How the Language We Use About National Security Shapes Our Perceptions with Wil Hoverd

In this episode, we spoke with Associate Professor Wil Hoverd, Director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at Massey University about his research and most recent book, State of Threat. We covered topics including ideas about what National Security means, sexism in the security sector, and the Wellington Occupation. If you would like to learn more about Wil’s research see the links below. 

https://www.masseypress.ac.nz/books/state-of-threat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzBGnKPTOwQ

 https://nationalsecurityjournal.nz/latest-issues-2021/the-inconsistent-usage-of-the-terms-extremism-and-terrorism-around-the-christchurch-mosque-attacks/

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111450871/nz-is-committed-to-religious-diversity--but-do-we-know-what-that-means

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018931846/expert-on-nz-s-readiness-for-cyberattacks

Academic Articles

Rivera, C., Oxholm, T., & Hoverd, W. (2023). New Zealand Religious Groups’ Responses to the Christchurch Terror Attacks: Inclusion, Exclusion and the State Response to the Mosque Victims. Journal for the Academic Study of Religion. 36(1), 1-27

Hoverd, WJ., Salter, L., & Veale, K. (2021). The Christchurch Call: insecurity, democracy and digital media - can it really counter online hate and extremism?. SN Social Sciences. 1(1), Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs43545-020-00008-2

Hoverd, W. (2021). FASCISTS AMONG US: Online Hate and the Christchurch Massacre. New Zealand International Review. 46(1), 27-28Retreived from https://www.nziia.org.nz/publication/nzir/6

Transcript

Unsettling Extremism Episode 2

How the Language We Use About National Security Shapes Our Perceptions with Wil Hoverd

Wil  00:04

The worst thing we can do is say that the Wellington occupation was just a bunch of rabble rousers who didn't actually mean much, or that it was just the alt right, because it wasn't the Wellington protest, needs more thought.

Avery Smith  00:27

Kia ora. I'm Dr. Avery Smith, on this episode of unsettling extremism, a podcast by He Whenua Taurikura, I'm joined by associate professor Wil Hoverd, Director of the Center for Defense and Security Studies at Massey University here in New Zealand. As you will hear, our conversation branched into many interesting topics, including ideas about what national security means, sexism in the security sector, and the Wellington occupation. Just a heads up, we'll briefly mentioned the Christchurch terrorist’ s name, to honour the wishes of the shuhada’s families we have removed it. Wil is an interesting person with a wide array of experiences that brought him to where he is today. Take a listen. To me a little bit about yourself, like, how, where did you grow up? What were you like as a kid? I'll just start by saying, If you had told young Well, what would be doing now he would have not had any concept that this would be possible.

Wil  01:30

I grew up in rural, poor, rich variable school, and that was in the 1980s. And it was very poor at that time. We were well, it's roughly my parents I had was lived in a working family and that space, we both parents had a job. And so we're relatively affluent, and went to South Wellington, which was a highly both schools were highly multicultural at that time, really big Pacific Island, schools. And then the sort of shift happened and I got into Wellington college on the ballot. And that put me into a monocultural school at the time, were the kind of really English private school kind of focus and fell in with good kids did good things had a good time, wasn't particularly academic went to university because everyone else was day I went to the open day, a man in a white suit with a fedora kind of turned up to talk about the study of religion. And it was Paul Morris, and I'm going to do that many years later, I had done a PhD, Paul Morris had been my secondary supervisor on there, and a Religious Studies degree with political science, Victoria, and a BCM commerce in accounting. So I did those qualifications. And then I had this color, I had probably road to Damascus moments in my study of Victoria. And the first was trying to decide whether to do accounting. postgrad began counting, or whether do honest and Religious Studies, and I went to the Parihaka exhibition at the City Gallery at the time, and walked around and looked at the art and thought about New Zealand and thought, I'm going to do religious studies. And so that was one moment, what was

Avery Smith  03:13

it about Parihaka that sort of led you to that decision?

