I saw this for myself last Friday in the Manukau District Court when I went to support Portia Mao on behalf of the Free Speech Union.
Don't let Portia's appearance or gentle demeanour fool you. This pint-sized Kiwi-Chinese journalist isn't backing down to anyone or anything.
Portia is a fierce defender of free speech. Coming to NZ over twenty years ago in search of a democratic society to call home, Portia has earned a reputation amongst the NZ Chinese community for her uncompromising stand against foreign interference by the Communist Party of China (CCP). Exposing the increasingly brazen intimidation tactics and influence peddling in NZ politics by emboldened supporters of the CCP, some dissidents have already paid a heavy price for calling out this anti-democratic agenda.
Last year it was Portia's turn. As a result of working with journalists at Stuff to expose CCP influence in NZ, Portia was shocked to find herself subject to a District Court interim order after she criticised an aspiring East Auckland political candidate for his strident pro-CCP views.
Prevented by law from speaking out about the issue and unsure how to challenge the judge's interim order, Portia reached out to the Free Speech Union for help.
We connected Portia with Callum Fredric (a fantastic Auckland-based barrister who really cares about this cause).
We shared Portia's story with you - our supporters - as well as with the media.
And we began a fundraising drive to support Portia's legal challenge. Many of you contributed with donations and messages of support which allowed Portia last month to challenge the court order in a bid to have it overturned.
How could a NZ journalist be silenced in this way under NZ law?
Portia was targeted using a poorly drafted law. The Harmful Digital Communications Act (HDCA), passed in 2015 (and originally designed to protect vulnerable young people from online harm) is now being appropriated by cynical adults to suppress legitimate political expression from their critics.
To be clear, being punished under the HDCA is not the same thing as defamation. Rather, the HDCA is concerned with subjective claims of ‘harm’ - this means that truth is not a valid defence.
The HDCA is an almost-perfect political censorship tool. It allows authoritarian sympathisers and potential agents of foreign governments to silence Kiwis who dare to speak up for democracy. It then also threatens heavy financial penalties for those organisations, such as news or social media platforms, which share the journalist's work.
Yep, you’re reading that right. In our rush to protect kids from horrible online influences we’ve somehow denied our society not only a fundamental civil liberty, but its best defensive weapon against foreign interference.
Handing a club to the opponents of democracy; should we really be surprised they're bludgeoning us over the head with it?
The HDCA is also a radical departure from traditional legal principle in that it allows for the emotional subjectivity of a complainant to substantiate their own claim that "harm" has been caused.
Just so we’re clear, this means that to establish whether certain digital communications deserve censoring, all that is required is for a self-proclaimed victim to strenuously maintain the digital communication in question was “grossly offensive” to them. No specialist or clinical expert is even needed to endorse this self-diagnosis.
What can Kiwis do about this problem?
We need more Kiwis to realise what's going on. We're now waiting for a decision in Portia’s case from the judge, and as soon as we have it we’ll be sure to publicize it. But her case is not the only example of this kind. We have evidence to suggest that dozens of similar abuses of the HDCA have occurred but have largely gone unreported.
Not only is the FSU campaigning for legislative reform of the HDCA, but we're also calling on - and calling out - those in positions of power who aren't saying or doing anything about the foreign interference Portia is trying to combat. Because if those people in charge are too afraid, how can we expect anyone else to speak up?
Many politicians have chosen to remain quiet. Either intimidated or simply hoping they can wish away the problem, many are nervous about upsetting a major trading partner. This issue is not your run-of-the-mill “ambiguous ethics of trade” dilemma. This is political interference happening on NZ soil. Apparently, it’s easier for some to forget that free speech - not a free trade agreement - is the lifeblood of a democracy.
Free speech allows our nation to flourish domestically and empowers us to exercise independence from the unprincipled and often ruthless whims of authoritarian governments like that of China.
We can't leave a few brave souls to fight this situation by themselves. A small principled voice, though mighty like Portia's, will not be enough to combat the growing influence of foreign and domestic censorship.
Many voices, however, even in a small country, will make it loud and clear to those who interfere in our democracy that free speech in NZ is non-negotiable.
Nick Hanne is the Education Partnerships Manager at the Free Speech Union. This article was originally published by The Platform and is published here with kind permission.
Last year it was Portia's turn. As a result of working with journalists at Stuff to expose CCP influence in NZ, Portia was shocked to find herself subject to a District Court interim order after she criticised an aspiring East Auckland political candidate for his strident pro-CCP views.
Prevented by law from speaking out about the issue and unsure how to challenge the judge's interim order, Portia reached out to the Free Speech Union for help.
We connected Portia with Callum Fredric (a fantastic Auckland-based barrister who really cares about this cause).
We shared Portia's story with you - our supporters - as well as with the media.
And we began a fundraising drive to support Portia's legal challenge. Many of you contributed with donations and messages of support which allowed Portia last month to challenge the court order in a bid to have it overturned.
How could a NZ journalist be silenced in this way under NZ law?
Portia was targeted using a poorly drafted law. The Harmful Digital Communications Act (HDCA), passed in 2015 (and originally designed to protect vulnerable young people from online harm) is now being appropriated by cynical adults to suppress legitimate political expression from their critics.
