However, beneath the surface lies unavoidable subjectivity, concentration of more power in ideological hands, and inevitable unintended consequences that threaten foundational freedoms.
The Danger of Subjectivity
Hate crime laws operate on a deeply flawed premise: that the criminal justice system can, and should, judge crimes based on the thoughts of the perpetrator, rather than their actions. But who defines what constitutes 'hate'? The term is inherently subjective— 'hate' to one person is quite possibly 'love' to another. Today’s ‘hateful’ opinion could be tomorrow’s widely accepted truth. This isn't to diminish the power of significance of this concept. It's to highlight that giving the state the power to determine which motivations warrant harsher punishment open the door toward arbitrary enforcement and ideological policing.
It's antithetical to the Rule of Law, which alongside freedom to think for ourselves and speak for ourselves (two others freedoms that would be threatened by these laws), forms key foundations of liberal democracy.
The issue of interpretation is not hypothetical—it has already played out in other countries. In Canada, hate speech laws have led to convictions for individuals expressing controversial religious beliefs. In the UK, people have faced police investigations over social media posts, even when no law was broken. These cases highlight the risk of weaponising such laws to suppress dissenting voices.
You may say that this is not what is being considered here. That is technically correct. But it is also demonstrably true that there is no logical justification for having 'hate crime' laws without 'hate speech' laws. If we accept the premise that criminal penalties should be heightened based on subjective interpretations of motive, then it is only a matter of time before speech itself becomes regulated under the same logic.
The UK and Canada are cautionary tales, illustrating the implications for legitimacy and trust in police and the Courts that comes when we ask these agents of the State to use their subjective discernment to enforce ideological laws.
New Zealand must not follow this path.
New Zealand Already Has the Tools to Address Hate Crimes
Proponents of 'hate crime' laws argue they are necessary to protect vulnerable communities, but New Zealand’s existing legal framework is already sufficient. The Sentencing Act 2002 allows courts to consider hateful intent as an aggravating factor, giving judges the discretion to impose harsher penalties where appropriate.
So why the push for new laws? The answer is not about justice, but about control. The introduction of additional legislation would create redundant, ambiguous statutes that invite selective enforcement. When laws are applied inconsistently, trust in the justice system erodes.
A More Effective Alternative
'Hate crime' laws (like 'hate speech' laws) do nothing to address the root causes of prejudice. If we genuinely want to build a more tolerant society, we must focus on education, dialogue, and community engagement rather than legal coercion. Open discussion—not legal threats—is the best way to challenge bigotry and ignorance.
Opposing 'hate crime' and 'hate speech' laws is in no way to defend those who express, or act on, truly bigoted views. It is to say that the best way to oppose and undermine those with these bigoted views is not to task police and judges with impossible tasks, that will inevitably, consistently, result in significant proportions of the public believing they got it wrong.
New Zealand prides itself on being a diverse, inclusive, and free society. But true inclusivity does not mean silencing differing opinions through legal force or insisting that two people who break the same law should face different charges because one broke the law for a 'better reason' than another.
Arguably, 'hate crime' laws are well-intentioned. But inevitably, it amounts to dangerous overreach. They introduce subjectivity into the justice system, undermine free speech, and open the door to the imposition of ideological restrictions. New Zealand’s existing laws already provide adequate protection against hate-driven crime. Instead of embracing reactionary and subjective legislation, we should uphold the rule of law and free speech-the very principles that have made liberal democracies among the most cohesive, peaceful, and stable societies in the world.
If New Zealand is to remain a bastion of democracy and free speech, it must reject these laws before they erode the very freedoms they claim to protect.
Jonathan Ayling is the Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. In between running his Wairarapa vineyard and being Zen with his bees, he enjoys standing up for the freedoms that make New Zealand the stunning country it is. This article was originally published by The Platform and is published here with kind permission.
Hate crime laws operate on a deeply flawed premise: that the criminal justice system can, and should, judge crimes based on the thoughts of the perpetrator, rather than their actions. But who defines what constitutes 'hate'? The term is inherently subjective— 'hate' to one person is quite possibly 'love' to another. Today’s ‘hateful’ opinion could be tomorrow’s widely accepted truth. This isn't to diminish the power of significance of this concept. It's to highlight that giving the state the power to determine which motivations warrant harsher punishment open the door toward arbitrary enforcement and ideological policing.