Wil  03:21

What that exhibit particularly does or did at the time, and the prophets have to fatigue in Toronto, my, they fuse together Christian belief, with indigenous knowledge and practice. And they did that to kind of resist oppression. And it was the imagery around that that was so powerful. And I thought, Ah, I want to do this, I want to do religious studies. So I did my honours, I wasn't great. I did my master's. And in my masters, I thought if I don't make this work, I'm never going to get anywhere and my master's was, was a much better piece of work. And it got published as my first book. And then in my PhD, I started to really kind of branch out and think about trying to have an academic career, I guess there was probably another road to Damascus moment for the PhD, I went to Iran and I travelled around Iran. And at the end of that, again, another moment in the study of religion, I was like, I can see Allah, I can see these people believe in him. And he's real here, which is different from what I had seen in the Parihaka. But that same sort of sets. The study of religion is interesting. It's important that probably at that moment, it became comparative, ,I'm interested as a sociologist of religion and thinking about religions, I don't believe in a religion. And then at the end of the PhD, which wasn't really it's not something I've ever gone back to it was on the obesity epidemic and the kind of Christian morality within it. So, you know, totally as I said, if you told that well, he'd be the director for the Center for Defense and Security Studies, he'd be like, nope. At the end of that, I just got lucky through the publications I had to get a deep fate postdoctoral scholarship, postdoctoral scholarship to the University of Ottawa to a thing called the religion and diversity project, which was about studying religion in a religiously diverse Canada, kind of through the lens of multiculturalism. I was working with the Canada Research Chair with a 7 million Canadian dollar project that was stripped all over Canada. And I don't necessarily feel that I bought much to it. Except being there, but what it gave me was, was confidence and experience and just a wide range of I learned so much, I think, yeah, I learned from a whole lot of other scholars, I learned about the differences between multicultural types of multiculturalism, interculturalism  and the strengths and weaknesses they have for representation, accommodation of religious difference. And methodologically, I was developing as well, I'm not always the greatest theorist. But one of the things I am really good at is methodological pluralism, and sitting underneath my researcher, that kind of question that works in security studies and it works in the study of religion, which is a question of how do we all live together? And it's not necessarily saying that we can live together perfectly. I don't think that's possible. But I think if you can do research that is informative in with the potential for emancipation, then that to me has value. I think that's, that's the purpose for the sort of research that I want to do anyway,

Avery Smith  06:56

now. And that makes a lot of sense. Because here at He Whenua Taurikura we are also very interested in thinking about peace, as our our name implies a land at peace. And we sort of talk about it in a way that it's, you know, peace is not the absence of conflict. It's more like, how do we work through the differences that we are definitely going to have? Right? So how do we have these rules of engagement? How do we treat each other in respectful ways as we work through our differences? So it seems like there's a lot of overlap with that? Yeah,

Wil  07:29

I think so. I mean, what I learned from looking at the forms of multiculturalism that existed in North America, and interculturalism, and Quebec, was that there is still that kind of limit limitation of the theoretical and methodological approach that you put upon a society that governs that kind of rules for that piece of conflict as well. And so there are still challenges with our, with our language, I think that we just can't even escape i Like for instance, social cohesion. I don't think social cohesion is a thing we can achieve. But it doesn't mean to say that we shouldn't try. Does that make sense? I don't know if we can be diverse and cohesive, if that makes sense. And I certainly probably am. bound by that, from where I came from the religion and diversity project, I do think that we should celebrate and diversity, but then that kind of leads to questions, should we manage diversity, or accommodate diversity or include diversity and those questions, and those words matter? Because they change the way we do things? Yeah, and that's that, but then I'm there, I think, is really tricky to think about. And maybe it's a little bit contentious. I don't know that whether that thinking is, but yeah, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Avery Smith  08:49

Yeah, well, maybe it is, maybe it is contentious, but it's still a discussion that I think we need to have. And it's really important, because, you know, when you when you say words, like social cohesion, when it comes to a settler colonial state, like Aotearoa, where I'm from the US, for example, you know, sort of inherent within us this power relationship. And it's hard to talk about social cohesion without also thinking about things like colonialism, when does it become social cohesion? And when does it become a simulation? And I think, because I already know that you like to study language, I think that these are really important questions, and that they all sort of need to be sussed out and, and talked

Wil  09:33

about, I said, what comes from that religious studies tradition into the study of security is the idea in my mind, that security is constructed through discourse. And that discourse shapes our realities and shapes the way individuals act in the security space. And the way in which people resist where I've emerged as a scholar, I think about subjectivity in the idea that from Coming out of religion, that there's not one truth, there are many troops. And so, in that space, I think that kind of language creates reality in that space. That's quite a different way of thinking about security, then perhaps you would if you came in with a state-centric, international, like thinking about the International in it sort of national security space feel I sort of sit between domestic and international security. And that much when I'm at my strongest is when I'm thinking about the social and the empirical, probably when I'm at my weakest is when I'm thinking about the IR space.

Avery Smith  10:39

Just a quick interjection IR is international relations.

Wil  10:43

But you can't think about national security without thinking about the international as well.