To be clear, being punished under the HDCA is not the same thing as defamation. Rather, the HDCA is concerned with subjective claims of ‘harm’ - this means that truth is not a valid defence.
The HDCA is an almost-perfect political censorship tool. It allows authoritarian sympathisers and potential agents of foreign governments to silence Kiwis who dare to speak up for democracy. It then also threatens heavy financial penalties for those organisations, such as news or social media platforms, which share the journalist's work.
Yep, you’re reading that right. In our rush to protect kids from horrible online influences we’ve somehow denied our society not only a fundamental civil liberty, but its best defensive weapon against foreign interference.
Handing a club to the opponents of democracy; should we really be surprised they're bludgeoning us over the head with it?
The HDCA is also a radical departure from traditional legal principle in that it allows for the emotional subjectivity of a complainant to substantiate their own claim that "harm" has been caused.
Just so we’re clear, this means that to establish whether certain digital communications deserve censoring, all that is required is for a self-proclaimed victim to strenuously maintain the digital communication in question was “grossly offensive” to them. No specialist or clinical expert is even needed to endorse this self-diagnosis.
What can Kiwis do about this problem?
We need more Kiwis to realise what's going on. We're now waiting for a decision in Portia’s case from the judge, and as soon as we have it we’ll be sure to publicize it. But her case is not the only example of this kind. We have evidence to suggest that dozens of similar abuses of the HDCA have occurred but have largely gone unreported.
Not only is the FSU campaigning for legislative reform of the HDCA, but we're also calling on - and calling out - those in positions of power who aren't saying or doing anything about the foreign interference Portia is trying to combat. Because if those people in charge are too afraid, how can we expect anyone else to speak up?
Many politicians have chosen to remain quiet. Either intimidated or simply hoping they can wish away the problem, many are nervous about upsetting a major trading partner. This issue is not your run-of-the-mill “ambiguous ethics of trade” dilemma. This is political interference happening on NZ soil. Apparently, it’s easier for some to forget that free speech - not a free trade agreement - is the lifeblood of a democracy.
Free speech allows our nation to flourish domestically and empowers us to exercise independence from the unprincipled and often ruthless whims of authoritarian governments like that of China.
We can't leave a few brave souls to fight this situation by themselves. A small principled voice, though mighty like Portia's, will not be enough to combat the growing influence of foreign and domestic censorship.
Many voices, however, even in a small country, will make it loud and clear to those who interfere in our democracy that free speech in NZ is non-negotiable.
Nick Hanne is the Education Partnerships Manager at the Free Speech Union. This article was originally published by The Platform and is published here with kind permission.
6 comments:
To our wacky judiciary, Portia's human rights are irrelevant because she isn't Maori, or a prisoner or a gang member. Giving ordinary people a right to a defence in court is so colonial. Our judges (who are largely DEI in the District Court) like to imagine they're in a Kafka story.
The “Kind One”, Comrade Ardern, wailed to an audience of seven, on the second day of the United Nations conference, that “freedom of speech can be likened to Weapons of War!”
Stuff, the Government funded propaganda machine, published parts of her speech but chose to leave out this damning reference lest it alert the public to her repulsive Stasi ambitions.
New Zealanders have been denied journalistic integrity for decades as the corrupt MSM consider it their duty to shape public opinion. This is why alternative platforms like Breaking Views have flourished delivering freedom of speech to those that wish to escape the clutches of manipulation.
Now let me think…was that repulsive legislation the work of the National Party in Govt? Surely not.. but Jabcinda didn’t take over until 2017, so maybe it was the Nats after all. Might this be a lesson to the voting public??
Ah lass NZ is now " seeing the reality of another Countries interference in our Democracy".
What has been stated here is nothing new for the CCP. It has through both its Embassy's and other 'organizations' that suddenly appear in the Community (all occupants being there under Diplomatic Passport) - whose prime purpose -
1.- to undermine the functions of Chinese citizens, be they born here, or immigrated, such as those who left Hong Kong back in the late 1990's prior to China taking back control of that Land domain.
2. - to undermine Political function, by the Govt to ensure that rifts appear between our Nation and [particularly] the USA.
3.- to use any Trade deals/functions as leverage if " we stray from the pathway" (Australia has been through this of recent times- cost those [financially] who exported grain to China.
4.- to look at anything that can be manufactured in China and seek to do, undermining the manufacture of same in Country of Origin - America has found this out, and has cost them dearly.
5. - ' muzzle' opposition, using the Country of Origin (in this case NZ) - laws, that if they succeed once, will do so again.
From what is published in Australia, they have a similar problem - but the Federal Govt follows a policy of - " do not rock the boat, as our trade with China is a sensitive issue".
NZ has a similar problem - .
So in light of the content of this article - the question is -
" who within Govt and Civil service circles, aided and abetted the court case, in the first instance, and if the appeal works, will they re-try again"??
All very disturbing, but not unexpected, helped a long by the "useful idiots" like Helen Clarke, Geoffery Palmer and Don Brash, who have recently sent our politicians an open letter not to seek military alliances like "Five Eyes" for fear of upsetting China. Just what the CCP loves to hear!
Is Breaking Views under threat of censorship under this law ?
Do we have people who can reestablish BV if it suddenly goes blank and silent ?
More moves from Goebbel's play book.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.