The Free Speech Facade: Inviting Steven Pinker and the Hypocritical War on "Woke" as Strategy for Protecting Powerful White Men

In the summer of 2026, as New Zealand navigates its own intensifying culture wars, the Free Speech Union NZ (FSU) invited Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker for a high-profile event in Auckland. Framed as "An Evening with Steven Pinker" at the Bruce Mason Centre on February 2, the gathering promised insights on reason, progress, and free speech—core tenets of Pinker's brand. FSU's chief executive, Jillaine Heather, touts it as a vital strike in the "fight for free speech in New Zealand."

At first glance, this appears benign: an esteemed thinker engaging a public audience in a free society. Yet, delve deeper, and the invitation exposes a profound hypocrisy. It underscores how purported free speech advocates selectively safeguard expression to protect influential, often tarnished figures, while orchestrating a "war on woke" that vilifies marginalized communities as dire threats to liberty. More alarmingly, it sustains a culture where white supremacist, racist, and pedophile-adjacent men are shielded under the banner of discourse, even as dissenting voices from the margins are suppressed.

This opinion piece contends that FSU's platforming of Pinker is less about authentic free speech and more about upholding entrenched power structures. In an era haunted by Jeffrey Epstein's legacy, where "anti-woke" narratives demonize trans individuals, Indigenous peoples, and ethnic minorities as suppressors of freedom, and where free speech is weaponized to sanitize prejudice, we must scrutinize the beneficiaries of this crusade. FSU's maneuvers, epitomized by figures like council member Ani O'Brien, reveal a stark double standard: unfettered speech for the privileged elite, vilification and censorship for the oppressed. This isn't mere inconsistency; it's a deliberate script designed to marginalize the vulnerable while rehabilitating the powerful.Steven Pinker: Intellectual Luminary or Epstein Enabler?
Steven Pinker's credentials are undeniable—a cognitive psychologist and author of influential works like The Better Angels of Our Nature and Enlightenment Now, he champions rationality and societal advancement. However, his entanglements with Jeffrey Epstein, the notorious sex trafficker whose empire exploited vulnerable minors, taint this image. Documented ties include a 2002 flight on Epstein's infamous "Lolita Express" jet, post-conviction event appearances, and crucially, a 2007 linguistic analysis that bolstered Epstein's defense. Pinker interpreted a federal statute on enticing minors for sexual acts, aiding arguments that facilitated Epstein's lenient 2008 plea deal. Though Pinker regrets this, claiming ignorance of the context and personal disdain for Epstein, the act potentially insulated a predator from fuller accountability.

Epstein's syndicate wasn't isolated perversion; it systematically targeted girls from disadvantaged backgrounds, with enablers like Pinker circulating in his orbit for intellectual clout or resources. Epstein funneled millions to Harvard, Pinker's institution, and curated salons for academics. Pinker's name surfaces repeatedly in Epstein's files, albeit without direct funding or island visits, per his denials. Photos from 2014 events—after Epstein's conviction—depict proximity, which Pinker attributes to coerced seating and mutual aversion.

Inviting Pinker now? FSU positions him as a beacon of "reason and speech," aligning with their ethos. But this overlooks the implications: in a #MeToo-informed world, elevating someone with these associations implies certain men's legacies are impervious to scrutiny. It fits a trend where free speech entities defend beleaguered scholars while trivializing harm. Pinker's scholarship often minimizes structural inequities, asserting declining violence and bias—a view detractors label as glossing over persistent racism and sexism. Platforming him isn't impartial; it's an endorsement that Epstein's stain is excusable for a white, male proponent of "enlightened" ideals.The Free Speech Union NZ: Foot Soldiers in the War on Woke, Led by Figures Like Ani O'Brien
Established in 2020 as a trade union, FSU NZ professes non-partisanship, advocating speech rights universally. Their site claims over 5,400 cases defended, spanning campus deplatformings to employment disputes. Yet, scrutiny uncovers a biased agenda intertwined with the "war on woke"—a right-wing catchphrase decrying progressive stances on race, gender, and inclusion. In New Zealand, this manifests in resistance to Māori co-governance, hate speech legislation, and gender-affirming policies, casting these as encroachments on freedom.

FSU's portfolio illustrates this.

They've championed speakers like Helen Joyce, a vocal trans rights critic, portraying her tours as defenses against "censorship" on gender issues. In 2023, they contested the Tauranga City Council's cancellation of What is a Woman?, a film challenging transgender identities, labeling it a "thugs' veto" due to security demands.

 
The Free Speech Union NZ has repeatedly platformed prominent figures in the so-called "war on woke," most notably hosting Dr. James Lindsay on a national tour in early 2025, where he promoted his books like Cynical Theories and Race Marxism while railing against "wokism" as inherently anti-free speech and tied to Marxist infiltration, cultural Marxism conspiracies, and terms like "groomer" for LGBTQ+ advocacy. Through event announcements, videos, and discussions (including a meeting with Bishop Brian Tamaki on New Zealand's response to "woke culture"), the FSU amplified Lindsay's critiques of critical race theory, transgender issues, and progressive identity politics as authoritarian threats—rhetoric critics label as hate-mongering that stokes moral panic, dehumanizes marginalized groups, and popularizes slurs under the guise of intellectual debate and free expression, all while the union frames itself as a neutral defender of open discourse against censorship.

Principled? Perhaps, but the pattern skews: protected "controversial" speech frequently assails marginalized groups. Trans individuals, enduring elevated suicide rates and bias, are depicted as aggressive censors whose demands imperil free expression.