Avery Smith  10:49

First of all, I just want to say how I love how you said, how language creates our reality. I think that's something that's really important. It's something that I mean, we as sociologists would obviously understand, but I think that you know, it's just deserves a little bit more attention and recognition, I think then then it gets so I think, thank you for really highlighting that. I think that's a really important point. So the status threat, that's the

Wil  11:15

book, it's the book here. Yeah, with Deirdre MacDonald, who is our Ministry of Primary Industries Teaching Fellow. She teaches our border and biosecurity qualification. Dee Dee's incredible, she's just finished her PhD on looking at microplasma bovis in New Zealand, and she's interested in kind of non-human security, select animals security, border security, agricultural security borders and bordering and what happens within those spaces. So that sort of shit was, in my view, the study of security has to be multidisciplinary, she would probably bring that sort of security practitioner, she's got a legal background, she's aware, but she's also got a PhD in geography. You know, so it's like that kind of mix, then it brings in and so working with Dee on this was really important while in terms of being able to spread the load and develop someone, but also to in terms of diversifying my thought as well. And that's, that's something that we've been kind of focusing on of late as well.

Avery Smith  12:25

Well, let me ask you, because I know one of the things that you talk about in the book, state of threat, or in your introduction in the book is national security. So when you are using that term national security, what, what do you mean?

Wil  12:41

Yeah, okay. That's, that's a good question. Because I think we do think about it, it is a term that means different things in different contexts. So in the, in the US context, when they use the term national security means defense policy, that just doesn't fly in New Zealand, national security is not really about defense at the government policy level. And I'm going to separate that from the academic study of it as well. National security in New Zealand is about the fit in terms of the government is about the delivery of the the safety of New Zealanders from harm, through cross agency approaches to security and ensuring that a system works around that. So that's the government's view. But as I said earlier, my view is that all language is constructed. And so I think, again, so the first thing that allows me to do is go well, different states use the words in different ways. Therefore, there are many truths when it comes to national security. So national security is a thing that is constructed by governments to play on whatever, to whatever need or demand that they see at this time. And, and then the practical side of me, and I'm kind of getting to the theoretical side see is because I'm work with intelligence professionals, who teach and study intelligence. And my kind of view is that the New Zealand national security is made up is really made up of the mechanisms that we have to mitigate identified intelligence threats and risks. So that's, that's, that's how I would kind of think about that. But then it's also prioritized by funding and the order of the day, and the viewpoint of those decision makers of that space. And I think, you know, when we look at the sector, the sector was probably one of the last bastions of white Anglo Saxon male thinking, I think, and that brings with it let's also it's also an instrument of power of violence as well, legitimate violence that the state can use to exert its means and pain and we'll see And that brings with it a whole lot of benefits. But it also brings a whole lot of blind spots as well. And I think that's one of the places which I really think that if an attacker provides is ability to kind of fill one of those blind spots within the thinking, I see national security, first years constructed, but also as sitting between international and domestic politics. And so my thinking probably still needs to develop theoretically in the space. But we've been doing some work with students recently, and we've been looking at two different forms of power to think about national security. And one is not soft power, hard power, those kinds of international relations, notions of state power, but we're looking at it in terms of international regime theory. So regimes, the way in which regimes are constructed between states and how perfect and imperfect they can be, and then looking at for codium notions of power within the state, in the kind of the tensions between those, and there's a whole lot of gaps there, theoretically, but sort of saying that national security sits in between those, and I'm getting theoretical and technical. So yeah, and also exploratory, I think, as well, I don't necessarily think that that's the answer yet. But just sort of thinking around there, actually, the notion of national security changes depending on your audience, and what a state is trying to do. But national security power is, is exerted both domestically and internationally, in quite different ways. I think through different enter New Zealand through different agencies, I think some of those agencies will have feet in both camps, but But generally, so like police would be an example of a domestic National Security Agency, and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade would be an external one. And then someone like defense kind of sits somewhere in the middle of eyes. Yeah.

Avery Smith  16:54

Because that made me think of one of the quotes that I was reading in your book. So here in the book, it says, ideally, inclusive discussions that embrace all members of our society should decrease social conflict and make us feel more secure, especially since the implementation of national security is almost always done to those who do not represent the nation in order to secure the nation. And I found that to be a really profound kind of quote, could you talk a little bit more about that?

