David Seymour's speech acts: How political authority influences racist discourse in New Zealand

The following text was initially published as a thread to my Bluesky account on 14 January. Reproduced here with some edits. I later noted that the dangerous speech targeting minorities, and Māori associated with MP David Seymour is a well-established phenomenon, as I wrote about two years ago soon after he publicly fantasised about fire-bombing the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, and those in it: Harms hidden as?humour.

###

My submission to parliament opposing the Treaty Principles Bill was based on 3 reports establishing a causal link between the Bill's mere introduction in NZ, & a staggering rise in anti-Māori racism online. As I noted in my submission,

My research unequivocally demonstrates that the Treaty Principles Bill, despite its stated aims, has directly contributed to a substantial increase in violent anti-Māori, and anti-Treaty rhetoric online, creating a climate conducive to offline harm. This is a causal link. The documented proliferation of hate speech, misinformation, and divisive narratives targeting Māori communities since the Bill’s introduction necessitates its immediate withdrawal. Continuing to pursue this legislation in its current form would further exacerbate existing social tensions, deepen polarisation, and pose significant risks to the safety and well-being of Māori. The Bill’s stated objectives of promoting clarity, conversation, and social cohesion are demonstrably undermined by the evidence of its harmful consequences.

How does political authority (e.g. speech by elected politicians) fuel this commentary?

A tweet by NewstalkZB linked to an article on the news platform's website featured Deputy PM, & ACT Party Leader MP Seymour's comments on the Treaty Principles Bill (TPB), & especially mainstream media coverage of it. I mapped the language, & sentiments expressed in 73 replies against the text of the article.

MP Seymour frames the debate as "not about race", while using terms like "backwards-looking tribal place". This creates a false dichotomy. His speech act implicitly de-legitimises Māori cultural, and legal frameworks whilst claiming to champion individual dignity.

This framing by MP Seymour maps on to tweets which characterise Māori rights as "special privileges" or "racial supremacy", establishing how his political speech (what he says, but how) enables a more explicit discriminatory discourse on Twitter/X, which is now generally defined by harms, & hate.

The Deputy PM claims in the NewstalkZB article, on the issue of Treaty partnerships, that people must somehow "state their race before their ideas are heard". T/his framing leads supporters (& likely ACT partisans) parroting "equal rights" without context in the replies.

Those partial to t/his presentation refer to "equal rights" without acknowledging (or being aware of?) the historical or legal context of the Treaty (which so many, Māori, & Pākehā opposed to TPB have clarified). The creates an oversimplified "us vs them" narrative, which is its own echo chamber.

MP Seymour vituperatively dismisses NZ mainstream media coverage as "pretty hopeless", & criticises protest coverage, creating a narrative of victimisation that strongly echoes presentations by card-carrying anti-Māori/anti-Treaty hate entrepreneurs elsewhere on social media, & also on the TPB.

In the tweets studied, MP Seymour's supporters/ACT partisans amplify this false political victimisation frame by claiming for e.g. that "far left media are dead against the bill", & suggest systematic bias against discussions of "equality" (as they see/want/believe it, essentially erasing Māori).

The Deputy PM's pejorative, & false binary of "tribal" versus modern society appears throughout replies. T/his framing portrays Treaty rights as archaic rather than living, relevant, or fit-for-purpose legal principles.

This speech act by MP Seymour encourages explicitly discriminatory frames on about Māori governance, & rights in the tweets, characterising Treaty rights as entirely incompatible with, and indeed, diametrically opposed to a modern NZ democracy.

MP Seymour's universalist language about "dignity", & "respect" sounds conciliatory, & inclusive but dismisses the Treaty relationship's specific context. Twitter/X replies go on to reject historical injustices, & Treaty obligations, advocating an ahistorical "equality" that disadvantages Māori.

While appearing moderate, MP Seymour's speech acts in just this one article, & instance provide cover for, & inspire far more explicit anti-Māori/anti-Treaty sentiment in public discourse as brought out in the replies to NewstalkZB's tweet, which must be seen as pathways to more violative rhetoric.

By pitting or positioning Treaty rights against individual equality rather than within NZ's constitution, the Deputy PM enables, & ennobles a discourse that frames Māori rights as discriminatory - a classic DARVO strategy, sadly binding him to rhetoric of Hobsons Pledge, & leading anti-Māori bigots.

How speech acts by MP Seymour inform the tone, & thrust of replies also help to better understand a violently racist rhetoric that's at the heart of discourse (across social media) supporting the TPB. Image below from an earlier Bluesky post I published noting "Snapshot of discourse in comments responding to ACT Party's post on Facebook, & those by Hobsons Pledge. A broadly shared, awful vocabulary - defined by violative, dehumanising, denigrating, & dangerous speech targeting Māori - illuminates an ideological overlap too. Govt gives all this succour."

I also studied 337 replies against a YouTube video posted to the ACT's party's channel that featured the NewstalkZB interview. Suffice to say that MP Seymour's speech acts in the interview informed a similar commentary, & vocabulary defined by violative anti-Māori/anti-Treaty discourse.

The following is something I wrote up in my analysis of the YouTube comments studied against what the Deputy PM said the NewstalkZB radio interview. It also applies more generally to the tweets studied earlier, & MP Seymour's role in shaping attitudes more broadly.

The polarisation evident in the comments is amplified by Seymour's rhetorical approach of presenting stark binary choices (individual dignity vs tribal thinking, reasoned debate vs hysteria). While this appears effective at rallying supporters, it also deepens divisions (i.e., exacerbates affective polarisation), and intensifies strident opposition (to Māori, and those against the TPB), as clearly reflected in the often frothingly hostile tone of critical comments.

Why does any of this matter? In what NZ's far-right invariably refer to as "shit-hole" countries (one of which I am from), a cardinal reason for democratic deficits, & social cohesion's evisceration are speech acts by politicians that shape extremist, violent attitudes, practices, & behaviours.

The Capitol Hill insurrection is a more accessible example for NZ'ers on this point. MP Seymour's not Trump, but Bandy X. Lee 's insightful take (The ‘Shared Psychosis’ of Donald Trump and His Loyalists) clarifies the Deputy PM's influence, esp. amongst partisans.

A divisive rhetoric leads to violent consequences.

While those who for whatever reason dislike ACT, Seymour, & supporters of the TPB won't find any of this surprising, it matters that a causal relationship between the Bill, & violent anti-Māori rhetoric is established in evidence, data, & analysis. MP Seymour influences racist discourse. Period.

This is borne out in the analysis of NewstalkZB replies, & the comments against ACT's YouTube video - just today. Imagine what study of similar discourse is at scale, across social media accounts, & captured since first hint of the TPB. What's given life to by MP Seymour won't magically disappear.

Which brings me to final point, & a personal observation. A study of public commentary also helps establish narratives that aren't present. The awful TPB discourse fills a void created by PM Luxon. An absence of strong political leadership, & counter-speech is actively contributing to racism's rise.

6/1/21 in Washington DC exemplified the inevitable end of speech acts instigating hate or giving succour to 'us vs them' narratives. 1000s in Global South (incl friends) have been killed because of a similar, antecedent rhetoric by autocrats or fascists. A similar speech act pathology is now in NZ.

Praemonitus, praemunitus. To know what's being said, done, by whom, and how helps prepare for what's being architected to deal with, & delegitimise the Justice Commission's final report.