outside the preferences of some
journalists should disqualify someone from public service.
That is a profoundly illiberal proposition.”
“Is
the objection really about political appointments, or is it
simply that the ‘wrong’ politics are now represented? The
Medical Council does not exist to reflect the political
preferences of journalists, activists or governments. It
exists to be staffed by qualified people who can carry out
its statutory responsibilities fairly and
independently.”
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
The Free Speech Union also notes the
irony that media often celebrate diversity in public
institutions while appearing uncomfortable when that
diversity extends to viewpoints they do not
share.
“If the standard becomes that anyone who has
expressed controversial but lawful opinions is unfit for
appointment, New Zealand will select public officials for
their political conformity rather than their
competence.”
“The real issue here is not Dr
Kalupahana. It is whether professionals can participate in
public debate without fearing that years later a journalist
will weaponise their lawful speech against them. New
Zealanders should be judged on their competence, integrity
and conduct, not on whether they hold opinions that are
fashionable in certain
newsrooms.”