Wil  17:24

Yeah. Okay. So one of the, there are probably two aspects to that there's the, there's the solution that the book is trying to look for. And then there is the problem that so what the book thinks in the government has said repeatedly and without doing a lot about it, that we need to broaden our conversations about national security. And we need to have more people included in those spaces, the books and tents to try and do that. I'm not convinced that we've managed to do that at sales at Unity. You know, I've looked in bookstores and around the country that doesn't necessarily sell outside of the main centers. So I'm still probably talking to a certain group of people. We also have agencies, you know, and the pushback, the critic critique of the book has been that that actually fund the sector has been that the sector is not, doesn't have those problems within it. And it's come from white men with power and most agencies saying that we don't have those votes. And that that's, that was the kind of goal of the book and that's been some of the reception, what's the problem? The problem is that if you have those structures, that are dominated by masculine thinking, and there are still dealing with representation of fought within them, then when they engage with something like when party hackers kind of classic example of that state edit, at that time, being so problematic in terms of, of, of imposing its hegemony and violence over another culture and not being able to understand them. But I don't think we that I think that we have learned from that. But those conflicts have we haven't learned from them either. We still see within New Zealand. And I guess the protesters is the Wellington City, the Wellington parliamentary protest is a is a example of a whole lot of New Zealanders who didn't feel represented by the state, for whatever reason, who were unified for many, many, many complicated reasons, who were unified by their opposition to the vaccine mandate, be kind of crushed by the state. And so that, to me is problematic. But we can look at it a more fundamental space we see in the in the reaction to the Royal Commission of Inquiry, we see the Muslim community saying we didn't have a voice. We were a surveilled community. We were a suspect community, you know, and look where that's got us to Do we still hear that, that coming from the leaders of the Muslim community today, last week on the 17th of March, it's almost like nothing has changed. And we see minorities across the board not having voices. And it's tricky because a state does represent a majority. But the security sector in a sense secures against that, at its worst, and not all the time. And then we see it in the statistics of who's in jail, you know, disproportionately Māori, disproportionate Pacific Islander, the outcomes for those people within New Zealand are not as good as they are for Pakeha New Zealanders who see Asian New Zealand is not really having a voice one way or the other, just sort of silent in those statistics, so. And then when we do violence offshore, we do it to others who are not like us. And one of the I had one of my experiences when I was traveling around around I went to the Armenian Holocaust regime where, where the Armenian Christians had been persecuted by the Turkish state and the first the first kind of mess, messy execution of civilians around 1910 1939. That young woman was showing me around and she was passing her English. And she said, Oh, where are you from? She told me a little bit of past she was Turkish. And I said, I'm from New Zealand. And she said to me, Oh, you invaded our country.  Gallipoli? And my response to it was, yes, yes, we did. You know, and we have this notion here that the nation was awful notion that a nation was born on the beaches of Gallipoli, and we have a generation or generations who've been grown up believing that, but we invaded a country of infidels, didn't we? And so, you know, there's kind of a history of, you know, the nation was born through persecuting others, and the tragedy that that brought out on us. So there are these kinds of examples today historically, have the state acting in a certain way against others. So I mean, I just kind of want to bring that down to the individual level. And I think one of the other things that we've seen, Avery and I talked about this the other day, is, I was really struck by I talked to a member of New Zealand police. And he said to me, if you are a woman in New Zealand, and you have any type of public persona or authority, you've experienced misogyny in the public realm. And I'm so again, this is kind of white male state. And I guess I'm digressing a little bit here. But there is a dominance within that space that does not see what is done to others who, who are who sort of fall outside that space. And what I see in the sector disagrees with me on this. And what I see as a security sector, that is still not truly inclusive, within its everyday practice. And I as I say, that was the been the big pushback from the book saying that's not true, we are inclusive. And if you maintain that line, people won't want to join the sector. But in my experience, I see young female students want to join the sector all the time. And I used to kind of encourage them stripe quite strongly and try and create opportunities. But over the time I've been in the job, I've seen them go through the system and be spread out and leave. And it's when they start to have a view when they go from being good workers doing the job to actually having a view and realize that that view isn't getting the same weight. And I don't have data to back this up, actually, I do in a sense, but I had this conversation with a student even last week, you know about how she feels about her work in the sector. That's one of the hardest things I see in the sector. And I see the way in which my female colleagues are treated, and I don't, by people within the sector, by the public by their students. It's completely different to the way I treated, I just don't even experience the issues that I see particular, I've seen some pretty horrendous things happen to my colleagues, without kind of going into none of that cemetery. Maybe I've been lucky. Or maybe it's because I'm a chap.

Avery Smith  24:28

And I think, you know, that's a really interesting way to look at it too. Because, you know, just myself and my background being you know, a person of color, you know, of African American ancestry coming from the US. It's really weird for me being in the space around counterterrorism, national security. Again, this isn't New Zealand, this is in the US, right, but looking at how for example, Are many of the people who are lauded today as sort of great people, activists, Martin Luther King, right? Mathematics, Angela Davis, right. All of those people were not looked upon. You know, they had FBI files they had, you know, the state had sort of classified them as a threat, right. And that was simply because, you know, their views were counter to, you know, what the state was doing, and also as a queer person, right, and knowing the violence that has been done against queer people in the name of the state. So it's a very interesting and weird place for me to be. But I think that it's important for more of us to be here, too, as you said, like, fill in those gaps, and do some of that more critical work, right? Because some of the pushback you said, you got to the book was, oh, no, no, no, we're not really like that. Right. But, you know, there's this idea that New Zealand isn't a racist society, right. But if you look at the data, if you look at, you know, the outcomes for different groups of people for Māori, for Pacific, then you really do start to see these huge disparities. And so you have to start looking to well, what, what is the reason why this is happening? And if you want to start talking about Well, it's because this group is different for this reason, then, you know, that's sort of when you start to get into that more subject subjective ideas, and that's where some of that hidden kinds of racism when they come in anyways, we digress a little bit. So