It's antithetical to the Rule of Law, which alongside freedom to think for ourselves and speak for ourselves (two others freedoms that would be threatened by these laws), forms key foundations of liberal democracy.
The issue of interpretation is not hypothetical—it has already played out in other countries. In Canada, hate speech laws have led to convictions for individuals expressing controversial religious beliefs. In the UK, people have faced police investigations over social media posts, even when no law was broken. These cases highlight the risk of weaponising such laws to suppress dissenting voices.
You may say that this is not what is being considered here. That is technically correct. But it is also demonstrably true that there is no logical justification for having 'hate crime' laws without 'hate speech' laws. If we accept the premise that criminal penalties should be heightened based on subjective interpretations of motive, then it is only a matter of time before speech itself becomes regulated under the same logic.
The UK and Canada are cautionary tales, illustrating the implications for legitimacy and trust in police and the Courts that comes when we ask these agents of the State to use their subjective discernment to enforce ideological laws.
New Zealand must not follow this path.
New Zealand Already Has the Tools to Address Hate Crimes
Proponents of 'hate crime' laws argue they are necessary to protect vulnerable communities, but New Zealand’s existing legal framework is already sufficient. The Sentencing Act 2002 allows courts to consider hateful intent as an aggravating factor, giving judges the discretion to impose harsher penalties where appropriate.
So why the push for new laws? The answer is not about justice, but about control. The introduction of additional legislation would create redundant, ambiguous statutes that invite selective enforcement. When laws are applied inconsistently, trust in the justice system erodes.
A More Effective Alternative
'Hate crime' laws (like 'hate speech' laws) do nothing to address the root causes of prejudice. If we genuinely want to build a more tolerant society, we must focus on education, dialogue, and community engagement rather than legal coercion. Open discussion—not legal threats—is the best way to challenge bigotry and ignorance.
Opposing 'hate crime' and 'hate speech' laws is in no way to defend those who express, or act on, truly bigoted views. It is to say that the best way to oppose and undermine those with these bigoted views is not to task police and judges with impossible tasks, that will inevitably, consistently, result in significant proportions of the public believing they got it wrong.
New Zealand prides itself on being a diverse, inclusive, and free society. But true inclusivity does not mean silencing differing opinions through legal force or insisting that two people who break the same law should face different charges because one broke the law for a 'better reason' than another.
Arguably, 'hate crime' laws are well-intentioned. But inevitably, it amounts to dangerous overreach. They introduce subjectivity into the justice system, undermine free speech, and open the door to the imposition of ideological restrictions. New Zealand’s existing laws already provide adequate protection against hate-driven crime. Instead of embracing reactionary and subjective legislation, we should uphold the rule of law and free speech-the very principles that have made liberal democracies among the most cohesive, peaceful, and stable societies in the world.
If New Zealand is to remain a bastion of democracy and free speech, it must reject these laws before they erode the very freedoms they claim to protect.
Jonathan Ayling is the Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. In between running his Wairarapa vineyard and being Zen with his bees, he enjoys standing up for the freedoms that make New Zealand the stunning country it is. This article was originally published by The Platform and is published here with kind permission.
3 comments:
If one ever needs reminding what a wrong move and waste of time Hate Crime/Speech laws would be, just recall Tusiata Avia's poem about Capt Cook. If ever there was a piece of vile, hate inciting, profanity-laden, vitriol - that was it. But how was it received? I believe the majority saw it exactly as just described, but lo and behold it received a 2023 Prime Minister's Award for Literary Achievement, along with a bucket-load of taxpayer cash and promotion. God help us, and God help those idiots that think bringing in Hate Crime/Speech legislation is a good idea and will solve some problems. Our current, one term PM speaks of productivity and growth - well there's a potential generator of a waste of time and money if ever there was one. But I'm sure some lawyers will be delighted at the prospect.
In the National-NZF coalition agreement the following under "Strengthening Democracy and Freedoms": To uphold the principles of liberal democracy, including equal citizenship and parliamentary sovereignty, the Parties will:
Protect freedom of speech by ruling out the introduction of hate speech legislation and stop the Law Commission's work on hate speech legislation.
... What the hell is Paul Goldsmith playing at, is he deliberately poking the bear? Will the bear bite, I sure hope so!
Well said, Peter.
Post a Comment