Enter Ani O'Brien, a FSU council member, writer, and commentator, whose role exemplifies this targeting. Formerly with Speak Up For Women—a group opposing gender self-ID—O'Brien has been a prominent voice in New Zealand's gender debates. Her advocacy frames transgender communities not as vulnerable minorities but as existential threats to women's rights and safety. In submissions and writings, she calls for banning puberty blockers for gender-related care, arguing they harm youth. On X (formerly Twitter), O'Brien criticizes trans activism as homophobic, accusing it of pressuring lesbians into heteronormativity by demanding inclusion in women-only spaces. She celebrates bans on transgender women in sports, derides media for "trans-exclusionary" labels, and mocks figures like activist Shaneel Lal for "dropping the trans cosplay."

This rhetoric escalates beyond debate. O'Brien's involvement in events tied to anti-trans figures like Posie Parker (Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull), whose 2023 NZ visit sparked violence, highlights how such framing mobilizes harm. Parker's tour, supported by groups O'Brien aligns with, saw trans protesters clashing amid heightened tensions; hate crimes against trans people surged 42% that year, peaking during her visit, per RNZ reports. O'Brien's commentary often inverts victimhood: she portrays trans advocates as violent or manipulative, using terms like "moral blackmail" against suicide awareness campaigns or labeling trans-inclusive policies as "reprehensible." This marks trans communities as predators—threats of sexual and gender violence—echoing tropes that trans women endanger cis women in bathrooms or sports.

I have elsewhere critiqued this as libertarian hypocrisy. In my 2023 analysis, I explored the ways in which FSU actors, including O'Brien, concoct moral panics around decolonization and gender, where Indigenous and trans rights are smeared as "woke indoctrination." O'Brien's posts amplify fears of "trans mobs" or "woke white liberal moms," mobilizing online outrage that spills into real-world violence at the margins—protests turning aggressive, doxxing, or harassment. Rights Aotearoa condemned FSU's 2025 Joyce tour for amplifying rhetoric that treats trans people as "a problem to be eliminated," their healthcare as "criminal abuse."

O'Brien's script frames these margins as aggressors, justifying exclusion while stoking division.
This isn't anomaly; it's integral to FSU's playbook. Racial parallels abound: FSU critiques Māori "claims" as divisive, backing academics opposing co-governance and portraying Indigenous equity as "racial prejudice." O'Brien's broader commentary dovetails, questioning "woke" terminology and aligning with anti-diversity sentiments. In a 2025 blog, I noted FSU's ties to Zionist advocates targeting pro-Palestine speech, underscoring selective "freedom." I have argued elsewhere that the form of free speech that the FSU is invested in upholding is settler colonial, imperialist, misogynist speech.Framing Marginalized Communities as Threats to Free SpeechFSU's core duplicity lies in recasting victims as oppressors. Trans activists advocating inclusive language? Labeled "manipulative" censors. Māori pursuing treaty rights? Accused of undermining democracy. Ethnic minorities highlighting bias? Dismissed as "victim players." This "anti-woke" inversion posits progressive measures—safe spaces, trigger warnings, anti-hate laws—as totalitarian, while elite speech remains sacrosanct.

On trans issues, FSU and O'Brien's defense of anti-trans views weaponizes "threat" narratives. A 2024 radio spot saw FSU's CEO reject links between unsupportive rhetoric and trans harm, insisting "words are not violence." Yet, evidence shows such discourse fuels marginalization and crises. Platforming Joyce or Parker, O'Brien's allies abstract trans lives into debates, questioning their validity under "inquiry." This mobilizes violence subtly: framing trans people as sexual/gender threats (e.g., invading women's spaces) incites backlash, as seen in Parker's tour assaults.

Racially, NZ's "woke" backlash targets Māori resurgence. FSU opposes He Puapua, an Indigenous rights report, as "prejudice." This mirrors supremacist rhetoric, where equity equals discrimination. Greenpeace's 2025 notes tie "war on woke" to silencing Indigenous environmental voices. FSU's outrage is choosy—defending race "debates" while ignoring harm—revealing the aim: speech upholding white, cis, male hegemony.

Marginalized groups suffer: in unequal NZ—Māori in poverty, trans youth violated—the "threat" trope excuses inaction. FSU, dubbed a "right-wing front" by critics, protects downward punches.The Culture of Protecting Pedophile, White Supremacist, Racist Men Under Free SpeechPinker’s invitation epitomizes this: men with Epstein ties—emblematic of extreme child-directed sexual violence—are laundered via free speech, their critics "woke" hysterics. Epstein's circle, including Pinker's colleague Alan Dershowitz, enabled exploitation. Pinker faces no pedophilia charges, but his aid and proximity perpetuate a culture shielding such figures. FSU platforms him amid O'Brien's anti-trans crusade, which frames trans people as child threats (e.g., via puberty blockers or "grooming" myths), a hypocritical inversion.

This extends to supremacists: FSU's libertarianism, per Dutta, amplifies nationalist ideas as "inquiry." In NZ, it defends anti-Māori or Islamophobic speech, ignoring hate's toll. The script? Protect elite men's "debate" rights while demonizing margins as violent threats, mobilizing real harm against them.Toward an Ethical Free SpeechFSU's Pinker event betrays accountability. Genuine free speech amplifies the voiceless, not enablers. Boycott these; demand platforms for survivors. Only then does speech emancipate.