Wil  26:51

I'll just say, I mean, blatantly on this, you know, my feeling and the pushback that we've had on that statement around inclusivity, around the sector, from the book that we've had from the sector has come from white men. And it hasn't been directed necessarily at me. It's been, it's been directed more so in my career,

Avery Smith  27:11

this, this should surprise nobody, because that's the way that it works. It's

Wil  27:15

Shut up. Yeah, you know, shut up, let's we just want to hear what we'll has to say, because he's not going to go down those bases in the same way. And it's an interesting one, because, because, you know, I've got a colleague that I work with at Mercy. And she's got to work on misogyny, you know, and there is this line where male voices can't go too far in terms of fighting the battle, either, because then you become paternalistic. So there's this kind of challenge that we have. As males, I can see these things, I can talk about them. But there isn't a line between being an ally being aware of what's happening, and paternalism. And also, you know, like there's a real challenge within the space. And you know, one of the great things about my colleague, Dr. Anna Powles, associate professor, she has been through all this, and then she's found her voice and she's, she's a strong and credible voice on New Zealand national security. And it's almost like this kind of learning journey of Hard Knocks to actually get knocked back and have your voice in the space if you so

Avery Smith  28:23

you kind of enjoy it. Yeah, right. Like, it's brutal. Whenever it's pretty brutal, like you put your you put your work out there, and you're expected for there to be pushed back. But I do think that it is particularly harsh when it comes to when you're a part of my minoritized group. And so, and, you know, we'll I get what you're talking about as far as not wanting to like overstep or you know, seem paternalistic, right, in this way. So it is a balance, but I do think this is just me, this is my own sort of personal, my own personal take on it is that, I will love it, when there is a day where minoritized voices don't have to speak, be the only one speaking on these particular issues, when it is, you know, white folks or, you know, people who are in positions of power to speak back to these injustices with us, not necessarily for us, right, but are also willing to take those same knocks, and are able to cite, you know, the work of minoritized folks, women, you know, people of colour, indigenous people, black, black folks in those spaces. So that's my sort of one day. I hope that, you know, all of this extra emotional work and emotional labour isn't put on to minoritized scholars to be able to do the ones to be able to be the ones who are fighting for these changes in the system. So that's my two cents. 

What sort of factors do you think impact the language that we have around national security?

Wil  30:07

So I think one of the things the book does is it traces a shift in government or language, from risk to threat. I think our intelligence apparatus drives much of it. So the assessments that are made by the intelligence agencies, not just the intelligence agencies, but the intelligence functions across government, and almost every government agency has an intelligence assessment at function that's been fed up in two national systems Bureau went to CTAG, and I want to come back and say positive thing about the intelligence sector as well. That it's those assessments and how to manage them, that dictate the language around national security, and when So, and also when they fail, such as Christchurch. And I think, to some extent, you know, with the Wellington protest as well, the Wellington protest. And and both of those would be black swan events with whether the violence and the whatever happened, just fell outside of what a sector could think of assists. I think it's that language. And so that's both domestically, but it's also in terms of the what's happening overseas at the moment. And so we really do see the rise of we've seen the return of war. And we've seen economic hardship happening on a global scale. And we have seen the return of great power competition. And that seems to be playing out in New Zealand with the aspirants. And I think that's something I'd love to talk about another time, as you know, I've got students starting to talk about foreign interference in the Chinese community. But you know, in Canada, what does that mean for Sikh communities? Now, what does that mean for Sikh and Hindu communities here, I had a chat with my Uber driver the other day, who was a Sikh, and I asked him how he felt about what was happening in Canada. And it's like, these are real things. And so that's, again, that relationship between the international playing out so that it's that language of threat that's shifted from risk that's happening within those functions of government that is changed the way in which the government represented by DPMC in the national security strategy and the national security objectives. asked, and the intelligence priorities of New Zealand is emerging around that space. So in terrorism, counterterrorism is just one of those I think, yeah. Do you

Avery Smith  32:59

feel like that change? Or have you noticed, you know, sort of with that change of language? It's been a change of our perception?

Wil  33:08

Yes, I think so. You know, and I think that we don't feel as safe. You know, I think that is electoral support for, in a sense, the Royal Commission of Inquiry has done this as well, there is the public doesn't have that much of a problem with giving more money to our security agencies in our defence apparatus. I think, in arguments that we should fund police don't seem that controversial, in the face of the challenges that we kind of face out there. However, one of the purposes of the book is for people to make up their own minds because there's discourse. These are people's priorities. And one of the things I'm really aware of is, it's really easy to make an argument to securitize to fund against a potential threat. It's really hard to argue or actually, we don't need we can de securitize that, or we don't actually need to fund all those things. And it's, you know, it's pretty clear to me that in terms of counterterrorism and the Christchurch mosque attack, just kind of bring it back to is, you know, I there's no way that all the funding in the world would stop. And I know Chris Wilson, as his work is saying, perhaps if we'd had some more work earlier, we might have done that. I think that's, you know, that's five years later that he's saying that. I just don't think, you know, there is individual motivated actors. And I think that the intelligence agencies are fairly kind of clear about that kind of the biggest threat because what they can achieve and stay under the radar is is incredible. I wanted to come back and just make an argument for some intelligence because I've been a little bit negative. One of the things I have seen since or at least in the first couple of years after the mosque attack was I saw the combined threat assessment group Which sets is the kind of thinking about terrorism in New Zealand in terms of assessment of terrorist threat, really open up, its thinking around what a threat might look like. And I think that's one of the things I would like, in terms of the pushback that we've had on the book. It's like, if intelligence practitioners are to truly do a good job, they should be. They should be open to hearing about the things that they don't want to hear. They need to include a diversity of thought. And they kind of know this, and then they still don't kind of do it. Whereas I saw, at least at that time I saw CTAG do that they went out and controversially, but I think, empirically and systematically re envisaged how they saw extremism, New Zealand that came up with a new model. And I know that the definition of faith motivated, extremism was still quite problematic for the New Zealand Muslim community. And there were there were also some constraints around why they did what they did. But I saw a real engagement with the sector, with a public and the tertiary sector to get what we thought of whatever we thought of. And to me, that practice probably is the most secure thing that they can do, if they can keep that up. And they're not just doing that to tick a box in terms of the recommendations. And that's when I think here, when I have practitioners pushing back on the book, it's like, why aren't you listening? You know, you might think we're wrong. But listen, you know, like, you might miss something, and then kitty on your face, or you miss something or something. And we're having this conversation now because of it.

Avery Smith  36:50

Because if you miss something that's potentially people's lives, right, 

Wil  36:54

turnover in your organization, which leads to a loss of expertise, and all those sorts of things. Yeah.

Avery Smith  37:00

So my next question for you is about the Wellington occupation. And what do you think the Wellington occupation has taught us about national security?

Wil  37:11

The worst thing we can do is say that the Wellington occupation was just a bunch of rabble rousers who didn't actually mean much, or that it was just the alt right, because it wasn't it. The Wellington protest, needs more thought I have a PhD student, and I'm working on the case on the Wellington protests as one of her case studies and thinking, thinking about anti-government extremism. And we have another master's student funded by HWT not one of my working on the signs of that were that were evident at the protest. You know, so there are some real thought about what was actually going on. I had a master's student a couple of years ago, work on the way in which national radio framed the protest. And that sort of effectively created a kind of Wellington heterodoxy that was empty without really giving the protest voice. So I think there are some real challenges in the space, it arose from a combined opposition to the mandate, and it drew on a tradition of hikoi and legitimate protest against government that we have experienced and developed, I think, colour uniquely nationally over the last, you know, 50 years. So I think you know, but one of the challenges is that you hit tuner on a tariff legs next to Trump supporter gear, next to you know, Action Zelandia with their Winston was there. There were a whole lot of different people there are and then there was a blogosphere going on, so. But all those people had legitimate grievances, that they had missed out, that they'd lost their jobs, we fired people for not having mandates. We alienated them when they made us feel unsafe. And so there was a real reason and a real legitimate sense of grievance. I think that this was in the government was forcing people to do things with their bodies they didn't want to do and punishing them if they didn't. And some of my work I did. Talking to religious leaders, I talked to the leader of the Māori Atheists group, one of the leaders of the Māori Atheists group and he said, you know, my people, he was worried about the rise of conspiracy theories within iwi. And in it, he was just noted that anything that has that comes from the state is going to get resisted, you know, so that there's a worry that that a discourse around having to have an injection to make you safe is actually just another form of colonialism. And I mean, I don't know the answer to that exactly. But you could see you could see that logic so those There was a whole lot of upside the argument that it was just the outright or the anti vaxxers. I don't think as was correct. And we, we'd seen there were a whole lot of different people, the a lot of people who'd lost their jobs in everyday New Zealanders and kids. So that, to me suggests that there was something going on in New Zealand that were we, the first thing we'd seen was kind of a rise of polarization. So the government had basically said, you these guys are in these ones aren't. And then it was the way in which we thought about the protest. I would sort of argue, and we talked about, and I do in the book, that it showed that New Zealand's not socially cohesive, and that certain groups do feel that that by other by the state, and I think that, that's one of the things we needed to look at is that there are a whole lot of groups there with various religious groups, the Salvation Army with you, and you saw in the violence at the end, a guy in a Salvation Army outfit fighting police, you know, which I think is very, very powerful. Really, really need to think about it before that. So there was six issues, Avery, and the first is that there was the vitriol directed against Prime Minister idea and even threats and violence to hurt her her family. And just a sheer anger. And we talked about misogyny earlier, whether or not that had been directed at a male politician in the same way would be, so that was quite problematic. We also saw that there were direct links made and funding. The protests didn't just happen in isolation in New Zealand, it happened in in what was happening in Ottawa, it was happening in Australia to a lesser extent. So the trucker protests in Ottawa and there were kind of violent aspects to that. And then it had sort of antecedent and what had happened on January 6, in the US Senate. And there were people with vested interests online, involved in all those things kind of provoking things, there is an international kind of element to this. And it's that national security place that we need to kind of think about one of the things that the protest also showed us that there's a strong degree of online extremism, listen, disinformation, and conspiracy theory playing out in this. And so that and when we look at conspiracy theory, in terms of extremism, conspiracy theories will are related to extremism. They're not necessarily related to violent extremism, but they are a contributing factor in that space, and so as Mr. Disinformation, so we need to kind of think about that, because conspiracy theories can amplify and motivate protest action, incumbent protest, I think, then to that. So we've got to really think about the role of the online space. And in here, we that protest, there was this kind of online protest going on, as well as this physical protest. I think the other two things I'll just finish up on. The first is that I think our intelligence in policing, and policy capabilities to deal with this protest were lacking. Because there were no identifiable leaders, there was no identifiable ideology or motivation. And, and these people were really, really angry. And so there was no way to really kind of counter it or to negotiate with it. Because in a sense, it was kind of organic. And, and when our and I talked about those capabilities before, when the election, and the political will of the executive, are unsure what to do, but I can see it out the window. It suggests that our government institutions and democratic processes kind of failed, there's, there's a kind of failure in that space, we no one really knew what to do. And everyone was pissed off. I think, in the end, you know, and certainly, you know, like, living in Wellington, it was highly disruptive. And it was kind of scary, because we weren't necessarily all vaccinated their time we know, COVID was at the protest. We know there were some people there with legitimate grievances. There were others there who were lighting fires, literally and figuratively, or, and I think that, you know, the big thing, and I think this is the thing that comes out of it today is that whilst that's passed, what it's really, really clear is that the acceptance of adversarial ideas is becoming harder in New Zealand and I think that's the thing that kind of comes out of it. And social groups are forming silos from which it's easier to cancel and silence other's views rather than engage from or learn from them in what you were talking about before right earlier in the day. It's that kind of element of social cohesion right so the only way I'm this is from the religious diversity that should the only way to improve engagement with the only way to improve acceptance in a diverse society of religions is to engage with the other and if you only prepared to demonize them or Was your silo, then you are never going to have kind of progress. And I think that's really the piece that kind of comes out of it. And that just means that individuals can be subject to and receive receptive of disinformation, misinformation, extremism, misogyny and violence. And all of those things are present still after the protest and highlighted. But it's those elements today that are the that are the challenges of cohesion, I think, with a New Zealand and that we've sort of been touching on in a number of different spaces. Yeah, absolutely. I

Avery Smith  45:37

think. I think, as I said, it's the rules of engagement, how do we interact with each other? How do we work through these conflicts? Right, because I think that what we do these days is we call something a conspiracy theory, or we call somebody an anti vaxxer. And we do it and as a way to discredit them, right and diminish them. And that's, that's not great. That's not how we have these conversations, right? So we have to figure out ways to be able to actually have conversations where people do have grievances, but you know, not diminish them as people or not diminish their ideas, but actually look at what's being said, and evaluate what's being said, rather than completely out of the gate being Oh, you're an anti-Vaxxer. What

Wil  46:24

was problematic in the protests was we clearly couldn't find that language. And in the alienation persisted at end, the tension escalated and rolled over into violence, both from the state and from the protesters. So what does that say about the future? It's not good. Is it a cease? Does it say that we don't have that language? It's

Avery Smith  46:46

an area of growth and an area of opportunity for us? We

Wil  46:49

should be? Yeah, I mean, I think those and these are not conversations that have gone away. Are they just that? I mean, my view is that the what was said the protest, revealed to those things that were already there, and it amplified them, but it was united by the men that anti-mandate place. And what's different now is we don't have that mandate to galvanize. But that's always the challenge. And extremism is extremists, extremist views and extremes thought is fine, until it's triggered into violence. And, and in the challenges that is that extremism can be galvanized into violence if there are triggering events. So there's always that kind of challenge. How do we kind of stop extremism, which is politically, which is political dissent, and it's a legitimate democratic thing to be able to do and hold, but it does potentially gateway into violence, and that violence might be physical, but it could also be verbal or mental would be hate speech or any of those things. So how do we how do we kind of ease that back? Yeah.

Avery Smith  48:04

So what do you feel like the role of academics is in our conversations around national security in Aotearoa?

Wil  48:12

So there are less and less of us every year. I think positionality matters. And I think audience matters. I think that no one can do everything, if that makes sense. And that's really, really clear. I'll talk a bit about the value what the position of seat for defense and security and studies is. Because I think that's, that's understanding what different entities bring to the debate. And then what different indivduals bring into the debate. In my view CDSS sits as kind of interlocutor between the sector and the public and our students. So in that sense, we're probably more normative and that we are more sympathetic to government than perhaps other academic spaces. So there's, there's a  role for that. And that's the role we play. And but in doing so, we should also encourage other viewpoints. And I think that's essential. We need other groups. So it's creating a discussion. It's protecting those in the discussion. Even outside of our group, we must do because otherwise we don't have a conversation. It's reading the work. It's thinking about when to speak and when not to speak. And those are real political acts. And often, I don't speak and sometimes that's about No, there are lots of different reasons for that, but it's about workload, it's acknowledging that the people in the space are being more and more overworked. But just to get back to the centre a little bit. So that means for us it's, it's speaking truth for the agencies but also making them intelligible to our students in public. And so In doing that, that's kind of our position. And, you know, I guess I've been critical today about the inclusion space piece for the agencies. And our normal approach probably, that the centre does is probably to enhance the efficiency of security, which you could say, as the security sector, which is probably problematic to other scholars will be problematic to other scholars. But at the same time, there's a kind of, there's a normative kind of emancipatory project with that as well, it's to say, well, you can be better, and you can do this better, we can live together better, you can do a security better. So that would be the role of the centre, you know, your listeners will, will listen to this, and they'll make their own decisions, which we've all done as academics. So my academic career is built on listening to others and taking the bits that I want, and rejecting the other bits and kind of pastiche in together that. So I think that's another important part of the conversation, you know, one of the real challenges now, as an academic in the space, and if I get to continue being an academic in the space, is fostering other voices. And I think that's something that I think that that that that is within our spaces. So we have these great masters, students and PhD students. And it's like, let's get the voices out there, let's create space for them. Because they're the ones who are doing the new and interesting things. I'm just kind of thinking through the old things and trying to repackage them a little bit. So, you know, how can we push them forward, create opportunities for them to have voices in the space? And, and it's a real challenge, I don't have a good feeling about the future of academia in this space, I think it's going to get smaller and tighter and more risk averse. Because the consequences for getting your public speech criticized OR gate, you know, like, is really quite high. Yeah, yeah, it's really tricky.

Avery Smith  51:57

Well, I think, you know, what you spoken to is exactly what we are trying to do He Whenua Taurikura which encourages early career scholars from all backgrounds, but particularly from backgrounds that haven't been represented, and disciplines that haven't necessarily been represented in the space. And so, you know, that's something that we're particularly proud about is the way that we are able to fund some of that research that is going to help fill some of the gaps that we've been talking about today.

Wil  52:28

And I can see, with the students of ours that you have funded, thank you, is, you know, they, they get an opportunity to actually have to take the time to have a voice because most of our students or professionals studying part time, they're not quite C's get degrees, but they're like, What do I have to read to pass the test? And then if you're lucky at that thesis level, they might put a bit more time and effort in. But what the HWT scholarships allow for his full-time study, and deeper, deeper theoretical conceptual thinking and empirical thinking around these issues, that, that we just don't really get to do otherwise, I think and certainly, that's what I'm seeing with the students. I'm involved with it, you're funded. It's a distinct difference. Thank

Avery Smith  53:20

you so much for that feedback. Now. That's great. That's wonderful, because that's exactly what we want. Well, thanks so much for, for coming in and having a conversation with me today. Well, it's been really enlightening. I've learned a lot. And I've yeah, I've just I've enjoyed our conversation. Thanks for listening to unsettling extremism. If you want to know more about will and his book State of Threat, or some of the research he's done, head over to hwt.ac.nz and look for the episode show notes. One of the most important things that Wil did in this episode is to speak about these issues with criticality and nuance that is lacking in this age of clickbait and sound bites. If you appreciate this kind of discussion, share this episode and subscribe to our podcast. See you next time. Ma tew a.